Did Jesse James Catch It?

[Cyphon25]

Originally Posted by no10pin

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]

[GOWIFB]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan24

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]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

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

I think that list is missing the Patriots!

[no10pin]

Originally Posted by Cyphon25

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Cyphon25]

Originally Posted by no10pin

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]

Originally Posted by whodeynation765

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!"

[Boo]

Originally Posted by blackbears86

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]

Originally Posted by steelcityguy

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

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

[steelcityguy]

Originally Posted by Boo

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

Show me where??

[no10pin]

Originally Posted by Cyphon25

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]

Originally Posted by steelcityguy

Show me where??

[Cyphon25]

Originally Posted by no10pin

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]

Originally Posted by Siberian13

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]

Originally Posted by Ferg1945

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!