Jesse James TD that got called back

[Worm Guts]

15 minutes ago, navysaintsfan said:

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.

Why are you arguing this? there are countless examples of the need to complete the process.  Whether it's Dez Bryant or Calvin Johnson or now Jesse James, this isn't a catch according to the rules.

[CKSteeler]

3 minutes ago, grubs10 said:

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..."

It's a clown show. The NFL has an entirely different definition of the word "indisputable" than us common folk.

[RavensDefense3]

it's just a bad rule, not the refs fault, the ball was bobbling at the end there

[lancerman]

2 hours ago, MWil23 said:

I think some of you are wrestling with the "football move" and the "control the ball through the ground" stipulations of the rule.

Those that say catch say that he had control and then made a football move, the ball broke the plane, making it a TD, and then the subsequent moving of the football/tip hitting the ground.

Those that say no catch see a guy "dive" for the ball/lunge for the ball and movement upon hitting the ground.

The fact is, you'd see the exact opposite if it weren't your team involved.

A football move is a term used to establish someone as a runner. By definition you cannot make a football move when falling. You would never at any point call James a runner in that sequence. And at no point in that process was he not falling

[lancerman]

1 hour 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.

It's because that is an intended feature of the rule designed to limit fumbles. 

If that happened in the middle of the field at the 50 yard line and the ball bobbled like it did and a Patriots player snatched it and ran it for a TD, people would scream that it was an incompletion because the ball hit the ground. It can be an incompletion in one instance and a completion in another because it was on the goal line in another. It either is or isn't. Until it's a completed pass the receiver doesn't get the benefit of a ball carrier. 

 

Theres no real easy fix. Which is why it frustrates everyone. 

[TXsteeler]

34 minutes ago, grubs10 said:

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..."

It's called a retcon in fiction writing.

The dude knows its a catch but it's league policy to never admit refs on the field make mistakes so he starts off by saying what he knows to be true before switching back into league policy mode.

[TXsteeler]

6 minutes ago, lancerman said:

It's because that is an intended feature of the rule designed to limit fumbles. 

If that happened in the middle of the field at the 50 yard line and the ball bobbled like it did and a Patriots player snatched it and ran it for a TD, people would scream that it was an incompletion because the ball hit the ground. It can be an incompletion in one instance and a completion in another because it was on the goal line in another. It either is or isn't. Until it's a completed pass the receiver doesn't get the benefit of a ball carrier. 

 

Theres no real easy fix. Which is why it frustrates everyone. 

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.

[lancerman]

37 minutes ago, sammymvpknight said:

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.

19 people aren't thinking about the ramifications of calling it a catch and making that uniform for every catch. 19 people would have lost their minds if that same sequence happened a yard back, the ball popped out and then the Patriots defense swarmed to grab a loose ball. In that case 19 people would say it touched the ground and has to be an incompletions. 19 people are confusing a runner for a receiver in the process of making a catch. 19 people aren't thinking about the fundamental change in the game if you apply their feelings to the rule across the board. 

Its sn imperfect problem with an imperfect solution. 

[TXsteeler]

16 minutes ago, lancerman said:

A football move is a term used to establish someone as a runner. By definition you cannot make a football move when falling. You would never at any point call James a runner in that sequence. And at no point in that process was he not falling

He did however, clearly catch the ball and turn to push it over the goalline. It's impossible for a human being to not have "Caught" a ball and yet do what he did. The NFL has only been around for 100 years, "catching" something has been around for a lot longer than that.

[lancerman]

Just now, 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.

A football move is a term specifically designed to indicate a movement that establishes a player as a runner. That's the whole purpose for the term. And a falling player will never be a runner unless they actually get up after falling and run.

And again, you say that now but if that same play happened in the field of play and a Patriots players snatched it away from James while he only had one hand on it, by definition and by that logic it would be a fumble. 

You can say "just call it a fumble" when the fumble rates skyrocket on bang bang plays, and the game fundamentally changes as a result, people will get upset. 

[TXsteeler]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

19 people aren't thinking about the ramifications of calling it a catch and making that uniform for every catch. 19 people would have lost their minds if that same sequence happened a yard back, the ball popped out and then the Patriots defense swarmed to grab a loose ball. In that case 19 people would say it touched the ground and has to be an incompletions. 19 people are confusing a runner for a receiver in the process of making a catch. 19 people aren't thinking about the fundamental change in the game if you apply their feelings to the rule across the board. 

Its sn imperfect problem with an imperfect solution. 

I really don't think anyone would complain if this had been considered a fumble. That sounds like a made up argument. 

If it were completed pass to fumble it goes smallish risk of losing a fumble to large reward of scoring a touchdown. As it is right now there is a rather largish risk of getting an incompletion against a large reward of a touchdown. What we have now is a situation where the best course of action for a player is to not play to win and to avoid taking risks that make big plays, and that ruins the entertainment part of the sport.

[lancerman]

2 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

He did however, clearly catch the ball and turn to push it over the goalline. It's impossible for a human being to not have "Caught" a ball and yet do what he did. The NFL has only been around for 100 years, "catching" something has been around for a lot longer than that.

You are confusing control of the ball and possession. Just having the ball in your hands for a few seconds and being able to turn it is only one feature of a catch 

[lancerman]

1 minute ago, TXsteeler said:

I really don't think anyone would complain if this had been considered a fumble. That sounds like a made up argument. 

If it were completed pass to fumble it goes smallish risk of losing a fumble to large reward of scoring a touchdown. As it is right now there is a rather largish risk of getting an incompletion against a large reward of a touchdown. What we have now is a situation where the best course of action for a player is to not play to win and to avoid taking risks that make big plays, and that ruins the entertainment part of the sport.

There's about a dozen plays every game where a receiver catches the ball and moves his arms enough where by your definition it would be a catch and then it either comes out a split second later or an immediate impact dislodges it before he's able to move. All of those become fumbles. 

Teams wont want to pass as much anymore 

[sammymvpknight]

4 minutes ago, lancerman said:

19 people aren't thinking about the ramifications of calling it a catch and making that uniform for every catch. 19 people would have lost their minds if that same sequence happened a yard back, the ball popped out and then the Patriots defense swarmed to grab a loose ball. In that case 19 people would say it touched the ground and has to be an incompletions. 19 people are confusing a runner for a receiver in the process of making a catch. 19 people aren't thinking about the fundamental change in the game if you apply their feelings to the rule across the board. 

Its sn imperfect problem with an imperfect solution. 

There is a big problem when the rules defy very basic logic. Let’s make the games more simple. What happened to the good old days of football when the refs made the call based on their own best judgement. They got 95% of the calls right without the high end technology. That’s about the same percentage they do now with instant replay. I say just get rid of it and let the refs earn their paychecks. 

[TXsteeler]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

A football move is a term specifically designed to indicate a movement that establishes a player as a runner. That's the whole purpose for the term. And a falling player will never be a runner unless they actually get up after falling and run.

And again, you say that now but if that same play happened in the field of play and a Patriots players snatched it away from James while he only had one hand on it, by definition and by that logic it would be a fumble. 

You can say "just call it a fumble" when the fumble rates skyrocket on bang bang plays, and the game fundamentally changes as a result, people will get upset. 

Becoming a runner has nothing to do with catching a ball or not in reality then. They need to remove that term and create a new one with a separate definition. The rule is garbage and nobody likes it and you are the only person I've ever seen defend it.

Also, no I wouldn't be upset if it had been a fumble and the patriots recovered because A. That's a player beating another player, and B. It would have been a touchdown before he could have fumbled it.

Fumble rates increasing is better than fake incompletions due to a stupid rule that didn't exist 10 years ago.