Why it Was a Catch!

This is an observation that is starting to pick up steam, and besides the obvious reasons, is why James catch was indeed a TD.

The catch rule is called differently whether in the field of play, or in the end zone. James caught the ball OUTSIDE of the endzone and in the field of play, caught, 1 knee = two feet, then a football move over the goal line. Once that ball, any part of it, crosses the goal line play is then over and it's a touchdown, play is done and over with.

He caught the ball in the field of play, all the "experts" claiming he didn't survive the ground would be correct if he caught the ball in the endzone, but he caught it in the field of play, possession both hands on the ball, then a football move across the goal line (which is considered a football move), touch down play over.

Lets also not forget, from the replays we saw, you can never see the ball touch the ground, you can see the ball move, but never once can you see the ball touch the ground. This is in no way conclusive enough to overturn the ruling.

I apologize if this was stated somewhere else, I have literally just gotten over the game enough to come to the site, I think we need to start a class action suit for the illness the NFL has caused us over this!

 

you know those negative ugly thoughts that keep creeping in your head? The ones that keep you tossing and turning at night, the ones that make you swallow hard when it reoccurs? Yeah man, shrug it off, it gets easier with time lol.

 

Absolutely and we'll stated.

 

The Raiders and John madden to this day still believe a phone call determined the Immaculate Reception so tell it to them.

 

I think it’s a TD because nobody can agree on it. Therefore disputable.

But I have to try and get over it so I can enjoy the rest of the season, and the super bowl!

 

why would you enjoy a cowboys pats superbowl? lol

 

Definitely not watching the super bowl then.

I’m calling Steelers vs Vikings

 

Ok, it is over and there is nothing anybody can do about it. Relax and have a Merry Christmas.

 

When the review was taking way too long I knew JJ was getting screwed out of the TD, but I figured with the catch being made at the 1 yard line they were still in pretty good shape (although I've seen them screw up that situation before, like in the playoffs vs. the pats last season). Going into the 4th quarter it was the Steelers game to lose, and they did just that.

 

Oh no I'm Quantum Leaping back to the moment of Corrente's inception and smack his dad on the butt so the deed is undone and alters the timeline, consequences be damned

 

Any other team they would have gave it to the Steelers, but since they were the Cheatriots it ain' t happening!!! Hence.."The Ref factor" it was lovely seeing Brady with that OMG look on his face in the winding seconds and I know Cheat fans were like were going to lose to the Steelers!!!! Didn't go our way priceless any ways.

 

Proof it wasn't a catch.

 

In the end, the call is whatever the ref`s says it is. Even if it is wrong, once the next play begins, it`s over. They cannot take it back.

Maybe during the off season the Competition Committee will do something about it. There are even worse examples than what we just saw.

 

There should be a file with all the apology letters the Steelers have gotten from the NFL through the years for blown calls. Just the ones from the Cowher years would fill one filing cabinet!

 

Funny part of article as NFL rep gives explanation of the play and rule:

...It took him 12 seconds to contradict himself. He literally said, "As we can see here, Roethlisberger completes a pass to James."

The end, right? Nope. Because it also wasn't catch.

According to Riveron, James was falling to the ground, so the ball had to survive the ground. The ball did indeed hit the ground in the end zone - nobody is disputing that. His explanation, though, didn't address that James' knee had already hit the ground before he made a separate move towards the goal line while maintaining possession and breaking the plane. That seemed like a pretty important part to gloss over.

It's probably easier that way.

Just some advice: If your explanation for an incomplete pass also says the pass was complete, then it's probably time to change the rule.

 

If they change the rule which should of been done years ago....how are they supposed to have a chance at changing outcomes....it's all part of the plan. Lawyer speak jumbo jumbo designed to confuse and steer a play in any direction. I'll say it again...if Cooks play was a TD so was JJs. One was ,one wasn't...what's the common denominator?

 

Interesting analysis Dexter!
However, It is not correct. You need to survive the fall (as they say) whether your in field of play or end zone or any combination thereof. The play is not dead when crossing the goal line in this case because the catch is not complete until he survives the ground(agreed it should be). The fact that the receiver had his knee down with possession does not matter if the receiver is still going to the ground.
The football move of extending to the goal line is at the risk of the receiver and continues the process of the catch (Dez Bryant). The Patriots are taught and PROHIBITED from extending to the goal line. When JAMES hit the ground the ball visibly rotated. The question was did the ball hit the ground. I wasn’t sure until slowing it down and at the end of the supposed catch it did hit the ground. I just wasn’t sure if control reoccurred by then or not.
Bottom line- the call may have been technically correct. That being said the rule blows! It shouldn’t be this difficult to determine whether or not a catch was made‍♂️.
It was a great game and unfortunate it had to end this way!

 

I originally thought it was a good call of a bad rule, but have come around to agree with your post. Ed McCaffery and Brian Billick both agree and said so on NFL Radio yesterday.

It comes down to how you define "initial contact." For the call to be correct, initial contact has to include 1) James knee hitting ground 2) James deliberately reaching and breaking the plane, 3) James elbow hitting, 4) James hand hitting and the ball coming loose.

Problem is #2 shoehorned in there. It's reasonable and correct to conclude that since #2 is a football move, that initial contact should end there and any contact after that would be secondary. Therefore he did maintain possession after initial contact and "survive the ground" or whatever bull**** made up phrase the officials are throwing in there.

It would be different if James had caught the ball a yard or so closer to the goal and in the act of falling forward carried the ball over the goalline, but he did not. He made a conscious and deliberate effort to reach the ball over. That's different.

 

It was a TD period....like I said in another post. If everything happened the same except JJ was touched and then went on to lunge to the goal line and held the ball perfectly clean he would of been ruled down by contact thus making the play two separate movements.....common sense they chose to ignore because it didn't fit the narrative...

 

In my prior post I mentioned when extending to the goal line it is considered a continuation of the catch. I referenced Dez Bryant because he did the same thing in theDallas/GB playoff game. I was not emotionally invested in that game so it was easier to remain objective. He caught the ball turned and dove to extend the ball into the end zone. When he landed, he lost the ball. I could not believe they called it incomplete. As a football fan I thought Dallas was robbed.

This game as well as the Dallas game, the call was apparently correct. I think they should change the rule but looks like we will relive this controversy again. Say what you want about the Pats getting lucky but as I said earlier they are taught strictly NOT to extend for the goal line or they won’t play. Therefor, it won’t happen to the Pats.
Anyway, good discussion and maybe someday they will revisit the rule.

 

I find it hard to believe that the Patriots players are coached to not extend the ball at all and the punishment is not playing should you not listen.

 

The NFL is so wishy washy on all their replays that it would almost be just as effective if they said the play is under review, we're going to now flip the coin to determine the final outcome. Patriots, Heads you win, Tails, they lose.

 

Have you seen that written somewhere or heard it said by pats players/coaches? I'm just curious, I've never heard that before.

 

I have not seen it anywhere, but Don Banks (who now writes for patriots.com after being fired/quitting SI) was all over twitter chastising JJ and then later on in the night Derek Carr for extending for the goal line "when your team is only down 3". I think it is utter crap to not expect a player to extend for the win.

 

Good thing that Belichick wasn’t coaching the Steelers last year. They would’ve lost to the Ravens and missed the playoffs.