Did Jesse James Catch It?

[tomcuth]

Option 1: Yes He Did
Option 2: Yes He Did
Option 3: Yes He Did

[Boo]

^^^Steelers fan...:doh::doh:

[Ferg1945]

Option 1: Yes He Did
Option 2: Yes He Did
Option 3: Yes He Did

He did initially...but once he went to the ground the ground caused the ball to move... making it incomplete by NFL rules.

[whodeynation765]

Option 4: IN-COM-PLETE

[asujbl]

Rule? Nope. Obvious answer
Stupid rule? Yep. Obvious answer

I knew it wasn’t a catch immediately

Rule is still dumb

[88horsepower]

The rule is ridiculous, but it was the right call considering what the rule is.

[blackbears86]

Steelers still had a chance to tie the game and force OT with a field goal attempt.

Terrible decision to throw for the TD.

[RogerGodahell]

No catch...watch the ball and his left hand

MNs37O8c1KE

[nera20]

what about the guys that jump in the end zone and hit the orange marker and the ball falls out i always thought the ball just needed to cross the line i thought it was a touchdown

[GOWIFB]

Initially he caught the ball, but then that pesky thing known as a rule reared its ugly head. Rule says its not a catch, so its not a catch, period.

[GOWIFB]

what about the guys that jump in the end zone and hit the orange marker and the ball falls out i always thought the ball just needed to cross the line i thought it was a touchdown

Runner vs receiver, different rule

[Siberian13]

Per the rules, he didn’t catch anything. And the panthers player scored a touchdown. Don’t be salty like the packers fan. :)

[brianshaft]

Ball hit the ground and rotated 180 degrees. How could anyone think that’s a catch?

[Boo]

OP is at that point when you are the only one that thinks the opposite of everyone else...:doh::doh:

[RogerGodahell]

Tony Romo....ohhhh!

[Boo]

Ball hit the ground and rotated 180 degrees. How could anyone think that’s a catch?

Steelers fans are a rare breed like that

[Cyphon25]

I am a Steelers fan so call me bias if you want but I would say this for any team and truth is I don't even blame the game on that call. I blame it more on Sean Davis. With that being said, lets talk about why this should be a catch even with the rule.

Jesse James catches the ball and pulls it into his chest (secured) as his knee goes down. Realizing he wasn't in he then reaches for the goal line (a football move) to score. So he was already 'down' and had completed the catch and then proceeds to reach in to score.

So I am confused on what part of the rule would deem that not a catch? I understand the controlling it through the ground part but he demonstrated that. He pulled it in to his chest as his knee hit and then reached out to score.

[KhalDrogo]

Waaaaaah. Steelers and Seahwaks. The two franchises with the most insufferable fanbases.

[cnewby]

Waaaaaah. Steelers and Seahwaks. The two franchises with the most insufferable fanbases.

Quoted for truth.

[no10pin]

I am a Steelers fan so call me bias if you want but I would say this for any team and truth is I don't even blame the game on that call. I blame it more on Sean Davis. With that being said, lets talk about why this should be a catch even with the rule.

Jesse James catches the ball and pulls it into his chest (secured) as his knee goes down. Realizing he wasn't in he then reaches for the goal line (a football move) to score. So he was already 'down' and had completed the catch and then proceeds to reach in to score.

So I am confused on what part of the rule would deem that not a catch? I understand the controlling it through the ground part but he demonstrated that. He pulled it in to his chest as his knee hit and then reached out to score.

It's this part. I'm not defending the rule because I don't care for it, but getting a knee or two feet down is not the end of the process. If he goes to the ground, he has to 'survive' the ground, and he didn't. Again, most people would probably be fine if the rule went away, but it was called correctly based on the current rule.

[Wolves4Life]

Ball CLEARLY hit the ground in the endzone. James' left hand even ended up ontop of the ball resulting in no TD.

[yankeesfan24]

Did Dez catch it?

[wheeler281]

Runner vs receiver, different rule

Actually shovel pass and dive with ball coming loose after crossing the goal line is a TD which is odd.

Ah Well not losing sleep. Playoffs are a whole diff game. Saw a ton of improvement today.

[Astros19]

It's one of the worst rules in football, but let's be honest it effects every team the exact same way.
Real world = TD
NFL rules = incomplete

End of story.

[brianshaft]

Waaaaaah. Steelers and Seahwaks. The two franchises with the most insufferable fanbases.

Word... except... are there any Seahawks fans anymore? I feel like they’re “here for the party” like 90% of Blackhawks fans.

[Cyphon25]

It's this part. I'm not defending the rule because I don't care for it, but getting a knee or two feet down is not the end of the process. If he goes to the ground, he has to 'survive' the ground, and he didn't. Again, most people would probably be fine if the rule went away, but it was called correctly based on the current rule.

I understand why that applies to a diving catch but not a guy catching the ball and then 'sliding' down if you will. To me he survived the ground when he was down and pulled the ball in. The next part was an untouched player reaching for the endzone. It was essentially 2 different "acts". It is the catch and going down and then a football move.


Again, it is whatever. If Davis doesn't get mashed by Gronk or catches the INT or Ben doesn't throw the INT we win anyway or go to OT. So that call didn't cost us the game but regardless I can't figure out how that wasn't a catch and I would say the same for any team.

[seabass97166]

He caught the ball, had possession, reached over the goal line with both hands firmly on the ball. After he crossed the goal line and the ball touched the ground it came loose. That's a catch and the steelers got robbed IMO.

[RogerGodahell]

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4644/39089308802_0ec2eb3349_o.gif

[GOWIFB]

I am a Steelers fan so call me bias if you want but I would say this for any team and truth is I don't even blame the game on that call. I blame it more on Sean Davis. With that being said, lets talk about why this should be a catch even with the rule.

Jesse James catches the ball and pulls it into his chest (secured) as his knee goes down. Realizing he wasn't in he then reaches for the goal line (a football move) to score. So he was already 'down' and had completed the catch and then proceeds to reach in to score.

So I am confused on what part of the rule would deem that not a catch? I understand the controlling it through the ground part but he demonstrated that. He pulled it in to his chest as his knee hit and then reached out to score.

The part of the rule that deems it not a catch is he was going to the ground from the time that he caught the ball. Now here is my interpretation of why the rule is in place. The rule is there so that it takes the guess work out of it for the most part by the officials. It sets a very clear guideline. The way I look at it is its similar to the pushout rule that they took out of the game, where if a defender pushed a player out of bounds a ref could still rule it a catch even if both feet were not down. With the 2 feet down rule no matter what now in place it again takes the guesswork out of what is a catch and what isn't a catch.

Also to play devil's advocate, what about those plays in which a receive catches the ball, has 2 feet down, but a defender hits them and pops the ball loose? That is ruled not a catch even though both feet are down. I think it is necessary to have a rule like this that you must complete the process of the catch, no matter if you are going to the ground or if you get popped by a defender. Now maybe they can tweak the rule so that you can be going to the ground but if you still establish you have control and make a football move, such as stretching for the goal line such as in this play or the Dez play, that it can be a catch. However in that case again you are now putting more on the officials to make a judgement call as to what is a catch but I think it would be more fair to avoid cases like this from happening.

[Cyphon25]

Did Dez catch it?

I actually thought about comparing these 2. I wasn't even rooting for the Cowboys in that game and thought it was an absolute travesty they robbed him of that catch. How can you demonstrate that much control and activity for so long without it being a catch? Unreal.

[purejd86p]

Waaaaaah. Steelers and Seahwaks. The two franchises with the most insufferable fanbases.

I think that list is missing the Patriots!

[no10pin]

I understand why that applies to a diving catch but not a guy catching the ball and then 'sliding' down if you will. To me he survived the ground when he was down and pulled the ball in. The next part was an untouched player reaching for the endzone. It was essentially 2 different "acts". It is the catch and going down and then a football move.


Again, it is whatever. If Davis doesn't get mashed by Gronk or catches the INT or Ben doesn't throw the INT we win anyway or go to OT. So that call didn't cost us the game but regardless I can't figure out how that wasn't a catch and I would say the same for any team.

Again, while what you say makes sense, it's not the rule. It WAS a diving catch, he didn't purposely go down after establishing a catch. Going to the ground was a part of the catch, and he lost control for a half-second when the ball hit the ground. The ball can hit the ground as a part of the process, but it can't move like that.

[brianshaft]

He caught the ball, had possession, reached over the goal line with both hands firmly on the ball. After he crossed the goal line and the ball touched the ground it came loose. That's a catch and the steelers got robbed IMO.

It’s pretty clear- the ball hit the ground AND his hand came off the ball. Again, not a catch.

[Cyphon25]

Again, while what you say makes sense, it's not the rule. It WAS a diving catch, he didn't purposely go down after establishing a catch. Going to the ground was a part of the catch, and he lost control for a half-second.

Seems like semantics to me. He didn't purposely go down but he did purposely reach out after demonstrating control. So yeah, he could have tucked it to his chest and took the 'clear' catch but instead reached out to score. Not sure how they differentiate that and an RB or QB reaching for the goal line. I know people will say different positions and they already have possession but that is kind of my point is that James does show control and then chooses to try and score.

[seabass97166]

The man who was responsible for the creation of this absurd rule gets paid to explain its absurdity on television. This guy is a hall of fame scammer

@DeanBlandino
That’s the rule and it’s a bright line. If you are going to the ground to make the catch you have to hold onto the ball when you land. He isn’t a runner until he completes the catch so goal line is not a factor. It’s an incomplete pass.

[ThoseBackPages]

#ThanksTopps

[blackbears86]

steelers fans should be mad at tomlin/haley for not kicking the field goal, not the missed catch.

[steelcityguy]

Option 4: IN-COM-PLETE

34-7............LMAO

[RogerGodahell]

Romo explains it in the short clip..."he's got to maintain control, does he maintain possession?...ohhh!"

MNs37O8c1KE

[Boo]

steelers fans should be mad at tomlin/haley for not kicking the field goal, not the missed catch.

Wasn't their fault fathead threw that ball

[Boo]

34-7............LMAO

Doesn't know the rules and cries about it...lmao!

[steelcityguy]

Doesn't know the rules and cries about it...lmao!

Show me where?? :doh:

[no10pin]

Seems like semantics to me. He didn't purposely go down but he did purposely reach out after demonstrating control. So yeah, he could have tucked it to his chest and took the 'clear' catch but instead reached out to score. Not sure how they differentiate that and an RB or QB reaching for the goal line. I know people will say different positions and they already have possession but that is kind of my point is that James does show control and then chooses to try and score.

Because this is more than just breaking the plane. When a QB or RB is running with the ball and stretching for the end zone, the play is over as soon as they break the plane, so if the ball comes out after that it doesn't matter. The catch was not over because he broke the plane. The choice he made to reach out is what cost him the catch, because the ball can't move like that when it hits the ground.

[Siberian13]

Show me where?? :doh:

http://coolspotters.com/files/photos/1063791/family-guy-and-touched-by-an-angel-gallery.png

[Cyphon25]

Because this is more than just breaking the plane. When a QB or RB is running with the ball and stretching for the end zone, the play is over as soon as they break the plane, so if the ball comes out after that it doesn't matter. The catch was not over because he broke the plane. The choice he made to reach out is what cost him the catch, because the ball can't move like that when it hits the ground.

Even if we take the endzone out of it though and just say he was reaching for a first down seems like semantics to me. How has he not "completed" the catch when he pulls it in while down and then reaches out for the endzone? It wasn't all one move as if he bobbled the pass.

I guess my point is physically you can't make that 2nd part of the play unless you catch it to begin with. There has to be some common sense involved when it comes to these rules.

[steelcityguy]

http://coolspotters.com/files/photos/1063791/family-guy-and-touched-by-an-angel-gallery.png

LOL!!!!! Love that

[Siberian13]

Look, we all hate the rule. It’s tuuuurible and costing the nfl some fans. But per the rule, it wasn’t a catch. Hopefully the fix the rule next year.

[Oldschool42]

The Steelers crapped their pants again. Who's your daddy Tomlin? Pats looked like crap most of the game but then Gronk goes off, Tom Terrific is cool as the other side of a pillow, and the other team PANICS!!!!
Has any team been in a s many crazy finishes as the Pats (both wins and loses)?
Steelers fans do you really think Big Ben can win in Foxboro?

[bballcollector]

Ball hit the ground no TD.

[ND3]

He did initially...but once he went to the ground the ground caused the ball to move... making it incomplete by NFL rules.

End thread!

[Cyphon25]

The Steelers crapped their pants again.

That doesn't really apply this season since we have been winning most of our close games.

and the other team PANICS!!!!

Where was the panic in us driving down the field in 30 seconds vs a team that has had our number for the last decade? Seems pretty cool headed to me.

Has any team been in a s many crazy finishes as the Pats (both wins and loses)?

No and I don't think any team has had as much help from the refs either lol.

Steelers fans do you really think Big Ben can win in Foxboro?

I can't believe I am saying this but I actually do think so if he keeps playing the way he has the last few weeks. If you asked me early in the season I would say no way in hell but lately....I think so. Going to depend a lot on health though. AB and Bell need to remain healthy and it will be nice to have Haden back on defense.

[Bassplayah101]

By the current rules pertaining to a legal catch, it was incomplete.

[Poochie]

The man who was responsible for the creation of this absurd rule gets paid to explain its absurdity on television. This guy is a hall of fame scammer

@DeanBlandino
That’s the rule and it’s a bright line. If you are going to the ground to make the catch you have to hold onto the ball when you land. He isn’t a runner until he completes the catch so goal line is not a factor. It’s an incomplete pass.This is the problem right here. He is able to grab the ball with both hands and has enough control to reach over the goal line. That is when any sane person would say he has caught the ball, but the NFL, ironically in an effort to make things clearer, has made it so people don’t know what a catch is anymore.

[no10pin]

Even if we take the endzone out of it though and just say he was reaching for a first down seems like semantics to me. How has he not "completed" the catch when he pulls it in while down and then reaches out for the endzone? It wasn't all one move as if he bobbled the pass.

I guess my point is physically you can't make that 2nd part of the play unless you catch it to begin with. There has to be some common sense involved when it comes to these rules.

I can't tell anymore if you are debating the rule or the application of it. I agree that the rule needs to be reworked (again) in the off-season, but it's a pretty clear-cut application of the rule. You want the 'catch process' to be over when his knee hits the ground, and that is not how it's written in the rule.

[Chaddie84]

The rule is ridiculous, but it was the right call considering what the rule is.

Agreed on both counts

One of the worst rules in the NFL.

[BostonNut]

Yes he obviously caught it. Terrible rule that I can't wait to see changed.

[pgisback]

According to the rule, no catch. Need to maintain control or have at least one butt cheek in

[Siberian13]

According to the rule, no catch. Need to maintain control or have at least one butt cheek in

You show me where his butt was in bounds lol

[blackbears86]

Wasn't their fault fathead threw that ball

Rothlisberger (fathead) throwing Haley under the bus, saying it wasn't his call.

[Cyphon25]

I can't tell anymore if you are debating the rule or the application of it. I agree that the rule needs to be reworked (again) in the off-season, but it's a pretty clear-cut application of the rule. You want the 'catch process' to be over when his knee hits the ground, and that is not how it's written in the rule.

Both.

I want the catch process to be over once he demonstrates clear control which is why I don't think they applied the rule properly. Just to be clear yes, the rule is stupid but even with that I don't think they applied it correctly because there are nuances.

The way the rule reads it sounds like if a player is in the process of completing a catch and then hits the ground and bobbles the ball it is no catch. I get it and have seen it applied. The problem I am having is that the the process was already completed and he then proceeded to make a football move. He caught the ball as he was going down and pulled it into his chest. To me that is the end of it because he is not diving or still in the air but is already on the ground. Realizing he needs to score and wasn't touched he reaches out to cross the goal line. At that point he should have been a 'runner', not a receiver in the act of completing a catch.

That is where I am having the trouble with the application. I have seen it applied correctly and have agreed with it while hating the rule.

[no10pin]

Both.

I want the catch process to be over once he demonstrates clear control which is why I don't think they applied the rule properly. Just to be clear yes, the rule is stupid but even with that I don't think they applied it correctly because there are nuances.

The way the rule reads it sounds like if a player is in the process of completing a catch and then hits the ground and bobbles the ball it is no catch. I get it and have seen it applied. The problem I am having is that the the process was already completed and he then proceeded to make a football move. He caught the ball as he was going down and pulled it into his chest. To me that is the end of it because he is not diving or still in the air but is already on the ground. Realizing he needs to score and wasn't touched he reaches out to cross the goal line. At that point he should have been a 'runner', not a receiver in the act of completing a catch.

That is where I am having the trouble with the application. I have seen it applied correctly and have agreed with it while hating the rule.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree, because it's a pretty straightforward application of a stupid rule in my opinion.

You keep saying 'to me' that it was over when his knee hit the ground. To you, it may be, but not to the NFL.

[Cyphon25]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree, because it's a pretty straightforward application of a stupid rule in my opinion.

You keep saying 'to me' that it was over when his knee hit the ground. To you, it may be, but not to the NFL.

Well I say "to me" because obviously it can differ from person to person but I don't think they applied the rule right regardless of whether I like the rule or not. The rule is so dumb they can't even figure how to apply it properly. I mean heck, just look how long they took with that review. It was clear from the first second he bobbled it after he crossed the line. I think the decision was whether he had already completed it before then and they couldn't figure it out.

[no10pin]

Well I say "to me" because obviously it can differ from person to person but I don't think they applied the rule right regardless of whether I like the rule or not. The rule is so dumb they can't even figure how to apply it properly. I mean heck, just look how long they took with that review. It was clear from the first second he bobbled it after he crossed the line. I think the decision was whether he had already completed it before then and they couldn't figure it out.

OK, so here is the exact rule as it applies to a receiver going to the ground. How was this not applied correctly?


A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

[Rabs]

I'm surprised no one is putting any blame on Jesse James for this. There was no need for him to reach like that for the goal line as he wasn't even contacted yet. He should have just secured the catch and then more than likely would have rolled into the endzone before being touched. Worse case scenario ball is inside the 1 yard line and it would have been second down. Maybe he still thinks he's in college and he's down when his knee hits.

Like others have said, the rule is dumb but called correctly. Not sure what that stupid fake spike play was, Ben should have just thrown it away at that point. There was only one Steeler in the area and at least three Patriots. Crushing loss for Pittsburgh.

[Bassplayah101]

[emoji41]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171218/0a0b767874b8cecb7c70961970338882.jpg

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Cyphon25]

OK, so here is the exact rule as it applies to a receiver going to the ground. How was this not applied correctly?


A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Pretty much the bold no? He maintained control after intial contact with the ground (his knee, shin, etc...) and then proceeded to reach out to score. Seems pretty straight foward given the wording. That is what I keep stressing. The control was already disaplayed when he hit the ground. He hit and pulled the ball into his chest. He then reached out to try and score.

I guess another way to look at it is lets say he did the same exact thing and instead of reaching out laid there for 3 seconds and then reached out and bobbled it....I can't find the difference in that. Both show control and then a football move. There is no clock in the rule that says you have to demonstrate control for a set amount of time.

I'm surprised no one is putting any blame on Jesse James for this. There was no need for him to reach like that for the goal line as he wasn't even contacted yet. He should have just secured the catch and then more than likely would have rolled into the endzone before being touched. Worse case scenario ball is inside the 1 yard line and it would have been second down. Maybe he still thinks he's in college and he's down when his knee hits.

The reason nobody is blaming him is because he did what every other person on the planet would do. After you have the ball you try and score. He had secured the ball and then reached out to try and score. It isn't like he could predict the refs were going to fault him for that.

[Rjk214]

To me it looked like his right hand stayed under the ball.. If that's the case regardless it spun or night it would've been a catch.

[Oldschool42]

THEY PANICKED! Tomlin wanted to win SO BADLY that instead of Big Ben throwing it out of boards he chucks it into the end zone...Pats INT. The Pats and Brady would have never done that!
Look I hate the "is it a catch" rule as much as any fan. But a rule is a rule just like the tuck rule. Don't worry in 5 years Brady will retire, the pink hats will go away, no one will shop at Patriots place, and some other team will take over. Hope we don't become the Celtics after Tom goes bye bye. Tough 20 plus years!
Steelers should of thrown it away, run the ball, then kicked a field goal if they didn't score a TD. Then it's anyone's guess who would win in OT.

[no10pin]

Pretty much the bold no? He maintained control after intial contact with the ground (his knee, shin, etc...) and then proceeded to reach out to score. Seems pretty straight foward given the wording. That is what I keep stressing. The control was already disaplayed when he hit the ground. He hit and pulled the ball into his chest. He then reached out to try and score.

I guess another way to look at it is lets say he did the same exact thing and instead of reaching out laid there for 3 seconds and then reached out and bobbled it....I can't find the difference in that. Both show control and then a football move. There is no clock in the rule that says you have to demonstrate control for a set amount of time.


He's still 'going to the ground' when he reaches out. That part isn't over the split-second his knee touches.

I'm going to bow out now, if that didn't change your mind, nothing is going to. Stupid rule, correct call.

[Cyphon25]

He's still 'going to the ground' when he reaches out. That part isn't over the split-second his knee touches.

I'm going to bow out now, if that didn't change your mind, nothing is going to. Stupid rule, correct call.

Yes, but he is going to the ground after he already demonstrated control. He then makes a football move.

Stupid rule, bad application.

[ld8759]

No catch...watch the ball and his left hand

MNs37O8c1KE



The ball came out. According to the NFL rulebook,he did not complete the three phases of what is considered a catch.

[Rabs]

The reason nobody is blaming him is because he did what every other person on the planet would do. After you have the ball you try and score. He had secured the ball and then reached out to try and score. It isn't like he could predict the refs were going to fault him for that.

Except he didn't. No one touched him and his extra effort was the reason for the incompletion. Appreciate the effort but still cost them the game ultimately.

[Cyphon25]

Except he didn't. No one touched him and his extra effort was the reason for the incompletion. Appreciate the effort but still cost them the game ultimately.

Except he did. He pulled the ball into his chest. There is no other way to describe that than "he had it". Like I said, nobody on the planet is playing that any different because they understand the implications and don't expect the refs to blow it.

[no10pin]

Yes, but he is going to the ground after he already demonstrated control. He then makes a football move.

Stupid rule, bad application.

There is no football move part of this. I posted the entire rule as it relates to a receiver going to the ground. You are adding something to it that isn't there.

[blackbears86]

Except he did. He pulled the ball into his chest. There is no other way to describe that than "he had it". Like I said, nobody on the planet is playing that any different because they understand the implications and don't expect the refs to blow it.


keep arguing man. The game is over.

[Rabs]

Except he did. He pulled the ball into his chest. There is no other way to describe that than "he had it". Like I said, nobody on the planet is playing that any different because they understand the implications and don't expect the refs to blow it.

Hate the rule not the refs.

[ssbledsoe]

No. He did not. The replay OFFICIAL made that the OFFICIAL call :)!

[Cyphon25]

There is no football move part of this. I posted the entire rule as it relates to a receiver going to the ground. You are adding something to it that isn't there.

Right, we have already discussed how it was a bad application of the rule. Like I said, it becomes 2 different parts. he survived "initial" contact with the ground. There is no set amount of time written in the rule and his knee, shin, hip etc...were down and he had possession. AFTER that, he made a football move in reaching for the endzone. I continue to point that out because it further demonstrates the control he already had when he pulled the ball into his chest.

keep arguing man. The game is over.

It is the principle of the the thing. Like I already said there are many reasons we lost but we can still discuss a dumb rule and a bad application of said rule.

Also someone posted this somewhere:

https://scontent.fagc1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/25446115_3728504083844923_9015316921473295725_n.jpg?oh=7d3fd785e1a96d8090aefe58e6dff96d&oe=5ABBCFE2

[Siberian13]

Curious if the play after this play was the same thing? I saw the ball come out too.

[mgugs46]

It’s the stupidest rule in the NFL. Helped my team today, but has burnt them before.

[majestik101]

People saying it wasn't a catch need their eyes checked.

Of course it's no surprise that all the NE fanboys/band wagoners are arguing it wasn't a catch.

It was absolutely a catch. Steelers got hosed.

[Cyphon25]

People saying it wasn't a catch need their eyes checked.

Of course it's no surprise that all the NE fanboys/band wagoners are arguing it wasn't a catch.

It was absolutely a catch. Steelers got hosed.

In fairness we sound like fanboys defending it as a catch but I do think the rule supports our cause.

Someone has to explain to me how they applied initial contact when half his body was already on the groud when he had possession of the ball. That to me SOUNDS like initial contact with the ground. Or is initial contact only when say....94% of your body has touched the ground? Because that isn't specified in the rule.

Also what isn't specified is how long you have to maintain control. James had control for say 1 or 2 seconds or nanoseconds or whatever before he reached for the goal line. So is it 3 or 4 seconds you have to have it before making a football move or at least 5 seconds? Because I don't see that specified in the rule either.

[Siberian13]

https://i.imgur.com/qyfMmYV.gif

[Bassplayah101]

It’s the stupidest rule in the NFL. Helped my team today, but has burnt them before.

It has absolutely burned us before, as it has every team in the league at one point in time or another since its inception.

[no10pin]

People saying it wasn't a catch need their eyes checked.

Of course it's no surprise that all the NE fanboys/band wagoners are arguing it wasn't a catch.

It was absolutely a catch. Steelers got hosed.

:rolleyes:

I'm a Chiefs fan, so I don't care which team wins, because we probably aren't winning in either place in the playoffs.

[coltsnsox07]

The last time Jesse James was done this wrong Robert Ford was with him.

[JWBlue]

Looking at the replay closely it looks like when his right arm hit the ground that is when the ball came out.

Does that mean the ground caused the juggle? Isn't the rule that a ground can not cause a fumble.

[whodeynation765]

People saying it wasn't a catch need their eyes checked.

Of course it's no surprise that all the NE fanboys/band wagoners are arguing it wasn't a catch.

It was absolutely a catch. Steelers got hosed.

It absolutely was not a catch, or they would have won. ;)

[Astros19]

People saying it wasn't a catch need their eyes checked.

Of course it's no surprise that all the NE fanboys/band wagoners are arguing it wasn't a catch.

It was absolutely a catch. Steelers got hosed.

I'm a Cowboys fan.
I'm in the semi finals of Fantasy league with Brady as my QB and my opponent has Roethlisberger.
The rules say it wasn't a catch and the call followed the rule.
Is it a stupid rule? Hell yes.
But a rule's a rule no matter how much YOU wish it wasn't.

[Scottish Punk]

I don't see this any different than the Dez non catch. In the real world both are obvious catches. In the weird NFL rule book world it isn't. This is coming from a Steelers fan. At least the refs were consistent with the calls. They should just leave plays like this a judgement call and not bog things down with being over technical with a catch.

[blackbears86]

people blaming the refs.

I thought the refs called it a touchdown on the field? Wasn't it the head honchos in New York that called it a non-catch? (doesn't New York automatically review all TD's within 2 minutes of each half?)

[CCSportsCards]

people blaming the refs.

I thought the refs called it a touchdown on the field? Wasn't it the head honchos in New York that called it a non-catch? (doesn't New York automatically review all TD's within 2 minutes of each half?)

They review all scores and turnovers for the whole game

[BostonNut]

people blaming the refs.

I thought the refs called it a touchdown on the field? Wasn't it the head honchos in New York that called it a non-catch? (doesn't New York automatically review all TD's within 2 minutes of each half?)

Would not have even mattered had the Steelers stopped Brady.

Just over two minutes left to play at his own 19 and the first play he giftwraps the game for the Steelers...

[88horsepower]

Does anyone actually know what a catch is? Anyone? It shouldn’t be that hard to describe something that happens with such regularity. It’s almost as comical as a fast food joint not being able to describe what a French Fry is made of. How did this game I once loved become such a joke? You never had to argue what constituted a catch when I watched in the 80’s and 90’s. The more the NFL overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Keep it simple.

Between this and the Jerry Richardson fiasco, the NFL finds itself with yet another awful weekend of distractions. This game should have been all about how incredible the game was between the two best teams in the conference and all anyone is talking about is that stupid play.

[avjp87]

i know dez didn't

[wadedaniel84]

To me it looked like his right hand stayed under the ball.. If that's the case regardless it spun or night it would've been a catch.

This.

No clear evidence showing the ball touch the ground, Must be crystal clear to overturn. Ball wedged between his right hand and chest after movement.

[marinocollector]

Does anyone actually know what a catch is? Anyone? It shouldn’t be that hard to describe something that happens with such regularity. It’s almost as comical as a fast food joint not being able to describe what a French Fry is made of. How did this game I once loved become such a joke? You never had to argue what constituted a catch when I watched in the 80’s and 90’s. The more the NFL overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Keep it simple.

Between this and the Jerry Richardson fiasco, the NFL finds itself with yet another awful weekend of distractions. This game should have been all about how incredible the game was between the two best teams in the conference and all anyone is talking about is that stupid play.

It was obvious base on the rules it was not a catch. Simple thing... if falling while catching you need to maintain control of the ball...

In no way did he "bring it to his chest" to show control, IF he did, it would have been a touchdown. Instead, we have a player who caught the ball and extended in one split second motion while falling. When he hit the ground he dropped the ball.

[88horsepower]

It was obvious base on the rules it was not a catch. Simple thing... if falling while catching you need to maintain control of the ball...

In no way did he "bring it to his chest" to show control, IF he did, it would have been a touchdown. Instead, we have a player who caught the ball and extended in one split second motion while falling. When he hit the ground he dropped the ball.

Bringing a ball to one’s chest shouldn’t be the determining factor regarding what constitutes a catch. The rule here was accurately upheld, but it’s a ridiculous rule. Apparently, the ground can’t cause a fumble, but it can in this case because it was never a catch to begin with? It’s lunacy. Everyone with eyes can see it was a catch. But, per usual, the NFL has to make it all complicated.

[marinocollector]

This.

No clear evidence showing the ball touch the ground, Must be crystal clear to overturn. Ball wedged between his right hand and chest after movement.

I would agree with this if they decided to not over turn it. I thought the question of the right hand would be enough to let it stand.

[marinocollector]

Bringing a ball to one’s chest shouldn’t be the determining factor regarding what constitutes a catch. The rule here was accurately upheld, but it’s a ridiculous rule.

Its a way to establish clear possession. The thing they are trying to do is make the rule cut and dry, with no judgement by the official.

[Josh611]

By rule he didn't.

Did he actually catch it? Yes.

Just a stupid rule.

Coming from a Lions fan:)!

[blackbears86]

Does anyone actually know what a catch is? Anyone? It shouldn’t be that hard to describe something that happens with such regularity. It’s almost as comical as a fast food joint not being able to describe what a French Fry is made of. How did this game I once loved become such a joke? You never had to argue what constituted a catch when I watched in the 80’s and 90’s. The more the NFL overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Keep it simple.

Between this and the Jerry Richardson fiasco, the NFL finds itself with yet another awful weekend of distractions. This game should have been all about how incredible the game was between the two best teams in the conference and all anyone is talking about is that stupid play.



True, but you know what they say: Bad publicity is still publicity. Even my wife's friends who know nothing about football were talking about the game this morning. When casual fans are drawn in, it's a good thing.


For all it's blemishes, the NFL is still one of the most exiting games out there. I was on the edge of my seat that last quarter. This game absolutely did not disappoint (unless you are a steeler fan)


Despite the call, I doubt anyone will swear off football forever, if anything this game attracted more viewers to see what happens next.

[marinocollector]

Apparently, the ground can’t cause a fumble, but it can in this case because it was never a catch to begin with? It’s lunacy. Everyone with eyes can see it was a catch. But, per usual, the NFL has to make it all complicated.

I think I found your problem. There's a difference between catching a football and catching a football to establish possession.

I didn't see Jesse James establishing possession when I saw the first replay.

The ground can't cause a fumble because the player has established possession. Saying the ground can't cause an incompletion would make it impossible for any pass to be incomplete. The whole point of a completion is a player behind the line of scrimmage relinquishing possession by a forward lateral pass to another player, that player needs to establish possession without the football hitting the ground.

Per NFL rules, the player never established possession. To establish possession, the player must catch the ball and make a football move. If said player is falling in the act of establishing possession, the player must maintain possession throughout the process after the player hits the ground. If at any time, the ball hits the ground before a player establishes possession, the ball is incomplete. If the player is out of bounds and possession is lost, the pass is ruled incomplete.

Player falling, ground jars ball out, ball hits ground, ball incomplete. Cut and dry. No one has to think about it.

It all comes down to establishing possession. Jesse James did no such thing. Sure he caught the football, and extended his arms, but he dropped it after he extended his arms, unfortunately for him and the Steelers, he never established possession before extending his arms.

[Cyphon25]

I think I found your problem. There's a difference between catching a football and catching a football to establish possession.

I didn't see Jesse James establishing possession when I saw the first replay.

The ground can't cause a fumble because the player has established possession. Saying the ground can't cause an incompletion would make it impossible for any pass to be incomplete. The whole point of a completion is a player behind the line of scrimmage relinquishing possession by a forward lateral pass to another player, that player needs to establish possession without the football hitting the ground.

Per NFL rules, the player never established possession. To establish possession, the player must catch the ball and make a football move. If said player is falling in the act of establishing possession, the player must maintain possession throughout the process after the player hits the ground. If at any time, the ball hits the ground before a player establishes possession, the ball is incomplete. If the player is out of bounds and possession is lost, the pass is ruled incomplete.

Player falling, ground jars ball out, ball hits ground, ball incomplete. Cut and dry. No one has to think about it.

It all comes down to establishing possession. Jesse James did no such thing. Sure he caught the football, and extended his arms, but he dropped it after he extended his arms, unfortunately for him and the Steelers, he never established possession before extending his arms.

The problem is that isn't what the catch rule says. Here is the full rule and I will bold the part that bothers me about it.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground.

A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

The bold part is why I think they got the call wrong and for 2 reasons.

1. There is nothing in the rule that specifies what initial contact means. If we take the literal definition of the word "initial" then as soon as he shows control and has a shin or knee down that fulfills that part of the rule and he did do that. As James was going down his shin and knee were on the ground and he catches the ball and briefly pulls it into his chest.

2. There is nothing in the rule that states how long after initial contact he has to maintain possession. He clearly maintains enough control to pull the ball in and then perform a football move in reaching for the goal line. So was that 1 to 2 seconds not long enough to be considered "after"? And if not what is the designated amount of time and why isn't it written into the rule?

So for everyone who says the rule is very clear I would like an explanation as to what the answer to my questions are because they aren't written in the rule. What percentage of your body has to be down before it is considered "initial contact" and how long after said contact do you have to show control before it counts?


It is like I said last night, that play was only part of what cost us the game and it should have never even came to that but Sean Davis dropped an INT and even after the call Ben could have won or tied the game and he blew it. So lets not make this a fanboy thing here. I am not blaming the game on the call but I do think they ultimately got it wrong based on the wording of the rule. And if you need any further evidence just look how long they took to make the call. If you had indisputable evidence (which you are supposed to have to overturn a play) what took so long to find it? I would bet money they were discussing the wording of the rule and how they should apply it in this case. Players claim they don't fully understand the rule, I have heard various coaches say the same, and now the officiating crew doesn't seem to fully get it either.


It was obvious base on the rules it was not a catch. Simple thing... if falling while catching you need to maintain control of the ball...

In no way did he "bring it to his chest" to show control, IF he did, it would have been a touchdown. Instead, we have a player who caught the ball and extended in one split second motion while falling. When he hit the ground he dropped the ball.

Actually he did bring it into his chest before realizing he wasn't across the goal line so he reached out.

[vikingsilver]

Just curious...for those of you criticizing the NFL rule on what constitutes a "catch", what would you like to see the rule changed to?

Other than one vs. two feet inbounds, the definition of a catch is widely consistent from high school to college to professional football. People at all levels have looked for alternatives, but the tricky part of this rule is how else can you determine consistently what is a catch or no catch any other way? "It looked like a catch" is not good enough.

This is not an NFL problem, this is the same rule at all levels of football. The rule was administered correctly in this game and until someone can come up with something better than can be applied consistently, that will be the rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cyphon25]

Just curious...for those of you criticizing the NFL rule on what constitutes a "catch", what would you like to see the rule changed to?

Other than one vs. two feet inbounds, the definition of a catch is widely consistent from high school to college to professional football. People at all levels have looked for alternatives, but the tricky part of this rule is how else can you determine consistently what is a catch or no catch any other way? "It looked like a catch" is not good enough.

This is not an NFL problem, this is the same rule at all levels of football. The rule was administered correctly in this game and until someone can come up with something better than can be applied consistently, that will be the rule.

2 things here:


1. They didn't apply the rule properly based on the wording as I explained above. Or I should say it isn't as clear as some people want to make it out to be. They are arbitrarily defining the words "initial contact" and how long you have to show control. Those aren't specifically defined in the rule.

2. I think "it looked like a catch" would actually be better than what they have now and it is the same way they apply most of the other rules so why not? How often are we debating how much grabbing and tugging constitutes a PI call? The refs call it sometimes if it looks worse and sometimes they call it when it hardly looks like anything.

[blackbears86]

Just curious...for those of you criticizing the NFL rule on what constitutes a "catch", what would you like to see the rule changed to?

Other than one vs. two feet inbounds, the definition of a catch is widely consistent from high school to college to professional football. People at all levels have looked for alternatives, but the tricky part of this rule is how else can you determine consistently what is a catch or no catch any other way? "It looked like a catch" is not good enough.

This is not an NFL problem, this is the same rule at all levels of football. The rule was administered correctly in this game and until someone can come up with something better than can be applied consistently, that will be the rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think some people are arguing just to argue. The rule is what it is: No catch.

[vikingsilver]

2 things here:


1. They didn't apply the rule properly based on the wording as I explained above. Or I should say it isn't as clear as some people want to make it out to be. They are arbitrarily defining the words "initial contact" and how long you have to show control. Those aren't specifically defined in the rule.

2. I think "it looked like a catch" would actually be better than what they have now and it is the same way they apply most of the other rules so why not? How often are we debating how much grabbing and tugging constitutes a PI call? The refs call it sometimes if it looks worse and sometimes they call it when it hardly looks like anything.

#1 At all levels, this is interpreted as a player must complete the process of the catch by maintaining control all the way through contact with the ground. Because a shin hit the ground first, does not alter the rule. James' initial contact with the ground clearly caused the ball to come loose and hit the ground. If you want to argue that there was not clear evidence of the ball touching the ground...that would be the part to question. The rest is grasping at straws.

#2. Pass Interference is a complete judgment call. Catch/No Catch is a specifically outlined rule that can be reviewed through video replay. These are not comparable.

[Cyphon25]

#1 At all levels, this is interpreted as a player must complete the process of the catch by maintaining control all the way through contact with the ground. Because a shin hit the ground first, does not alter the rule. James' initial contact with the ground clearly caused the ball to come loose and hit the ground. If you want to argue that there was not clear evidence of the ball touching the ground...that would be the part to question. The rest is grasping at straws.

It isn't grasping at straws. It is how they wrote it. You can't call it clear when the rule very specifically doesn't make it clear.

#2. Pass Interference is a complete judgment call. Catch/No Catch is a specifically outlined rule that can be reviewed through video replay. These are not comparable.

They are comparable because the catch rule isn't specific. The rule clearly states "initial contact" and yet they arbitrarily define how much contact and how long you have to show control.

And to your point about PI not being comparable, the written rule is actually more specific than the catch rule:

"There shall be no interference with a forward pass thrown from behind the line. The restriction for the passing team starts with the snap. The restriction on the defensive team starts when the ball leaves the passer’s hand. Both restrictions end when the ball is touched by anyone."

Very black and white. They also go on to list a bunch of examples of what constitutes a PI call so you can't just brush it off as a judgement call and say the others aren't.

And like I said, "it looks like a catch" would make fans way happier than what we are getting now.

[myerscards]

The piece of paper Gene Steratore used last with the first down will be in 2018 Panini products.

[marinocollector]

The problem is that isn't what the catch rule says. Here is the full rule and I will bold the part that bothers me about it.



The bold part is why I think they got the call wrong and for 2 reasons.

1. There is nothing in the rule that specifies what initial contact means. If we take the literal definition of the word "initial" then as soon as he shows control and has a shin or knee down that fulfills that part of the rule and he did do that. As James was going down his shin and knee were on the ground and he catches the ball and briefly pulls it into his chest.

2. There is nothing in the rule that states how long after initial contact he has to maintain possession. He clearly maintains enough control to pull the ball in and then perform a football move in reaching for the goal line. So was that 1 to 2 seconds not long enough to be considered "after"? And if not what is the designated amount of time and why isn't it written into the rule?

So for everyone who says the rule is very clear I would like an explanation as to what the answer to my questions are because they aren't written in the rule. What percentage of your body has to be down before it is considered "initial contact" and how long after said contact do you have to show control before it counts?


It is like I said last night, that play was only part of what cost us the game and it should have never even came to that but Sean Davis dropped an INT and even after the call Ben could have won or tied the game and he blew it. So lets not make this a fanboy thing here. I am not blaming the game on the call but I do think they ultimately got it wrong based on the wording of the rule. And if you need any further evidence just look how long they took to make the call. If you had indisputable evidence (which you are supposed to have to overturn a play) what took so long to find it? I would bet money they were discussing the wording of the rule and how they should apply it in this case. Players claim they don't fully understand the rule, I have heard various coaches say the same, and now the officiating crew doesn't seem to fully get it either.

You're misreading the rule. Initial contact does not mean after the first part of his body touches the ground. Its after his entire body falls and hits the ground.

It really did not take that long when you stop and think about the multiple other things a ref needs to establish when changing a call, such as line of scrimmage, time on the clock, and looking at the play from different angles to confirm. Also, first they booth reviews it and judges whether the head judge should review it.


Actually he did bring it into his chest before realizing he wasn't across the goal line so he reached out.

No he didnt. He pulled the ball down but did not bring it into his chest. If he brought it to his chest, he would have established possession and be short on the goal line, instead he extended his arms and dropped the ball.

[vikingsilver]

It isn't grasping at straws. It is how they wrote it. You can't call it clear when the rule very specifically doesn't make it clear.



They are comparable because the catch rule isn't specific. The rule clearly states "initial contact" and yet they arbitrarily define how much contact and how long you have to show control.

And to your point about PI not being comparable, the written rule is actually more specific than the catch rule:

"There shall be no interference with a forward pass thrown from behind the line. The restriction for the passing team starts with the snap. The restriction on the defensive team starts when the ball leaves the passer’s hand. Both restrictions end when the ball is touched by anyone."

Very black and white. They also go on to list a bunch of examples of what constitutes a PI call so you can't just brush it off as a judgement call and say the others aren't.

And like I said, "it looks like a catch" would make fans way happier than what we are getting now.



We will have to agree to disagree on all points...especially the last one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marinocollector]

1. They didn't apply the rule properly based on the wording as I explained above. Or I should say it isn't as clear as some people want to make it out to be. They are arbitrarily defining the words "initial contact" and how long you have to show control. Those aren't specifically defined in the rule.



They applied it perfectly. You are questioning the definition and application of the rule. Just because you do not understand what the rule is stating does not mean it is not crystal clear.

[allabtsprt]

I never have been able to understand why the rules are so complicated and get more complicated every year. We never had these kind of problems when I was young, even on playground football. I'm 58 now. The rules were real simple then. It was a completed pass and catch if you caught the ball and held onto it long enough to get up and hand it to an official, ref, etc., if any part of the ball touched the ground at all, it didn't count. PERIOD. As for the end zone, you and the ball had to make it all the way into the end zone. PERIOD. No part of the ball crossing the line, no reaching for the pylon, etc.. All of the above are just excuses. Like everything else in this country, money rules and greed follows. Too much emphasis is put on winning because winning means more money and then excuses are made as to why you didn't win. I also went on to coach some and never used excuses. When one of my players suggested a reason why we lost, I always said we lost because the other team scored more points than we did. If we were good enough, we didn't need excuses why we lost. It's as simple as that. Our society, greed, political correctness and pussification have already ruined NASCAR and the NFL is not far behind.

[cinnakaok]

My problem with the catch rule has always been if your a runner and you make the effort to score you only have to break the plane and it's fine nothing else matters but as a pass Catcher you make the effort to five for a catch weather in the Endzone or not you have to complete the catch all the way to the ground.

I think there needs to be some consistency to these 2 things especially when it comes to the Endzone.

[Cyphon25]

We will have to agree to disagree on all points...especially the last one.

Fair enough but at least take in to account all of the facts as you move on from the discussion. The PI really is obvioulsy more clear than the catch rule and yet you say one is a judgement call and the other isn't. Just factually incorrect.

You're misreading the rule. Initial contact does not mean after the first part of his body touches the ground. Its after his entire body falls and hits the ground.

They applied it perfectly. You are questioning the definition and application of the rule. Just because you do not understand what the rule is stating does not mean it is not crystal clear.

Show me in the rule where it says "when his entire body falls and hits the ground". That isn't me misreading anything, it is you and the NFL making it up as you go. I quoted the rule word for word and it seems pretty clear that they never define initial contact. So I believe the lack of understanding falls on your end, not mine.

As for James pulling the ball into his chest I am guessing you just haven't seen it yet because it is clear he pulls the ball in and then reaches back out to get across the goal line. You should probably watch it before you share opinions on it.

[vikingsilver]

My problem with the catch rule has always been if your a runner and you make the effort to score you only have to break the plane and it's fine nothing else matters but as a pass Catcher you make the effort to five for a catch weather in the Endzone or not you have to complete the catch all the way to the ground.

I think there needs to be some consistency to these 2 things especially when it comes to the Endzone.



This is the sort of constructive comment that is healthy for this discussion. Ideas.

The challenge would be...if you change the definition of a catch in the end zone, you would now have the same play ruled a catch at the goal line and ruled an incomplete pass at midfield.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vikingsilver]

Fair enough but at least take in to account all of the facts as you move on from the discussion.

Your statements have included no "facts". Pass interference is judgment call based on the amount of contact, timing of contact, advantage/disadvantage, location of the ball, etc. There is contact on the majority of pass routes in an NFL game. Determining what contact rises to the level of "Illegal" is very difficult. There's a reason NFL officials are the best in the world.

Catch/No Catch is defined by rule. The "fact" that is can be reviewed by replay denotes it as so..."judgment" calls are not reviewable. I understand your point that "initial contact" is not defined 100% specifically. I get what you are saying, but that little bit of ambiguity in no way makes this a catch.

[MeteoriteGuy]

My problem with the catch rule has always been if your a runner and you make the effort to score you only have to break the plane and it's fine nothing else matters but as a pass Catcher you make the effort to five for a catch weather in the Endzone or not you have to complete the catch all the way to the ground.

I think there needs to be some consistency to these 2 things especially when it comes to the Endzone.

I don't see that as a problem. You have basically described the difference in the two....which unlike how the forum is acting....isn't hard to understand. If any wr/coach/qb has a problem with the rule...how about just not letting the ball touch the ground? If you do, tuck that ball into your chest first.

And as you noted, it doesn't matter where the catch is made...the rule is the same. Again, pretty simple. Don't touch the ball on the ground.

There were a couple questionable calls yesterday. None of them was the non catches we are talking about, which almost everyone understands. And to those that understand and are still arguing....you really want to reward a receiver for letting the ball touch the ground and not following through the play? 99% of the receivers have just one job. Its not much to ask a receiver to catch a ball.

[Cyphon25]

No matter how you try to change it there is going to be some level of inconsistency. The problem with the current one is that it doesn't account for common sense and eye test.

I think you have to embrace the inconsistency and set different rules for different scenarios. Just to give an idea of what I mean (and I am not saying these are how they should do it).


1. Contact from a defensive player - If you survive contact with a defensive player and still control the ball going to the ground it is a completion and the ground can't cause an incompletion.


2. Catching in the endzone - If you demonstrate control and get 2 feet down it is a catch. Ground can't cause an incomplete pass nor can contact from a defensive player once your feet are down.


I think if you broke it down in ways similar to this you could make some progress on such a #@#@#@#@ rule.

[Cyphon25]

Your statements have included no "facts". Pass interference is judgment call based on the amount of contact, timing of contact, advantage/disadvantage, location of the ball, etc. There is contact on the majority of pass routes in an NFL game. Determining what contact rises to the level of "Illegal" is very difficult. There's a reason NFL officials are the best in the world.

Catch/No Catch is defined by rule. The "fact" that is can be reviewed by replay denotes it as so..."judgment" calls are not reviewable. I understand your point that "initial contact" is not defined 100% specifically. I get what you are saying, but that little bit of ambiguity in no way makes this a catch.

The facts are the rules. You are saying one is a judgement call when both are "clearly" (I use this term very loosely) defined by a set of rules. So either both are judgement calls or neither are. It can't really be both ways.

[marinocollector]

Fair enough but at least take in to account all of the facts as you move on from the discussion. The PI really is obvioulsy more clear than the catch rule and yet you say one is a judgement call and the other isn't. Just factually incorrect.





Show me in the rule where it says "when his entire body falls and hits the ground". That isn't me misreading anything, it is you and the NFL making it up as you go. I quoted the rule word for word and it seems pretty clear that they never define initial contact. So I believe the lack of understanding falls on your end, not mine.

As for James pulling the ball into his chest I am guessing you just haven't seen it yet because it is clear he pulls the ball in and then reaches back out to get across the goal line. You should probably watch it before you share opinions on it.

Once again, it is defined. Initial contact with the ground when a player is falling is after the entire body makes its initial contact with the ground. Its defined in the many many pages of the NFL rule book. I don't have time to explain 5 times what has been an established NFL rules for a couple seasons.

Also, he does not pull it into his chest. He pulls it down from the air and extends. In no way shape or form did he bring the ball into his body and establish possession.

Stop being an idiot please.

[vikingsilver]

So either both are judgement calls or neither are. It can't really be both ways.

Actually, it can...and is by rule.

[Cyphon25]

Once again, it is defined. Initial contact with the ground when a player is falling is after the entire body makes its initial contact with the ground. Its defined in the many many pages of the NFL rule book.

Can you provide a link or quote of the rule? I provided the quote of the rule I can find and it says nothing like that.

Also, he does not pull it into his chest. He pulls it down from the air and extends. In no way shape or form did he bring the ball into his body and establish possession.

Stop being an idiot please.

Again, watch the tape or don't give an opinion. Just makes you look stupid. You can see him pulling it in and then when he realizes he isn't across he decides to reach for the goal line.


Actually, it can...and is by rule.

Can you quote the in the rule where it says one or the other is a judgement call?

I am genuine on this, I can't find it.

[cinnakaok]

I don't see that as a problem. You have basically described the difference in the two....which unlike how the forum is acting....isn't hard to understand. If any wr/coach/qb has a problem with the rule...how about just not letting the ball touch the ground? If you do, tuck that ball into your chest first.

And as you noted, it doesn't matter where the catch is made...the rule is the same. Again, pretty simple. Don't touch the ball on the ground.

There were a couple questionable calls yesterday. None of them was the non catches we are talking about, which almost everyone understands. And to those that understand and are still arguing....you really want to reward a receiver for letting the ball touch the ground and not following through the play? 99% of the receivers have just one job. Its not much to ask a receiver to catch a ball.

RBs get rewarded from the one inch line by jumping into the air and have the tip of the ball cross the first part of the white line. Even if the ball gets knocked out of there hand a second later. Why shouldn't they have to complete the process of coming down with the ball?

If James had caught ball standing upright and he reaches across the line while been tackled it's a TD. So in this case because he dove to make a catch he is penalized bc

A) didn't just pull the ball into his chest and fall short of the Endzone
B) made an effort play by diving and reaching out for the Endzone

To me your penalizing the WR/TE for making and effort play.

Im not saying the rule wasn't used correctly in saying like everyone else the rule is stupid and IMO the runner and receiver rules need to be more alike.

[RogerGodahell]

A big part of it is instant replay. In full speed they all look like catches. When you slow it down and scrutinize every nano second and freeze frame it's easy to pick things apart.