Loss is on jesse

[Moonie]

If he didn't catch the ball, he dropped it. When exactly does anyone - i.e., the refs and the Pats - think that ball was dropped by James?

[pittpete]

[Jooser]

According to the talking heads on the sports shows all morning, the rule is 7 years old. Virtually everyone thought it was a lousy call. Some say that technically it was the "right" call by the letter of the rule. But, even those folks think the rule stinks. Me personally, I think as soon as that ball crossed the goal line, it's a damned TD. I think that setting a difference between a RB and WR in that situation is splitting hairs. I didn't think that there was any compelling reason to overturn the ruling on the field as you could not tell where his left hand was when the ball moved, nor could you actually see it on the ground.

Bottom line, if you get into a split hair ruling and you are playing the *'s, they will get the call their way 9 times outa 10. Sean Davis has been a goat for the last month, and last night was no exception. I thought we should have won there at the end. We need to refocus on the Texans and Browns. NE* has to close out against two division opponents, one of which is in a fight for it's life to make the playoffs, so anything can happen. As Tomlin said, they just need to get back to their winning ways.

[feltdizz]

Pats* are like Duke in basketball. You have to beat them convincingly because the chances of getting screwed by the refs is way too high.

[Shoe]

According to the talking heads on the sports shows all morning, the rule is 7 years old. Virtually everyone thought it was a lousy call. Some say that technically it was the "right" call by the letter of the rule. But, even those folks think the rule stinks. Me personally, I think as soon as that ball crossed the goal line, it's a damned TD. I think that setting a difference between a RB and WR in that situation is splitting hairs. I didn't think that there was any compelling reason to overturn the ruling on the field as you could not tell where his left hand was when the ball moved, nor could you actually see it on the ground.

Bottom line, if you get into a split hair ruling and you are playing the *'s, they will get the call their way 9 times outa 10. Sean Davis has been a goat for the last month, and last night was no exception. I thought we should have won there at the end. We need to refocus on the Texans and Browns. NE* has to close out against two division opponents, one of which is in a fight for it's life to make the playoffs, so anything can happen. As Tomlin said, they just need to get back to their winning ways.

Disagree, in that most talking heads are saying the application was correct, the rule is bogus. My take is that the application is bogus. His knee is equivalent to two feet in terms of completion. Let's say he did that, instead of going to the knee immediately.

Jesse stays on his two feet with his back to the endzone as it was...and then reverses his body (as he did) and instead of lurching his body, dives off his two feet and soars three yards into the endzone a la Cam Newton has done many times. Would that not be considered a runner fumbling the ball? It is the same idea to me. James lurching forward, going opposite his momentum, means he's now making a "football" move. The completion of the catch is over, after a football move (his lurch forward) was made.

I don't want echo chamber here, but I'm curious--in that scenario, is that also no TD?

[Slapstick]

According to the talking heads on the sports shows all morning, the rule is 7 years old. Virtually everyone thought it was a lousy call. Some say that technically it was the "right" call by the letter of the rule. But, even those folks think the rule stinks. Me personally, I think as soon as that ball crossed the goal line, it's a damned TD. I think that setting a difference between a RB and WR in that situation is splitting hairs. I didn't think that there was any compelling reason to overturn the ruling on the field as you could not tell where his left hand was when the ball moved, nor could you actually see it on the ground.

Bottom line, if you get into a split hair ruling and you are playing the *'s, they will get the call their way 9 times outa 10. Sean Davis has been a goat for the last month, and last night was no exception. I thought we should have won there at the end. We need to refocus on the Texans and Browns. NE* has to close out against two division opponents, one of which is in a fight for it's life to make the playoffs, so anything can happen. As Tomlin said, they just need to get back to their winning ways.

Personally, I’m sure that the Steelers have already moved on to the Texans. We’re the ones hung up on it here...especially me...

[Northern_Blitz]

Disagree, in that most talking heads are saying the application was correct, the rule is bogus. My take is that the application is bogus. His knee is equivalent to two feet in terms of completion. Let's say he did that, instead of going to the knee immediately.

Jesse stays on his two feet with his back to the endzone as it was...and then reverses his body (as he did) and instead of lurching his body, dives off his two feet and soars three yards into the endzone a la Cam Newton has done many times. Would that not be considered a runner fumbling the ball? It is the same idea to me. James lurching forward, going opposite his momentum, means he's now making a "football" move. The completion of the catch is over, after a football move (his lurch forward) was made.

I don't want echo chamber here, but I'm curious--in that scenario, is that also no TD?

My understanding of the rule is that if he had possession before he started going to the ground then it would have been a catch plus a fumble (if he fumbled it before the ball crossed the goal line).

So if he (1) catches it and gains possession before he starts to go to the ground, then (2) dives into the end zone he's a runner. Then, (a) it's a TD when it crosses the plan and (b) doesn't matter if he maintains possession when going to ground.

But, he tried to make a diving catch (his feet are off the ground when his hands are on the ball). That means he didn't establish possession before going to the ground. That means that he has to maintain possession through contact with the ground, even if (i) his knee hits first and (ii) the ball breaks the plane. Without maintaining possession, it's not a catch. If it's not a catch, it can't be a TD.

[Eddie Spaghetti]

not blaming JJ as he was trying to win the game

still though, no reason for him to make it look so damn hard and unathletic

maybe a little better throw helps too. sucks all around

[SteelerOfDeVille]

My understanding of the rule is that if he had possession before he started going to the ground then it would have been a catch plus a fumble (if he fumbled it before the ball crossed the goal line).

So if he (1) catches it and gains possession before he starts to go to the ground, then (2) dives into the end zone he's a runner. Then, (a) it's a TD when it crosses the plan and (b) doesn't matter if he maintains possession when going to ground.

But, he tried to make a diving catch (his feet are off the ground when his hands are on the ball). That means he didn't establish possession before going to the ground. That means that he has to maintain possession through contact with the ground, even if (i) his knee hits first and (ii) the ball breaks the plane. Without maintaining possession, it's not a catch. If it's not a catch, it can't be a TD.

100% correct

[SteelerOfDeVille]

Disagree, in that most talking heads are saying the application was correct, the rule is bogus. My take is that the application is bogus. His knee is equivalent to two feet in terms of completion. Let's say he did that, instead of going to the knee immediately.

Incorrect. knee = two fee in terms of in bounds/down for spotting.

What first takes precedence is the catch has to be completed - and by rule, if you make a catch while falling to the ground, you must maintain possession through impact with the ground. he didn't.

Jesse stays on his two feet with his back to the endzone as it was...and then reverses his body (as he did) and instead of lurching his body, dives off his two feet and soars three yards into the endzone a la Cam Newton has done many times. Would that not be considered a runner fumbling the ball? It is the same idea to me. James lurching forward, going opposite his momentum, means he's now making a "football" move. The completion of the catch is over, after a football move (his lurch forward) was made.

I don't want echo chamber here, but I'm curious--in that scenario, is that also no TD?

if Jesee was standing there and caught the ball, then turned...
1) he didn't catch it while falling, so the rules are different
2) since he's standing, he's already on his feet and therefore it's a completed catch and now he has become a runner - all the runner rules (football move, down by contact, etc) then come into action.

[squidkid]

no, it's not. and not really that new, either... at least several years old now.

if you catch the ball while going to the ground, you must maintain control through contact with the ground. Dez Bryant had it a few years back. Calvin Johnson a year or two before that.

by rule, it's not a catch. I don't like the rule, but, it's clearly not a catch by letter of the law... and it's called pretty consistently.

true but ONLY if there is clear video proof that shows the ball hit the ground

[SteelerOfDeVille]

true but ONLY if there is clear video proof that shows the ball hit the ground

there was a point where his left hand popped off the ball and it was turned around backwards as the ball turned.. it was pretty clear

[Slapstick]

Incorrect. knee = two fee in terms of in bounds/down for spotting.

What first takes precedence is the catch has to be completed - and by rule, if you make a catch while falling to the ground, you must maintain possession through impact with the ground. he didn't.


if Jesee was standing there and caught the ball, then turned...
1) he didn't catch it while falling, so the rules are different
2) since he's standing, he's already on his feet and therefore it's a completed catch and now he has become a runner - all the runner rules (football move, down by contact, etc) then come into action.

Again, the exact wording in the NFL rulebook is that the player must “maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground.”

The problem is that there are apparently two separate definitions of “initial contact with the ground”: One for runners and one for receivers. That is the ONLY way this call can possibly make sense...and even then, it is questionable.

Why would there be two separate definitions? The rule is poorly worded and therefore poorly and inconsistently enforced...

[SteelerOfDeVille]

Again, the exact wording in the NFL rulebook is that the player must “maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground.”

The problem is that there are apparently two separate definitions of “initial contact with the ground”: One for runners and one for receivers. That is the ONLY way this call can possibly make sense...and even then, it is questionable.

Why would there be two separate definitions? The rule is poorly worded and therefore poorly and inconsistently enforced...

it's enforced very consistently.

you are correct, tho. it's when a guy is a runner vs when a guy is a receiver that causes confusion for most and makes them feel like it's inconsistently enforced.

[KYPITTFAN]

I agree with the other mistakes comment, however the point is all those would have been wiped out by not giving the refs a chance to over turn. A clean catch wins the game.

There were so many other mistakes, brain cramps, etc. during the game that trying to hang this on a guy trying to make a play to win the game for the team is wrong.



Pappy