Steelers vs. Patriots

[Happy]

23 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

In the photo with the “ball comes loose” text added in this thread... what is between the ball and grass? We see two non consecutive fingers on the upper and outside part of the ball. To have fingers on the lower half towards the center would take an oddly shaped hand, no?

That's a terrible picture.  You can see James' right wrist, but that is about it.  That picture proves nothing; the animated gif is on the previous page or two.  I copied it for you, since it shows a lot more.

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Happy Gilmore

[NoSaint]

3 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

Well it's clear as day that you don't see grass directly underneath the ball otherwise this would be over and done. You can assume or believe that the ball is sitting on the ground all you want, there is nothing confirming or visually showing it touching the grass which means it's no conclusive that it has touched the ground and therefore there is not enough evidence to overturn it.

 

I'm still waiting to see the photos clearly showing the ball on the ground without it being in his hand........

 

 

That’s not truly the standard.

 

if I showed you a picture of the receivers hands a foot from the ball, and no reasonable  parts under but the view of the edge touching the ground is blocked— obviously you can extrapolate and make the call.

 

this is the less extreme version. Unless you can reasonably articulate what’s under the ball the ref can go with the ground being under it.

2 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

That's a terrible picture.  You can see James' right wrist, but that is about it.  That picture proves nothing; the animated gif is on the previous page or two.  I copied it for you, since it shows a lot more.

 

 

I see the same issue- the hand is too far outside and forward on the ball to be underneath the back half (the low point).

 

elbow hits causing him to lose his left hands control and thereby jostling the ball as the back half hits the ground. He’s still got hands on it so it doesn’t fly away but it moves while touching the ground. What fingers do you see under the ball?

[apuszczalowski]

So again, tour saying you having nothing that show the ball touching the ground, but can assume it is because of what you think has happened. And now assumptions can be consider conclusive evidence that is required to overturn a call on the field.

[NoSaint]

3 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

So again, tour saying you having nothing that show the ball touching the ground, but can assume it is because of what you think has happened. And now assumptions can be consider conclusive evidence that is required to overturn a call on the field.

 

Ignoring your made up standard. 

 

What do you assert is between the grass and the ball? I say nothing and do believe we see that. But even in entertaining your opinion, if we can eliminate all the possible body parts - then you can prove there’s nothing between without seeing the actual contact 

[Happy]

31 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

I see the same issue- the hand is too far outside and forward on the ball to be underneath the back half (the low point).

 

elbow hits causing him to lose his left hands control and thereby jostling the ball as the back half hits the ground. He’s still got hands on it so it doesn’t fly away but it moves while touching the ground. What fingers do you see under the ball?

 

I think three full and part of the pointer on the right hand.  Thumb is not under the ball, otherwise he'd be out with a dislocated thumb.  That's enough to prevent the ball from touching the ground.

 

I see the left wrist securing the point of the ball nearest the receiver.  I don't think the ball touches the ground here.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Happy Gilmore

[NoSaint]

5 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

I think three full and part of the pointer on the right hand.  Thumb is not under the ball, otherwise he'd be out with a dislocated thumb.  That's enough to prevent the ball from touching the ground.

 

I see the left wrist securing the point of the ball nearest the receiver.  I don't think the ball touches the ground here.

 

I don’t think I agree with what you see but I definitely appreciate you outlining it. Not arguing just to be argumentative here but truly didn’t get what you were seeing before that.

[Happy]

Just now, NoSaint said:

 

I don’t think I agree with what you see but I definitely appreciate you outlining it. Not arguing just to be argumentative here but truly didn’t get what you were seeing before that.

 

No worries, worth while discussion.  I suspect the NFL rules committee will look at this in the offseason and change the rule.  Maybe to something closer to what is expected of a RB to score a TD...possession and cross the plane where a ground cannot cause a fumble.  We'll see.

[NoSaint]

7 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

No worries, worth while discussion.  I suspect the NFL rules committee will look at this in the offseason and change the rule.  Maybe to something closer to what is expected of a RB to score a TD...possession and cross the plane where a ground cannot cause a fumble.  We'll see.

 

What gets interesting is that grants refs wider judgment. Generally that’s the worst case scenario for most fans, outside of the handful of plays they don’t like the firm rule on.  At least this way all 16 crews have a flat standard instead of things like holding or pass interference etc...

 

For instance, how long does the falling player need to hold the ball? They’d have to really do a lot to rework the rule to create a new bright line for possession and you’ll never perfectly regulate the very edge plays.

[Chandemonium]

6 hours ago, NoSaint said:

 

What gets interesting is that grants refs wider judgment. Generally that’s the worst case scenario for most fans, outside of the handful of plays they don’t like the firm rule on.  At least this way all 16 crews have a flat standard instead of things like holding or pass interference etc...

 

For instance, how long does the falling player need to hold the ball? They’d have to really do a lot to rework the rule to create a new bright line for possession and you’ll never perfectly regulate the very edge plays.

To me I'd be happy if they kept it almost as is, but tweaked when possession is established in relation to going to the ground. In this particular case, to me possession was established when he tucked the ball as his knee was about to touch. He then twists his body and extends the ball. At that point he's established possession and made a football move, and the play should be dead as a touchdown the moment the ball crosses the plane. If the same play happened not on the goal line, I'd still like to see it called a catch once the player possesses the ball enough to be able to make a football move, even if that all occurs in the process of going to the ground like it did here. If you are controlling the ball well enough to be able to tuck, then twist and extend, to me that's a catch all day long. If the ball then pops out when it hits the ground that would be a fumble. In this particular instance the fumble part would be moot because 1) the play is already dead by virtue of breaking the plane, and  2) despite moving when he goes to the ground the ball never actually leaves his grasp.

[JM57]

It may have been established earlier in the thread, but can anyone answer this question?

 

Do we remember the Oakland(?) game where Tyrod ran a sneak at the goal line and basically jumped into the pile, extended his arms, broke the plane, and then had the ball swatted out of his hands, but it was ruled a TD? 

 

What is the difference between Tyrod breaking the plane on an extension and the play immediately being dead, and Jesse James breaking the plane here and the play not being dead? Is it because TT was a runner, and James was not yet considered a runner because he hadn't completed "the process of a catch" whatever that means?

[4merper4mer]

23 minutes ago, JM57 said:

It may have been established earlier in the thread, but can anyone answer this question?

 

Do we remember the Oakland(?) game where Tyrod ran a sneak at the goal line and basically jumped into the pile, extended his arms, broke the plane, and then had the ball swatted out of his hands, but it was ruled a TD? 

 

What is the difference between Tyrod breaking the plane on an extension and the play immediately being dead, and Jesse James breaking the plane here and the play not being dead? Is it because TT was a runner, and James was not yet considered a runner because he hadn't completed "the process of a catch" whatever that means?

You have the NFL's "reasoning" correct.

Edited December 19, 2017 by 4merper4mer

[JM57]

36 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

You have the NFL's "reasoning" correct.

So if you're a runner, the play is dead as soon as you break the plane. But if you're catching it, turning, extending and falling into the end zone you have to hold it the entire time. Sure, makes sense.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

imagine, the patsies** would be 8-6.

 

NFL rulings on touchdowns aided three Patriots wins this season

[NoSaint]

59 minutes ago, JM57 said:

So if you're a runner, the play is dead as soon as you break the plane. But if you're catching it, turning, extending and falling into the end zone you have to hold it the entire time. Sure, makes sense.

 

 

If you havent caught the ball yet, how can you score? It’s an easy flow of logic between the two.

2 hours ago, Chandemonium said:

To me I'd be happy if they kept it almost as is, but tweaked when possession is established in relation to going to the ground. In this particular case, to me possession was established when he tucked the ball as his knee was about to touch. He then twists his body and extends the ball. At that point he's established possession and made a football move, and the play should be dead as a touchdown the moment the ball crosses the plane. If the same play happened not on the goal line, I'd still like to see it called a catch once the player possesses the ball enough to be able to make a football move, even if that all occurs in the process of going to the ground like it did here. If you are controlling the ball well enough to be able to tuck, then twist and extend, to me that's a catch all day long. If the ball then pops out when it hits the ground that would be a fumble. In this particular instance the fumble part would be moot because 1) the play is already dead by virtue of breaking the plane, and  2) despite moving when he goes to the ground the ball never actually leaves his grasp.

 

Essentially changing the whole rule to remove the steps needed on an upright catch and making the football move and in bounds the only two qualifiers?

 

what if he doesn’t tuck/extend? Just “catches“ it outstretched and goes down and the ball comes out? And what if it’s only in his hands a split second? Just playing devils advocate on what would potentially be the new edge plays. 

[Runninrams]

2 hours ago, JM57 said:

It may have been established earlier in the thread, but can anyone answer this question?

 

Do we remember the Oakland(?) game where Tyrod ran a sneak at the goal line and basically jumped into the pile, extended his arms, broke the plane, and then had the ball swatted out of his hands, but it was ruled a TD? 

 

What is the difference between Tyrod breaking the plane on an extension and the play immediately being dead, and Jesse James breaking the plane here and the play not being dead? Is it because TT was a runner, and James was not yet considered a runner because he hadn't completed "the process of a catch" whatever that means?

 

 

exactly.

 

Look, 'process of the catch' isnt hard to quantify in this case.  He dove for the pass, and the bobble happened when he hit the ground from that same dive.  The entire dive is considered part of the catch.  You need to make a separate football move beyond the catch to become a runner.

 

For example...if he had dove, caught it, got back up to his knees, then dove for the endzone and bobbled when hitting it would've been a touchdown.

 

Hate the rule all you want (I do), but it was called correctly according to it.

 

and frankly, this one was way less of a "screw job" than Dez Bryant in the playoffs.  On that one he made a separate move by landing, turning, then reaching out

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 12/17/2017 at 4:05 PM, 26CornerBlitz said:

Antonio Brown is down.

 

Good news for the "Gilly lock" since he was covering Brown like a sieve.

[Happy]

2 hours ago, NoSaint said:

 

 

If you havent caught the ball yet, how can you score? It’s an easy flow of logic between the two.

 

Essentially changing the whole rule to remove the steps needed on an upright catch and making the football move and in bounds the only two qualifiers?

 

what if he doesn’t tuck/extend? Just “catches“ it outstretched and goes down and the ball comes out? And what if it’s only in his hands a split second? Just playing devils advocate on what would potentially be the new edge plays. 

 

The crux of the matter is: what is a catch?  Does anyone really know?  I'm sure the NFL has defined it, but the definition appears to be hazy, or fluid at least.  This needs to be made more clear, and possibly simplified.

[PatsFanNH]

It's sad that this game is being discussed because of one play. The truth is both teams played hard and it had a playoff feel the entire game.   It was an exciting game and it literally came down to the last minute! I think we can all agree both teams left it out there on Sunday and they entertained us.

4 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

The crux of the matter is: what is a catch?  Does anyone really know?  I'm sure the NFL has defined it, but the definition appears to be hazy, or fluid at least.  This needs to be made more clear, and possibly simplified.

That's the issue is I do believe the rule says "he has to survive the ground" in order for it to be a completion. I have NO Idea what that means. 

[TheFunPolice]

The idea that this play was not a catch is completely insane.

 

He catches the ball and stretches out across the goal line. That IS control.

 

The fact that people sit around debating these plays like lawyers arguing over a divorce settlement and the refs looks for any tiny little thing to overturn big plays is running this sport. That and the fact that the entire season is pointless because the same team wins at the end every year.

 

All the exciting teams, great young players! MVP candidates! Then the same old 40 year old QB wins anyway.

 

It's like watching Cena win at WrestleMania. Just feels pre ordained.

[PatsFanNH]

2 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

The idea that this play was not a catch is completely insane.

 

He catches the ball and stretches out across the goal line. That IS control.

 

The fact that people sit around debating these plays like lawyers arguing over a divorce settlement and the refs looks for any tiny little thing to overturn big plays is running this sport. That and the fact that the entire season is pointless because the same team wins at the end every year.

 

All the exciting teams, great young players! MVP candidates! Then the same old 40 year old QB wins anyway.

 

It's like watching Cena win at WrestleMania. Just feels pre ordained.

The debate I THINK here is wether the ball hit the ground or not. Some say it did others not. It's a difference of opinion really.

 

As for Brady winning I say that Gronk had a wee bit of a deciding factor in the win with having more than half of Brady's yards going to him.