Sources: Ben expects this to be his last season with Pittsburgh Steelers

[Northern_Blitz]

yep, I said it right away, did he lose control there at the end?

but since they called it a TD on the play, I still don't think i've seen a shot with the ball hiiting the ground, with clear evidence that JJs hands were not underneath it.

I agree with this.

I wish the league actually used the "required conclusive evidence to overturn" standard that they say they use.

[Northern_Blitz]

BUT the rules specifically state that once the ball crosses the plane of the goal line it immediately becomes dead ball. So, right there. Thats a clear TD. No debating it, the ball is dead while he has his hands on the ball.

I think this is only true if you run it in.

Not if it's a passing play.

Since he never completed the catch, I think it means that he never had possession.

I think the "most correct" rule here would have the player need to not drop the ball. I know I'd be pissed if we lost a game on a TD like that (and I think it would be a catch under current rules...maybe...depending on who was calling it on the field and on the replay).

I also think it's stupid when guys reach over the goal line to score but get it swatted away. I think that should be a fumble and not a TD. I get that this is the rule and makes it a legitimate TD. But I don't think you should be rewarded when you fumble the ball.

[steeler_fan_in_t.o.]

I agree with this.

I wish the league actually used the "required conclusive evidence to overturn" standard that they say they use.

If you go by the spirit of instant replay is, was the called TD an egregious error? Was it Rams/Saints missed pass interference type bad? That is the purpose of replay. Replay is not to look at a play in super slo-mo to see if there was a fraction of a second less possession than required. If it is not obvious, it should not be overturned.

[Northern_Blitz]

If you go by the spirit of instant replay is, was the called TD an egregious error? Was it Rams/Saints missed pass interference type bad? That is the purpose of replay. Replay is not to look at a play in super slo-mo to see if there was a fraction of a second less possession than required. If it is not obvious, it should not be overturned.

I think replay would be better if this is how they judged it. But I don't think it is (although I think the rulebook says it's supposed to be).

[feltdizz]

I think replay would be better if this is how they judged it. But I don't think it is (although I think the rulebook says it's supposed to be).

Its wild because the Super Bowl that same year was the game where the NFL decided to change how they reviewed a catch.

probably done because Vegas probably had more to lose if the Pats won that game.

[NorthCoast]

I think this is only true if you run it in.

Not if it's a passing play.

Since he never completed the catch, I think it means that he never had possession.

I think the "most correct" rule here would have the player need to not drop the ball. I know I'd be pissed if we lost a game on a TD like that (and I think it would be a catch under current rules...maybe...depending on who was calling it on the field and on the replay).

I also think it's stupid when guys reach over the goal line to score but get it swatted away. I think that should be a fumble and not a TD. I get that this is the rule and makes it a legitimate TD. But I don't think you should be rewarded when you fumble the ball.

This isn't true. Remember AB's Immaculate Reach? As soon as the ball crossed the plane it was a TD.

[Northern_Blitz]

This isn't true. Remember AB's Immaculate Reach? As soon as the ball crossed the plane it was a TD.

You are correct. I should not have said "if it's a passing play" but something more like "if you are in the process of catching the ball" or something.

AB had already established possession and was a runner at the time.

I think the difference here is that AB didn't go to ground to make the catch. So he didn't have to maintain possession through the ground (if that was the rule at the time?). In fact, he never goes to the ground in the play at all.

I also don't think he dropped the ball it after he scored. But even if he did, it would still have been a TD the NFL because the ball broke the plane when he had possession. Because he he dropped the ball when he extended it would have been a fumble. When JJ dropped the ball it was an incomplete pass.

[Northern_Blitz]

...
I think the difference here is that AB didn't go to ground to make the catch. So he didn't have to maintain possession through the ground (if that was the rule at the time?). In fact, he never goes to the ground in the play at all.
...

James makes a diving catch. He's not a runner because he's in the process of catching the ball. Do while the ball needs to cross the plan to be a TD, the person catching it also needs to achieve possession. And because he drops it, he never had possession.

I think this would have been a TD if he didn't dive for it to make the catch. If it's like the AB catch where he catches it on his feet then it's a TD. Even if he dives to break the plan. Because he would be a runner at that point.

[NorthCoast]

James makes a diving catch. He's not a runner because he's in the process of catching the ball. Do while the ball needs to cross the plan to be a TD, the person catching it also needs to achieve possession. And because he drops it, he never had possession.

I think this would have been a TD if he didn't dive for it to make the catch. If it's like the AB catch where he catches it on his feet then it's a TD. Even if he dives to break the plan. Because he would be a runner at that point.

Everybody and their brother (including the refs) said it was a TD. It should never have been overturned. And something I am not clear on; was the possession through the catch rule in place before this game or did they make this up for yet another benefit to NE? (can't recall when it was implemented).

[Northern_Blitz]

Everybody and their brother (including the refs) said it was a TD. It should never have been overturned. And something I am not clear on; was the possession through the catch rule in place before this game or did they make this up for yet another benefit to NE? (can't recall when it was implemented).

I believe that it was in place for this game.

And I think they changed it back to something more subjective that I think involves a "football move" again in the off season. In part because of the stink made about this catch.

I think that it would have been a reasonable call if it was made on the field.

I also think it's probably "more right than wrong" to say that it's not a catch after watching the replay.

But I don't think it's an egregious error that it was called a TD on the field. Although maybe it was because he left his feet before catching it. If he caught it, then turned and dove I think the TD would have stood.

Although with booth reviews, who knows. It seems to me like they ones that get reviewed are often edge cases where it's not totally clear. And if that's the case, I think it should always go with the call on the field.

This is probably me shaking my fist at the clouds, but the more I see calls like this that are still controversial after the review the more I wonder if we should have replay at all.

[Buzz]

I believe that it was in place for this game.

And I think they changed it back to something more subjective that I think involves a "football move" again in the off season. In part because of the stink made about this catch.

I think that it would have been a reasonable call if it was made on the field.

I also think it's probably "more right than wrong" to say that it's not a catch after watching the replay.

But I don't think it's an egregious error that it was called a TD on the field. Although maybe it was because he left his feet before catching it. If he caught it, then turned and dove I think the TD would have stood.

Although with booth reviews, who knows. It seems to me like they ones that get reviewed are often edge cases where it's not totally clear. And if that's the case, I think it should always go with the call on the field.

This is probably me shaking my fist at the clouds, but the more I see calls like this that are still controversial after the review the more I wonder if we should have replay at all.

The game was better before they instituted replay.

[WindyCitySteel]

The game was better before they instituted replay.

Replay can be useful but not they way the NFL has implemented it. Too many stoppages. If you want to fix it, do what the NHL does and make it a penalty if the call stands.

Also, turn off the video feed after 30-45 seconds. If you need more time to decide what happened, then it isn't clear and obvious.

Finally, end all automatic reviews of scoring plays and turnovers. Should be up to the coach to challenge and risk a penalty.

[NJ-STEELER]

to put it simply. if james isn't diving for the ball and going to the ground . then yes it would have been a TD.


the complete the catch rule comes into play if the receiver is falling to the ground during the catch, like dez non catch vs. green bay

receiver needs to establish possession first before breaking the goal line

[NorthCoast]

There might be more than one veteran QB available for PIT to take a look at next season. Reading where Carr may be benched in favor of Mariota. I don't know what Carr's contract looks like but he could be an affordable vet for the Steelers if the Raiders cut bait after this season. He's got the arm talent.

[Northern_Blitz]

Do the sneaks yesterday suggest to you that it's Ben's last rodeo?

Or do the Titans have a certain former Steelers OC on staff?