Jump to content

Steelers Christmas Classics: Week 15 GDT vs Pats


43M

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, warfelg said:
Never.  Touched. The. Ground.

It would be better if this was a slow-mo video. The 2 separate pics don't show what could have happened in between (i.e. he could have rolled over on it and slid his hand under it). I am of the opinion that there was not enough evidence to overturn the call NO Matter what it was even if it was initially ruled Incomplete. I'm hopeful the team recognizes some of the flaws in the game plan and realizes that the Pats are beatable and the do have the ability to not only beat them but beat them handily in Foxborough. Got get there first. :$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.It's not really relevant what people see there. Tomlin is on the competition committee. Do you think he doesn't know the rule? What do you think his thoughts are on the call? My own view - the overturn of this TD against NE is exactly what the league was trying to fix after the Dez Bryant fiasco.

Dean Blandino when he was still in charge on overturning these sorts of plays, and how to apply review after Dez Bryant (and a slight tweaking of the rule):

Quote

“He ruled that the player had the ball long enough to be a runner, and if it’s not clear and obvious that he was not a runner, then the call on the field must stand,” Blandino said regarding a decision not to overturn a catch made by Cardinals receiver Larry Fitzgerald in a playoff game, when he seemed to quickly go to the ground and lose possession. “Again, the basic premise of replay is that the call on field is presumed correct unless we have indisputable evidence that it’s incorrect. This was not indisputable, not definitive. There is a subjective element to this rule. . . . It was questionable. That’s why the call on the field stood.”

Florio

This is important because the real question is whether or not James was a runner. A player going to the ground can, in fact, become a runner. This isn't my opinion, but the one stated by Pereira and Blandino as well as that clown Riveron himself. The refs on the field deemed that he was. Despite taking a few shots at Corrente, it was in fact Riveron who made this call and overruled his refs on the field. He inserted his judgement for that of the refs. This was a judgement call.

James plucked the ball out of the air, pulled it into his body, and then turns his body and extends across the goal line.

Now let's see the more detailed explanation for Riveron defending his decision to overturn:

Quote

“In this situation, it was not necessarily a football move,” Riveron said regarding James’ catch and lunge at the goal line, according to a transcript provided by the league. “It was going to the ground. Any time you’re going to the ground, whether it’s on your own, whether you’re contacted by an opponent, or whether you’re contacted by a teammate, you must survive the ground. What does that mean? That means once you make initial contact with the ground, you must have control of the football before it touched the ground. In this situation, yes, his knee goes down. But we know Sunday football, the knee going down, you are still live and can do whatever you want with the football as opposed to college football. 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://sports.yahoo.com/riveron-explains-jesse-james-ruling-151013852.html

Note that Riveron refuses to ever actually state whether what James did constitutes a football move. He says that it was not necessarily a football move, and then later describes it simply as a "move." He dances around this subject because, as stated above, a player going to the ground can complete the catch by making a football move. The rule is actually written to allow this as it explicitly states that a player has to only survive initial contact. This explanation is weasely at best. Once he starts talking about whether James was downed, it becomes flat out mendacious. Whether the player was touched or not has nothing to do with whether it was a catch or not or surviving the ground. Corrente in his post-game interview actually flat out stated that it was irrelevant when asked about it. Why is Riveron even mentioning it, besides to muddy the waters?

A player can complete the catch by getting both feet down with control of the football + making a football move. Even if you lose control at the end of the play. NFL refs in fact make this determination on a regular basis and let plays stand. We see it all the time. It's puzzling to me that Blandino would now defend Riveron's decision given his previous comment on the standard to overturn. I don't care on the reason. Alls I know is that we have been fed a lot of bull about this play and what is or isn't a catch. It's no where near clear cut that the rule was properly enforced, let alone that it should have been overturned.

To reinforce my point, here's Blandino and Pereira talking about a catch by Julio Jones that was allowed to stand:

Quote

Mike Pereira: "The element of time does factor in even when you've started going to the ground. And that element you said, make a football move, well that was kind of archaic and too gray. But now it's gotten a bit more specific. Turn up and field and reach, even if you're headed a bit towards the ground, that's much different than Dez Bryant that's going directly and maybe just extends his arm or forearm out."

Blandino: "Exactly. And you have to do the football move or act common to the game after you've completed the first two requirements which are control and two feet."

We see the same elements I just described discussed.

So, we are in a gray area with this catch, but the rule on the field was a TD. I'll let the Yahoo article I quoted above summarize the rest of this argument:

Quote

At no point does Riveron say what he should have said: The ruling on the field was that the pass was complete. To overturn the ruling, there had to be clear and obvious evidence that the ruling on the field was incorrect. It was clear and obvious that the player did not have the ball long enough to clearly become a runner.

Maybe Riveron didn’t say it that way because, for whatever reason, he doesn’t apply it that way. Maybe he simply applies his own judgment to what he sees, regardless of the ruling made by the officials on the field at the site of the game.

For example, Riveron at one point admits that James “does make another move where he’s reaching for pay dirt.” But the question isn’t whether that move means James had the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. The question is whether the ruling on the field that he had the ball long enough to clearly become a runner was clearly and obviously wrong.

That same dynamic applies to Riveron’s assessment that James’ lunge to the goal line was “not necessarily a football move.” That’s fine, but was it clearly and obviously not a football move? Unless the answer to that question is a clear and obvious yes, the ruling on the field should stand.

That’s the standard. That’s the test. And that’s what the NFL desperately needs to get right as soon as possible, especially with the postseason looming.

The question of whether James ended the play with control is entirely separate to me. This was a complete abuse of the replay system for the very reasons outlined by Blandino years back. The refs on the field used their judgement. When the NFL centralized review, they defended it by explicitly saying that they wouldn't be attempting to insert their judgement for that of the on field refs. But it's what Riveron did here.

Then to make matters worse, we've gotten a week of people discussing this rule and pretending as if its clear when it's anything but. It's not called consistently across the league, and frankly, I don't even see a consistent standard employed by Riveron in his reviews and calls of these types of plays. What was perhaps the best football game of the year league wide thus far was tarnished because of this call.

If the play stands, not even a large number of Patriots fans would have questioned it. There's none of this controversy. But the overturn has resulted in a week long controversy. That doesn't add up, and you know why? Because we routinely see plays just as if not more borderline than this stand and end up as TD's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically what I’m gathering is Riverton is saying that James does anything other than curl up or get up, if he loses the ball it incomplete. He could have rolled 4 times, reached it across, and then lost it and it would still be incomplete. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...