This is getting ridiculous

[JoJoTownsell1]

6 hours ago, LIJetsFan said:

Bottom line:  If he made a football move then it's a catch regardless of what happened when the ball is knocked loose by the ground.

So, was stretching out a football move?  THIS is the real point.  Ref said "the receiver did not survive the ground"  but that only occurred after he made a football move resulting in the ball crossing the plain?

So either stretching for the plane isn't a football move or the refs got it wrong.  Sure seems like a football move to me.  

      

The player has to "survive" the ground. Whether you make a football move, or not, the player who catches the ball and is going to the ground must not lose possession of the ball and let it hit the ground. Period. It doesn't matter if you cross the goal line, make a football move. It's the same concept as the Dez and Megatron rulings that were both correct calls applying a dumb rule. 

The call was correct, the rule is idiotic. 

These TD challenges are killing the game. You can't even celebrate a TD anymore because you need to wait for a guy at NFL HQs to review it to determine if it was actually a TD based on some obscure rules. 

They also need to change the rule that cost the Raiders last night. If you fumble the ball through the EZ, you should retain possession at the point where you lost possession. It should NOT be a turnover. 

These are simple rules that would make the game more enjoyable for fans which is supposed to be their goal. 

 

[JoJoTownsell1]

8 minutes ago, JiF said:

I read that 5 times and it makes zero sense.  The reason he was going to the ground was to extend the ball and lunge for the end zone.  If he just would have fallen naturally it would have been a completion short of the endzone.  He clearly secured the ball and was bringing it to his body.  His entire body was on the ground when he then extended the ball.  The extension for the goal line was what made the ball supposedly hit the ground (which you never actually clearly see, I saw a hand under the ball). This wasn't a situation where he used the ground to trap the ball or "catch" the ball.  The catch was made, his entire body was down, then the extension for the end zone happened.  

The rule is stupid and it's ambiguous but I don't see how this explains anything.  I saw a player, make a clear catch, his entire body was on the ground and he then extended the ball past the goalline.  There was nothing indisputable about it too.  

So let me ask you this with the way you've interpreted the rule; what if he was touched when his entire body was down before he extended the ball?  Catch or no catch? 

 

 

It's still no catch.

 

His catch and extension was all part of the catching process. He needed to "Survive" the ground. He did not. 

I COMPLETELY agree that in my book, that is 100pct a TD. But look at the Dez catch that was overturned based on the same rule:

2 feet down, football move to reach the endzone, but didn't survive the ground. NO TD. The rule is clear and stupid. 

[NoBowles]

15 minutes ago, JiF said:

I read that 5 times and it makes zero sense.  The reason he was going to the ground was to extend the ball and lunge for the end zone.  If he just would have fallen naturally it would have been a completion short of the endzone.  He clearly secured the ball and was bringing it to his body.  His entire body was on the ground when he then extended the ball.  The extension for the goal line was what made the ball supposedly hit the ground (which you never actually clearly see, I saw a hand under the ball). This wasn't a situation where he used the ground to trap the ball or "catch" the ball.  The catch was made, his entire body was down, then the extension for the end zone happened.  

The rule is stupid and it's ambiguous but I don't see how this explains anything.  I saw a player, make a clear catch, his entire body was on the ground and he then extended the ball past the goalline.  There was nothing indisputable about it too.  

So let me ask you this with the way you've interpreted the rule; what if he was touched when his entire body was down before he extended the ball?  Catch or no catch? 

 

 

I’m the biggest Pat hater out there, and have been known to accuse the NFL of being the WWF, and I wanted to have this in my pocket for proof, I just am being honest.

i agree the rule is awful and ambiguous, but the rule makes a distinction between catching the ball where the feet can or do touch the ground, and when the player is diving or falling to ththe ground while catching it. I think the distinction is stupid and pointless.

to answer your question, it doesn’t matter if they are touched or not, and it has nothing to do with the goal line. It’s all about controlling the ball before, during and after contact with the ground if they are falling to the ground while making the catch.

[JustInFudge]

9 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

It's still no catch.

 

His catch and extension was all part of the catching process. He needed to "Survive" the ground. He did not. 

I COMPLETELY agree that in my book, that is 100pct a TD. But look at the Dez catch that was overturned based on the same rule:

2 feet down, football move to reach the endzone, but didn't survive the ground. NO TD. The rule is clear and stupid. 

Not comparable plays at all.  Not even close. At no point was Bryant's entire body on the ground and down and then he extended the ball.  He literally landed on the ball when he caught and lunged forward.  I think they got it wrong there too but this is not comparable. 

And again, I don't see the ball hit the ground in the first gif.  Looks like his hand was under the ball.  And the extension was very clearly after he caught the ball, brought into his stomach, his whole body was down and then he extended the ball. 

This apples to oranges.  

 

 

 

[JustInFudge]

11 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

I’m the biggest Pat hater out there, and have been known to accuse the NFL of being the WWF, and I wanted to have this in my pocket for proof, I just am being honest.

i agree the rule is awful and ambiguous, but the rule makes a distinction between catching the ball where the feet can or do touch the ground, and when the player is diving or falling to ththe ground while catching it. I think the distinction is stupid and pointless.

to answer your question, it doesn’t matter if they are touched or not, and it has nothing to do with the goal line. It’s all about controlling the ball before, during and after contact with the ground if they are falling to the ground while making the catch.

How does it not matter?  If he was down and then touched, he would have been down before the ball ground or hand or whatever caused the fumble as he extended for the endzone. 

And you know how I know this was inconclusive evidence too?  We're 4 pages into this thread and everyone is seeing something different, yet this call was overturned.

It was a TD and a horrible call. 

 

[Matt39]

How was this ruled a touchdown? 

 

 

 

[TJ]

18 hours ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
2. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
3. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

James secured control of the ball with his hands. That satisfies number 1. James touches the ground with a knee and a foot. That satisfies number 2. He maintains control of the ball long enough to become a runner and turns up field. That satisfies number 3. He turned his head up field and drove his knee into the ground to lunge forward. 

The play was originally called a touchdown, so in order to overturn the call, you need indisputable visual evidence. In this case, there was not indisputable visual evidence that James was not a runner. The call was wrong.

This is what I saw.  It should have been a first and goal from the one. 

[TuscanyTile2]

24 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

It's still no catch.

 

His catch and extension was all part of the catching process. He needed to "Survive" the ground. He did not.

 

When his knee hits the ground he still has possession and the ball is probably at the 1 yard line.  Then he reaches over the goal line with possession.  When his elbow lands, however, the ball pops out.  I get that maybe it was the correct call by the letter of the rules but it's a ridiculous rule. Watch below from 2:01 to 2:09

 

 

[JoJoTownsell1]

2 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

 

When his knee hits the ground he still has possession and the ball is probably at the 1 yard line.  Then he reaches over the goal line with possession.  When his elbow lands, however, the ball pops out.  I get that maybe it was the correct call by the letter of the rules but it's a ridiculous rule. Watch below from 2:01 to 2:09

 

 

The rule is awful. But the call was correct. Former refs have bashed calls all year, they have universally agreed with this call.

Hopefully this is the play that gets the NFL to change the rule.

[Savage69]

9 hours ago, Matt39 said:

Probably the correct call but the Cooks catch to beat the Texans he never completed the catch. Rules seem to change to benefit the Patriots.

Remember back in 2001

a playoff game the Pats and Raiders with time running out? Brady gets hit and fumbles and the Raiders recover but then the Refs said he was bringing the ball back to his body so it wasn't a fumble because of some rule that I don't remember..Does anyone remember what that rule was??

[JoJoTownsell1]

 

3 hours ago, JiF said:

Not comparable plays at all.  Not even close. At no point was Bryant's entire body on the ground and down and then he extended the ball.  He literally landed on the ball when he caught and lunged forward.  I think they got it wrong there too but this is not comparable. 

And again, I don't see the ball hit the ground in the first gif.  Looks like his hand was under the ball.  And the extension was very clearly after he caught the ball, brought into his stomach, his whole body was down and then he extended the ball. 

This apples to oranges.  

 

 

 

Former heads of NFL officiating all agree that the call was correct. They reviewed the same play and agree with the results. These are the same two guys that have KILLED Al Riveron on a number of occasions this year so they are not biased. It's the rule, sorry. 

 

Dean Blandino‏Verified account @DeanBlandino

FollowFollow @DeanBlandino

More

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.

Mike Pereira‏Verified account @MikePereira

FollowFollow @MikePereira

More

Look, here is the rule. If you’re going to the ground you have to hold onto the ball when the ball hits the ground…Going to the ground trumps lunging/reaching to try and get extra yards or score a TD. You do that at your own risk. It’s incomplete…just ask Dez

[Matt39]

12 minutes ago, Savage69 said:

Remember back in 2001

a playoff game the Pats and Raiders with time running out? Brady gets hit and fumbles and the Raiders recover but then the Refs said he was bringing the ball back to his body so it wasn't a fumble because of some rule that I don't remember..Does anyone remember what that rule was??

The 01 reference is a good one.

[TuscanyTile2]

 

[k-met57]

this was never an issue before...

[greenwichjetfan]

No mention by anyone in the media that even after the refs botched the overturn, they also missed clear and indisputable defensive pass interference on the int. 

[NoBowles]

3 hours ago, JiF said:

How does it not matter?  If he was down and then touched, he would have been down before the ball ground or hand or whatever caused the fumble as he extended for the endzone. 

And you know how I know this was inconclusive evidence too?  We're 4 pages into this thread and everyone is seeing something different, yet this call was overturned.

It was a TD and a horrible call. 

 

I believe it should have been a TD, and the rule is asinine. Even with the rule, I think if it was the Patriots who caught it, it would have stood. I am really just giving you my opinion based on the rule that I read and the video I saw of it. 

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

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.

On further review, his left foot hits, then the left knee, then the right foot. James caught the ball and his initial contact with the ground with his left foot. After his left foot hit, his left knee hit, which is considered two feet when it comes to catches. Then his right foot hits as he is making his football move. He did maintain control of the ball after his initial contact with the ground with technically four steps. This was a catch, according to the rules.

 

[DoubleDown]

46 minutes ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

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.

On further review, his left foot hits, then the left knee, then the right foot. James caught the ball and his initial contact with the ground with his left foot. After his left foot hit, his left knee hit, which is considered two feet when it comes to catches. Then his right foot hits as he is making his football move. He did maintain control of the ball after his initial contact with the ground with technically four steps. This was a catch, according to the rules.

 

How do you come to this conclusion after reading the rule?

Watch the replay again. The receiver leaves his feet and dives to make the catch before the ball arrives. He is by definition a player going to the ground while attempting to make a catch. He loses control of the ball as it hits the ground which is an automatic incompletion in this scenario. The actions of his feet and knee are irrelevant in this case (they would only be relevant and an additional factor in completing the catch if he was making a catch at the sideline).

It was a lucky break for the Patriots, but the right call was made according to the rules.

[Philc1]

13 hours ago, Matt39 said:

Probably the correct call but the Cooks catch to beat the Texans he never completed the catch. Rules seem to change to benefit the Patriots.

Vegas baby vegas

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

1 minute ago, DoubleDown said:

How do you come to this conclusion after reading the rule?

Watch the replay again. The receiver leaves his feet and dives to make the catch before the ball arrives. He is by definition a player going to the ground while attempting to make a catch. He loses control of the ball as it hits the ground which is an automatic incompletion in this scenario. The actions of his feet and knee are irrelevant in this case (they would only be relevant and an additional factor in completing the catch if he was making a catch at the sideline).

It was a lucky break for the Patriots, but the right call was made according to the rules.

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.

I watched the replay 50 times. James was going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. He then maintained control of the ball after his initial contact with the ground. His initial contact with the ground was a left foot. After the initial contact, his left knee, then right foot hit. He loses control after that. According to the rule, it was a catch.

 

[Philc1]

If this is such an obvious rule why is it the patriots somehow are the only team that ever benefits from it?

[DoubleDown]

@TheNuuFaaolaExperience

It is only a catch according to the rule if he never loses control of the ball when it hits the ground. He failed to maintain control.  He lost control. Automatic incompletion.

What occurred after he lost control of the ball and what he did with his feet and knees while attempting to make the catch are irrelevant.

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

11 hours ago, DoubleDown said:

@TheNuuFaaolaExperience

It is only a catch according to the rule if he never loses control of the ball when it hits the ground. He failed to maintain control.  He lost control. Automatic incompletion.

What occurred after he lost control of the ball and what he did with his feet and knees while attempting to make the catch are irrelevant.

He didn't lose control when he hit the ground. His foot, knee, and other foot hit the ground before he lunged forward.

[Philc1]

10 minutes ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

He didn't lose control when he hit the ground. His foot, knee, and other foot hit the ground before he lunged forward.

It’s an obscure rule being very liberally interpreted to benefit the pats.