mannc Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 7 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said: It do move a little, but to me he still has control. Absolutely horrible call. Ball was clearly caught and controlled after his knees hit the ground. Anything that happened after that should have been considered a fumble, not an incomplete. Ball had already crossed the goal line, as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Schick Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 9 hours ago, PeterGriffin said: You can not tell if his fingers are under the ball or not. Should have been a TD as it was called on the field. The proof just isn't there to overturn the on field call. After watching that numerous times, it sure does look like his hand is under the ball. The ball clearly hit the ground. I don't even think there's an argument that it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryMadman Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 19 minutes ago, Chuck Schick said: The ball clearly hit the ground. I don't even think there's an argument that it did. When? His right hand and at minimum fingers are under the ball the whole time. It may have hit the ground but you can't actually see hit the ground, it's just an assumption it hit the ground, therefor call on the field should stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybee Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 Thats a catch at every level of football except NFL. Was called a non-catch because someone made a rule. Someone can un-make a rule and should. The receivers being held to a different standard doesnt make sense. The reason he bobbled it at the end was because he had control in the first place and made a football move. If thats a running back, a QB or any other player the play is over once the ball breaks the plane and its a touchdown. Anyone else notice that not one Patriot argued it not being a catch ? They'd conceded as anyone with a pair of eyes that isnt a sheep would do. If that play were anywhere else on the field I'm betting hoodie wouldnt even have red-flagged it. Why does this rule exist in the first place ? Its hurting the game, just like the touchback rule Carr got screwed on in the late game. I am not a fan of either team but thats a pointless rule that detracts, not enhances the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 To me the point isn't that you can't interret the rule technically to reverse the call. It is that if someone had touched him it would have been a catch and ball inside the 1. Instead he tries to score and the ball moves so now its not a catch. And, its not a fumble because the ground can't cause a fumble. I don't know about you but that is one hell of a supersede rule. I mean I knew they were emphasizing the passing game but jeez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 The catch reminded me of Bobby Shaw's failed 2pt conversion a while back. Caught the ball, was in control, but when he was bringing it up to celebrate it got smacked out and called incomplete. Would have been a conversion if he simply rolled over. Last night was a catch - he was in full control of the ball when he caught it, and the only reason for the bobble was that he made a football move to bring the ball across the goal line. This is the exact opposite of the Seferian Jenkins call (I wonder against which team). If the ASF call was that he fumbled the ball through the endzone, this should have been a catch and then a fumble recovery in the EZ. NFL can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 You cannot clearly see that the ball hit the ground. You may be able to infer that it probably did, but it was not clear enough to overturn. Just another Pats* screw job. That play should have stayed the way it was called on the field 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 3 minutes ago, SWATeam said: You cannot clearly see that the ball hit the ground. You may be able to infer that it probably did, but it was not clear enough to overturn. Just another Pats* screw job. That play should have stayed the way it was called on the field I bet you 90% of the refs in the league uphold the play. Walt Coleman would have probably spent 2 seconds looking at that before confirming it, in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, JR in Pittsburgh said: I bet you 90% of the refs in the league uphold the play. Walt Coleman would have probably spent 2 seconds looking at that before confirming it, in fact. I think that is done centrally now and the Surface thing is a sham. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said: I think that is done centrally now and the Surface thing is a sham. I would be curious to see how that works. Like is the central guy just telling the ref what to do or is there collaboration? Would love to have a Mic on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 Shall we revisit this that was called a catch to win the game for the Pats**? The ball in this play clearly touches the ground and moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said: Shall we revisit this that was called a catch to win the game for the Pats**? The ball in this play clearly touches the ground and moves. That was bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said: That was bad. I believe they just went with the call on the field as well because there wasn’t enough to overrule it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 7 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said: I believe they just went with the call on the field as well because there wasn’t enough to overrule it. So the opposite of what they did yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said: So the opposite of what they did yesterday. Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricko1112 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 10 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said: And that's why the call was reversed. Bad rule, but called correctly here. The knee being down and crossing the plane have no bearing here. There are plenty of shots we can Google that show the ball out of James' possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 1 minute ago, ricko1112 said: There are plenty of shots we can Google that show the ball out of James' possession. Lol. False but lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricko1112 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 36 minutes ago, GG said: The catch reminded me of Bobby Shaw's failed 2pt conversion a while back. Caught the ball, was in control, but when he was bringing it up to celebrate it got smacked out and called incomplete. Would have been a conversion if he simply rolled over. Last night was a catch - he was in full control of the ball when he caught it, and the only reason for the bobble was that he made a football move to bring the ball across the goal line. This is the exact opposite of the Seferian Jenkins call (I wonder against which team). If the ASF call was that he fumbled the ball through the endzone, this should have been a catch and then a fumble recovery in the EZ. NFL can't have it both ways. The receiver must control the ball after initial contact with the ground. That's what the rule says. Clearly, James lost control. His left hand was totally off the ball and the ball was resting on the ground. We can argue it's a dumb rule, but it's the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProcessTheTrust Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 It sucked watching them squeak the win out but in a weird way, I thought I might work in our favor. Probably not but just thinking, if they lost yesterday, no way they are losing 3 straight. Am I saying that means we win this week? No, and we probably get smoked, but whatever the crazy odds may be, the are somehow more likely (in my view) with them coming off a win. Either way, I just hope we make it a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryMadman Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 7 minutes ago, ricko1112 said: The receiver must control the ball after initial contact with the ground. That's what the rule says. Clearly, James lost control. His left hand was totally off the ball and the ball was resting on the ground. We can argue it's a dumb rule, but it's the rule. You can't see that. You are assuming that. Can you definitively tell that his right hand and fingers are not under the ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts