Now you see it, now you don’t. (Or, now I see it, but I didn’t).
I get it, and I get the rule interpretation. I’m not arguing the final decision now, after due contemplation. But, in real time, it sure looked like a catch.
For one thing, the initial camera angle was from behind, and it looked like he’d maintained possession when hitting the ground, so the consideration of that was a surprise. It was only when they showed the slow motion view from the front that I could see what happened when he fell—the ball clearly hit the ground and shifted in his hands.
As to the rule: The goal-plane thing has been so ingrained in me, that I thought it was of the same magnitude. Conflict of laws, so to speak. If a runner has the football, reaches over, and then loses possession after he breaks the plane, it looks like a fumble, but is in fact a touchdown. I’ve seen touchdowns where the runner’s possession looked more iffy at the moment of plane-crossing than this one did. Further, I’ve seen sideline passes where the player bobbles the ball as he goes out of bounds, but then secures it (no catch). This looked like he had more secure possession in his hands than either of those cases.
So, visually, it didn’t look so great.
But, I understand what the refs were looking at, and why they decided it after due consideration. That took some guts to do in Pittsburgh!
For one thing, the initial camera angle was from behind, and it looked like he’d maintained possession when hitting the ground, so the consideration of that was a surprise. It was only when they showed the slow motion view from the front that I could see what happened when he fell—the ball clearly hit the ground and shifted in his hands.
As to the rule: The goal-plane thing has been so ingrained in me, that I thought it was of the same magnitude. Conflict of laws, so to speak. If a runner has the football, reaches over, and then loses possession after he breaks the plane, it looks like a fumble, but is in fact a touchdown. I’ve seen touchdowns where the runner’s possession looked more iffy at the moment of plane-crossing than this one did. Further, I’ve seen sideline passes where the player bobbles the ball as he goes out of bounds, but then secures it (no catch). This looked like he had more secure possession in his hands than either of those cases.
____
........ well said.
It did indeed take the proper angle. I didn’t catch it until around the third replay, when you see from the right side, the left hand on top of the ball and the laces rotating around.
The ‘break the plane’ assumes possession. I’ll agree that the pre-requisite isn’t often stated, because it’s assumed everyone understands that.