Posted on 12/17/2017 5:14:29 PM PST by a little elbow grease
As a Steeler fan who just endured that game:
I only have one thing to say about the ending of that game:
As I understand the rule of a “pass catch” it is when a player 1. --- takes possession of the thrown ball , THEN 2. ---- makes what they call “a football move”. That is what determines a catch. 1 and 2.
(This rule I believe was first employed just a few years ago concerning a catch and a subsequent fumble. A catch was determined a catch if the receiver took control of the ball and then made “a football move” before he may fumble it when hit.) --- a pretty crappy rule no matter what.
Well……….. our Steeler player definitely 1. -- caught that ball and had complete control over it, then 2. --- reached out (IN “A FOOTBALL MOVE”)…… never having been touched by the other team (not that that is at all relevant) …….he reached over the goal line and as the ball was in his grasp the ball hit the ground slightly but the ball was still in his grasp.
That is a CERTAIN CATCH AND TOUCHDOWN because he took control of the ball then (reached over the goal line—“a football move”) with the ball and kept control never having been touched by the opponent. Touchdown.
1.--- It was a completed pass THEN 2. --- he made “a football move” reaching into the end zone -- that term is in the rule book. He landed in the end zone keeping control of the ball AFTER THE CATCH AND “THE FOOTBALL MOVE”. (Even if he “bobbled” the ball slightly, he had made a catch AND made that required "football move" as he reached over the goal line. ) Total horsesh*t call.
If the NFL had any balls (that aren’t deflated), they would admit they made a HUGE MISTAKE for the owner of the Patriots, Robert Kraft.
Total BS
The Steelers outplayed those New England characters most of the night, except for that beastly tight end of theirs.
Well……… we’ll see them later this year, and I don’t care where that game will be played, we may have Antonio Brown back for the entire game then.
The Patriots are going down the next time, no matter where it is played. (jmo)
________
Danke
____
ROFL
_________
true
________
I tend to want to believe that.
TD in my book.
If he had been running towards the goal line with possession of the football, he would have had possession, and the play would have ended when the ball crossed the plane.
“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.”
Here, the player did not complete the catch and establish possession, even though the ball was in the end-zone. Had possession been established, with any portion of the ball in-bounds in the end-zone, it would have been a TD in either case you cite - but only one of your scenarios fits that.
This is not a new rule. The “new” part of the rule, is that if fully controlled through the catch, not using the ground to control the catch, and not bobbling the ball at or after the ball’s contact with the ground, that the ball is more recently allowed to touch the ground.
The play was not a catch under either the new or the old form of the rules, and as such can’t be a TD.
It’s not a catch until he completes the catch. If he’s going to the ground, that includes the player hitting the ground and maintaining control for a few moments afterwards.
He’s not down until he is touched while on the ground or on the ground after being touched on his way to the ground.
I can’t say about Peewee football, but it isn’t a catch in College either.
The difference in college is that if he’d held onto it, he’d have been down where the ball was when his knee touched, and in the NFL he has to be touched while on the ground or on the way to the ground.
Depends on whether he had established possession prior to touching the pylon. If he had it, it’s a TD. If he didn’t have possession, it’s not a TD unless he holds on after he hits the ground. If he lost control before or while crossing the plane, he also has to come down in-bounds.
It was never completely true that the ground couldn’t cause a fumble. A player who is not touched, but falls to ground and loses possession of the ball has fumbled - but otherwise, yes, the ground can’t cause a fumble.
Regardless, this wasn’t a fumble - since he never established possession within the longstanding rules of the game.
That rule was changed a few years ago. Dez Bryant of Dallas had a near identical type of play a few years ago.
Actually, that rule was in place for a long time. They just changed some wording after the Dez Bryant play, affecting portions that weren't a factor in this play, like defining "football move".
It undoubtedly was under-inflated. All of them were.
At 41F, starting at 72F, that would be a loss of pressure of 1.55 PSI, plus whatever additional effect of evaporative cooling. First learned and demonstrated in 1702.
That term has a definition, and stretching forward does not fulfill it.
break the plane with control
But not possession, which is what is required. Control is just one feature required to establish possession - in this case it must be maintained briefly after the receiver hits the ground. That much has been the rule for at least half a century.
No.
It is different for a player that has already established and has possession and crosses the goal line, and one who has not already established possession and crosses or is beyond the goal line.
______
Now that that is completely clear ....... may I have the injection now, Doctor?
;-)
It sure ass hell looked like a catch to me....if there was justice the Pats would insist the results be corrected!!!
I have to agree that the rule is stupid.
Same call that went against Calvin Johnson (Lions) against the Bears.
Referees need more time studying these...specifically.
Correct. I didn’t specify that earlier. The ball clearly came loose when he hit the ground.
The Kneelers were not supposed to win. The Ref’s made sure of that. The NFL has to stay relevant. Like fake news, like fake N Felon L.
I dont watch because it is so fake.
FUNFL
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.