2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty

[King Postwhore]

So many teams throwing up on themselves at the end of games this year.

[jingle.boy]

I do not feel that way.  The rules do.  A receiver has to have full control of the ball going down to the ground unless he is in a running position after the catch.  What everybody gets confused about is how many steps constitutes control. he turned as he caught it never making a running motion so he had to have control when hitting the ground.  He did not.

For one final time, I agree with you on everything except the losing control part. The rules don't specifically define "control", so "control" is a matter of opinion / subjective.  I don't see how he lost control of the ball.  Both hands on the ball at all times?  Check.  One of those hands *under* the ball?  Check.  The rule is losing control *and* the ball hitting the ground.  He didn't appear to lose control of the ball imo.

I recognize that my original argument (the football "move") is incorrect now according to the rule.  But the matter of "control" is one I'm failing to grasp.  I wish someone would be explicit on HOW he lost control of the ball, rather than just saying it happened.

Where's Stadler when you need him?   

[El Barto]

The bobble has remained consistent for decades, long before Calvin Johnson. If the ball is moving around in your hands you don't have control. That was the case yesterday.

[King Postwhore]

 

I don't think it's that hard.  You control the ball and if the ground causes the ball to juggle in your hands, then you've lost control of the ball and it's an incomplete. If you hit the ground and you do not lose control of the ball, it's complete.


SEE, THIS IS WHAT SLOW MOTION, HD HAS DONE TO US!!

[mikeyd23]

I do not feel that way.  The rules do.  A receiver has to have full control of the ball going down to the ground unless he is in a running position after the catch.  What everybody gets confused about is how many steps constitutes control. he turned as he caught it never making a running motion so he had to have control when hitting the ground.  He did not.

For one final time, I agree with you on everything except the losing control part. The rules don't specifically define "control", so "control" is a matter of opinion / subjective.  I don't see how he lost control of the ball.  Both hands on the ball at all times?  Check.  One of those hands *under* the ball?  Check.  The rule is losing control *and* the ball hitting the ground.  He didn't appear to lose control of the ball imo.

I recognize that my original argument (the football "move") is incorrect now according to the rule.  But the matter of "control" is one I'm failing to grasp.  I wish someone would be explicit on HOW he lost control of the ball, rather than just saying it happened.

Where's Stadler when you need him?   

I'm backing jingles posts in this thread so hard.

I think you hit the nail on the head here - "control" is totally subjective and needs better defined, because based on what I (and many others saw) James had total control of the ball.

[jingle.boy]

The bobble has remained consistent for decades, long before Calvin Johnson. If the ball is moving around in your hands you don't have control. That was the case yesterday.

[Dream Team]

It's refreshing to discuss football on a forum where everyone isn't hateful, spiteful, and vindictive.

This game . . . the narrative everyone is in a huge rush to forget is that Ben outplayed Brady the whole game, without Brown, against a much better secondary and better pass rush, better rating, third downs, TD-int ratio, everything, and if that a-hole Sean Davis had HELD ON TO FRIGGIN BALL on what would have been Brady's 2nd interception or if Jesse James HAD HELD ON TO THE FRIGGIN BALL we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But of course they didn't hold on, so the narrative changes quickly. Does anyone remember that beautiful fake-spike TD to Brown last year against Dallas? Well, we didn't have Brown, so if you're Todd Haley do you:

1. Spike the ball and draw up a play for Le'Veon friggin Bell?
2. Spike the ball and draw up a play for Smith-Schuster or Bryant?
or 3. rush the play and have it go to Eli Rogers?

If you selected option 3 you now qualify to be the OC for Pittsburgh. Of course, Ben should have spiked it anyway or checked out of the play. There would not have been such a need to rush if JJSS had gone out of bounds on that long pass btw.

And yeah not doubling Gronk 

[King Postwhore]

That was a tough play to make the interception with the ball tipped.

[mikeyd23]

It's refreshing to discuss football on a forum where everyone isn't hateful, spiteful, and vindictive.

This game . . . the narrative everyone is in a huge rush to forget is that Ben outplayed Brady the whole game, without Brown, against a much better secondary and better pass rush, better rating, third downs, TD-int ratio, everything, and if that a-hole Sean Davis had HELD ON TO FRIGGIN BALL on what would have been Brady's 2nd interception or if Jesse James HAD HELD ON TO THE FRIGGIN BALL we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But of course they didn't hold on, so the narrative changes quickly. Does anyone remember that beautiful fake-spike TD to Brown last year against Dallas? Well, we didn't have Brown, so if you're Todd Haley do you:

1. Spike the ball and draw up a play for Le'Veon friggin Bell?
2. Spike the ball and draw up a play for Smith-Schuster or Bryant?
or 3. rush the play and have it go to Eli Rogers?

If you selected option 3 you now qualify to be the OC for Pittsburgh. Of course, Ben should have spiked it anyway or checked out of the play. There would not have been such a need to rush if JJSS had gone out of bounds on that long pass btw.

And yeah not doubling Gronk 

Totally with you on the Haley thing. Like I posted before, apparently Ben was running up to the line wanting to spike it, and Haley was yelling at him not to...Clearly, he should have just ignored the OC and done it anyway.

The Sean Davis thing was hard to watch. Not only watching him watch a ball go through his hands, but also watching Gronk literally tear him up all day, especially down the stretch. At times, it looked like someone on the JV team trying to guard the stud senior. The Steelers have got to figure out something better for that particular matchup.

[El Barto]

The bobble has remained consistent for decades, long before Calvin Johnson. If the ball is moving around in your hands you don't have control. That was the case yesterday.

I have no idea why you can't get that. If you're bobbling the ball you do not have control, and therefore possession. It's always been that way. We look at these things every game when somebody catches the ball along the sideline. The two feet don't count until the ball stops moving in his hands. This isn't anything novel.

In any case, you've got two former heads of officiating telling you the ruling was correct, and Skip Bayless bitching and moaning about the Steelers getting "robbed." That should settle it for just about anybody outside of the most diehard Pittsburgers.

[pg1067]

so if you're Todd Haley do you:

1. Spike the ball and draw up a play for Le'Veon friggin Bell?
2. Spike the ball and draw up a play for Smith-Schuster or Bryant?
or 3. rush the play and have it go to Eli Rogers?

If you selected option 3 you now qualify to be the OC for Pittsburgh. Of course, Ben should have spiked it anyway or checked out of the play. There would not have been such a need to rush if JJSS had gone out of bounds on that long pass btw.

Well...option #3 was far superior to options 1 and 2.  The interception happened on third down.  If Ben had spiked the ball, the only sane option on fourth down would have been to kick a field goal and tie the game, not run a run or pass play that could easily have resulted in the Steelers not scoring and turning over the ball on downs.  Spiking the ball and kicking a field goal was the safe way to go.  Trying a pass was not a terrible idea, but they had to run a play that either scored or resulted in an incomplete pass, and the "fake spike" crossing route was a terrible call.  According to Ben's story, he was yelling "clock it," but he heard in his helmet speaker that the sideline was telling him not to do so.  Rodney Harrison called BS on that explanation, so who knows.

Of course, Derek Carr decided to outdo Ben for "dumb play at the end of the game" honors.  Any time the Raiders lose, it's a good thing.

[jingle.boy]

In any case, you've got two former heads of officiating telling you the ruling was correct, and Skip Bayless bitching and moaning about the Steelers getting "robbed." That should settle it for just about anybody outside of the most diehard Pittsburgers.

   Fair point, though I'm hardly a die-hard Steeler - I'm no Steeler or Pats fan. I really don't care who won (in fact, it did me a solid in possibly going 16-0 on in the Pick 'Em).  But just because two former heads of officials say they got the ruling correct, doesn't mean it was the right call.  I guess it fits their interpretation of the rule.

I'm not trying to convince anyone *I'm* right... I'm looking for someone to explain HOW he lost control of the ball.  I've demonstrated how I can adjust my opinion (based on my first argument as to why it should've been a completion).  So, help me adjust my opinion.  Someone please explain how he lost control of the ball.  I've only asked it 3-4 times already.

[DragonAttack]

Going back a long, long time ago on a late TD pass involving the St. Louis Cardinals against DC.  The receiver 'caught' the ball, came down on both feet, was immediately hit, the ball fell to the ground, the refs huddled for a couple of minutes, and awarded the TD because 'both feet came down in the endzone'.  I think it cost the Cards a playoff spot. 

I wish we could go back to those days....regardless of who we're rooting for.

[mikeyd23]

Well...option #3 was far superior to options 1 and 2.  The interception happened on third down.  If Ben had spiked the ball, the only sane option on fourth down would have been to kick a field goal and tie the game, not run a run or pass play that could easily have resulted in the Steelers not scoring and turning over the ball on downs.  Spiking the ball and kicking a field goal was the safe way to go.  Trying a pass was not a terrible idea, but they had to run a play that either scored or resulted in an incomplete pass, and the "fake spike" crossing route was a terrible call.  According to Ben's story, he was yelling "clock it," but he heard in his helmet speaker that the sideline was telling him not to do so.  Rodney Harrison called BS on that explanation, so who knows.

Of course, Derek Carr decided to outdo Ben for "dumb play at the end of the game" honors.  Any time the Raiders lose, it's a good thing.

Kicking the field goal and heading to OT seems like a better option in hindsight, doesn't it?

Also - to the bolded - knowing the personalities involved, I totally believe what Ben said was true. Ben, especially in recent years, has always been over-the-top blunt in his honesty and also historically has had no issue blaming himself for loses when appropriate to do so. On the flip, Haley has a history of stupid, horrible, dumb, etc...play calls.

So for that to be BS, Ben and Haley would have had to have both just changed drastically and magically at the same time.

[El Barto]

I'm not trying to convince anyone *I'm* right... I'm looking for someone to explain HOW he lost control of the ball.  I've demonstrated how I can adjust my opinion (based on my first argument as to why it should've been a completion).  So, help me adjust my opinion.  Someone please explain how he lost control of the ball.  I've only asked it 3-4 times already.

Pay attention just as the ball hit's the ground. His left hand comes completely off the ball. The ball spins a good 110° on top of his right hand. As it hits the ground his right hand doesn't move but the ball moves up and back into his chest and turns back a few degrees so you can see the laces again. He clearly doesn't control the ball when it hit's the ground.  At no point in the last 30 years would this be considered a catch.

[jingle.boy]

First, thank you for finding the perfect .gif!  I must've watched this angle a dozen times trying to "get it" last night.

Second, what your saying is that control=two palms on the ball. 

I see what you're selling, but I just ain't buying it.  If the rule was "loses control of the ball *or* the ball comes in contact with the ground", I'm with ya - because part of the ball does touch the ground.  His left PALM comes off the ball, but he always maintains contact with it in both hands, which to me constitutes "control".

We shall agree not to see eye to eye on this.

[Nick]

I'm not trying to convince anyone *I'm* right... I'm looking for someone to explain HOW he lost control of the ball.  I've demonstrated how I can adjust my opinion (based on my first argument as to why it should've been a completion).  So, help me adjust my opinion.  Someone please explain how he lost control of the ball.  I've only asked it 3-4 times already.

Pay attention just as the ball hit's the ground. His left hand comes completely off the ball. The ball spins a good 110° on top of his right hand. As it hits the ground his right hand doesn't move but the ball moves up and back into his chest and turns back a few degrees so you can see the laces again. He clearly doesn't control the ball when it hit's the ground.  At no point in the last 30 years would this be considered a catch.

Completely outside voice here. Didn't watch the game, didn't see the play until this exact gif. But right there is enough evidence. He DID NOT control the ball through to the ground and it is not a catch.

[El Barto]

First, thank you for finding the perfect .gif!  I must've watched this angle a dozen times trying to "get it" last night.

Second, what your saying is that control=two palms on the ball. 

I see what you're selling, but I just ain't buying it.  If the rule was "loses control of the ball *or* the ball comes in contact with the ground", I'm with ya - because part of the ball does touch the ground.  His left PALM comes off the ball, but he always maintains contact with it in both hands, which to me constitutes "control".

We shall agree not to see eye to eye on this.

Don't know what to tell you. You can see the ball move in 2 axis and rotate along the third, all independent of what his hands are doing. This is a pretty clear cut example of not controlling the football. At no point in the history of the league would this have been a catch, assuming of course the ref actually saw the ball move around like that.

[mikeyd23]

It's incredible that 2 posts in a row can look at the same clip and have two opposite, firm reactions.

I think that speaks to jingles earlier point about the rule being subjective, which is an issue.

[Nick]

It's incredible that 2 posts in a row can look at the same clip and have two opposite, firm reactions.

I think that speaks to jingles earlier point about the rule being subjective, which is an issue.

I think it just speaks to Jingle being wrong, which also has a decades long standard behind it.

[cramx3]

I am only judging from this gif as well (I stopped watching the NFL after week 5 or so when it was clear the Giants were shit) but I think we all see it's a catch from our own personal feelings of catching a ball, but the NFL has a rule about controlling the ball to the ground and it looks like there's some clear questions (if not clear evidence) that he didn't control the ball the full way to the ground.  Really tough call.

[mikeyd23]

It's incredible that 2 posts in a row can look at the same clip and have two opposite, firm reactions.

I think that speaks to jingles earlier point about the rule being subjective, which is an issue.

I think it just speaks to Jingle being wrong, which also has a decades long standard behind it.

 

[jingle.boy]

Edit .... Ninja'd 5 times. This is in response to Nick's view.

Why?  Because he literally (ignore the NFL rules) did not have control of the ball, or because that's what the NFL has conditioned us to believe?  IMO, he was in full control of the ball - it rotated because of the angle his elbow hit the ground, but he still kept the ball fully within his possession. I don't think the ground aided in him keeping control.

As I said, it may have been the right ruling, but that doesn't mean it was the right call.  For the past few years there's been lots of inconsistencies as to what is possession/control, and what isn't.

Marc nailed it. Looks like a catch, smells like a catch, probably tastes like a catch .... but not to the NFL.  I get that my opinion is incorrect on the matter, but it doesn't mean it's any less valid.

In the NFL, if it's not a *perfect* catch, then it's not a catch.

[TAC]

Jim Rome on his CBS Sports Minute today: "How's this for a rule? Dude catches the ball, it's a CATCH."

[El Barto]

It's incredible that 2 posts in a row can look at the same clip and have two opposite, firm reactions.

I think that speaks to jingles earlier point about the rule being subjective, which is an issue.

I don't see subjectivity there. I see an attempt to make the decisions objective. "Looks like a catch" is subjective. "Looks like a catch but it bobbled 12 ways from Sunday when it hit the ground" is the objective interpretation. What I see is a very understandable frustration that it takes a rocket scientist to understand what is and is not a catch anymore.

(Along with some butthurt from Steelers fans, and a media desperately trying to create things to talk about.)

[mikeyd23]

It's incredible that 2 posts in a row can look at the same clip and have two opposite, firm reactions.

I think that speaks to jingles earlier point about the rule being subjective, which is an issue.

I don't see subjectivity there. I see an attempt to make the decisions objective. "Looks like a catch" is subjective. "Looks like a catch but it bobbled 12 ways from Sunday when it hit the ground" is the objective interpretation. What I see is a very understandable frustration that it takes a rocket scientist to understand what is and is not a catch anymore.

(Along with some butthurt from Steelers fans, and a media desperately trying to create things to talk about.)

Ah, I guess I fall into the butthurt category, so I'll just bow out of the conversation in that case.

[El Barto]

It's incredible that 2 posts in a row can look at the same clip and have two opposite, firm reactions.

I think that speaks to jingles earlier point about the rule being subjective, which is an issue.

I don't see subjectivity there. I see an attempt to make the decisions objective. "Looks like a catch" is subjective. "Looks like a catch but it bobbled 12 ways from Sunday when it hit the ground" is the objective interpretation. What I see is a very understandable frustration that it takes a rocket scientist to understand what is and is not a catch anymore.

(Along with some butthurt from Steelers fans, and a media desperately trying to create things to talk about.)

Ah, I guess I fall into the butthurt category, so I'll just bow out of the conversation in that case.

Nah, you've been pretty reasonable. I'm referring to the troves of dipshits who think the NFL is rigged in favor of the Patriots. As I've said before, if you think this the WWF and games are predetermined or refs fix the games, then you shouldn't even bother watching.

Hey, Jingle, which is it? Refs fucked up, refs correctly applied a stupid rule, or the game is rigged?

[Nick]

In the NFL, if it's not a... catch, then it's not a catch.

I'd argue that is closer to the truth. It's not that it wasn't a perfect catch, it simply wasn't a catch.

[TAC]

Nah, you've been pretty reasonable. I'm referring to the troves of dipshits who think the NFL is rigged in favor of the Patriots. As I've said before, if you think this the WWF and games are predetermined or refs fix the games, then you shouldn't even bother watching.

Hey, Jingle, which is it? Refs fucked up, refs correctly applied a stupid rule, or the game is rigged?

I cracked the Barto Code! 

[cramx3]

I totally think refs can and do have bias and it shows in their officiating, but I don't think this was a call made for the sake of the Pats or anything like that though.  I think the NFL refs are much better then college refs in letting their bias get in the way.  (and much better than the NBA).

[jingle.boy]

Hey, Jingle, which is it? Refs fucked up, refs correctly applied a stupid rule, or the game is rigged?

I think my position is they correctly applied a rule that can be interpreted more than one way.  Right or wrong (I believe it is wrong) the NFL / Refs have deemed any change in ball position as a lack of "control".  I think that's wrong.  Look, some rules are (and should be) open to interpretation.  How many times have we all seen a hold / PI / hands to the face / intentional grounding etc...  that wasn't called.  Hell, Unsportsmanlike is 100% judgment.  Maybe it was missed, but I have no doubt just as many times it was the opinion of the official watching it that it wasn't a penalty.  Some things are objectively black and white - did the toe hit the sideline, did the ball cross the plane of the goal-line, did the ball go thru the upright?  Many rules have at least some element of judgment.  I think the NFL's assertion of what is deemed "control" of a catch and what isn't is getting too ... controlled.   

[Dublagent66]

If we want to bitch about the rule then I'll join in. I don't like catches being broken down into 12 components that require German scientists to measure. However, based on the rule now it was very definitely incomplete, and Blandino and Periera have both been pretty clear on why the call was correct. He can't be down until he has possession. He can't have possession until he completes the catch.

The Dallas game was a hoot. After making one of the stupidest PIs you'll ever see Dallas deserved to lose that game. If you're in perfect position to make a play for the ball don't mug the receiver. It's completely unnecessary. I started rooting for Oakland after that. The only way I'd want Dallas to win that game is if the Raiders did something even more stupid. And boy did they.

Actually, it was all on Carr.  I LMFAO! 

[T-ski]

this TD catch in Super Bowl 12 wouldn't have been ruled a catch today...

:30 second mark....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ad3pDqFO4

[cramx3]

I think the NFL's assertion of what is deemed "control" of a catch and what isn't is getting too ... controlled.   

this may be true and seems due to the ability of replay to make plays that used to be "bang bang" into some sort of science.  I think we are all glad the replay has helped make calls correct, but such granular detail has lead to such a hard time in determining such basic things as catching a ball.  Then add in a sport that's so competitive that games can come down to such calls, and you have a nice mix for some uproar from fans.  If I was a Steelers fan, I think I'd be pissed at that call, but as a non fan here, it seems to have been correct.

[lordxizor]

He clearly did not have control when he fell all the way to the ground. However, his knee was clearly down well before that and he had control at that point. I think 95% of the time that's called a non-catch in today's league, but I think you can make compelling case for why it should have been a catch.