What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

New England at Pittsburgh (1 Viewer)

Tommy Collins said:
It's actually true though. I don't know if I would say he's purposely aiding NE. But the ASJ overturn was horrible. This Jesse James one I can see happening due to the other calls that have been made in the past (which I do not agree with). The Cooks one puzzled me as well. Based on the current rule (which sucks), the Cooks TD shouldn't have counted,  the ASJ TD should have, and Jesse James TD shouldn't. So 1 of 3 were ruled correctly, in my worthless opinion.
Click to expand...
But it's actually not.  Riveron, as far as I can tell doesn't make the calls about each replay.  He oversees the process, but he doesn't make the call.  I would be shocked if one person is responsible for every single replay.  There are many games each Sunday, and there's going to be times when multiple games need to have plays reviewed at the same time; it makes no logical sense for 1 person to be responsible for each replay.  Bouchette pretends that this isn't the case; he implies that Riveron alone made 3 calls to "give" NE 3 wins.  He goes on to imply that the rulings were incorrect, when the Cooks and James calls were, according to the rules, correct.  Cooks' was called a TD on field, and while I believe he lost control of the ball, there is NO visual evidence of this.  It looked like it was coming loose, then Cooks' body blocked the camera.  Logically, I assume he lost control, then regained it, but you can't over-turn a call based on assumption.  There has to be visual evidence.  With regards to James' play, there was visual evidence he lost control of the ball as it hit the ground.

Bouchette also cites the "football move" as being a factor in the rule.  You would think he would do his research, and know that the rule doesn't have the phrasing "football move" in it any longer.

This is an article written to appeal to the Steeler fanbase.  Kind of disappointing, as Bouchette usually is less of a fanboy type writer than this, but this article looks like it was written by one of the Steelers fans who called into 93.7 last night arguing about the call without really knowing what they were talking about.

 
Walking Boot said:
Yup.

They had three minutes during the review to gameplan what to do if it was overturned. Instead they stood around picking their noses then got caught without a plan. 

"EVERYONE PANIC!!" is not a real football play. They should have tried a real play instead.
Click to expand...
Ben clearly panicked on that last play. And then doesn't want to own up to saying he wanted to spike it but the voice in his helmet told him to run it.

Monday morning QB says, pump fake the post and then flip it out to your right to wide open J. James for the walk-in TD... easy to say when the bullets aren't flying of course, but everyone funneled to the middle of the end zone when he started his throwing motion leaving James standing there all alone.

 
BobbyLayne said:
Almost everyone hates the current interpretation.

What could be changed to make it better?

To be clear, a Potter Stewart declaration is not an improvement over the current state of affairs.
Click to expand...
I like a couple of Fred's suggestions, especially going back to challenges only. This whole automatic review of scoring plays and turnovers has been a big part of the problem IMO. It encourages frame-by-frame cherry-picking of the plays which by definition are going to be the most exciting and critical in any game.

Another one I've suggested is that, now that all reviews are centralized, the video official (a) not be made aware of the call on the field and (b) be given no more than 60 seconds to make a call - as in power to the replay screen cuts off at the 60-second mark. If he can't do so, it's assumed inconclusive and the call on the field stands.

 
Steeler said:
Guys - it wasn't a catch based on the current NFL rule  :shrug:
Click to expand...
Completely disagree

The rule that seems maybe like no catch:

"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."

However, I don't think runner means running. It means advancing the ball. He does clearly make  move to advance the ball.

However the big flaw with that call is there is no indisputable evidence that the ball ever touches the ground. His hand is under the ball and I have never seen a shot that shows the ball on the ground.

 
Drunken Cowboy said:
Completely disagree

The rule that seems maybe like no catch:

"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."

However, I don't think runner means running. It means advancing the ball. He does clearly make  move to advance the ball.

However the big flaw with that call is there is no indisputable evidence that the ball ever touches the ground. His hand is under the ball and I have never seen a shot that shows the ball on the ground.
Click to expand...
My thoughts last night, I didn't think it touched the ground either

 
Bert Emmanuel clearly caught the ball (but he didn't!). Ok, so Jesse James clearly caught the ball (but he didn't!).

Both were catches, so why does the catch rule have to exclude one to have the other?

Why can't the rule say either a)maintaining possession through contact with the ground, or b) demonstrating clear possession (perhaps for x amount of time) while making a play (or "football move"), ex. catching the ball with two hands, pulling it toward the body, turning up-field and extending towards the goalline, as James did? This would make both the Emmanuel play and James play catches. 

Yes, I fully understand that "demonstrating clear possession" or "football move" are subjective terms. Guess what? A 15 yd. completion on 4th and 10 called back on a holding call, or a 4th down DPI call to extend a final drive can both be game changing plays based on judgment calls by the officials. Why does a completion need to be different?

Even under current rules, Blandino/Pereira, etc will say the ball clearly did/did not move enough to survive/not survive the ground. 30 seconds later the NFL replay officials rule the exact opposite, so there is still subjectivity involved.

As it stands now, all the NFL has succeeding in doing is legislating an asinine level of absurdity into their game.

 
Steeler said:
Guys - it wasn't a catch based on the current NFL rule  :shrug:
Click to expand...
I think one of the best points made today about all of this is if James was a runner there and not a receiver, that's a TD.  He had control, broke the plane of the goal line with control, and then lost it.  This is where the minutia makes a difference, because the same standard needs to apply to any player breaking the goal line with control of the football.  Maybe they'll change the rule to at least address this, but I doubt it because the NFL is quite stupid these days. 

 
Doctor Detroit said:
I think one of the best points made today about all of this is if James was a runner there and not a receiver, that's a TD.  He had control, broke the plane of the goal line with control, and then lost it.  This is where the minutia makes a difference, because the same standard needs to apply to any player breaking the goal line with control of the football.  Maybe they'll change the rule to at least address this, but I doubt it because the NFL is quite stupid these days. 
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
Doctor Detroit said:
I think one of the best points made today about all of this is if James was a runner there and not a receiver, that's a TD.  He had control, broke the plane of the goal line with control, and then lost it.  This is where the minutia makes a difference, because the same standard needs to apply to any player breaking the goal line with control of the football.  Maybe they'll change the rule to at least address this, but I doubt it because the NFL is quite stupid these days. 
Click to expand...
When I watched the play yesterday (drinking), I knew for sure that it was going to get overturned.  As I watched the replay today over and over, I just can't fathom how that is not a TD in today's NFL.  According to the rules, it's the correct call.  But wow is that an awful rule.

 
The catch rule should be changed to:

If a player has the ball in his hands and is able to control where the ball goes (extend the ball over the goal line in this case) ... he HAS control of the ball.

Common sense tells you, he is controlling where the ball goes. 

That should be a catch.

As the rule is now, the receiver must "survive" the ground. No idea why.

 
Doctor Detroit said:
I think one of the best points made today about all of this is if James was a runner there and not a receiver, that's a TD.  He had control, broke the plane of the goal line with control, and then lost it.  This is where the minutia makes a difference, because the same standard needs to apply to any player breaking the goal line with control of the football.  Maybe they'll change the rule to at least address this, but I doubt it because the NFL is quite stupid these days. 
Click to expand...
But the catch rules need to be consistent. It makes no sense to reward what is not considered a catch just because it happens to be at the goal line. 

If they want to change the definition of a legal catch everywhere, i’m all in favor. 

 
Anarchy99 said:
But the catch rules need to be consistent. It makes no sense to reward what is not considered a catch just because it happens to be at the goal line. 

If they want to change the definition of a legal catch everywhere, i’m all in favor. 
Click to expand...
That should have been a TD, period.  Fix it whatever way you want. 

 
Doctor Detroit said:
I think one of the best points made today about all of this is if James was a runner there and not a receiver, that's a TD.  He had control, broke the plane of the goal line with control, and then lost it.  This is where the minutia makes a difference, because the same standard needs to apply to any player breaking the goal line with control of the football.  Maybe they'll change the rule to at least address this, but I doubt it because the NFL is quite stupid these days. 
Click to expand...
The rule is about CATCHING the football, not about breaking the plane.  Doesn't matter where he is on the field.

 
daveR said:
Doctor Detroit said:
I think one of the best points made today about all of this is if James was a runner there and not a receiver, that's a TD.  He had control, broke the plane of the goal line with control, and then lost it.  This is where the minutia makes a difference, because the same standard needs to apply to any player breaking the goal line with control of the football.  Maybe they'll change the rule to at least address this, but I doubt it because the NFL is quite stupid these days. 
Click to expand...
The rule is about CATCHING the football, not about breaking the plane.  Doesn't matter where he is on the field.
Click to expand...
I know that, Jeff.  Did you even read my post?

 
Bossman said:
The catch rule should be changed to:

If a player has the ball in his hands and is able to control where the ball goes (extend the ball over the goal line in this case) ... he HAS control of the ball.

Common sense tells you, he is controlling where the ball goes. 

That should be a catch.

As the rule is now, the receiver must "survive" the ground. No idea why.
Click to expand...
I mean the simple definition would be when the receiver catches the ball and maintains possession while A) remaining in bounds, and; B) without using the ground to aid in the catch.

The overruled TD by Jesse James would still remain a catch, in my opinion. The ball hit the ground, but when did he ever lose possession? 

They need to take all of these ridiculous no catch calls and pool them together to create a definition that meets the human eye. If it's a catch in real time to the naked eye it needs to be upon review as well.

 
Even if the call was blown - there is zero reason the game should have ended in a Steeler loss on that drive.  I blame Ben more than anything because, given the circumstances on 3rd down, he made the dumbest play he could possibly make.

 
Tommy Collins said:
I mean the simple definition would be when the receiver catches the ball and maintains possession while A) remaining in bounds, and; B) without using the ground to aid in the catch.

The overruled TD by Jesse James would still remain a catch, in my opinion. The ball hit the ground, but when did he ever lose possession? 

They need to take all of these ridiculous no catch calls and pool them together to create a definition that meets the human eye. If it's a catch in real time to the naked eye it needs to be upon review as well.
Click to expand...
When the ball hit the ground, his left hand came completely off the ball, the ball moved, and his right hand was on the side of (not underneath) the ball?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Flash1 said:
Sure it does. It's different for a runner at the goal line too. If a runner fumbles the ball after crossing the goal line, the ball is dead, if it's in the field of play it's a live ball.

There has always been different rules for around the goal line.
Click to expand...
So as soon as a receiver touches the ball with two hands and has his feet on the ground, that should be a touchdown? Even if a microsecond later a freight train comes and dislodges the football? How about if a receiver dives for the ball and gets two hands on the ball over the goal line and ZERO feet on the ground. That would be a touchdown?

Because that is what people are setting up to be touchdowns. People are suggesting two hands on the ball and over the goal line = a TD . . . just like a runner.

 
Flash1 said:
Sounds like the good ol' days.

One knee / butt  = two feet
Click to expand...
I am still trying to figure out what people are asking for here. One knee, one butt, two feet, whatever. How long does the receiver have to hold onto the ball? A nano second of the ball in his hands and a knee on the ground? If he falls and hits the ground and the ball pops out . . . still good? How about if while sliding out of bounds the ball moves and it is not tucked away after initially having it in his hands . . . incomplete for going out of bounds?

For the Jesse James play, if the ball COMPLETELY came out and he had no control after reaching across the goal line . . . TD or incomplete?

 
Steeler said:
Even if the call was blown - there is zero reason the game should have ended in a Steeler loss on that drive.  I blame Ben more than anything because, given the circumstances on 3rd down, he made the dumbest play he could possibly make.
Click to expand...
The coaching staff screwed the pooch by a) not having 2 plays called ahead of time and (b) having the wrong personnel on the field.   However with all of that Ben can NOT force the ball in that situation.  If the fake snap catches them off guard and Eli is wide open then go for it but if he is covered Ben has to be smart enough to throw the ball away and go for the FG on 4th down.  I think Ben is a great quarterback but he messed up badly on that play.    

He's human and people make mistakes -- let's hope he gets another shot at the Pats in the post-season.

 
Casting Couch said:
Watch out for those Jaguars.  Home field against JAX would be hugely beneficial for PIT, that team is for REAL.
Click to expand...
Yeah.  That loss was such a blown opportunity to all but lock up HFA.  The top three teams in the AFC are clearly NE, PIT, and JAX so the #1 seed has a pretty big advantage by only having to play one of those teams, and they get the game at home. Would love to see JAX take on NE in the divisional round but that's unlikely to happen now  :kicksrock:  

 
Godsbrother said:
The coaching staff screwed the pooch by a) not having 2 plays called ahead of time and (b) having the wrong personnel on the field.   However with all of that Ben can NOT force the ball in that situation.  If the fake snap catches them off guard and Eli is wide open then go for it but if he is covered Ben has to be smart enough to throw the ball away and go for the FG on 4th down.  I think Ben is a great quarterback but he messed up badly on that play.    

He's human and people make mistakes -- let's hope he gets another shot at the Pats in the post-season.
Click to expand...
Learn from mistakes.  Be glad that it happened during the regular season and they MIGHT just get an opportunity to redeem themselves.  

 
Casting Couch said:
Watch out for those Jaguars.  Home field against JAX would be hugely beneficial for PIT, that team is for REAL.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%.   Pittsburgh needs to win out to secure a bye week (especially with AB injury) and HFA against Jacksonville if it comes to that.  Jags are tough for sure.

The thing that REALLY bums me out with the Steelers loss is that it appeared for a moment that NE might be in the situation to have to win three games, with at least one on the road, to get to the SB.  It still COULD happen if PIT and JAX win out and NE stumbles against the Bills but I really doubt that will come to pass.

 
Anarchy99 said:
I am still trying to figure out what people are asking for here. One knee, one butt, two feet, whatever. How long does the receiver have to hold onto the ball? A nano second of the ball in his hands and a knee on the ground? If he falls and hits the ground and the ball pops out . . . still good? How about if while sliding out of bounds the ball moves and it is not tucked away after initially having it in his hands . . . incomplete for going out of bounds?

For the Jesse James play, if the ball COMPLETELY came out and he had no control after reaching across the goal line . . . TD or incomplete?
Click to expand...
I'm flabbergasted that people who consider themselves football fans still have no concept of the catch process surviving the ground.  Ask your wife, she probably knows.

 
Short Corner said:
I'm flabbergasted that people who consider themselves football fans still have no concept of the catch process surviving the ground.  Ask your wife, she probably knows.
Click to expand...
I know and understand the rule. My post was for the people who want to change the rule. What do people want the rule to be if they don’t like the current catch rule?

 
Anarchy99 said:
I know and understand the rule. My post was for the people who want to change the rule. What do people want the rule to be if they don’t like the current catch rule?
Click to expand...
How about if you have full control of the ball, have more than two feet down (in this case two feet, knee and hip), are untouched, and the ball crosses the plane of the goal then it is a touchdown?

 
It's times like this that I find myself simply amazed at how emotionally involved some adults are about a game played by millionaires that don't even know they exist. I could understand it if you somehow benefited monetarily or something if your team won. But given that isn't the case, wow.

 
DallasDMac said:
It's times like this that I find myself simply amazed at how emotionally involved some adults are about a game played by millionaires that don't even know they exist. I could understand it if you somehow benefited monetarily or something if your team won. But given that isn't the case, wow.
Click to expand...
Sincerely,

DallasDMac

Joined Nov 2015

2053 posts 

 
bostonfred said:
Sincerely,

DallasDMac

Joined Nov 2015

2053 posts 
Click to expand...
And? Feel free to post the percentage of those were I am lamenting the end of my existence due to the devastating loss my team suffered, or where I am puffing my chest talking about how "my team" is so successful and awesome all because of my support! I watch sports, sure. But I don't become emotionally involved to the point where I am despondent for weeks because they lost. I certainly don't take the blame for it. Nor do I take credit for the wins or successes of any given team. Though I can see where pointing that out might upset quite a few of the Pats backers in here.

 
DallasDMac said:
It's times like this that I find myself simply amazed at how emotionally involved some adults are about a game played by millionaires that don't even know they exist. I could understand it if you somehow benefited monetarily or something if your team won. But given that isn't the case, wow.
Click to expand...
I am surprised that a person posting in a football forum would be amazed to find that people here are fans of a team and are happy when they win and sad when they lose.   

 
Exactly. I respect the Steelers fans passion, what was strange was how hard they had interpreting the rule. 

Like me it or hate it, the rule is fairly simple to interpret. That is probably one of the main reasons it ended up being what it is - it is able to describe what a catch is with the fewest words. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DallasDMac said:
It's times like this that I find myself simply amazed at how emotionally involved some adults are about a game played by millionaires that don't even know they exist. I could understand it if you somehow benefited monetarily or something if your team won. But given that isn't the case, wow.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that this is the case for many of the posters here.

How many trillions a year is the sports wagering industry these days?

 
wilked said:
Exactly. I respect the Steelers fans passion, what was strange was how hard they had interpreting the rule. 

Like me it or hate it, the rule is fairly simple to interpret. That is probably one of the main reasons it ended up being what it is - it is able to describe what a catch is with the fewest words. 
Click to expand...
I don't think too many people (including Steelers fans) have problems interpreting the rule.  The controversy seems to be over the rule itself.  

 
fred_1_15301 said:
I don't think too many people (including Steelers fans) have problems interpreting the rule.  The controversy seems to be over the rule itself.  
Click to expand...
You might be right. I based that judgment on the high number of posts discussing a “football move”

 
Doctor Detroit said:
I think one of the best points made today about all of this is if James was a runner there and not a receiver, that's a TD.  He had control, broke the plane of the goal line with control, and then lost it.  This is where the minutia makes a difference, because the same standard needs to apply to any player breaking the goal line with control of the football.  Maybe they'll change the rule to at least address this, but I doubt it because the NFL is quite stupid these days. 
Click to expand...
What about a play where wr has possession of a pass for 1/2 a second in end zone and then gets popped by a db and ball comes out. That a TD?

 
wilked said:
You might be right. I based that judgment on the high number of posts discussing a “football move”
Click to expand...
Agreed that a football move is not in the rules anymore, at least not concerning a catch:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground;  - check
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; -check
(c) 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 - apparently not.

I think it is the "turning up field" part that many are interpreting at what used to known as a football move.   In the case of the James play  you can see at :03-:05 that James is turning his body towards the goal and had two feet, a hip and and elbow down before the ball came loose.   Obviously the replay official did not consider this enough to be turning up field so it was ruled incomplete.

At this point the game is over and in the books and it is time to move on.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tool said:
What about a play where wr has possession of a pass for 1/2 a second in end zone and then gets popped by a db and ball comes out. That a TD?
Click to expand...
Who cares if was a TD or not?  The important thing is whether the defender got a suspension

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not just here, but I am still befuddled at people not knowing or understanding the catch rule that was applied on the James play. He was falling to the ground. He needed to maintain control of the ball after hitting the ground. 

Knees, feet, butts, elbows down made no difference. Being across the goal line made no difference. Making a football move made no difference. Phrases like the ball can’t cause a fumble, breaking the plane of the goal line, having possession while extending across the goal line, etc . are not relevant.

Anyone that brings up any of those points, they do not apply here. 

The rule may be dumb, but as of Sunday that was the rule. Until they modify it, that’s what they had to work with. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rockaction
Trevor's First Throw In England If You Miss The Jags On Their Bye Week
Replies
8
Views
333
rockaction
rockaction
Godsbrother
*** 2025 Pittsburgh Steelers: Fire Tomlin chants and Renegade booed during loss to Bills
46 47 48
Replies
2K
Views
195K
3C's
3C's
Joe Bryant
NFL Strength of Schedule
Replies
25
Views
4K
Uruk-Hai
Uruk-Hai

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top