Vegas called in the Eagles win

[Sword]

There was two TD's the Eagles got that shouldn't have counted......

1) The receiver clearly bobbled the ball going out of bounds and didn't have two feet in....
2) No way that tight End TD was a catch and ours wasn't...WTF ......

If there is anything going on I would first believe, it's related to Vegas and gambling.....

[squidkid]

listen, there was no way the nfl wasnt going to do all they could to let the pats win.........if they overruled that td, it would have been waaaaaay too obvious

[Slapstick]

Yes, I do agree that Ertz’ TD was no more or less a TD than James’...

They were both clearly TDs...

[feltdizz]

While I believe they were both TD's I think the Ertz TD was slightly different because he took 3 steps. That being said, I'm pretty sure someone showed a replay were a guy took 3 or 4 steps and lost the ball when he went to the ground and they called it an incompletion.

I listened to a Goodell interview on the radio before the game and they asked him "whats a catch?" and he laughed for 30 seconds. I think it's clear they have a PR problem with what is a catch but it's also good for the NFL to have the power to change the outcome of games during the regular season.

[Sword]

One more thing.....not that it would have Changed anything.....


Why didn't Philly get flagged for pass interference on the final play of the game, Hogan got Clocked.....?
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/look-refs-appear-to-miss-pass-interference-call-on-super-bowl-hail-mary/

[AzStillers1989]

K A R M A

(10 characters)

[Steel Maniac]

listen, there was no way the nfl wasnt going to do all they could to let the pats win.........if they overruled that td, it would have been waaaaaay too obvious

Yep..way too obvious. They wanted to overule it thou. LOL

[Steel Maniac]

Yes, I do agree that Ertz’ TD was no more or less a TD than James’...

They were both clearly TDs...

Totally agree. There was no difference in what Ertz did to what JJ did. Both made football moves after catching the ball to score.

[feltdizz]

One more thing.....not that it would have Changed anything.....


Why didn't Philly get flagged for pass interference on the final play of the game, Hogan got Clocked.....?
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/look-refs-appear-to-miss-pass-interference-call-on-super-bowl-hail-mary/

because it was a hail mary play and they rarely call PI on that play.

and honestly, I think the refs let both teams get away with some physical play by the DB's.

I kept hearing about this play but I thought it was going to be much worse.

[Northern_Blitz]

Yes, I do agree that Ertz’ TD was no more or less a TD than James’...

They were both clearly TDs...

Here is the difference. It's pretty straight forward and in line with the rule (which in my oppinion is imperfect but >>>>>> than the old rule).

James: (1) dove, (2) "caught" the ball, (3) bobbled it when he hit the ground.
Ertz: (1) "Caught" the ball, (2) dove, (3) bobbled it when he hit the ground.

Because Ertz had possession before he started going to the ground, the bobble is a fumble. But, a fumble doesn't matter once you break the plane.

Because James started going to the ground before he "caught" the ball, he can't drop it when he hits the ground. The bobble means that he never had possession. If he never had possession, he can't score a TD.

[Steel Maniac]

I don't see it that way. I say james turned and lunged for the goal line and a lung is as good as taking a couple of steps because both are football moves made AFTER you catch the ball.

Your punishing a guy because he was closer to the goal line then the other. That's night right just in that context.

[Disco1981]

One more thing.....not that it would have Changed anything.....


Why didn't Philly get flagged for pass interference on the final play of the game, Hogan got Clocked.....?
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/look-refs-appear-to-miss-pass-interference-call-on-super-bowl-hail-mary/

I commented on thison another thread...I saw it during the 1st replay...The Eagles are so lucky...And that was stupid!

[feltdizz]

I don't see it that way. I say james turned and lunged for the goal line and a lung is as good as taking a couple of steps because both are football moves made AFTER you catch the ball.

Your punishing a guy because he was closer to the goal line then the other. That's night right just in that context.

while I think both were catches.. lunging definitely isn't the same as taking 3 steps.

both were TD's IMO.

[Shawn]

I knew it was a catch when I seen it. The difference in James and Ertz is that Ertz was a runner and James was in the process of the catch. You only have to break the goal line if you are runner. Doesn't matter if you fumble after. James on the other hand was still in the process of the catch and clearly didn't make the catch because you can't use the ground to secure the ball. The refs got both calls right. Why can't people accept that?

[Steel Maniac]

For ertz to score, he had to take steps to get th the goal line.
For JJ to score, all he had to do was lung (reach out).

Both are football moves. Meaning you had to have possession to do them. In the context of where each TE was on the field when they made their play, I think both are the same.

[Steel Maniac]

I knew it was a catch when I seen it. The difference in James and Ertz is that Ertz was a runner and James was in the process of the catch. You only have to break the goal line if you are runner. Doesn't matter if you fumble after. James on the other hand was still in the process of the catch and clearly didn't make the catch because you can't use the ground to secure the ball. The refs got both calls right. Why can't people accept that?

Stil in the process?? How are you just still in the process when you secure it and make a lung toward the goal line? To me, that's not "still in the process". You can't catch it, turn and lung , having the ball extended and still say "he's in the process". Doesn't make sense.

[feltdizz]

I knew it was a catch when I seen it. The difference in James and Ertz is that Ertz was a runner and James was in the process of the catch. You only have to break the goal line if you are runner. Doesn't matter if you fumble after. James on the other hand was still in the process of the catch and clearly didn't make the catch because you can't use the ground to secure the ball. The refs got both calls right. Why can't people accept that?

because both were TD's

[Shawn]

Stil in the process?? How are you just still in the process when you secure it and make a lung toward the goal line? To me, that's not "still in the process". You can't catch it, turn and lung , having the ball extended and still say "he's in the process". Doesn't make sense. The ground rules states that the catch must survive the ground. My eyes tell me he was still in the process of the catch. How many times have you seen a WR make a turn, a pivot, a "football move" and lose the ball and it's ruled incomplete. JJ was clearly not a runner therefore the ball has to survive the ground. It's a no brainer. Dumb rule but the rule was applied correctly.

[SidSmythe]

The NFL wanted the PATS in the Superbowl for 1 reason and 1 reason only and it had nothing to do with winning it all.
It was about RATINGS.
Think about all the HATERS who tuned in last night hoping for an NE loss.

[Sugar]

The NFL wanted the PATS in the Superbowl for 1 reason and 1 reason only and it had nothing to do with winning it all.
It was about RATINGS.
Think about all the HATERS who tuned in last night hoping for an NE loss.

I wouldn't doubt this. Heck, Floyd Mayweather made over $100 million because of all the people that wanted to see him lose fights.

[Iron Shiek]

The thread title is mis-leading and completely incorrect. Vegas actually wanted the Cheaters to win because there was heavy, heavy money on Eagles to cover the spread and Eagles to win straight up. Sportsbooks lost millions on this outcome actually, especially a few sports books who took 6 and 7 figure bets on Eagles from one guy!

Aim your tin foil hat conspiracy in another direction.

At least it was an entertaining game. I enjoyed it...especially more so since the Cheaters couldn't overcome Nick Foles.

[feltdizz]

The ground rules states that the catch must survive the ground. My eyes tell me he was still in the process of the catch. How many times have you seen a WR make a turn, a pivot, a "football move" and lose the ball and it's ruled incomplete. JJ was clearly not a runner therefore the ball has to survive the ground. It's a no brainer. Dumb rule but the rule was applied correctly.

I think we a actually see it more than we think and most times it’s ruled a catch.

If a defender knocks it out or the ball actually separates from the player then sure.. it’s incomplete

i just think the NFL has gone too far and realized they would probably damage their brand if they changed a few of those TD’s in the SB.

[Slapstick]

The ground rules states that the catch must survive the ground. My eyes tell me he was still in the process of the catch. How many times have you seen a WR make a turn, a pivot, a "football move" and lose the ball and it's ruled incomplete. JJ was clearly not a runner therefore the ball has to survive the ground. It's a no brainer. Dumb rule but the rule was applied correctly.

The catch rule states that the catch must survive initial contact with the ground....

Since the rule is written that way, I do not understand why getting one knee down on the ground is not considered to be “initial contact”...

Also, a player can be taking steps AND going to the ground simultaneously...hell, Ertz did it...

IMO, taking a couple of off-balance steps while falling is no better than dropping to one knee and lunging across the goal line...

[Shawn]

The catch rule states that the catch must survive initial contact with the ground....

Since the rule is written that way, I do not understand why getting one knee down on the ground is not considered to be “initial contact”...

Also, a player can be taking steps AND going to the ground simultaneously...hell, Ertz did it...

IMO, taking a couple of off-balance steps while falling is no better than dropping to one knee and lunging across the goal line... My eyes tell me Ertz was a runner. JJ was in the process of the catch. I don't doubt the rules needs better wording for clarification. But, per the Calvin Johnson play, that's not how the NFL reads it. CJ's knee was down...in the endzone and the ball didn't survive the ground. Its the Calvin Johnson rule for a reason. So that play set the precedence for all further catches such as JJs. I don't like it. I think its an awful rule. But, I do believe it was applied correctly.

[Slapstick]

My eyes tell me Ertz was a runner. JJ was in the process of the catch. I don't doubt the rules needs better wording for clarification. But, per the Calvin Johnson play, that's not how the NFL reads it. CJ's knee was down...in the endzone and the ball didn't survive the ground. Its the Calvin Johnson rule for a reason. So that play set the precedence for all further catches such as JJs. I don't like it. I think its an awful rule. But, I do believe it was applied correctly.

And you can feel free to believe that it was applied correctly...I do not and will most likely not be convinced otherwise...

BTW, what about this "catch" that was ruled a TD?

http://www.steelersdepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/cooks-patriots-texans-week-3.jpg

[Northern_Blitz]

I don't see it that way. I say james turned and lunged for the goal line and a lung is as good as taking a couple of steps because both are football moves made AFTER you catch the ball.

Your punishing a guy because he was closer to the goal line then the other. That's night right just in that context.

For better or worse, it doesn't matter if you (or we) think a lunge is as good as taking a couple of steps. That isn't the rule.

He dove to catch the ball and dropped it when he hit the ground. It's not a catch.

Ertz caught the ball, ran a few steps, then dove. He clearly established possession before going to the ground. This is the opposite of the James drop.


Both are football moves. Meaning you had to have possession to do them. In the context of where each TE was on the field when they made their play, I think both are the same.

The "football move" thing hasn't been in the rule book for a long time. Just like the goal line doesn't extend past the pylon anymore. And the "football move" was a much worse rule than the current rule. There was never a definition for what a football move was. It was 100% subjective and every ref would evaluate it differently. And the rule before that was even worse when it was an automatic TD when a receiver in the end-zone got two hands on it...no chance for a defender to do anything to separate the player from the ball.

I think that they don't always get the calls right with the current rule. But, the criteria for a catch is not much more objective than it was before.


Stil in the process?? How are you just still in the process when you secure it and make a lung toward the goal line? To me, that's not "still in the process". You can't catch it, turn and lung , having the ball extended and still say "he's in the process". Doesn't make sense.

Because he dove before he caught the ball. That means he can't drop it when he hits the ground. Since he dropped it when he hit the ground, it was correctly ruled an incomplete pass.

I hate the result of the rule change (I think James' drop might have been a TD depending on who the ref was in the "football move" days), but I think that the new rule is much better than the old rule (but it could still be improved).


The catch rule states that the catch must survive initial contact with the ground....My understanding is that they talk about "initial contact with the ground" because you can go to the ground without the play being over. So, if you aren't downed by contact in your initial contact with the ground, you can get back up and keep running. Then, if you fumbled during the second time you went to ground (this time by contact) it would be a fumble (not an incomplete pass from the first time you went to ground).

This is a place where the new rule could be improved. The language could be less ambiguous.

[Slapstick]

For better or worse, it doesn't matter if you (or we) think a lunge is as good as taking a couple of steps. That isn't the rule.

He dove to catch the ball and dropped it when he hit the ground. It's not a catch.

Ertz caught the ball, ran a few steps, then dove. He clearly established possession before going to the ground. This is the opposite of the James drop.



The "football move" thing hasn't been in the rule book for a long time. Just like the goal line doesn't extend past the pylon anymore. And the "football move" was a much worse rule than the current rule. There was never a definition for what a football move was. It was 100% subjective and every ref would evaluate it differently. And the rule before that was even worse when it was an automatic TD when a receiver in the end-zone got two hands on it...no chance for a defender to do anything to separate the player from the ball.

I think that they don't always get the calls right with the current rule. But, the criteria for a catch is not much more objective than it was before.



Because he dove before he caught the ball. That means he can't drop it when he hits the ground. Since he dropped it when he hit the ground, it was correctly ruled an incomplete pass.

I hate the result of the rule change (I think James' drop might have been a TD depending on who the ref was in the "football move" days), but I think that the new rule is much better than the old rule (but it could still be improved).

My understanding is that they talk about "initial contact with the ground" because you can go to the ground without the play being over. So, if you aren't downed by contact in your initial contact with the ground, you can get back up and keep running. Then, if you fumbled during the second time you went to ground (this time by contact) it would be a fumble (not an incomplete pass from the first time you went to ground).

This is a place where the new rule could be improved. The language could be less ambiguous.

It NEEDS to be less ambiguous...just as there is nothing in the rules about a "football move", nor is there anything about a specific number of steps...as I pointed out earlier, one can be taking steps while also falling to the ground...

[Ghost]

The section in the NFL's rulebook that defines a catch is 649 words long,features 3 lettered subsections, 6 numbered items, and 2 notes.

That is insane. Its no wonder no one, including the refs, can define what constitutes a catch. It's been over-legislated to death.

[skyhawk]

What is going on here? Ertz bobbled the ball but it never hit the ground. Wtf is the argument? It's completely moot on his catch.

[feltdizz]

What is going on here? Ertz bobbled the ball but it never hit the ground. Wtf is the argument? It's completely moot on his catch.

Lmao... nah, that ball hit the ground.

[Slapstick]

Ertz’ TD definitely hit the ground...

Clement was the one who might have bobbled it but held on...

[skyhawk]

Hit the ground during and after complete control. It was not loose. Does the ground cause the fumble/bobble? I miss the old days of letting them make great catches and not pickin it apart in super duper slo mo

[feltdizz]

Hit the ground during and after complete control. It was not loose. Does the ground cause the fumble/bobble? I miss the old days of letting them make great catches and not pickin it apart in super duper slo mo

yeah, I think most of us miss those old days when a catch was a catch. Now it's slowed down to the point where any movement of the ball is called a bobble. To me a bobble is when you are actually bobbling the ball. Gotta have some wiggle room to allow for physics to play out when catching a football.

[Slapstick]

Hit the ground during and after complete control. It was not loose. Does the ground cause the fumble/bobble? I miss the old days of letting them make great catches and not pickin it apart in super duper slo mo

You could say the exact same thing about James' overturned TD catch...which is why this is so problematic...

[Northern_Blitz]

You could say the exact same thing about James' overturned TD catch...which is why this is so problematic...

For James, the ground caused the incompletion. It did not cause a fumble.

[Slapstick]

For James, the ground caused the “bobble”...

The review for Ertz was not reviewing for a fumble, but for whether or not he maintained control while going to the ground...

They both did...

[Shawn]

Ertz’ TD definitely hit the ground...

Clement was the one who might have bobbled it but held on... , after he became the runner the ball hit the ground after crossing the goal line which is a touch down.

[feltdizz]

, after he became the runner the ball hit the ground after crossing the goal line which is a touch down.

nope... sorry. By definition and interpretation this shouldn't have been a catch. Check out the explanation of why this ellington catch and fumble was ruled an incompletion. While I think these are both catches you simply can't conclude that Ertz wasn't also going to the ground IMO.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdHKhPZDzRk

But on instant replay, the ruling was reversed to an incomplete pass. In the league’s weekly officiating video, NFL V.P. of Officiating Al Riveron explained why he reversed it, and said it doesn’t matter how many steps a receiver takes with control of the ball: If he’s going to the ground while he’s taking all those steps, he needs to maintain control when he hits the groundWhile


honestly, I think the NFL just doesn't know WTF a catch is right now. IMO Ertz is also going to the ground when he caught this pass.

[Northern_Blitz]

nope... sorry. By definition and interpretation this shouldn't have been a catch. Check out the explanation of why this ellington catch and fumble was ruled an incompletion. While I think these are both catches you simply can't conclude that Ertz wasn't also going to the ground IMO.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdHKhPZDzRk

But on instant replay, the ruling was reversed to an incomplete pass. In the league’s weekly officiating video, NFL V.P. of Officiating Al Riveron explained why he reversed it, and said it doesn’t matter how many steps a receiver takes with control of the ball: If he’s going to the ground while he’s taking all those steps, he needs to maintain control when he hits the groundWhile


honestly, I think the NFL just doesn't know WTF a catch is right now. IMO Ertz is also going to the ground when he caught this pass.

This one is close and I would have ruled it a completion and a fumble (for whatever that's worth).

They ruled that he was falling to the ground when he caught it because he was off balance at the time. Because he's off balance when he gets it, it's somewhere between the Jones incompletion (dove before the ball) and the Ertz TD (received it in control, took many steps, then dove).

It's an edge case in the new rule and part of the reason the rule is still subjective (despite being way less subjective than the old rule).

I think that if they changed the rule to include "if you take N steps before falling to the ground = catch, less than N steps = incomplete". That's something that they could more easily check on replay. But then, we'd be arguing about what counts as a "step" as we watch plays in slo-mo.

As long as we have replay and expect every call to be correct, we will always be lawyering about the rules.

There are too many replays now and most of them are still coin flip type calls even after the review.

I'm starting to think that the game would be better with no replays at all and us going back to the idea that refs make mistakes in real time and teams have to deal with it.

I think that we should at least go back to only having 3 coaches challenges and from the booth in the last 2 minutes...actually, I'd even eliminate the auto-reviews in the last 2 minutes. Let coaches choose between calling a time out and preserving a replay challenge.

[feltdizz]

IMO I don’t mind the replays. My issue is needing irrefutable evidence.. seems like these last few years Al has been over ruling refs without clear evidence.

I thought all those catch’s were legit. What’s funny is Al made a video explaining why JJ didn’t catch the ball while saying “when JJ caught the ball he was going to the ground...”

Umm what?

[Slapstick]

This one is close and I would have ruled it a completion and a fumble (for whatever that's worth).

They ruled that he was falling to the ground when he caught it because he was off balance at the time. Because he's off balance when he gets it, it's somewhere between the Jones incompletion (dove before the ball) and the Ertz TD (received it in control, took many steps, then dove).

It's an edge case in the new rule and part of the reason the rule is still subjective (despite being way less subjective than the old rule).

I think that if they changed the rule to include "if you take N steps before falling to the ground = catch, less than N steps = incomplete". That's something that they could more easily check on replay. But then, we'd be arguing about what counts as a "step" as we watch plays in slo-mo.

As long as we have replay and expect every call to be correct, we will always be lawyering about the rules.

There are too many replays now and most of them are still coin flip type calls even after the review.

I'm starting to think that the game would be better with no replays at all and us going back to the idea that refs make mistakes in real time and teams have to deal with it.

I think that we should at least go back to only having 3 coaches challenges and from the booth in the last 2 minutes...actually, I'd even eliminate the auto-reviews in the last 2 minutes. Let coaches choose between calling a time out and preserving a replay challenge.

Just go back to two feet down and one knee equalling two feet...who cares if they drop it out of bounds...also, that increases the likelihood of a fumble that a defense can recover...

[Northern_Blitz]

Just go back to two feet down and one knee equalling two feet...who cares if they drop it out of bounds...also, that increases the likelihood of a fumble that a defense can recover...

I like that it would make it very objective.

I don't like that there would be no way for a defender to separate a receiver from the ball in the end-zone or on the sideline. Once it hits their hands in either of those cases it's a catch (and a TD in the endzone). I used to hate it when a player would score on a play like that and it didn't matter than they dropped the ball at the end of the play. Maybe I'm in the minority there.

[Slapstick]

I like that it would make it very objective.

I don't like that there would be no way for a defender to separate a receiver from the ball in the end-zone or on the sideline. Once it hits their hands in either of those cases it's a catch (and a TD in the endzone). I used to hate it when a player would score on a play like that and it didn't matter than they dropped the ball at the end of the play. Maybe I'm in the minority there.

I don’t love it, but I like Al Riveron’s arbitrary determinations even less...