Sequence of Events

Am I missing something here in this 100% VERY flawed rule? They have already said that if James was a runner it was a TD once he crossed the plane.

1st - He clearly catches the ball in the normal field of play.

2nd - He pulls in down and close to his body as his knee is on the ground and still not touched by a defender.

3rd - Why is he NOT considered a runner at that point???

4th - THEN he stretches and crosses the plane before being touched.

Right then it should be a TD as he crosses the plane because he became a runner. But he goes to the turf and the ball moves. But the ground can't cause a fumble.

I think the league is missing out on this very crucial event within the sequence and leaving out the event of him becoming a runner once his knee hit the ground between the endzones.

Unless he is never considered a runner after a catch then this is a TD and we get a BS apology from them tomorrow once the description is called to their attention. Pretty convenient to leave that critical element out.

 

because they want to mind **** you, they control the outcomes, they will make up things as they go, tuck rule, JUJU suspension etc

 

Once his knee was down in bounds before he crossed the plane there was total control and no ball movement. His knee was down and he was untouched, at that moment he should become a runner and as he stretched (still untouched) crossed the plane and it's a TD.

*******What if he caught it at the five and a step or two and then dove? Would he still not be a runner? It's exactly the same thing, just much closer and a faster series of events.*****

 

I think the bigger point is: I still haven't seen a picture or a video that shows the ball hitting the ground without his right hand under it.

 

I hate to say this but if there is one team the NFL wants to help it prob the Patriots. Per the rule, a receives must maintain possession to the ground. Rules stinks but that is the rule. Its the same as a receiver catching a ball, having a knee down and falling out of bounds and losing possession. Revisiting the tuck rule from 17 years ago does us no good.

 

Exactly... the one video where they explain it you have to use a magnifying glass and still can’t tell if the ball hit the ground. None of them even once said anything about it being conclusive. Everybody seems to be so focused on the ball moving... it’s unreal. Every single nfl analyst, commentator, all of them. Not one said anything about conclusive evidence of the ball hitting the ground.

One track mind.... they seem to think we want to know why it wasn’t a catch based on the ball moving. We know the damn rules you idiots.

 

The ball moved , it hit the ground. The rule is terrible. But the ball def hit the ground and it moved.

 

There is another rule that says it has to be definitive, which in this case the rule was not exercised or even questioned for that matter.

 

AFTER he crossed the plane as a runner!!!

See the explanation of the rule below.

 

ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

( a ) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
( b ) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
( c ) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

 

It's like this, if a player catches a ball for a TD in the end zone he comea down with both feet and control of the ball but someone knocks the ball out of his hands, that is not a td....it stinks but it's in the rule book.

 

Yes. This. He lunged toward the goal line, pivoting on his knee, which should have made him a runner. The moment he lunged that should have completed the catch.

At the very least it is a borderline call, which should not have been overturned.

 

I can’t agree with this more. The fact that it was so controversial makes it inconclusive and therefore the play should stand... they literally looked at it for minutes. If you have to look at it that long then you are questioning it and shouldn’t over turn it...

If you have to send a message to the entire league of why it wasn’t a catch, you shouldn’t over turn it. That’s what makes it such a terrible call.

 

If they would of called it a touchdown... NOBODY would have complained.

The ENTIRE Nfl fan base is complaining, and their only defense is, “Well it is the rules. *shrugs*”

And now all the commentators and analyists are throwing shade, but won’t actually call anybody out so they don’t get fined or lose their job. They just laugh and say, “IDK haha :’D”

 

exactly, it was way to marginal to simply overturn the call on the field

 

It wasn't borderline. James was on his way to the ground when he grabbed it. At that point, he has to hold on to the ball through the act of falling to the ground. He is not yet a runner when the knee hits. And you can clearly see that the ball hit the ground and moved. Get past it, guys. The Steelers blew this one, not the refs. James blew it when he failed to complete the catch first. Roethlisberger blew it by throwing a short pass in the field of play on second down and forcing it into coverage on third. There were plenty of other mistakes earlier, too.

This one is on the guys in black and gold, not the ones in stripes.

 

But that's in the endzone with no room for anything else to play out. Tonight happened on the normal field of play and landed in the endzone. Different situations.

 

I'm over it, but I cannot clearly see the ball hit the ground without his hand under it. That's my point. We've seen no views that show the ball hitting the ground without his right hand under it. If I see that indisputable evidence, then I'll change my tune. But without that indisputable evidence I have to go with the call on the field.

 

Yup it’s The overturn with no clear evidence that gets me. Oh well

 

It's been a couple of hours now and I'm still pissed and fuming. Out of respect for Terrible Towel Flying, I'm not going to curse up a storm. What's done is done. The overturn is not entirely why we lost, there were other chances to put these clowns away. Anyway, I just wanted to say that we are so close to figuring out the Patriots that I think they know it. Good job with the man-to-man coverage, not so much with the single coverage on Gronk. Hopefully Butler learns from this and the outcome is different next time. Peace out my friends.

 

This is the only article, analyst, 'expert', that even remotely comes close to talking about there being clear evidence that James didn't make the catch. Which is why it should not have been overturned and the NFL completely botched the call.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/1...touchdown-replay-overturned-steelers-patriots

 

"There are so many disputable things here that “indisputable” is impossible."
This is the major flaw that makes all this so hard to accept, replay does not go off the basis of undisputable eveidence, similar to a judge legislating from the bench

 

Fear not, the NFL will issue an "apology" sometime today or tomorrow. If that helps.

 

Didn' t help letting Gronk go off like he did and no one had an answer that was the difference.