• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Yeah, dead horse I know, but did they really get the call correct?

Coryea

Coryea

Nothing left to do but win the whole ******* thing
Member
Forefather
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
11,153
Reaction score
12,792
Points
113
Location
Western PA
This is from the rule book:
Item 1.*Player Going to the Ground.*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.


Notice the wording, he must maintain control of the ball until after HIS INITIAL contact with ground. James's initial contact was his knee, and he still obviously had control of the ball.

Sent from my XT1585 using Steeler Nation mobile app
 
It was the right call under the dumbest rule in pro sports. Every football expert from tony Dungy to Peter King said it was the right call, horrible rule.
 
I truly believe as objectively as possible that it should have stood as a TD.

I use the term "stood" because it was initially ruled a TD on the field and by rule conclusive proof that the ball made contact with the field without his fingers being between the ball and field would have to be shown.

Unless there is some angle that exists that I have yet to see there is no conclusive proof that the ball didn't roll around on his fingers and he re-established possession in the end zone..... which is allowed.

The problem is there is no camera angle that should be able to meet the requirements for over turning the call on the field.
 
JPSteel said:
It was the right call under the dumbest rule in pro sports. Every football expert from tony Dungy to Peter King said it was the right call, horrible rule.
Click to expand...

Weird since I saw a ton of tweets from guys who cover football to players who called it a terrible call.
 
TWEEK1106 said:
I truly believe as objectively as possible that it should have stood as a TD.

I use the term "stood" because it was initially ruled a TD on the field and by rule conclusive proof that the ball made contact with the field without his fingers being between the ball and field would have to be shown.

Unless there is some angle that exists that I have yet to see there is no conclusive proof that the ball didn't roll around on his fingers and he re-established possession in the end zone..... which is allowed.

The problem is there is no camera angle that should be able to meet the requirements for over turning the call on the field.
Click to expand...
I agree here also, regardless of the rule there wasn't conclusive evidence to over turn it

Sent from my XT1585 using Steeler Nation mobile app
 
Brady and Gronk raped the swiss cheese Steelers defense, gutting them even before the swollen headed brain dead plays by Jesse and Ben effectively ended the Steelers season.

That's a much better title for this thread
 
By the wording it should've been a catch, he wasn't upright to be considered a runner, and he maintained possession after his initial contact with the ground.

Sent from my XT1585 using Steeler Nation mobile app
 
Coryea said:
I agree here also, regardless of the rule there wasn't conclusive evidence to over turn it

Sent from my XT1585 using Steeler Nation mobile app
Click to expand...

PFT said there were 3 minutes 20 seconds from the time James scored to the time the ref announced the result of the replay. In what world does a play take that long to review? If you need that long to "get a play right" then it shouldn't be overturned. At that point, the replay officials are specifically looking for reasons to overturn a play. As I've said in multiple posts, if they originally called the play incomplete, I would be fine with the refs saying there was inconclusive evidence to call it a complete pass. However, the same should be said for how it played out. There was not conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.
 
Coryea said:
This is from the rule book:
Item 1.*Player Going to the Ground.*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.


Notice the wording, he must maintain control of the ball until after HIS INITIAL contact with ground. James's initial contact was his knee, and he still obviously had control of the ball.

Sent from my XT1585 using Steeler Nation mobile app
Click to expand...


What could the NFL say except there is a Brady rule?
 
JPSteel said:
It was the right call under the dumbest rule in pro sports. Every football expert from tony Dungy to Peter King said it was the right call, horrible rule.
Click to expand...

The rule use to be even worse. If the ball ever touched the ground as the player went to the ground it was ruled incomplete. There was an uproar when it cost a team a playoff game. The WR caught the ball and when he went to the ground the ball barley touched the ground and was called incomplete per the rule at the time even though the ball never moved. So they changed the rule to it can touch the ground as long as you maintain control/the ball does not move.
 
JPSteel said:
It was the right call under the dumbest rule in pro sports. Every football expert from tony Dungy to Peter King said it was the right call, horrible rule.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There shouldn't be a different rule for runners than receivers.
 
SteelerFan448 said:
PFT said there were 3 minutes 20 seconds from the time James scored to the time the ref announced the result of the replay. In what world does a play take that long to review? If you need that long to "get a play right" then it shouldn't be overturned. At that point, the replay officials are specifically looking for reasons to overturn a play. As I've said in multiple posts, if they originally called the play incomplete, I would be fine with the refs saying there was inconclusive evidence to call it a complete pass. However, the same should be said for how it played out. There was not conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.
Click to expand...

I've never heard the term "surviving the ground" used as a reason to overturn a call before that game. Don't think I ever will, either. I totally agree with what I bolded. There was not conclusive evidence to overturn, especially on an automatically reviewed scoring play. Based on that alone, and no application of whatever "surviving the ground" means, the refs got it wrong.
 
I thought a ball in possession crossing the goal line is a TD. If James in contacting or "surviving" the ground bobbled the ball, why does it matter? The clock stops when the TD is awarded so the point of the possession discussion is irrelevant.
The rule should be scrapped and in this case used to favor the outcome of the game IMHO.
The 3 plus minutes to "get the call right" is curious considering the sideline judge (roll tape) instantly ran on to the field signaling the TD!
Hmmm
 
The call by the letter of the law may have been correct in this instance (I'm not saying I thought it was), but the issue is that the only thing consistent about the way it is called, is that it always benefits NE. Nobody in the NFL will step up and rationally explain why Cook gets a TD and James doesn't.

If the Pats get a Lombardi this year, they need to make sure the NFL VP gets a ring. He's their MVP. 3 for 3.
 
steelhurt said:
Why not Tom. It seems to be a Brady and Pats league. This entire NFL is getting closer and closer to losing all credibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
Click to expand...



How do you get closer to something that is allready there?????





Salute the nation
 
SteelerFan448 said:
PFT said there were 3 minutes 20 seconds from the time James scored to the time the ref announced the result of the replay. In what world does a play take that long to review? If you need that long to "get a play right" then it shouldn't be overturned. At that point, the replay officials are specifically looking for reasons to overturn a play. As I've said in multiple posts, if they originally called the play incomplete, I would be fine with the refs saying there was inconclusive evidence to call it a complete pass. However, the same should be said for how it played out. There was not conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.
Click to expand...

Didn't a review used to have a 90 second time limit. Regardless, if it's taking over 3 minutes to review it then there is nothing conclusive about the final decision.
 
VaSteelerFan said:
The call by the letter of the law may have been correct in this instance (I'm not saying I thought it was), but the issue is that the only thing consistent about the way it is called, is that it always benefits NE. Nobody in the NFL will step up and rationally explain why Cook gets a TD and James doesn't.

If the Pats get a Lombardi this year, they need to make sure the NFL VP gets a ring. He's their MVP. 3 for 3.
Click to expand...

Pat***** 8-3
Riveron 3-0

Pat*****+Riveron = 11-3


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
 
The rules were written by league attorneys so they can be argued as either a catch or a non catch. Whichever way the league chooses.

They are purposefully written that way so the networks, (with huge NFL contracts) can trot out their "former VP of NFL Officiating" insert name here __________ ( name always ends with a vowel ) and back up any call made by "league" review.

When in reality Mike Pierra could debate Dean Blandino, one side could take catch, while the other side takes non catch, and each side would have a compelling argument to be decided by Tommy Two Times (insert last name here) _______o, in the league office who after consulting the rule book, Page 63 paragraph 7 section BS- Entitled-When NE does not have the ball, would rule........

"It's not a catch, not a catch."

ALL scoring plays and turnovers are reviewed, not for fundamental fairness, not for some high and mighty desire to get it right, but for control of the game by the league office, specifically scores and outcomes. Same thing with the "no coaches challenges" after the 2 minute warning, it is all designed for league control. (Who in the hell do these coaches think they are anyways.)

This game is played on a field in Pittsburgh, its outcome is decided in an office in New York.





And that is all I got to say about that.

1200.jpg
 
Last edited:
Drink IRON City said:
How do you get closer to something that is allready there?????





Salute the nation
Click to expand...

Ya, I don’t even know why I bother watching anymore. It’s already pre-determined the outcome that is. Days of WWF and now WWE. Hell, why not make Vince McMahon commissioner. You already have idiots like Gronkowski doing elbow drops.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
 
Love how Blandino said that at the start of every year, he tells WRs to not reach out for the goal line. Yeah, that's when you should know there is a serious problem with your game, when you are telling offensive guys to not try and score. What a crock of ****.
 
Regardless of how anyone feels about the "Megatron" rule and definition of a completed pass, there wasn't sufficient, conclusive video evidence to overturn. The assumption the ball hit the turf and James wasn't holding it with his right hand has to be made to come to the conclusion that "it didn't survive to the ground," and no matter how likely that explanation may be, an assumption is not conclusive video evidence vs. on the C. Johnson play where you can clearly see the ball bouncing straight up from the turf and cleanly out of his hand.

Overturning the on the field call was a disgraceful fraud. To answer the question posed in the thread title: NO
 
VaSteelerFan said:
The call by the letter of the law may have been correct in this instance (I'm not saying I thought it was), but the issue is that the only thing consistent about the way it is called, is that it always benefits NE. Nobody in the NFL will step up and rationally explain why Cook gets a TD and James doesn't.
Click to expand...

There's no letter of the law, the replay official gets to decide what is and isn't a catch without any real standards. In the Cheats Texans game for example it was "I think Cooks made the catch, he didn't bobble it so much when he hit the ground". On the other hand in the Steelers game it was "Jesse James bobbled it just a little too much when it hit the ground I think." Same replay official made the call in both games. It's a guess, or it's simply what the official wants it to be.
 
In the Cheats Texans game for example it was "I think Cooks made the catch, he didn't bobble it so much when he hit the ground".
Click to expand...
It bounced out of his hands into his face. Are you ******* kidding? The Cooks non-catch was far more clear cut than James.

Now THAT was a non-catch if you determine a player has to control the ball all the way to the ground. He clearly did NOT. Not even close. If that's your rule that was as horse-**** a call as you can make. With James, the football does spin in his hands. It does. I can see where they say he bobbled it. I think it sucks but Ok. But if the same fuggin' guy who said Cooks catch was good ruled that James catch wasn't. Well that's horse-****.

But. It's a game. There's another game. Hopefully the league wants the Steelers to win.

It's the Browns game I'm worried about. I very strongly feel the league does NOT want the Browns to go 0-16.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top