Jesse James TD that got called back

[lancerman]

2 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

You cannot prove it wasn't the ground hitting his left hand which popped the ball up.

Yeah I can. I have indisputable evidence that the ball moved and that one hand ended up on top of the ball and the other at the side of the ball. At that point the only thing I need to prove to show that the ball hit the ground is that gravity exists. It clearly hit the ground. 

[Jakuvious]

41 minutes ago, CKSteeler said:

Here's what I know. The Pats had 2 penalties all game for 5 yards. Not a single judgement call went against them throughout that entire contest. In the final minutes, we saw a phantom DPI on Burns, a no-call on Eli Rogers being held on the game's final real play, and the overturned TD.

The Steelers only had 6 penalties called on them. One being a false start, another being offsides. It was honestly just a pretty low penalty game.

[grubs10]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

Yeah I can. I have indisputable evidence that the ball moved and that one hand ended up on top of the ball and the other at the side of the ball. At that point the only thing I need to prove to show that the ball hit the ground is that gravity exists. It clearly hit the ground. 

Do you feel like the Brandin Cooks touchdown against the Texans was correctly called a touchdown?

[lancerman]

1 minute ago, Jakuvious said:

The Steelers only had 6 penalties called on them. One being a false start, another being offsides. It was honestly just a pretty low penalty game.

This I don't get why some fans count penalties and act like they are entitled to an even amount. 

[lancerman]

Just now, grubs10 said:

Do you feel like the Brandin Cooks touchdown against the Texans was correctly called a touchdown?

Cooks had both feet down on the ground then jumped up under his own will before falling. James was never not falling throughout the catch process. Cooks you can make argument wasn't falling at the start of the process and made a move before he fell. 

They are close, but they aren't the same circumstance. Cooks caught the ball, got possession, turned in the air and landed on both feet then jumped up. A ref could infer that the catch was completed right there and that the falling occurred after the catch was completed in the endzone and that been in the field of play it could have been ruled a fumble. 

That said I won't argue that it wasn't close. But the difference was James was falling before the ball ever hit his hands. So the falling rule was enacted. There's an argument that the catch with Cooks was completed well before Cooks started to fall. It's close, but you can't make that argument that muddies it with James 

[Hunter2_1]

33 minutes ago, tonyto36 said:

Lombardi:  [Patriots players are forbidden from extending to try to get the touchdown/first down while in the process of the catch.  They're told if they try, they will be benched.]

 

Patriots prep = GOAT

I heard this as well. Imagine fighting that intuition. 

[Jakuvious]

So, unpopular opinion, apparently, but I think it was clearly not a catch (I was laughing as they kept showing the replay and Romo never figured out what they were trying to show him) and I am actually more or less fine with the rule. The rule is the result of what people have long pushed for in sports, of consistency and accuracy. It is a rule designed to eliminate judgment. It's meant to take the refs out of the game (also something people always want.) It sets a clear definition of every situation whether it is or is not a catch, and the refs can just follow that. Pretty straight forward. I honestly think announcers just kind of fan the flames of outrage, to some degree. But most of the people I've talked to about this rule, today and in similar instances in recent years, don't have a good alternative to recommend. Most just think if it feels like a catch, it should be a catch, but that REALLY leaves things up to referee influence, which is exactly what no one has ever wanted.

I've seen a handful of articles suggesting solutions and plenty of coworkers and friends talking about this, and so many people miss some basic understandings of how a rulebook needs to work. There was an ESPN article, for instance, that suggested going to a rule where if a player catches the ball and gets two feet or a knee or an elbow on the ground, it's a catch, end of story. But you run into the problem there where you're including the word catch in the definition of catch. You have to actually define what a catch is in that kind of rulebook. It's like including a word in it's own dictionary definition. So this is why we get concepts of control and becoming a runner and going to the ground. They become necessary phrases to define a catch. There also is an issue in many suggestions I've seen in terms of time. I've seen it said constantly that James had control when he broke the plane, so it should clearly be a catch. But....how long does a player need control, then? If a player bobbles the ball, grasps it for a split second, then a defender knocks it out....he had control, right? At some point in there, he had control. If we define a catch by simply needing to catch or control the ball, those definitions include no concept of time, so the briefest amount of control could count. This is where we get to Lancerman's argument, which is admittedly a bit of a slippery slope, that fumbles could become a problem. Because really, to remove the going to the ground problem, you also need to remove the becoming a runner rule. A player going to the ground can't become a runner, because...physics, so you can't remove the former without altering or removing the latter. And that's where you get to the issue of there not being a time element to the catch process. It's a catch the absolute instant the WR has the ball, regardless of how brief that time is. Where you'd see the biggest impact there are collision drops. Receiver catches it, gets hit and drops it. Most of those sorts of drops would contain a brief period of time where the receiver controlled the ball. Those all would become fumbles.

[grubs10]

5 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Cooks had both feet down on the ground then jumped up under his own will before falling. James was never not falling throughout the catch process. Cooks you can make argument wasn't falling at the start of the process and made a move before he fell. 

They are close, but they aren't the same circumstance. Cooks caught the ball, got possession, turned in the air and landed on both feet then jumped up. A ref could infer that the catch was completed right there and that the falling occurred after the catch was completed in the endzone and that been in the field of play it could have been ruled a fumble. 

That said I won't argue that it wasn't close. But the difference was James was falling before the ball ever hit his hands. So the falling rule was enacted. There's an argument that the catch with Cooks was completed well before Cooks started to fall. It's close, but you can't make that argument that muddies it with James 

Ya I don't know, to me thats some funky smelling BS.  I'm not arguing that the James play last night should have been a touchdown because this one was but to me it just shows this rule introduced to take a type of "judgement call" out of the game really hasn't worked.

If you tell me Cooks could have possibly made that same play without "hopping" out of bounds you are being willfully dishonest.  Saying he jumped up under his own will implies that he could have done the same thing with out jumping out and thats just clearly not true.   His momentum took him out of bounds to the point where he could not have made that catch without hopping ball first into the ground immediately afterward.  Just because he jumped doesn't mean he could have not jumped just like Dez lunging for the endzone  doesn't mean he could have not lunged because his momentum was carrying him into the lunge.

The two feet is irrelevant since Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant both got two feet down and Jesse James had a knee down (which equals two feet).  They all had clear possession of the ball momentarily before going to the ground.  To me him jumping out of bounds falls into the same category as Jesse James reaching for the endzone because it was the only way they could have scored with the way their momentum was going from the catch.

Again I'm not going to argue that this means Jesse James' catch should have been a touchdown, but the fact that you can't say that the refs got the Cooks play wrong under the letter of the law means your bias is playing just as strong of a part in your argument than it has in any of the opposing arguments.

 

Either way I'm out.  I was disapointed in your debate with me over the Gronk punishment when you just failed to respond to any of the points I made that contradicted your argument that Gronk had to get only one game because of past precedence.

[Jakuvious]

2 hours ago, TXsteeler said:

There really is, just call these all catches. "Football Move" needs to be changed to literally anything but just falling. If a player can catch the ball and have control for any period of time while manipulating it (catch it and turn to lunge for a first/td) they clearly caught the ball. If it squirts out before they are downed, call it a fumble. There is nothing wrong with that.

ANY period of time? Really? That kind of phrasing would have absolutely disastrous effects on the game if put in the rulebook.

And I know you don't mean that literally. But I'm going to be a stickler about this. There needs to be a clearly defined, quantifiable moment, when a receiver has completed a catch.

[lancerman]

3 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

So, unpopular opinion, apparently, but I think it was clearly not a catch (I was laughing as they kept showing the replay and Romo never figured out what they were trying to show him) and I am actually more or less fine with the rule. The rule is the result of what people have long pushed for in sports, of consistency and accuracy. It is a rule designed to eliminate judgment. It's meant to take the refs out of the game (also something people always want.) It sets a clear definition of every situation whether it is or is not a catch, and the refs can just follow that. Pretty straight forward. I honestly think announcers just kind of fan the flames of outrage, to some degree. But most of the people I've talked to about this rule, today and in similar instances in recent years, don't have a good alternative to recommend. Most just think if it feels like a catch, it should be a catch, but that REALLY leaves things up to referee influence, which is exactly what no one has ever wanted.

I've seen a handful of articles suggesting solutions and plenty of coworkers and friends talking about this, and so many people miss some basic understandings of how a rulebook needs to work. There was an ESPN article, for instance, that suggested going to a rule where if a player catches the ball and gets two feet or a knee or an elbow on the ground, it's a catch, end of story. But you run into the problem there where you're including the word catch in the definition of catch. You have to actually define what a catch is in that kind of rulebook. It's like including a word in it's own dictionary definition. So this is why we get concepts of control and becoming a runner and going to the ground. They become necessary phrases to define a catch. There also is an issue in many suggestions I've seen in terms of time. I've seen it said constantly that James had control when he broke the plane, so it should clearly be a catch. But....how long does a player need control, then? If a player bobbles the ball, grasps it for a split second, then a defender knocks it out....he had control, right? At some point in there, he had control. If we define a catch by simply needing to catch or control the ball, those definitions include no concept of time, so the briefest amount of control could count. This is where we get to Lancerman's argument, which is admittedly a bit of a slippery slope, that fumbles could become a problem. Because really, to remove the going to the ground problem, you also need to remove the becoming a runner rule. A player going to the ground can't become a runner, because...physics, so you can't remove the former without altering or removing the latter. And that's where you get to the issue of there not being a time element to the catch process. It's a catch the absolute instant the WR has the ball, regardless of how brief that time is. Where you'd see the biggest impact there are collision drops. Receiver catches it, gets hit and drops it. Most of those sorts of drops would contain a brief period of time where the receiver controlled the ball. Those all would become fumbles.

This is where I stand as well. The rule is straight forward. If the receiver is falling before they secure the ball and establish themselves as a runner they must maintain control throughout the fall. It's very straightforward and takes judgement out of it. 

[tab]

that call was bull-honkey

if this is a td, then the jesse james play was a td

 

[lancerman]

2 minutes ago, grubs10 said:

Ya I don't know, to me thats some funky smelling BS.  I'm not arguing that the James play last night should have been a touchdown because this one was but to me it just shows this rule introduced to take a type of "judgement call" out of the game really hasn't worked.

If you tell me Cooks could have possibly made that same play without "hopping" out of bounds you are being willfully dishonest.  Saying he jumped up under his own will implies that he could have done the same thing with out jumping out and thats just clearly not true.   His momentum took him out of bounds to the point where he could not have made that catch without hopping ball first into the ground immediately afterward.  Just because he jumped doesn't mean he could have not jumped just like Dez lunging for the endzone  doesn't mean he could have not lunged because his momentum was carrying him into the lunge.

The two feet is irrelevant since Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant both got two feet down and Jesse James had a knee down (which equals two feet).  They all had clear possession of the ball momentarily before going to the ground.  To me him jumping out of bounds falls into the same category as Jesse James reaching for the endzone because it was the only way they could have scored with the way their momentum was going from the catch.

Again I'm not going to argue that this means Jesse James' catch should have been a touchdown, but the fact that you can't say that the refs got the Cooks play wrong under the letter of the law means your bias is playing just as strong of a part in your argument than it has in any of the opposing arguments.

 

Either way I'm out.  I was disapointed in your debate with me over the Gronk punishment when you just failed to respond to any of the points I made that contradicted your argument that Gronk had to get only one game because of past precedence.

Here's the problem, maybe Cooks couldn't have made that play without jumping out and falling, but the fact is before Cooks ever started falling down he got the ball, landed with both feet in bounds, then jumped up right there it muddies that call to the point where a ref can say he had his feet down with possession and made a move before he started falling. Right there you can say possession and a football move. And that he was out of bounds before the ball came loose. It's a judgement call so it's harder to over turn. 

Dez switched hands mid move, that was like 90% of the problem on the play. He never establishe possession with a football move before he started falling because he tried to switch hands before that could occur.

It's not bias, you're just not applying the rule correctly. James never wasn't falling. Cooks did seeveral things before he ever started falling that could be construed as possession and a football move. Even if you could judge that it wasn't enough, it makes it a more questionable instance. 

And you can continue to disagree on a Gronk but I've already been supported by how the league has ruled on similar situations before and since. You are arguing against precedent, I'm not. 

[lancerman]

18 minutes ago, tab said:

that call was bull-honkey

if this is a td, then the jesse james play was a td

 

Cam was a runner.... he ran like 10 yards before he jumped. This is precisely the problem. People not getting the difference between a ball carrier and a receiver in the process of the catch. It's a fan thing not an officials thing

[Hunter2_1]

40 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

So, unpopular opinion, apparently, but I think it was clearly not a catch (I was laughing as they kept showing the replay and Romo never figured out what they were trying to show him) and I am actually more or less fine with the rule. The rule is the result of what people have long pushed for in sports, of consistency and accuracy. It is a rule designed to eliminate judgment. It's meant to take the refs out of the game (also something people always want.) It sets a clear definition of every situation whether it is or is not a catch, and the refs can just follow that. Pretty straight forward. I honestly think announcers just kind of fan the flames of outrage, to some degree. But most of the people I've talked to about this rule, today and in similar instances in recent years, don't have a good alternative to recommend. Most just think if it feels like a catch, it should be a catch, but that REALLY leaves things up to referee influence, which is exactly what no one has ever wanted.

I've seen a handful of articles suggesting solutions and plenty of coworkers and friends talking about this, and so many people miss some basic understandings of how a rulebook needs to work. There was an ESPN article, for instance, that suggested going to a rule where if a player catches the ball and gets two feet or a knee or an elbow on the ground, it's a catch, end of story. But you run into the problem there where you're including the word catch in the definition of catch. You have to actually define what a catch is in that kind of rulebook. It's like including a word in it's own dictionary definition. So this is why we get concepts of control and becoming a runner and going to the ground. They become necessary phrases to define a catch. There also is an issue in many suggestions I've seen in terms of time. I've seen it said constantly that James had control when he broke the plane, so it should clearly be a catch. But....how long does a player need control, then? If a player bobbles the ball, grasps it for a split second, then a defender knocks it out....he had control, right? At some point in there, he had control. If we define a catch by simply needing to catch or control the ball, those definitions include no concept of time, so the briefest amount of control could count. This is where we get to Lancerman's argument, which is admittedly a bit of a slippery slope, that fumbles could become a problem. Because really, to remove the going to the ground problem, you also need to remove the becoming a runner rule. A player going to the ground can't become a runner, because...physics, so you can't remove the former without altering or removing the latter. And that's where you get to the issue of there not being a time element to the catch process. It's a catch the absolute instant the WR has the ball, regardless of how brief that time is. Where you'd see the biggest impact there are collision drops. Receiver catches it, gets hit and drops it. Most of those sorts of drops would contain a brief period of time where the receiver controlled the ball. Those all would become fumbles.

Exactly. They needed a solution to find consistency. Whether they have it or not, is up for debate. Clear set of rigid rules is probably the only way to eliminate judgment calls.

[Malfatron]

10 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Awful rule, good call.

Yeah.