Now THAT'S a crap call

[XXXIVwin]

Well this really has divided the football world lol. All over every radio and tv show.

This whole catch no catch thing started with the Calvin Johnson play. That dude had the TD and placed the ball on the ground to...celebrate! And it was a freakin Bears/Lions game. Nothing to do with Dallas or NE.

I can't remember a single time this rule happened prior to that play.

The competition committee really needs to reevaluate that rule (and the fumble in the endzone BS) and make so catch = catch. None of this "through the process" bs.

Also, Steelers need to man up on defense against NE. :rant:

AngryRam, for the record, I would be in favor of any rule which automatically screws over the Patriots.

 

[jrry32]

Anyone else see this:


If the pictures are accurate, the NFL cheated the Steelers out of a clear win by not confirming that the ball actually hit the ground like they were supposed to do.

 

[Ellard80]

Anyone else see this:


If the pictures are accurate, the NFL cheated the Steelers out of a clear win by not confirming that the ball actually hit the ground like they were supposed to do.

That picture is missing a few frames... on the replays they showed you can clearly see the ball hit the ground.

 

[jrry32]

That picture is missing a few frames... on the replays they showed you can clearly see the ball hit the ground.

I watched it repeatedly on GamePass from every angle. There's no angle that conclusively shows that his hand wasn't under the ball. And that picture undermines that argument. The NFL isn't supposed to overturn the call unless there's indisputable video evidence. I don't see any indisputable video evidence.

 

[Mackeyser]

Well this really has divided the football world lol. All over every radio and tv show.

This whole catch no catch thing started with the Calvin Johnson play. That dude had the TD and placed the ball on the ground to...celebrate! And it was a freakin Bears/Lions game. Nothing to do with Dallas or NE.

I can't remember a single time this rule happened prior to that play.

The competition committee really needs to reevaluate that rule (and the fumble in the endzone BS) and make so catch = catch. None of this "through the process" bs.

Also, Steelers need to man up on defense against NE. :rant:

I totally agree with you on the fumble thing.

If a player fumbles through the end zone, the ball should be marked where the fumble occurred.

In no other situation is a player allowed to advance the ball with a fumble UNLESS it goes out of bounds after passing the goal line.

It’s asinine.

 

[dieterbrock]

It’s a sad state of affairs that week after week the discussion is about bad penalties/catch-no catch stuff.
Watching the games is just painful. In today’s fantasy football era it’s easier to look at the stats after the game and not bother watching

 

[majrleaged]

I watched it repeatedly on GamePass from every angle. There's no angle that conclusively shows that his hand wasn't under the ball. And that picture undermines that argument. The NFL isn't supposed to overturn the call unless there's indisputable video evidence. I don't see any indisputable video evidence.

Considering his hands switch positions from one frame to the other, the ball hit the ground. Left on the bottom then after he hit the ground the right is on the bottom. When the ball bounces he moves the right on to the bottom. I hate the patriots too, but this call is a no brainer.

 

[Ellard80]

I watched it repeatedly on GamePass from every angle. There's no angle that conclusively shows that his hand wasn't under the ball. And that picture undermines that argument. The NFL isn't supposed to overturn the call unless there's indisputable video evidence. I don't see any indisputable video evidence.

I honestly don't know how you watched it from every angle and didn't see it hit the ground... They show it over and over and Romo points out the ball hitting the ground - not that he needed to.

The pictures look like some creation by a Pittsburgh fan honestly.

 

[Ellard80]

Considering his hands switch positions from one frame to the other, the ball hit the ground. Left on the bottom then after he hit the ground the right is on the bottom. When the ball bounces he moves the right on to the bottom. I hate the patriots too, but this call is a no brainer.

Yep.

 

[Angry Ram]

Considering his hands switch positions from one frame to the other, the ball hit the ground. Left on the bottom then after he hit the ground the right is on the bottom. When the ball bounces he moves the right on to the bottom. I hate the patriots too, but this call is a no brainer.

Not to drag this on too much more, but all that happened AFTER it crossed the plane. I think it should be an equal rule to with RBs.

Players twist their bodies except just the hand with the ball out of bounds and that's a TD. Crossing a millimeter is a TD.

But this isn't??

 

[jrry32]

There's one other pointed that I need to make. Here's the rule:
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 word "initial" makes it quite arguable that this was a catch. James's initial contact with the ground was his knee hitting. After his knee hit, James turned his body and reached out for the end-zone. The easy argument here is that James survived the initial contact with the ground, made a football move, and the ball came out AFTER he completed the process of the catch.(assuming arguendo that the ball touched the ground)

The rule does not say that a player must survive all contact with the ground. It only says INITIAL. If you give initial its plain meaning, James survived "initial" contact with the ground when his knee hit. After his knee hit, he turned up-field and lunged for the end-zone. That should be a TD because it's two separate acts (hitting the ground while pulling the ball towards his body to secure it followed by him lunging for the end-zone).

Considering his hands switch positions from one frame to the other, the ball hit the ground. Left on the bottom then after he hit the ground the right is on the bottom. When the ball bounces he moves the right on to the bottom. I hate the patriots too, but this call is a no brainer.

The call on the field is a TD. You have to have INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE to overturn it. You can't make assumptions about what happened. If you don't have the angle showing the ball hitting the ground, the call stands. His hands also didn't switch positions while the ball was on the ground. Again, I watched it over and over again.

I honestly don't know how you watched it from every angle and didn't see it hit the ground... They show it over and over and Romo points out the ball hitting the ground - not that he needed to.

The pictures look like some creation by a Pittsburgh fan honestly.

It's not photoshop. It's a legitimate picture. I honestly don't know how you watched it from every angle and can claim that there's conclusive video evidence that it hit the ground. No video angle shows it. You have to make assumptions. You can't overturn calls on assumptions. Here's the video:

View: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000894690/Jesse-James-go-ahead-TD-overturned-ruled-incomplete-pass


Point me to the indisputable video evidence that the ball hit the ground. Give me a time in the video or even a screenshot of it if that's easier.

 

[XXXIVwin]

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....

The rule does not say that a player must survive all contact with the ground. It only says INITIAL.


Point me to the indisputable video evidence that the ball hit the ground. Give me a time in the video or even a screenshot of it if that's easier.

My take: jrry, you are focusing too much on the word “initial,” when the actual intent of the rule is to focus on the phrase “after his initial.” The key word is “after.”

For the NFL, the phrase “he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground” is interpreted to mean “the receiver must survive the ground while maintaining possession.”

Note: I am not saying whether the rule is good or bad, I am just trying to clarify that the nfl is placing an emphasis on the period of time “after” initial ground contact.

As to the James ruling: I agree that the NFL ruling is based on the “assumption” that when James’ right hand is clearly on the SIDE of the ball, his fingers are not long enough to demonstrate “full control” underneath the ball. To me the most definitive clip is between 33 and 36 seconds. Clearly, his left hand totally lost control. The question is, did his right hand maintain control?

Given how far to the side of the ball his right hand was, there was an “assumption” made (granted, an assumption) that he did not have control at all times. Given that the ball was pinned beneath his chest, and his left hand was as on top of the ball, and his right hand was on the side of the ball, the assumption was made that his right hand was not underneath the ball, and therefore the ball touched the ground.

Hypothetical: suppose that a receiver had both hands behind his head on his helmet, with the ball underneath him. Even if there was no video evidenice of the “ball touching the ground”, one could argue that there was “indisputable video evidence” that it was not a catch based SOLELY on the placement of his hands.

 

[jrry32]

My take: jrry, you are focusing too much on the word “initial,” when the actual intent of the rule is to focus on the phrase “after his initial.” The key word is “after.”

For the NFL, the phrase “he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground” is interpreted to mean “the receiver must survive the ground while maintaining possession.”

Note: I am not saying whether the rule is good or bad, I am just trying to clarify that the nfl is placing an emphasis on the period of time “after” initial ground contact.

Okay but James controlled it long enough after initial contact with the ground to make a football move. So unless after has no end to it, it should be a catch.

As to the James ruling: I agree that the NFL ruling is based on the “assumption” that when James’ right hand is clearly on the SIDE of the ball, his fingers are not long enough to demonstrate “full control” underneath the ball. To me the most definitive clip is between 33 and 36 seconds. Clearly, his left hand totally lost control. The question is, did his right hand maintain control?

Given how far to the side of the ball his right hand was, there was an “assumption” made (granted, an assumption) that he did not have control at all times. Given that the ball was pinned beneath his chest, and his left hand was as on top of the ball, and his right hand was on the side of the ball, the assumption was made that his right hand was not underneath the ball, and therefore the ball touched the ground.

Hypothetical: suppose that a receiver had both hands behind his head on his helmet, with the ball underneath him. Even if there was no video evidenice of the “ball touching the ground”, one could argue that there was “indisputable video evidence” that it was not a catch based SOLELY on the placement of his hands.

In that scenario, you'll be able to see the ball hit the ground without his hands on it. If you can't see the ball hit the ground after it was ruled a catch on the field, it shouldn't be overturned.

As we can see from the other picture, it's feasible for his right hand to be under the ball. You can't make that assumption based on the language of the rule. You need indisputable video evidence to overturn it.

 

[Memento]

Cheatriots truly have the refs in their pocket, since those fuckers overturned a clear touchdown.

 

[Raptorman]

Once that ball crosses the goal line in his hands under control the play should be over. What happens after should be moot. He had control of the ball at the time it passed the plane. There are two separate rules for TD's. One for runners and one for catcher's. If a runner fumbles the ball after he crosses the goal line, is it a TD? Yes. If a WR's fumbles the ball after catching the ball on the one and putting it across the plane it's an incomplete pass.

 

[XXXIVwin]

Okay but James controlled it long enough after initial contact with the ground to make a football move. So unless after has no end to it, it should be a catch.



In that scenario, you'll be able to see the ball hit the ground without his hands on it. If you can't see the ball hit the ground after it was ruled a catch on the field, it shouldn't be overturned.

As we can see from the other picture, it's feasible for his right hand to be under the ball. You can't make that assumption based on the language of the rule. You need indisputable video evidence to overturn it.

Not sure what point you are making here about the word “initial”, then. Are you saying that the NFL is incorrect in the interpretation of its own rule?

“After” in NFL language means “long enough to survive the ground.” My point is, one can disagree with the rule itself, but one should at least concede that it has its own consistent internal logic.

As to “indisputable video evidence”: I have heard Pereira say that sometimes “two different replay angles can be pieced together” to form a conclusion. In other words— it is not necessary to have ONE IMAGE of proof, the phrase “indisputable video evidence” allows for INFERENCE to be used. So when there is an image of James’ right hand clearly on the SIDE of the ball, one can infer that (unless his fingers are 12” long) part of the ball is touching the ground.

Again, not necessarily saying the NFL is “right,” I’m just saying I think I understand the logic of how they interpret their own rules.

 

[XXXIVwin]

To me this is indisputable video evidence that the ball is touching the ground and his right hand is not in control of it.

I can sympathize with the argument that the rule should be changed to TD when ball crosses the plane. But it’s hard for me to imagine how anyone besides a Pittsburgh fan could say (according to the current rules) he kept control and ithe ball never touched the ground.

 

[jrry32]

View attachment 23375
To me this is indisputable video evidence that the ball is touching the ground and his right hand is not in control of it.

I can sympathize with the argument that the rule should be changed to TD when ball crosses the plane. But it’s hard for me to imagine how anyone besides a Pittsburgh fan could say (according to the current rules) he kept control and ithe ball never touched the ground.

That's not indisputable video evidence. You can't see the ball touching the ground. It's obscured. You aren't allowed to make assumptions. The call on the field stands if there's no angle clearly showing what happened.

BTW, the picture you just posted came after the picture I already posted showing his hand under the ball after he hit the ground (because the Patriots' defender did not have both hands on James in the picture I posted). See:

Not sure what point you are making here about the word “initial”, then. Are you saying that the NFL is incorrect in the interpretation of its own rule?

“After” in NFL language means “long enough to survive the ground.” My point is, one can disagree with the rule itself, but one should at least concede that it has its own consistent internal logic.

As to “indisputable video evidence”: I have heard Pereira say that sometimes “two different replay angles can be pieced together” to form a conclusion. In other words— it is not necessary to have ONE IMAGE of proof, the phrase “indisputable video evidence” allows for INFERENCE to be used. So when there is an image of James’ right hand clearly on the SIDE of the ball, one can infer that (unless his fingers are 12” long) part of the ball is touching the ground.

Again, not necessarily saying the NFL is “right,” I’m just saying I think I understand the logic of how they interpret their own rules.

The point is that "after" is an indefinite period of time. His initial contact with the ground was his knee hitting. After that, he torqued his body and lunged for the end-zone. His football move should have ended the process of the catch because he still was possessing the ball after initial contact with the ground and had the ability to lunge for the end-zone. It's very different than plays where the receiver has no break in the process.

Indisputable video evidence, by its definition, does not allow for an inference to be used. Two different replay angles being pieced together to form a conclusion is LITERAL. They can splice together two different angles to give them a better understanding of the entirety of the play. Problem here is that no angle shows the ball hitting the ground.

Am I saying that the NFL is incorrect in its interpretation of its own rule? Well, I don't think even the NFL understands its own rule:

View: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000240906/Cruz-18-yard-TD-catch


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53t3xFNrGjg

 

[Rynie]

#dezcaughtit

 

[XXXIVwin]

That's not indisputable video evidence. You can't see the ball touching the ground. It's obscured. You aren't allowed to make assumptions. The call on the field stands if there's no angle clearly showing what happened.

BTW, the picture you just posted came after the picture I already posted showing his hand under the ball after he hit the ground (because the Patriots' defender did not have both hands on James in the picture I posted). See:

The point is that "after" is an indefinite period of time. His initial contact with the ground was his knee hitting. After that, he torqued his body and lunged for the end-zone. His football move should have ended the process of the catch because he still was possessing the ball after initial contact with the ground and had the ability to lunge for the end-zone. It's very different than plays where the receiver has no break in the process.

Indisputable video evidence, by its definition, does not allow for an inference to be used. Two different replay angles being pieced together to form a conclusion is LITERAL. They can splice together two different angles to give them a better understanding of the entirety of the play. Problem here is that no angle shows the ball hitting the ground.

Am I saying that the NFL is incorrect in its interpretation of its own rule? Well, I don't think even the NFL understands its own rule:

View: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000240906/Cruz-18-yard-TD-catch


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53t3xFNrGjg

Yeah, the golden Taint play is a whole different deal because he never was “going to the ground.” Tiki Barber definitely messed up in describing it that way. Subjective call as to whether Taint had “established himself as a runner”....pereira thought no, replay official thought yes.