Jesse James TD that got called back

[Worm Guts]

Just now, Malik said:

It's a touchdown by both the spirit and letter of the law. Everyone with non-bias eyes would say that's a catch. By the letter of the law they need irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field. There was not irrefutable evidence.

Well I'm definitely not biased towards the Patriots, and I pretty strongly believe that was the right call by the letter of the law.

[TXsteeler]

11 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said:

First off, Ive been saying for years the rule is terrible and needs fixed.     I still believe that.

Secondly, no, its not a bad take....its the ONLY take.   If you want to dwell on it and keep complaining about it, so be it.  Last time I checked, we are still playoff bound and have a chance to get a bye week and a guaranteed home game.  Nothing we say can change what happened and nothing WE say, as fans, is going to impact the rule.   That decision will be made in the offseason....or not.     Im still not happy about what happened, but the focus should now be on winning these last two games, because we still arent guaranteed a bye week, and we really need it.  

Third...LMAO, no one is going to lose their job over this.    The biggest issue with all of this is the rule.    If it changes, great....but the changes arent going to be applied retroactively.    The game is over and thats all there is to it.    If you want to dwell on it, thats up to you.

 

Letting things go is how you let things happen again. The refs did not have indisputable evidence to overturn the call and therefore they should be fired for blatantly disregarding an extremely easy rule.

[TXsteeler]

7 minutes ago, Worm Guts said:

That's not true. They infer all the time. You can infer the laws of physics will hold true. And I think there's zero chance that ball didn't hit the ground.

You can not prove his left hand didn't cause the ball to move.

[43M]

1 minute ago, Worm Guts said:

That's not true. They infer all the time. You can infer the laws of physics will hold true. And I think there's zero chance that ball didn't hit the ground.

Again, whats done is done....but if you are saying that inferred can be indisputable, you dont know the definition of one OR both of those words, because its simply not possible.

If you see smoke....you can INFER  there is fire, but until you see the fire itself, its not INDISPUTABLE.    

[ET80]

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

100% chance this thread ends up locked.

It's four pages in, I'm holding out hope. 

[Malik]

9 minutes ago, Worm Guts said:

Well I'm definitely not biased towards the Patriots, and I pretty strongly believe that was the right call by the letter of the law.

There was no irrefutable evidence so no it was not correct by the letter of the law.

[43M]

1 minute ago, TXsteeler said:

Letting things go is how you let things happen again. The refs did not have indisputable evidence to overturn the call and therefore they should be fired for blatantly disregarding an extremely easy rule.

What part are you not getting?

We as fans have no power to change it.    Even if they come out tomorrow and say "they shouldnt have overturned it", its not going to change the outcome of what happened.

You can WANT it to change all you want....but continue to complain about it isnt going to change a thing.

Again, you do what you want.    The team and even fans should focus on the final 2 games at this point.  

[CriminalMind]

1 hour ago, wwhickok said:

It was undeniably a TD. He caught the ball, established control, went to the ground, ball crossed the goalline. At that point the play is over and its already a TD. The ground cant cause a fumble which is what that technically would have been.

That was the NFL making sure their golden boy got the win.

It was obvious thats what they wanted. Why else show a Patriot heavy AFC title game review while the game is taking place in Pittsburgh?

All night the commentators talked about great the patriots were.

Control cannot be established solely in the air on a catch.

Knew it was incomplete the second it occurred... Romo just missed it, even after 5 replays

[Worm Guts]

2 minutes ago, Malik said:

There was no irrefutable evidence so no it was not correct by the letter of the law.

I disagree.  That replay could reasonably be interpreted as irrefutable evidence.

[CriminalMind]

The ball is on the ground, the goal line is not a factor in a catch.

That's incomplete anywhere on the field.

[mse326]

27 minutes ago, Worm Guts said:

Inferred can be indisputable. And it often is.

That isn't how the NFL interprets it.

But that is irrelevant because you can clearly see in slow motion the ball hit the ground

[Worm Guts]

Just now, mse326 said:

That isn't how the NFL interprets it.

 

They absolutely do.  At least I've seen multiple reversals made off of inferences.

[Hunter2_1]

17 minutes ago, Malik said:

There was no irrefutable evidence so no it was not correct by the letter of the law.

So the fact that the ball was rolling around, touching the ground and his left hand comes away from the ball isn't irrefutable evidence? 

[Hunter2_1]

1 hour ago, Kip Smithers said:

Watch in the highest quality and you see that the tip of the ball touches the ground and as a result it moves. 

 

As clear as day, the ball is well on the ground. I hate the rule, but the ball is squirming around between his body, the ground and his hands.

[indifference]

Its not a TD by the book. Same freakin play happened to Dez Bryant against the Packers in the playoffs on that 4th down bomb, he initially caught. Stupid rule and it needs to be changed.