2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty

[TAC]

If this play had happened at the 50 yard line would it have been a catch?

  If this play was at the 50, there'd be no hubbub about it.

NOPE!

[cramx3]

It amazes me that people can see the ball clearly move around as it hits the ground and think it's a catch. I don't know what sport people have been watching for the last 30 years 'cause it sure ain't fucking football.

I dont know, I can pretty easily see why people are disputing the call.  It looks like the moment when his knee and elbow are down, the ball is secured and over the goal line.  It's the next frames where the ball moves and its clear the catch wasn't fully completed, but there's that split second where all your senses are telling you that's a TD. 

Besides the coming down fully part, there's also the "ball just needs to touch the goal line" part that just looks like it's so clearly a touchdown as well.  Sort of like those plays where a RB holds the ball over the goal line right before he fumbles it but they still call it a TD because it crossed the plane just before he lost possession.  The difference here is possession and I understand that the receiver did not have it, but I totally see why people think he did in that split second.

[El Barto]

So what do people think the league should do going forward? I honestly only see two options. Do away with instant replay altogether and leave it up to the refs to make calls. I don't really like this as it just makes the whole thing more subjective. Moreover, since the networks are continuing to improve their coverage, we're going to see more and more bullet-time replays, highlighting every time a ref bungles an important call. Then we'll be exposed to more and more whining from Romo and Gruden about how refs are ruining the game.

The other option it to keep replay, but that requires continuing to parse the rules. That's what got us into the current situation. If you're going to analyze a play in slo-mo you have to understand what it is you're trying to see. That makes the fans unhappy, "looked like a catch to me!", and it exposes us to more and more whining from Romo and Gruden about how the rules are ruining the game.

Is there a better, third option? Is there a way to make one of the other two better? What happens now?

[King Postwhore]

It amazes me that people can see the ball clearly move around as it hits the ground and think it's a catch. I don't know what sport people have been watching for the last 30 years 'cause it sure ain't fucking football.

I dont know, I can pretty easily see why people are disputing the call.  It looks like the moment when his knee and elbow are down, the ball is secured and over the goal line.  It's the next frames where the ball moves and its clear the catch wasn't fully completed, but there's that split second where all your senses are telling you that's a TD. 

Besides the coming down fully part, there's also the "ball just needs to touch the goal line" part that just looks like it's so clearly a touchdown as well.  Sort of like those plays where a RB holds the ball over the goal line right before he fumbles it but they still call it a TD because it crossed the plane just before he lost possession.  The difference here is possession and I understand that the receiver did not have it, but I totally see why people think he did in that split second.

When it comes to a catch at the goalie the knee and elbow are not the end of the play.  The receiver has to control the ball completely from the ground.

This is different than a running back who has control of the ball and has to only have the ball touch the goal line . A reception has to be fully in control after the fall to be considered a catch.

[King Postwhore]

HD replays has made these rules defined down to the millisecond move unfortunately.   So it clouds us as fans on what is the correct ruling.

[cramx3]

So what do people think the league should do going forward? I honestly only see two options. Do away with instant replay altogether and leave it up to the refs to make calls. I don't really like this as it just makes the whole thing more subjective. Moreover, since the networks are continuing to improve their coverage, we're going to see more and more bullet-time replays, highlighting every time a ref bungles an important call. Then we'll be exposed to more and more whining from Romo and Gruden about how refs are ruining the game.

The other option it to keep replay, but that requires continuing to parse the rules. That's what got us into the current situation. If you're going to analyze a play in slo-mo you have to understand what it is you're trying to see. That makes the fans unhappy, "looked like a catch to me!", and it exposes us to more and more whining from Romo and Gruden about how the rules are ruining the game.

Is there a better, third option? Is there a way to make one of the other two better? What happens now?

I say keep doing it.  Maybe shorten the timer if anything and work to make it more efficient as I see nothing wrong with trying to make the correct call however granular it may be, just don't make us wait forever is my only beef with it. 

However, just heard on my local WFAN radio while grabbing lunch that Vince McMahon could bring back the XFL and implement all the things that people hate about the NFL right now  thought that was really dumb but that's only the jockeys talking, not sure there's anymore to it than that

When it comes to a catch at the goalie the knee and elbow are not the end of the play.  The receiver has to control the ball completely from the ground.

This is different than a running back who has control of the ball and has to only have the ball touch the goal line . A reception has to be fully in control after the fall to be considered a catch.

Yes i understand that, but I can see why people just look at the image and think it's a TD and I understand why they feel that way even if it's not the correct call.

[TAC]

HD replays has made these rules defined down to the millisecond move unfortunately.   So it clouds us as fans on what is the correct ruling.

What exactly is clouded? The replay actually unclouds it. That’s the point of instant replay.

[King Postwhore]

As you can tell by the last few pages people do not understand the rule.  Even though it's there to read it's hard for the average fan to understand.

[OpenYourEyes311]

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.

He completed the catch when he caught it and secured it with both hands.  He fully had control of the ball with both hands.  The fact that he bobbled it AFTER HE CROSSED THE GOAL LINE AND WAS DOWN is bizarre as the determining factor of whether he had "control."  Thus, he had possession.  Following that, he was down by knee and elbow, with the ball extended over the goal line.  Again, the NFL turned it into a false construction where a catch somehow isn't a catch.  I think Jingle's interpretation of the rule is the correct one.  But the problem is, the rule IS subject to interpretation, and I think the interpretation is as wrong as wrong can be.

The rule isn't that you merely have to secure the ball for the microsecond you're down. The rule is that you have to complete the catch. He did not. He lost control when the ball hit the ground and that's never been a catch. Even in the days before instant replay it wasn't a catch. If it's not a catch then when he crossed the goal line doesn't matter since he never officially had possession.

As I said, we can bitch about the "completing the catch" rule all we want, though I consider it a necessity at this point. I don't see any basis whatsoever to argue about the application of the rule in this instance. Neither do the people who understand the rule better than any of us. 

It amazes me that people can see the ball clearly move around as it hits the ground and think it's a catch. I don't know what sport people have been watching for the last 30 years 'cause it sure ain't fucking football.

I have not been a part of this at all, but I've been reading and I have one problem: the bolded part above. "Even in the days before instant replay that would not have been a catch." Complete BS. The call on the field was that he MADE A CATCH. If there was no replay to watch to overturn, it would have remained that way.

I think I'm about to complain about something completely different, but here we go. If, at full speed, the refs call it catch, it should just stay that way, unless CHALLENGED BY THE OTHER TEAM. I have no real problem with replay, but to look at every scoring play is just dumbing down the game and making the refs job obsolete.

To me, that looks like a catch right up to the point where it moves a little bit. There's no bobble. It literally moves a little bit because it hits the ground. I get what the rule says and that it was called correctly for that reason. I would just like to live in a world where that's a catch.

*coming from a Pats fan*

[jingle.boy]

If this play had happened at the 50 yard line would it have been a catch?

I would say yes.  Again, my main beef is on the NFL's interpretation of control.  I don't think he ever lost control, and I don't think that the ground ever helped him gain control.  If anything, the ground simply altered the control he had on the ball (the rotation of his left hand over the top of the ball).

If we're going to play the 'what if' game, how 'bout this one then... if he'd taken 2 steps then dove into the endzone ball first and the ground dislodged it, would that have been a completion/TD?  Not sure it's the right comparison, as I think 2-steps are a "football move" but one knee+elbow is not - except at the sideline.

[cramx3]

Eli is pretty much spot on

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/giants-eli-manning-steelers-overturned-td-think-clear-catch-160128539.html

I really just think it comes down to that it flat out looks like a catch and the visual of it has everyone thinking it must be one.

[Nick]

If this play had happened at the 50 yard line would it have been a catch?

I would say yes.  Again, my main beef is on the NFL's interpretation of control.  I don't think he ever lost control, and I don't think that the ground ever helped him gain control.  If anything, the ground simply altered the control he had on the ball (the rotation of his left hand over the top of the ball).

If we're going to play the 'what if' game, how 'bout this one then... if he'd taken 2 steps then dove into the endzone ball first and the ground dislodged it, would that have been a completion/TD?  Not sure it's the right comparison, as I think 2-steps are a "football move" but one knee+elbow is not - except at the sideline.

Not a great comparison. At that point you could have caught the ball at the 10 yard line or ran it from the 50 yard line. Control/completion was established, so at that point all you have to do it cross the line.

[El Barto]

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.

He completed the catch when he caught it and secured it with both hands.  He fully had control of the ball with both hands.  The fact that he bobbled it AFTER HE CROSSED THE GOAL LINE AND WAS DOWN is bizarre as the determining factor of whether he had "control."  Thus, he had possession.  Following that, he was down by knee and elbow, with the ball extended over the goal line.  Again, the NFL turned it into a false construction where a catch somehow isn't a catch.  I think Jingle's interpretation of the rule is the correct one.  But the problem is, the rule IS subject to interpretation, and I think the interpretation is as wrong as wrong can be.

The rule isn't that you merely have to secure the ball for the microsecond you're down. The rule is that you have to complete the catch. He did not. He lost control when the ball hit the ground and that's never been a catch. Even in the days before instant replay it wasn't a catch. If it's not a catch then when he crossed the goal line doesn't matter since he never officially had possession.

As I said, we can bitch about the "completing the catch" rule all we want, though I consider it a necessity at this point. I don't see any basis whatsoever to argue about the application of the rule in this instance. Neither do the people who understand the rule better than any of us. 

It amazes me that people can see the ball clearly move around as it hits the ground and think it's a catch. I don't know what sport people have been watching for the last 30 years 'cause it sure ain't fucking football.

I have not been a part of this at all, but I've been reading and I have one problem: the bolded part above. "Even in the days before instant replay that would not have been a catch." Complete BS. The call on the field was that he MADE A CATCH. If there was no replay to watch to overturn, it would have remained that way.

I think I'm about to complain about something completely different, but here we go. If, at full speed, the refs call it catch, it should just stay that way, unless CHALLENGED BY THE OTHER TEAM. I have no real problem with replay, but to look at every scoring play is just dumbing down the game and making the refs job obsolete.

To me, that looks like a catch right up to the point where it moves a little bit. There's no bobble. It literally moves a little bit because it hits the ground. I get what the rule says and that it was called correctly for that reason. I would just like to live in a world where that's a catch.

*coming from a Pats fan*

I've made that remark several times, and up until this instance had included "if the ref actually saw the ball move when it hit the ground." That's important. Most of the time a ref probably wouldn't have seen it and it'd be a catch. If a ref in 1987 happened to see the ball move as it did here he'd have called it incomplete.

[El Barto]

Eli is pretty much spot on

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/giants-eli-manning-steelers-overturned-td-think-clear-catch-160128539.html

I really just think it comes down to that it flat out looks like a catch and the visual of it has everyone thinking it must be one.

It’s so clear to Manning, he doesn’t understand why others are confused as to what constitutes a catch in the NFL

“I think it is clear what a catch is,’’ Manning said. “Especially when you’re going to the ground, you got to control the ball the whole time. You got to have it. If the ball hits the ground, you’re going to the ground, the ball moves or hits the ground and there’s a little loss of contact through the end of the play, it’s gonna be an incompletion.’’

Yeah, I'm hep.

[TAC]

If this play had happened at the 50 yard line would it have been a catch?

I would say yes.  Again, my main beef is on the NFL's interpretation of control.  I don't think he ever lost control, and I don't think that the ground ever helped him gain control.  If anything, the ground simply altered the control he had on the ball (the rotation of his left hand over the top of the ball).

If we're going to play the 'what if' game, how 'bout this one then... if he'd taken 2 steps then dove into the endzone ball first and the ground dislodged it, would that have been a completion/TD?  Not sure it's the right comparison, as I think 2-steps are a "football move" but one knee+elbow is not - except at the sideline.

If he had taken 2 steps, then yes, it's a TD. But even at the sideline, you still have to maintain control when you hit the ground.

[El Barto]

If this play had happened at the 50 yard line would it have been a catch?

I would say yes.  Again, my main beef is on the NFL's interpretation of control.  I don't think he ever lost control, and I don't think that the ground ever helped him gain control.  If anything, the ground simply altered the control he had on the ball (the rotation of his left hand over the top of the ball).

I'm confused why you keep saying he had control while the ball was spinning around in his hand. Was it his intention to rotate the ball so the seems were facing down? Was he trying to toss the ball to his chest? Both of these things happened independent of his hand.

If we're going to play the 'what if' game, how 'bout this one then... if he'd taken 2 steps then dove into the endzone ball first and the ground dislodged it, would that have been a completion/TD?  Not sure it's the right comparison, as I think 2-steps are a "football move" but one knee+elbow is not - except at the sideline.

It depends on whether or not he'd established possession. Based on what you're describing I think it probably would be. The problem with James is that he never had possession. At all.

[pg1067]

It's not that the ball came loose when HE (the receiver) hit the ground.  What's important is that the ball came loose when THE BALL hit the ground.  What happened was that the receiver initially appeared to have control, but that control was lost as a result of the ball contacting the ground.  I agree with El Barto that that's not now and never has been a good catch (although in the pre-replay days, it's something that the officials might have easily missed).

If, instead, the ball had come loose when the receiver went down but had never itself touched the ground, and the receiver then re-established control, it would have been a good catch.

As noted, the fact that this happened at the goal line isn't relevant because a good catch was never made.

[jingle.boy]

@ EB on how they fix this.  Well, the genie is out of the bottle as you say.  I like to say that you can't shove toothpaste back in the tube.  I don't know.  Change what they review on IR?  Change how?  Define "control"?  I just don't know what improves these kinds of situations, or makes them worse. 

I know it was not his intention to rotate the ball the way it did, but - and here's where everyone has bought into the NFL's way of thinking - that rotation does not mean he's lost control of the ball.  Do me a favour... grab a football.  Roll it around in your hands any number of ways you want.  Can you still keep control of the ball?

[El Barto]

@ EB on how they fix this.  Well, the genie is out of the bottle as you say.  I like to say that you can't shove toothpaste back in the tube.  I don't know.  Change what they review on IR?  Change how?  Define "control"?  I just don't know what improves these kinds of situations, or makes them worse. 

I know it was not his intention to rotate the ball the way it did, but - and here's where everyone has bought into the NFL's way of thinking - that rotation does not mean he's lost control of the ball.  Do me a favour... grab a football.  Roll it around in your hands any number of ways you want.  Can you still keep control of the ball?

That's been the NFL's way of thinking for a very long time. It's not a new thing. If you see the ball moving around it's not under control. If you want to change that then you're now making it far more subjective, and you already think it's too much so. Movement is concrete. It's something we all can see, as we did here.

[Nick]

favour...

I think our failure to resolve this might be because we're clearly speaking different languages.

There is a difference between rotating the ball and the ground causing the rotation of the ball. I (and the refs) clearly think the ground caused the ball to rotate and that he temporarily lost control of the ball.

[jingle.boy]

favour...

I think our failure to resolve this might be because we're clearly speaking different languages.

There is a difference between rotating the ball and the ground causing the rotation of the ball. I (and the refs) clearly think the ground caused the ball to rotate and that he temporarily lost control of the ball.

Then take the "loses control" out of the rule, and replace it with "if the ball moves in the player's hands whatsoever".

[bosk1]

If this play had happened at the 50 yard line would it have been a catch?

I would say yes.  Again, my main beef is on the NFL's interpretation of control.  I don't think he ever lost control, and I don't think that the ground ever helped him gain control.  If anything, the ground simply altered the control he had on the ball (the rotation of his left hand over the top of the ball).

If we're going to play the 'what if' game, how 'bout this one then... if he'd taken 2 steps then dove into the endzone ball first and the ground dislodged it, would that have been a completion/TD?  Not sure it's the right comparison, as I think 2-steps are a "football move" but one knee+elbow is not - except at the sideline.

Not a great comparison. At that point you could have caught the ball at the 10 yard line or ran it from the 50 yard line. Control/completion was established, so at that point all you have to do it cross the line.

To me, it is a comparison that helps me crystalize the issue that I have with all of this.  If he catches the ball half a yard father away so that he is forced to take the requisite 2 steps, but in doing so, is still in the process of twisting and lunging toward the endzone all in one motion as he did, the ONLY thing that changes is the two steps in that fraction of a second.  He still during that same amount of time does the exact same thing with the ball, and it still ever so slightly moves when he hits the ground  Nothing changes whatsoever with respect to his "control" over the ball and what the ball actually does.[/b]  But in that situation, he is deemed to have had "control," whereas in the scenario that actually occurred, he is not.  That, to me, is bizarre, defies common sense, and is the wrong outcome.  But it just stems from interpreting the rule of what constitutes "control" in the way we interpret it.  That doesn't mean the system is broken.  I response to Barto's "what do we do about it?" post, I don't think we scrap the replay, or anything like that, because that isn't the problem.  And for the minority of plays that come out arguably better by doing so, the refs miss the opportunity to fix a lot more plays that actually need fixing.  If anything, I think it is "third option":  define "control" better.  But even then, that's not ideal because the way it is currently interpreted DOES work for the vast majority of situations.  Does "fixing" it to correct a very small minority improve things or make things worse?  I dunno.  Maybe the latter, and that's not what we want.  So at the end of the day, a few of us complain about it on the Internet or around the water cooler for a few days, and then move on to week 16 and the rest of our lives...

[jingle.boy]

So at the end of the day, a few of us complain about it on the Internet or around the water cooler for a few days, and then move on to week 16 and the rest of our lives...

Most accurate thing said in the last few pages.

[cramx3]

Honestly, it's the small intracacies the fact that games come down to these (every inch matters and so on) that makes the sport of football so good.  If we didn't have such close calls then the game would be less exciting.  I think it's great everyone is so into this call because it shows how tough and how hard earned everything is in the NFL.  Now if I was a Steelers fan, I may not see it that way.

[King Postwhore]

Here is the rule.

[Dream Team]

Honestly, it's the small intracacies the fact that games come down to these (every inch matters and so on) that makes the sport of football so good.  If we didn't have such close calls then the game would be less exciting.  I think it's great everyone is so into this call because it shows how tough and how hard earned everything is in the NFL.  Now if I was a Steelers fan, I may not see it that way.

Yeah. This is a sport where we have cameras slowing things down to a millionth of a second but first downs are still measured by two schmoes holding onto a chain. Completely logical.

I haven’t checked this thread in 2 days, but did anyone discuss Rogers being interfered with/held on that last play?

When James’ knee hit the ground he still had possession. The lunge to the end zone was a separate football move and technically he recovered his own fumble in the end zone. Any takers on that one?

The Steelers are being ripped for being situationally stupid (rightly so) but the Patriots weren’t exactly perfect in crunch time either. Terrible tackling on that long catch and run and then James was left completely uncovered. But yeah, the coaches and Ben stood around with their thumbs up their asses during the review instead of planning plays, so deserved to lose from that point on.

Their tallest and fastest receiver was not on the field for the biggest play of the year .

Cowherd has always said it best, an emotion-driven coach is no match for the analytical Belichick style. Tomlin FELT IN HIS GUT like it was a good idea. Of course if the fake spike play had been successful, everyone would be lauding the guts and bravery of the play - that’s why Monday morning quarterbacking is such an easy job: criticize what didn’t work after the fact, with benefit of hindsight and not the pressure of the moment.

Anyway, time to move on and try to preserve the 2nd seed and get Brown back healthy.

[Grappler]

When James’ knee hit the ground he still had possession. The lunge to the end zone was a separate football move and technically he recovered his own fumble in the end zone. Any takers on that one?

Read the last few pages.   

The knee being down has nothing to do with the play.  He was catching a thrown ball, so he has to fully control the ball all the way to the ground.

[El Barto]

When James’ knee hit the ground he still had possession. The lunge to the end zone was a separate football move and technically he recovered his own fumble in the end zone. Any takers on that one?

Sure. That's an easy one. He never had possession to begin with.

[Nick]

When James’ knee hit the ground he still had possession. The lunge to the end zone was a separate football move and technically he recovered his own fumble in the end zone. Any takers on that one?

Sure. That's an easy one. He never had possession to begin with.

Yup, just like you can't score a touchdown without a completion, you can't have possession without a completion.

[King Postwhore]

It wasn't like he caught the pass, turned and dove for the end zone.  He was diving for the catch and stretched out while hitting the ground.

[KevShmev]

I disagree. He caught the ball, quickly pulled it into his body, and then stretched for the goal line.  That was a catch in the NFL prior to this ridiculous rule.  And I think their interpretation of the rule Sunday was incorrect.  But I was not surprised.

[King Postwhore]

I certainly want no instant replay. That being said he don't love in the middle of the dive tries to extend he didn't make a play Kev so by the rules of today that's not a catch.


Again I will say I hate instant replay.

[TAC]

That being said he don't love in the middle of the dive

 

[King Postwhore]

Come on you should know me better.

He's catching the ball while diving and trying to reach out o goal line at the same time. It's not a football move because he didn't complete the catch.

[eric42434224]

When judging by a specific NFL rule, it was not a catch.  By all other standards, including the eyeball test and common-sense, it was a catch and touchdown.