Lord Raven Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) he didn't do a "football move" and the ball bobbled, so he did not establish possession it was surprisingly a more clear cut interpretation of the rule also i'm kinda wary to look at streaks after this year because holy fuck i give up on predicting things Edited January 3, 2018 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: he didn't do a "football move" and the ball bobbled, so he did not establish possession How is tucking the ball and turning around not considered a football move? And he had possession completely until he was down. Hitting the ground caused the ball to bobble and the rulebook itself states that the ground cannot cause a fumble or anything. Also, did you notice how long it took for the refs to say anything about it? They were reviewing it for a very long time, like they were trying to find some excuse to overturn it. It took the commentators a good while to find out what they might've been looking at too. So it isn't clear cut at all. At the very least, I don't think there was enough clear evidence to overturn it. Edited January 3, 2018 by Anacybele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Anacybele said: How is tucking the ball and turning around not considered a football move? And he had possession completely until he was down. Hitting the ground caused the ball to bobble and the rulebook itself states that the ground cannot cause a fumble or anything. Also, did you notice how long it took for the refs to say anything about it? They were reviewing it for a very long time, like they were trying to find some excuse to overturn it. It took the commentators a good while to find out what they might've been looking at too. So it isn't clear cut at all. At the very least, I don't think there was enough clear evidence to overturn it. "... didn't have control..." Football move, maybe but did he have control on the way down? When receivers have control of the ball, the ball doesn't bobble. As for why it took a while... here we are, arguing on a message board, and people everywhere were arguing during the call (apparently there was a huge debate on the plane ride home from the Browns game about it while it was happening). You can imagine the refs were arguing the same thing. Would you rather something like this happen without a detailed review? (also this is one of the many reasons why the Lions fired Jim Schwartz). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk King Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 7 hours ago, Lord Raven said: he didn't do a "football move" and the ball bobbled, so he did not establish possession Idk, I only saw those replays a couple times a week later, but it looked like a good catch to me. He caught it while facing the Qb, pulled it into his body for a split second while turning towards the endzone, and then he dove across the line. Looked like a "football move" to me. After pulling the ball to his chest he should have "become a runner" and then at that point the second the ball crossed the line the play is over. Touchdown. You wanna talk about some real bullshit though, Kelvin Benjamin's TD getting called back was crap. Call on the field was a touchdown and there certainly wasn't any conclusive evidence to overturn the call. 7 hours ago, Anacybele said: Also, did you notice how long it took for the refs to say anything about it? They were reviewing it for a very long time, like they were trying to find some excuse to overturn it. It took the commentators a good while to find out what they might've been looking at too. So it isn't clear cut at all. At the very least, I don't think there was enough clear evidence to overturn it. That's because Robert Kraft was negotiating with the refs about how much money it would take to get the refs to overturn it. Same thing happened when Kelvin Benjamin's catch got overturned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Lord Raven said: "... didn't have control..." Football move, maybe but did he have control on the way down? When receivers have control of the ball, the ball doesn't bobble. As for why it took a while... here we are, arguing on a message board, and people everywhere were arguing during the call (apparently there was a huge debate on the plane ride home from the Browns game about it while it was happening). You can imagine the refs were arguing the same thing. Would you rather something like this happen without a detailed review? (also this is one of the many reasons why the Lions fired Jim Schwartz). Yes, he did. If you look at the play, the ball didn't bobble until his elbow hit the ground. And maybe, but the fact that it still took them THAT long, that's an indication that they had trouble finding evidence. No, but there's a key difference here that you're missing. Schwartz illegally threw a challenge flag, nullifying any sort of review at all. Tomlin didn't do that. I also agree on Kelvin Benjamin's TD. Edited January 3, 2018 by Anacybele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Hawk King said: That's because Robert Kraft was negotiating with the refs about how much money it would take to get the refs to overturn it. Same thing happened when Kelvin Benjamin's catch got overturned. what the fuck 4 hours ago, Hawk King said: Idk, I only saw those replays a couple times a week later, but it looked like a good catch to me. He caught it while facing the Qb, pulled it into his body for a split second while turning towards the endzone, and then he dove across the line. Looked like a "football move" to me. After pulling the ball to his chest he should have "become a runner" and then at that point the second the ball crossed the line the play is over. Touchdown. You wanna talk about some real bullshit though, Kelvin Benjamin's TD getting called back was crap. Call on the field was a touchdown and there certainly wasn't any conclusive evidence to overturn the call. okay but if he had possession why did the ball bobble 2 hours ago, Anacybele said: Yes, he did. If you look at the play, the ball didn't bobble until his elbow hit the ground. ... therefore he didn't have possession, that's how they've been calling things like that all year it's pretty easy to see why it would take a while; "we have to follow precedent" "okay what is the precedent" [other examples of similar things back in new york] it shows us the rule might need changing rather than it being a bullshit call 2 hours ago, Anacybele said: No, but there's a key difference here that you're missing. Schwartz illegally threw a challenge flag, nullifying any sort of review at all. Tomlin didn't do that. Would like to point out that the rule is now changed. But the point I was making was that things like this happened before official scoring/turnover reviews, that was just the easiest example I could think of. Edited January 3, 2018 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 Just now, Lord Raven said: okay but if he had possession why did the ball bobble I already told you! It bobbled when he was on the ground already. He had possession all the way until then and if he was already on the ground and being touched, which he did seem to be, then it doesn't matter. The only question was if the ball hit the ground, which it didn't appear to from any of the angles we saw, and if he was touched before the ball bobbled. That part seemed to be true too, but it's rather hard to tell, and that's why I don't think there was enough to overturn it. 2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: ... therefore he didn't have possession, that's how they've been calling things like that all year Do you read anything I say? He was already down when that happened, and the ball bobbling then shouldn't matter. The ball shakes in WR's hands all the time when they hit the ground as they're tackled, those calls aren't overturned. 3 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: what the fuck He was probably joking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/the-catch-rule-explained-why-steelers-apparent-game-winning-td-was-overturned/ Choice excerpts because the ball is shown not bobbling but actively being dislodged by the ground. The ground cannot cause a fumble ergo it's incomplete and at best it is not a touchdown. Now.. Quote A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. Is the catch rule. Quote Item 4. Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided that the player continues to maintain control. It's fairly clean cut. I would argue the rule needs amends. I would not argue it as a catch under the current rules. The long time it took is likely because they were looking at precedent or something to that effect -- because by the rule it is not a catch. 10 hours ago, Anacybele said: Do you read anything I say? He was already down when that happened, and the ball bobbling then shouldn't matter. The ball shakes in WR's hands all the time when they hit the ground as they're tackled, those calls aren't overturned. The ball doesn't hit the ground in those scenarios. They also don't bobble or do what the ball did in James' hands when the ball does hit the ground. This has been consistently called incomplete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted January 4, 2018 Author Share Posted January 4, 2018 42 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: Is the catch rule. And in that catch rule, it also says if the player regains control while the ball is off the ground, it is complete, and from what I could tell, the ball never touched the ground until after Jesse James regained control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Anacybele said: And in that catch rule, it also says if the player regains control while the ball is off the ground, it is complete, and from what I could tell, the ball never touched the ground until after Jesse James regained control. It touched the ground; that automatically means the play's dead. That also means he didn't have control when the ball touched, because it fell out. This is what happened immediately after the ball hit the ground. EDIT: And the letter of the law states that it's as he touches the ground, so a few frames sooner than that. In that time, you clearly see he does not have control of the ball, by the letter of item 4 (when the ball touches the ground). A legitimately firmer grasp would have ruled it complete. People have gone to the ground with the ball in hand and seen it not bobble or leave the hand. The fact that it left the hand is a red flag and could probably necessitate checking it against precedent. It's one of those things where the player was trying to make a play he wasn't equipped to make, not unlike Derek Carr losing a fumble after trying to be a hero on that MNF game. If he fell to the ground after making the grab, it was much more likely to be ruled complete. Also, he was not upright for the most part as well, which seems to be part of their definition of a football move. The fact that we're having this debate and needed to pull out the rulebook probably explains why it took a while. Rule changes and addendums like that tend to happen as a result of such plays by using precedent. Edited January 4, 2018 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted January 4, 2018 Author Share Posted January 4, 2018 7 hours ago, Lord Raven said: It touched the ground; that automatically means the play's dead. That also means he didn't have control when the ball touched, because it fell out. This is what happened immediately after the ball hit the ground. EDIT: And the letter of the law states that it's as he touches the ground, so a few frames sooner than that. In that time, you clearly see he does not have control of the ball, by the letter of item 4 (when the ball touches the ground). A legitimately firmer grasp would have ruled it complete. People have gone to the ground with the ball in hand and seen it not bobble or leave the hand. The fact that it left the hand is a red flag and could probably necessitate checking it against precedent. It's one of those things where the player was trying to make a play he wasn't equipped to make, not unlike Derek Carr losing a fumble after trying to be a hero on that MNF game. If he fell to the ground after making the grab, it was much more likely to be ruled complete. Also, he was not upright for the most part as well, which seems to be part of their definition of a football move. The fact that we're having this debate and needed to pull out the rulebook probably explains why it took a while. Rule changes and addendums like that tend to happen as a result of such plays by using precedent. I still do not see where the ball ever touched the ground, or else there is not enough evidence to say it did or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 ball is clearly touching the ground in that still... saying you don't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk King Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) On 1/3/2018 at 1:10 PM, Lord Raven said: okay but if he had possession why did the ball bobble My point was simply that he secured the catch before he crossed the line. "Securing the ball all the way through going to the ground" only applies when the momentum of making the catch brings you to the ground. The Steelers player caught the ball, pulled the tip of the ball into his chest, then turned and dove to reach the ball over the goal line. He established himself as a runner, therefore the ball coming out when he hits the ground shouldn't matter. Like I said, I only saw a couple replays right before the Bills and Patriots game. I never saw the play in full speed or from multiple angles. But from what I saw, I immediately thought that it should have been ruled a TD. edit - After watching it some more, I see that he was falling to the ground while making the catch. Dummy should have just held the ball tighter... I must have gotten some other play stuck in my head that I am mixing together with this one. Edited January 4, 2018 by Hawk King upon further review... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 7 hours ago, Lord Raven said: ball is clearly touching the ground in that still... saying you don't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen Except I see his hand clearly underneath the ball? Anyway, on a better topic, Shazier's making progress! He has feeling in his legs again. Also, his dad apparently thinks he'll play football again, though I'm still not getting my hopes up too high... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 This picture? That hand is on the same level as the ball, on the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 29 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: This picture? That hand is on the same level as the ball, on the ground. Yes, that picture. I still see his hand under the ball, keeping it off the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Just going by the physics -- his other arm is causing a torque on the other side of the ball by resting his forearm on it, which is pushing the ball into the grass. The ball is clearly, 100% touching the ground. And that should be okay; you guys went toe to toe with the best team in the AFC and it came down to a last second play where the QB and coaching staff tried to figure out how best to throw one another under the bus. These kinds of small things only make the second matchup more exciting. Not that I want them to ever play in the playoffs, because the only time the 1 and 2 seed meet in the playoffs is the AFCCG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Lord Raven said: Just going by the physics -- his other arm is causing a torque on the other side of the ball by resting his forearm on it, which is pushing the ball into the grass. The ball is clearly, 100% touching the ground. And that should be okay; you guys went toe to toe with the best team in the AFC and it came down to a last second play where the QB and coaching staff tried to figure out how best to throw one another under the bus. These kinds of small things only make the second matchup more exciting. Not that I want them to ever play in the playoffs, because the only time the 1 and 2 seed meet in the playoffs is the AFCCG. I still don't think it was touching the ground. And yes, but it still kind of stings that we had victory right in the palm of our hands and lost it... But yeah, shit happens. I think both are the best teams in the AFC though, with neither clearly being better than the other. I'd rather someone take out the Pats first too. I'm tired of seeing them and Brady everywhere. Edited January 5, 2018 by Anacybele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 (edited) im sorry but your steelers bias is atrociously big rn. that ball is certainly touching the ground. i said he was down before because i forgot about the forced down by contact rule (which doesn't exist in college). also idk if you guys have ever caught a ball before, but split second maneuvers doesn't mean he had control. ive dropped passes while doing maneuvers similar to his. the fact that the ball bobbles proves he didn't have control, as raven said (and i originally said) i think the more interesting case study is the "complete" pass the refs gave the rams against the niners last week haha. how many steps are needed to be established as a runner? Edited January 5, 2018 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said: im sorry but your steelers bias is atrociously big rn. that ball is certainly touching the ground. My bias has nothing to do with this. lol I legitimately do not see where that ball is touching the ground. It doesn't matter what team the player is on, I do not see it. Also, you could just as easily say Lord Raven has too much anti-bias for the Steelers for the same reason. He hates them. But I'm not just throwing the bias card. Edited January 5, 2018 by Anacybele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chococoke Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 These playoffs are going to be interesting. Pretty unexcited for Playoff Tom to show up (he's good for at least one head-scratcher pick per playoff game) and hopefully he's markedly better than he was to end the year. The Patriots defense is held together with spit and gum at certain positions, and the offense is going to have to really click to make it to Minnesota. KC isn't really a team that scares me, honestly. A lot of Alex Smith's success opening night came due to defensive confusion and blown coverages, the type of shit you figure is ironed out by week 19. I think their secondary is suspect and pass rush isn't quite good enough to keep Brady uncomfortable for 60 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 Yeah, since my Steelers generally have the Chiefs' number and we've proven we can go toe to toe with the Pats, the only team that scares me is the Jags, and that's only because of Ben's weird 5-pick showing against them. I still like to think that the team was just caught totally off guard by how good the Jags' D is, though and wouldn't repeat the same mistakes. Generally. I'm not saying the Jags can't win a second time, but I don't think they'd totally obliterate us either. And our offense beat the top ranked D a couple years back which was the Peyton Broncos that later won the Super Bowl. So they're capable, that's for sure. I'm gonna change the thread title now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 12 hours ago, Anacybele said: My bias has nothing to do with this. lol I legitimately do not see where that ball is touching the ground. It doesn't matter what team the player is on, I do not see it. Also, you could just as easily say Lord Raven has too much anti-bias for the Steelers for the same reason. He hates them. But I'm not just throwing the bias card. “We were inside of two minutes and in order to have a completed pass, a receiver must survive going to the ground. In this case, he had control of the football but he was going to the ground. As he hit the ground, the ball began to roll and rotate and the ball hit the ground and that’s the end of it at that point." http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/12/17/referee-tony-corrente-controversial-call-steelers-reversed-touchdown-patriots-jesse-james/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted January 6, 2018 Author Share Posted January 6, 2018 8 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said: “We were inside of two minutes and in order to have a completed pass, a receiver must survive going to the ground. In this case, he had control of the football but he was going to the ground. As he hit the ground, the ball began to roll and rotate and the ball hit the ground and that’s the end of it at that point." http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/12/17/referee-tony-corrente-controversial-call-steelers-reversed-touchdown-patriots-jesse-james/ Lol you can't just change what my eyes see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk King Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Anacybele said: Lol you can't just change what my eyes see. You might want to get your eyes checked then. The ball is 100% touching the ground in that still. Lol, this is hilarious - http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/bills-fans-donate-andy-daltons-charitable-foundation/story?id=52153148 Apparently Bills fans have donated over $300,000 to Andy Dalton's Charity with most of the donations being in $17 increments. Is it just me or is this week going by extremely slow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.