It wasn't a mother loving catch!

All comes down to breaking the plane of the GL to me . Once it is broke all that surviving the ground crap is BS .A RB or a QB don't have to survive the ground and neither should a WR at the GL .

 

Wish his ET fingers had helped him hold onto the ball

 

the impact of landing on his elbow/forearm while lunging forces the ball to rotate so his right hand goes under and he tries maintaining control with the left as it rolls

 

yes you definitely provided a picture of Jesse James holding a football that is on the ground.

 

The football move was him reaching for the goalline. Al Riverton acknowledges that this is a 'another move.' So if it's not part of going to the ground, then what other kind of move can it be other than a 'football move?' And separate from what? The knee hitting the ground? Him going to the ground? What? Whatever the case, it's a clear break from 'initial contact.' So whether or not the ball hits the ground in the end zone is irrelevant.


"So, yes, the knee was down, he does make another move where he’s reaching for pay dirt. Once he reaches for pay dirt, he loses control of the football. Before he regains control of the football, it touches the ground. Therefore, it was an incomplete pass. This is not so much about a football move, it’s about going to the ground. In the process of going to the ground, you must survive the ground via having control of the football upon the initial contact with the ground.”

https://247sports.com/nfl/pittsburg...gh-Steelers-TE-Jesse-James-overturn-112637625

 

based on your argument you appear by your own admission to be 100% correct, so by the same exact eyesight admission, Cooks was not a catch, and should have been overuled by the exact same criteria you boast of, no brainer, which means if all criteria was exact and consistent steelers didnt need that win to be in 1st place for the # 1 seed, I would be fine with that

 

"So, yes, the knee was down, he does make another move where he’s reaching for pay dirt. Once he reaches for pay dirt, he loses control of the football. Before he regains control of the football, it touches the ground. Therefore, it was an incomplete pass. This is not so much about a football move, it’s about going to the ground. In the process of going to the ground, you must survive the ground via having control of the football upon the initial contact with the ground.



Ugh. And the more I read this, the more angry I get. He's admitting there's a football move and it is DIFFERENT from his knee hitting the ground. COMMON SENSE will tell you that this is a clear breaking point from INITIAL CONTACT. To try to claim otherwise really shows either a lack of intelligence or an unwillingness to acknowledge that you made a mistake. Or both.

 

Probably it. Imagine the immense pressure on him reviewing that, and to do quickly. I think since the dust has settled he probably has had the chance to look at it more closely and sees what we all see, but given the situation cannot admit it was a mistake. To do so acknowledges that you changed the outcome of a game. This isn't like admitting that it was a mistake overturning at TD in the second quarter when there was still plenty of game left, this literally decided the game. And with each explanation it is even more bizarre and full of more holes than the last.

 

Exactly people keep harping on the ball touching the ground to which there is a rule that the ball can touch the ground as long as it didn't aid in actually enabling the catch,which it didn't. I've seen the ball touch the ground on many a catch and they ruled receiver had possession even though it touched. I think there were two catches in the Detroit game that they had where the ball clearly touched the ground but they ruled control....once again conveniently against us.

The whole argument is that he had possession with a knee down and if he was touched at that instant he would of been ruled down and the secondary move he clearly made would not of been allowed. I'm telling you,you can believe it or not but they keep the rule convoluted on purpose ,definite example Cooks/JJ . One was one wasn't c'mon? It was a catch completion they even said so themselves(lying idiots) followed by a lunge to the end zone. There's no way anyone can convince me that if the exact roles were reversed it wouldn't of stood. That my friends is favoritism that they are always the recipient of........fact.

 

He didn’t maintain control of the ball and it hit the ground. So it’s an incomplete pass. End of story.

 

Maybe yours......for someone who is so sick of it you respond to every post and even started your own. If you don't like the conversation there's a simple solution...

 

There’s a simple solution for you as well. Don’t let the door hit you where ...

 

Zzzzzzzzzz........

 

Almost as tiresome as your refusal to admit the simple truth it wasn’t a catch.

 

Was this a TD by Ben in the 06 superbowl, I would say JJs catch and score was closer to being a TD than this one by ben, yet after review ben had a TD, there is too much double being applied in these review calls for me:

 

The rules about what is and isn't a catch have changed a hundred times since 2006. For better or worse, they keep futzing with them in order to 'perfect' the rule. Clearly, they have more work to do.

 

The rule has changed a few times since then. Nice try though

 

I'm sure that, somewhere, there's a Raiders forum where they're STILL debating the "Immaculate Reception." None of our complaining is going to change the outcome of the correct interpretation of a STUPID rule.

 

Go back and look at the replay, and put it in slow-mo.

Look at the angle the ball comes into his hand... if he didnt catch it there is no way he should have been able to bring the ball down towards his mid section and then stretch for the goal line.

By letter of the law it is not a catch, but IMHO what Jesse did should be considered a football move and therefore classified him as a runner, who is then allowed to fumble the ball.

To me he got penalized for trying to make a play, and that doesn't make sense to me in professional sports.

 

Hitting the ground doesn't matter since by definition of the NFL rules he satisfied the criteria for "surviving the ground" when he made a football move and reached for the endzone (Al Riverton admitted that he did make a separate move).

Let me frame it another way......
It is widely accepted that if James had been touched before the ball crossed the goal line that he would've been down and it would've been a catch. Therefore act of touching him brings an end to initial contact as it should since it is a separate act. But if that is indeed the case, then the league isn't applying the rule consistently as that SHOULD be an incompletion as well since after the touch he lose possession of the ball. Just like him making a distinct and separate move (a football move, admitted to by Al Riverton) doesn't matter, neither should the touching by the defender.

The NFL is really making **** up as it goes along. IMO they just do not want to admit the mistake as there is a very high probability that it changed the outcome of a game.

 

Actually the rule was the same then as it is now a runner has to break the plain with the ball, ben was a runner on that play behind the left tackle, he was down by contact two feet short of the goal and he just snuck the ball over the goal line after he was down as shown in the video, I mean I was happy they gave him the TD at the time, but in the review I said there is no way they give him the score, but low and behold they did, good for Ben but it wasnt a score.....

 

In every pass you have to maintain control of the ball. He didn't. It's really that simple. You can deflect and dissect to your heart's content, but it doesn't change that simple fact.