Robbed

[WB Tarleton]

So to back up, you the ball can make contact with the turf during a catch if the receive maintains control of the ball through that contact. I'm not going to queue up the DVR but here is what I saw on the play (in order):

1) James controls the initial throw and as he is going to ground lunges for the EZ
2) As his hands hit the ground he bobbles the ball
3) He regains control of the ball
4) The nose of the ball *maybe* hits the turf

I will watch it again later but I think the overturn requires clear evidence either that the ball hit the ground as part of #2 and before #3. Or that #3 never happened and 4 #did.

1) Correct.
2) Actually, the point of the football hits the ground just as his arms do. The ground caused the bobble.
3) No, the ball spins 1/4 turn and THEN he regains control.
4) The ball had already hit the ground and did not need to do so again.

Here is a link to the GIF. (About fourth one down as a tweet by Steelers Depot: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/patriots-at-steelers-live-updates-streaming-info-how-to-watch-nfl-sunday/

[pittpete]

1) Correct.
2) Actually, the point of the football hits the ground just as his arms do.
3) No, the ball spins 1/4 turn and THEN he regains control.
4) The ball had already hit the ground and did not need to do so again.

Here is a link to the GIF. (About fourth one down as a tweet by Steelers Depot: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/patriots-at-steelers-live-updates-streaming-info-how-to-watch-nfl-sunday/

There is no clear evidence that the ball hits the ground. You assume it does because the ball spins.
Once again i don't see it on the link you provided nor any other one i saw.

[pittpete]

After watching it 10 more times the ball spins out of his left hand and down into/or on his right hand.
Never once does the ball clearly hit the floor.

[WB Tarleton]

This is a point that a lot of people are missing. The rule for video review is set up to deal with grey areas where there isn't definitive proof one way or the other, namely that in such cases the ruling on the field stands. Had the original ruling been an incomplete pass there would have been no basis to overturn it due to the bobble. But I'm struggling to see the irrefutable evidence that the ball hit the ground. The ref can't just assume James' fingers weren't under the ball when the bobble happened -- he has to either see his fingers NOT under the ball or better yet see the ball make contact with the ground.

Don't look after or during the bobble. Look BEFORE.

When his arms hit the ground, the point of the football was driven into the ground. Then watch the football. The threads spin (no control) during the bobble. The ground caused the bobble, so it is not about whether it touches the ground during or after the bobble.

[Slapstick]

Yeah, I’ve looked before, after, during, as nauseaum with my DVR and my big screen. I’m not seeing irrefutable evidence. I think it’s wrong that New York did.

[WB Tarleton]

After watching it 10 more times the ball spins out of his left hand and down into/or on his right hand.
Never once does the ball clearly hit the floor.

Again, you are looking at it backwards. The ground caused the bobble. No need to touch the ground again. The point hits and then he bobbles
(clearly seen by the spin of the threads) it with no need to again make contact with the ground.

[pittpete]

The ground causes the bobble yes i agree.
The ball awkwardly spins off the tip of his left fingers and down.
I just dont see the ball hit the ground behind his right hand.
How do we/you know the ball doesnt land on his right outstretched fingers?
Im not trying to be arguementative with you, i just dont see clear proof from that angle.

[snarky]

Again, you are looking at it backwards. The ground caused the bobble. No need to touch the ground again. The point hits and then he bobbles
(clearly seen by the spin of the threads) it with no need to again make contact with the ground.

I'm having hard time understanding why the spin of the ball is evidence of the ground causing the fumble. An argument could be made that it is the result of the ball rolling out and up from his fingers as his wrist or the side of his hand hits the ground. I will look again tomorrow but I'm still not seeing anything irrefutable.

[pittpete]

When i say ground causes the bobble i mean its still on his fingertips.

[WB Tarleton]

There is no clear evidence that the ball hits the ground. You assume it does because the ball spins.
Once again i don't see it on the link you provided nor any other one i saw.

Seriously? It spins because it clearly hit the ground. You are refusing to see...

[pittpete]

Thats what im seeing Snarky. The ground causes the ball to spin off his fingertips and then out.
If it stayed on top of his right hand and off the ground, thats what i'm debating

[pittpete]

Seriously? It spins because it clearly hit the ground. You are refusing to see...

You cant tell me what i refuse to see bro..
Look at his fingertips on his left hand

[WB Tarleton]

Thats what im seeing Snarky. The ground causes the ball to spin off his fingertips and then out.
If it stayed on top of his right hand and off the ground, thats what i'm debating

THAT is it, right there. Once the ground causes the bobble. Play over. Incomplete. It does not matter whether or not it then stays completely in his hands or not. The ground made him lose control.

[Slapstick]

You cant tell me what i refuse to see bro..
Look at his fingertips on his left hand

Oh, no, he can! He is clearly superior to you! Just ask him...

[WB Tarleton]

You cant tell me what i refuse to see bro..
Look at his fingertips on his left hand

The play is already over. No catch. Ground+ Bobble=Incomplete No need to hit the ground AGAIN. It's not about whether it hit the ground when it was in his fingertips.