After more thought JJ did score

I know but it is what it is.

when we needed a stop we couldn't do it. When we needed to get a first down to seal the game we couldn't do it. When we needed a fg to tie the game we didn't do it. We lost plain and simple.

On to the next

 

It's not that simple though it isn't like an interception or 4th down incompletion or even a missed field goal. The game and ultimately home field advantage was determinal not by play on the field but by the refs on a misapplication of some conflicting rules.

 

Nope. It was an incompletion of a completed pass with a football move that broke the plane while in the grasp and control of the receiver that didn't survive the ground. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

Which sucks, but we have to take the positives and move on because all it does is cause lost sleep.

Let’s just beat the crap out of the rest of the NFL and prove them why we are better than the patriots.

 

could ultimately cost us, or fire us up for a huge run. Who knows, all I know is we can't take change that L from the record books no matter how much justification there is that it was a td.

 

When the refs should have thrown a PI flag, they didn’t.

All the focus on the JJ TD seems to distract from that. And I think the league will be perfectly happy about that happening.

That said - it’s true that any amount of complaints, justified as they are, won’t change the result. The goal now is to get revenge.

 

I wish I could promise this would be my last take on this but I can't. Every time the fire dies down something sparks it back up....people who are saying it's the rule,it's the rule they just need to change it are missing the point. The catch rule has been a issue since Dez and even before that. There is a reason why the rule is written in such a way and a reason why they haven't changed something so easy to fix.
They keep it that way on purpose just so they can steer the decision in the way they choose which is how you get the Cooks catch being a TD and the JJ play not. The two fit the same criteria used to overrule JJ .

No football move was made(even though JJ did) the ball was moving and he did not "survive" the ground. The A hole used language in his explanation that isn't even in the rules written. After all this there is still no clear evidence the ball touched the ground and definitely not irrefutable evidence,if there was the league would of made posters and billboards of it to silence the thoughts of the obvious conspiracy that has been taking place in their favor for years...

Sorry guys I know most are sick of hearing it already but please bear with me...try to just follow this one scenario and I'll shut up(maybe). Let's say the same exact thing happens but the DB happens to graze JJ on the way by(knee on the ground,split second before the lunge) but then JJ lunges and secures the ball throughout....would he not be ruled down by contact? or would it be a TD because he had not yet secured the catch to the ground(surviving the ground).... I thnk we know the answer. Their logic makes no sense his reach wasn't a continuation of the catch ,it was a separate move after establishing possession with a knee down,which would have ruled him down by contact if touched....tell me what's the difference?

 

I disagree with the bolded part. I was initially under the impression that it was the right call, but seeing the tweet from Trai Essex made me look a little deeper. That and hearing Ed McCaffery and Brian Billick on Sirius NFL Radio this morning discuss the rule at length, I've changed my mind. If you actually read the rule, that's a catch as it satisfies the requirements of going to the ground. They agree and Ed went as far as to say that the referees have been interpreting the rule wrong for years now. I'd add that no where in the rulebook will you see the words 'surviving the ground.' That is something purely made up and not defined in the book. If you read the rulebook word for word, that is a catch and not only was that call wrong, so have been several others over the years. I agree.

 

The NFL really just needs to make it an unchallengeable play. Whatever the ref sees, and calls, should always be the outcome. There’s almost no rule you can put in place other than that.

I’m still extremely bothered that nobody talks about having indisputable evidence. That’s the only thing we can argue because if there was evidence that it clearly hit the ground then it is incomplete by rule.

 

all this will die down when we win the superbowl.





in 2056 lol

 

Yup....I told you guys the A hole was inventing words that aren't in the rules as written...

 

The pats are Goodell's fav team it's been said in the past..this feud is just a smoke screen he still has Brady dolls all over his mansion..that Brady built.

 

From your mouth to Mr. Rooneys ears......

 

This is exactly what I keep coming back to. I don't care at all what the rule is about "surviving the ground"! I've still not seen one angle on video or in a picture that shows the ball on the ground without his right hand/fingers UNDER the ball. I would love to see that, but I still haven't. I would gladly shut up about this if I saw that evidence.

"Indisputable" is the key word in the instant replay rules. Because it was called a touchdown on the field, there must be indisputable evidence to overturn that call. I still haven't seen it.