Jesse James TD that got called back

[daineraider]

Yes, it was a TD in the sense that he caught the ball and crossed the goaline.  The rules of the NFL negated the TD, which by their rules was a correct call.  Anyone watching the play would have said he caught it and scored(if we were not implementing rules that dont make sense).

This wasnt much different than the Dez or Johnson TDs that were waived off after review.  The NFL had been so focused on excessive celebration and player fun that they never addressed the rules that actually affect the game.

[Hunter2_1]

3 minutes ago, daineraider said:

Yes, it was a TD in the sense that he caught the ball and crossed the goaline.  The rules of the NFL negated the TD, which by their rules was a correct call.  Anyone watching the play would have said he caught it and scored(if we were not implementing rules that dont make sense).

This wasnt much different than the Dez or Johnson TDs that were waived off after review.  The NFL had been so focused on excessive celebration and player fun that they never addressed the rules that actually affect the game.

Yeah this. 20 guys in a bar think it's a TD, then it should be a TD. Not how legislation works though.

[warfelg]

2 minutes ago, tonyto36 said:

He landed on two feet, bounced up in the air and a separate action occurred. 

The key is that he landed with two feet in bounds 

He firmly landed with two feet in bounds and established control through his initial contact with the ground and his momentum hitting the ground.  The second action of bouncing up was irrelevant.  

It's like if a receiver takes two steps and then spikes the ball while going out of bounds.  It's still a catch because the catch happened, then the secondary (irrelevant) action of spiking happened.

So then Jesse James did the same since 1 knee = 2 feet

[CKSteeler]

Patriots should basically have three more losses this year if not for the refs.

[navysaintsfan]

26 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

In your mind and in slow frame. In real time and in real athletics world, he was OBVIOUSLY making a football move.

And yet it's still debatable whether or not his hands were underneath the ball, hence the questionable overturn. It's as simple as that.

I just posted the NFL rules. Whether or not he made a football move has nothing to do with this. He was going to the ground immediately after making the catch. The rules for making a catch when going to the ground has nothing to do with a football move. So like I said, him "making a football move" is not an arguable point.

[CKSteeler]

1 minute ago, navysaintsfan said:

I just posted the NFL rules. Whether or not he made a football move has nothing to do with this. He was going to the ground immediately after making the catch. The rules for making a catch when going to the ground has nothing to do with a football move. So like I said, him "making a football move" is not an arguable point.

You're right. The rule simply reads that:

Quote

A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession.

After his initial contact with the ground. The initial contact here was his knee.

[navysaintsfan]

8 minutes ago, tonyto36 said:

He landed on two feet, bounced up in the air and a separate action occurred. 

The key is that he landed with two feet in bounds 

He firmly landed with two feet in bounds and established control through his initial contact with the ground and his momentum hitting the ground.  The second action of bouncing up was irrelevant.  

It's like if a receiver takes two steps and then spikes the ball while going out of bounds.  It's still a catch because the catch happened, then the secondary (irrelevant) action of spiking happened.

You are intentionally ignoring this part of the rule: he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete.

Him touching both feet inbounds is the initial contact with the ground. He still has to maintain control AFTER the initial contact.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

@tonyto36 if "bouncing up" is considered a football move and thus establishes possession, why wouldn't "reaching for the goal line" be the same? IMO, that's inconsistent logic. By the letter of the NFL rules, both catches should've been ruled incomplete. "bouncing up" doesn't negate that he's going to the ground throughout the entire process.

[Lilseb93]

I voted yes, but I would vote no if I could change my vote. Unfortunately, it's the right call but it's a joke of a rule. It's one of the reasons I watch less and less of the NFL. Too many games are decided by the refs and stupid calls. It has nothing to do with this game, but the refs are so inconsistent. Especially when it's my team that always seems to get the raw end of every call or no call. 

 To me it's a football move and a TD. He reached for the end zone. But the NFL's dumb rule says otherwise. 

[navysaintsfan]

Just now, CKSteeler said:

You're right. The rule simply reads that:

After his initial contact with the ground. The initial contact here was his knee.

You just posted a completely different rule. You quoted the rule for recovering a LOOSE ball. Not a pass.

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 until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

For a pass, he must maintain possess AFTER initial contact.

[navysaintsfan]

Actually...according to the rule...I am confused.

he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground

Somehow I have read this incorrectly a bunch of times. My apologies to everyone I have tried to correct.

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 until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

If we are going according to the NFLs own rules, then that was a TD catch by Jesse James. The knee came down establishing initial contact and he had possession while breaking the plane.

[sammymvpknight]

Rules should not defy common sense. If 19 out of 20 call it a catch (and the one that doesn’t happens to be a Pats fan)...the rules should work in the favor of 19 and not 1.

[grubs10]

9 minutes ago, tonyto36 said:

He wasn't going to the ground though.  Bouncing up is the exact opposite of that lol.  His downward momentum was stopped and he had control.  Reaching for the goal line his downward momentum was still going downward.  In the Cooks play he had already survived the ground and in the James play he didn't.

You can't honestly be doing this...

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

11 minutes ago, tonyto36 said:

He wasn't going to the ground though.  Bouncing up is the exact opposite of that lol.  His downward momentum was stopped and he had control.  Reaching for the goal line his downward momentum was still going downward.  In the Cooks play he had already survived the ground and in the James play he didn't.

Not really though, his momentum was carrying him towards the ground the entire time. If anything, be bounced to the side and was still going down as a whole. Regardless, I still maintain both should be incomplete by the rule book, which is stupid because I think both are catches.

[grubs10]

I love how Al Riveron, NFL senior VP of Officiating, begins his explanation of why the play wasn't a catch by saying, "Roethlisberger completes a pass to James..."