Jesse James TD that got called back

[CKSteeler]

But tell me some more how the tip of the ball touching the turf on the Bryant play was clear and conclusive, but half the ball being there on the Cooks play wasn't.

[jrry32]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000240906/Cruz-18-yard-TD-catch

[Malfatron]

24 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000240906/Cruz-18-yard-TD-catch

So thats why Romo thought it was a for sure td.

in the clip, romo looks like hes going into the upside down

[Thomas5737]

If the Dez Bryant play wasn't a catch, where he tucked the ball ( 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) and then extended it where he didn't maintain control (A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner) then the James play wasn't a catch either.

As far as black and white, yeah it was a catch as many incompletions have been the last few years but by the rule it probably wasn't, unlike the Dez catch that probably should have been because he tucked the ball and then extended.

[Jakuvious]

1 hour ago, jrry32 said:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000240906/Cruz-18-yard-TD-catch

This should have been incomplete. Though it was before the emphasis on this part of the rule started becoming a big thing 2 or 3 years ago, so I'm guessing that's why it wasn't caught. It's also a little closer because he very nearly gets both feet down prior to the contact. If he had gotten both feet down, then lunged, he would've been fine. The contact keeping his second foot off the ground does mean it should have been an incomplete pass.

Though, other calls being wrong does not mean that this one should've been called incorrectly. So all the mentioning of the Cooks play or whatever Raiders play was being talked about or this just means refs may or may not have gotten it wrong in the past. It doesn't mean this one was ruled incorrectly.

[Jakuvious]

2 hours ago, CKSteeler said:

The rule doesn't reference a football move. It references a "common act." Which is a different thing entirely and which would include something like extending the ball over the goal line. James brought that ball into his body and then reaches out with it. Clear possession established. The rule also states you only need to survive initial contact.

You're missing one clear aspect of the rule here.You can't establish yourself as a runner until your second foot hits the ground while you're not going to the ground. That never happens for James.

Quote

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

The second part of the above rule only comes into play once the first part has been completed. It also never says the words "common act," where you're getting that from I don't know. It's actually fairly specific regarding what qualifies. Avoiding contact, tucking the ball, turning up field, or taking more steps. He did none of those things anyway. And it's all moot once this part of the rule comes into play:

Quote

 Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball

Gotta be upright, with that second foot down, with the ability to do one of the above things (avoiding contact, etc.) to be a runner. Didn't happen. So all of the going to the ground rules then apply.

I also know on an occasion or two you've gotten really picky in this thread about the "initial contact with the ground" element of the rule, but that actually isn't the only rule when it comes to the ball hitting the ground. There's also THIS qualifier as well:

Quote

Item 4. Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided that the player continues to maintain control.

Which has no stipulation about initial contact. So, ball hits the ground, he doesn't maintain control, makes it incomplete regardless of all the going to the ground crap anyways. Control is lost before any of the catch qualifications have been completed, so it's incomplete per Item 4. Not just Item 1, which is what everyone is arguing the terminology over.

You also have this, for good measure:

Quote

Note: If there is any question whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete.

So, tie should go to the defense in the case of a catch.

 

Now again, this rule has been ruled incorrectly on a handful of occasions in recent years. By this rule I think the Cooks catch could easily have been ruled incomplete (though I see this one as closer, as I don't think the loss of control is nearly as clear.) Definitely should have been incomplete with the Cruz catch Jrry posted. And the NFL is absolutely responsible for the situation they're in on this play for that inconsistency. Until the Dez Bryant incompletion, they really just kind of weren't concerned with enforcing this thing to the letter of the rule. Some crews have scrambled to now do that since then, and some crews don't seem to have adjusted. And that's entirely on the NFL. But this ruling was absolutely correct.

 

Source for all quotes: https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2017-nfl-rulebook/#article-3.-completed-or-intercepted-pass

[warfelg]

3 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

You're missing one clear aspect of the rule here.You can't establish yourself as a runner until your second foot hits the ground while you're not going to the ground. That never happens for James.

Ok, simple question here that might be tough to explain:

Why is it when a guy dives and starts going OB, 1 knee/hip/shoulder/elbow is considered the same as 2 feet.  So why is it when it comes to anywhere else on the field is that not a case?  And I know that the easy answer here is because he was diving, but I wonder why this type of stuff is situational.  

So lets say I do a football feet first slide to catch a ball, I catch it, all that touches the ground is my left leg folded under.  I plant my right foot while still sliding to get up and it flips me up like a pole vaulter and I end up diving forward.  And in that dive I end up hitting the ground with the ball and it moves.  Is that complete or incomplete?  Because I didn't get two feet down while moving, and can you really call the planting a foot a "football move"?

Sorry to go a bit off topic there but this 1 knee=2 feet thing except when needing to establish something is strange to me.

[ChazStandard]

 

23 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

How many less comebacks does Brady have if teams stopped Wilsoning it at the goal line or in comeback opportunities of their own? 

And yet it's "dumbest thing on this site" to suggest Belichick is more responsible for the continued success of the Patriots. 

Because Tom Brady coached by Hue Jackson would win five Super Bowls. 

*Fewer

...and the answer is 2.

How many MORE comebacks would he have if his defense didn't blow leads in the dying seconds? (see Carolina this year). The only reason this was even a game, remember, is that the Pats gave up a 60+ yard catch and run on the first play from scrimmage, when Pittsburgh only had 52 seconds and 1 TO.

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, ChazStandard said:

 

*Fewer

...and the answer is 2.

How many MORE comebacks would he have if his defense didn't blow leads in the dying seconds? (see Carolina this year). The only reason this was even a game, remember, is that the Pats gave up a 60+ yard catch and run on the first play from scrimmage, when Pittsburgh only had 52 seconds and 1 TO.

Same with Seattle and the Kearse catch. 

[DLF54927]

Some of these rules in application make no sense.  Take the Golden Tate runoff in the ATL game earlier this year.

 

That was considered a catch immediately when the ball hit his hands or else how would he be down in the field of play and not the endzone?  In other words, how is he deemed a runner down by contact when he has't established himself as a runner by completing the catch and "surviving the ground"?

[warfelg]

The only conclusion I can come up with is a catch is like the opening line on “Whose line is it Anyways”:

 

Welcome to Whose Line Is It Anyway?; the show where everything is made up and the points don't matter!

[childofpudding]

8 hours ago, jrry32 said:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000240906/Cruz-18-yard-TD-catch

Cruz was upright so he could be considered a runner. James couldn't because he was never upright. Because of that, James had to complete the catch all the way to the ground. At least, that's my understanding of the rule from what officials have been saying over the last day and half.

Anyway, refs are inconsistent in their application of this rule, just as they are often inconsistent in their application of every rule. This is no surprise. Same week as that Cruz TD in 2013, Calvin Johnson made a seemingly similar play (which is actually closer to the James play) that was called a non-catch. See below

 

[jrry32]

7 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

This should have been incomplete. Though it was before the emphasis on this part of the rule started becoming a big thing 2 or 3 years ago, so I'm guessing that's why it wasn't caught. It's also a little closer because he very nearly gets both feet down prior to the contact. If he had gotten both feet down, then lunged, he would've been fine. The contact keeping his second foot off the ground does mean it should have been an incomplete pass.

Though, other calls being wrong does not mean that this one should've been called incorrectly. So all the mentioning of the Cooks play or whatever Raiders play was being talked about or this just means refs may or may not have gotten it wrong in the past. It doesn't mean this one was ruled incorrectly.

It means that the rule is inconsistently enforced and needs to be changed.

[lancerman]

10 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

It means that the rule is inconsistently enforced and needs to be changed.

When they made the rule they had receivers and officials work together to say this is the best option. 

Please propose a change 

[jrry32]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

When they made the rule they had receivers and officials work together to say this is the best option. 

Please propose a change 

I already did. Possession + two feet (or an equivalent body part) + a movement common to the game (such as sticking the ball out to score or tucking the ball away) = a catch. Going to the ground is irrelevant if those things happen. Boom. Your mind is blown.

The vast majority of plays are unchanged because there is no movement common to the game, but the most laughable and egregious plays are now catches.

Edit: And those things must happen in order.