Robbed

[WB Tarleton]

Please show me because i've yet to see the ball clearly touch the ground.
Serious please provide a link or GIF, image.
Thanks

It's about the fourth one down (tweet from Steelers Depot).

Point of the ball hits and you immediately see the threads rotate about a 1/4 turn.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/patriots-at-steelers-live-updates-streaming-info-how-to-watch-nfl-sunday/

[Moonie]

He was either down at the 1, because his knee hit, or it was a touchdown. I've never heard or seen of a play like that being called a drop. He caught the ball and extended over the goal line. Touchdown.

[pittpete]

Threads rotating dont prove clearcut evidence that the ball touched the floor.
His right hand looks to be under the ball.
It's also possible that his hand contacting the ground forced the ball to spin up for a split second.
Like iv'e stated, i still havnt seen anything with actual ball touching the floor.
Interpretation shouldn't be able to overturn a call on the field.

[WB Tarleton]

Threads rotating dont prove clearcut evidence that the ball touched the floor.
His right hand looks to be under the ball.
It's also possible that his hand contacting the ground forced the ball to spin up for a split second.
Like iv'e stated, i still havnt seen anything with actual ball touching the floor.
Interpretation shouldn't be able to overturn a call on the field.

The nose of the football clearly hits the ground and footballs do not "spin" if you have a firm grasp.

[SanAntonioSteelerFan]

From my view he caught the ball, turned, and reached over the goal line. I guess no one really knows what's a catch anymore.

This, and nothing but this. The knee hitting the ground was the critical factor.

He caught the ball. **He went down on one knee** maintaining control. **End of catch - completed**. Full stop.

Then when no-one touched him, he reached across goal line. TD, end of play. What happened after doesn't matter.

There is no way this interpretation is wrong.

[Docosc]

My beef is mostly with the rule making what should be a fairly straightforward game into this thing where no one actually knows what is or is not a catch or a touchdown and everything is up for interpretation. Makes it way too easy to feel like you got jobbed.

[Slapstick]

My beef is mostly with the rule making what should be a fairly straightforward game into this thing where no one actually knows what is or is not a catch or a touchdown and everything is up for interpretation. Makes it way too easy to feel like you got jobbed.

The rule is designed to make it easier to job a team...

[WB Tarleton]

This, and nothing but this. The knee hitting the ground was the critical factor.

He caught the ball. **He went down on one knee** maintaining control. **End of catch - completed**. Full stop.

Then when no-one touched him, he reached across goal line. TD, end of play. What happened after doesn't matter.

There is no way this interpretation is wrong.

It makes perfect sense if not for one problem. Those are not the rules.

[Slapstick]

It makes perfect sense except for one problem: We played the Pats**...

[WB Tarleton]

It makes perfect sense except for one problem: We played the Pats**...

Again, show me where the interpretation of the rule is wrong.

[Slapstick]

Again, show me where the interpretation of the rule is wrong.

I’m not arguing the rule. I don’t think that the video evidence was irrefutable. I don’t see how it was correctly overturned. If it had been ruled incomplete to begin with, I wouldn’t be angry.

[snarky]

The nose of the football clearly hits the ground and footballs do not "spin" if you have a firm grasp.

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.

[Docosc]

The rule is designed to make it easier to job a team...

I would love to say I don't believe this, but currently multiple lines of evidence would suggest you are right. This crap is ruining the game.

[snarky]

I’m not arguing the rule. I don’t think that the video evidence was irrefutable. I don’t see how it was correctly overturned. If it had been ruled incomplete to begin with, I wouldn’t be angry.

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.

[WB Tarleton]

I’m not arguing the rule. I don’t think that the video evidence was irrefutable. I don’t see how it was correctly overturned. If it had been ruled incomplete to begin with, I wouldn’t be angry.

Yes, you are.

The James call was as bad as the Troy INT call in the Colts playoff game. The James play should had ended once he crossed the goal line. James caught the ball and made a "football move" to cross the plane of the goal line.

You replied:

Yep. The ref at the goal line made that call. New York said, “No.”

You clearly agreed that the play was over when it crossed the goal line. That's not the rule, so you are arguing the rule.