Posted on 12/17/2017 5:14:29 PM PST by a little elbow grease
On the one hand, if he had been going to the sideline, caught the ball with apparent control, gotten his knee down and then rolled out of bounds, losing the ball against the ground in the process, it would have been an incomplete pass.
But, if he had been running towards the goal line, extended his hand as he was going down, and then lost the ball after it crossed the plane, it would have been a touchdown, and not a fumble.
Which of these two cases did this play most closely resemble? Does going through the plane of the goal end the comparison with the incomplete pass? I dunno... they'll be talking about this one for a while. I'm glad it wasn't in a post-season game, even if the outcome favored my team. Actually, I think the Steelers outplayed the Pats for the most part, and deserved to win.
_______
. well said.
Patriots fan here, that was definitely a touchdown for the Steelers.
You don’t understand the rule. Until he becomes a runner, crossing the plane does not come into play. And he lunged instead of running.
NONE.... they never do.
FTNFL
Garoppolo is an excellent QB and I think part of the motivation to trade him was that he deserved to play but would have potentially never gotten to do so with the Patriots. The Patriots won't have to play against him for at least three years until the NFC West comes around again in the AFC East opponent rotation (barring a Super Bowl appearance and discounting preseason games that might be scheduled) so it isn't likely to come back to bite them.
Who cares? You’re supposed to be boycotting the Felon League.
The main issue is that it was another “Tom Brady” moment.
What I mean by that is with two minutes left and the score close, Brady and the Patriots marched down the filed for a touchdown to take the lead and left the Steelers :59 seconds to counter.
In the end this is not the place the Steelers needed to be in.
The call against the Steelers, looked like he had possesion/control of the ball. The “football move” was in fact legal, the question is whether the “flick of the wrist” when the ball hit the ground was a loss of control as an extension of the reception. I don’t think it was.
That said...the ball should have been spotted at the 1 yard line to reflect the completed pass.
I thought so too. It got lost in the mayhem.
It used to be the ground couldn’t cause a fumble. And I didn’t see any ball movement before he landed in the end zone.
Then you would agree that the Cowboys were robbed by a blown call in 1976?
Drew Person had a game-winning touchdown catch invalidated by a bad call.
He had control of the ball and both feet down in bounds.
this^
Rothlesberger went one trick pony on that play, did not pursue any other options including falling on the ball.
___________
But NO DEFENDER had touched him before he scored.
TD
No controversy at all. No catch. Easy call.
He caught the ball while he was falling to the ground. NFL rules say that when you are falling to the ground, you MUST maintain possession throughout the contact with the ground. That ball bit the ground. Clear as day. Easy call.
And why should anyone care about what goes on in the Nutskell Foozbell League?
What is this “football” matter you type about.
You’re going way back with that reference. As an Oilers fan, that still hurts
____
Thanks for your even handed observation.
See you later this year.
Even Myron Cope knew it.
#BoycottTheNFL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.