Good read on Xavier Grimble

[antdrewjosh]

When Xavier Grimble left high school, he had no reason to believe he would be an underdog story in the NFL. To glance at him now is to wonder how he became one.

His 6-foot-4, 261-pound frame fulfills the emerging new archetype of the NFL tight end in the spread offense era. He is broad-shouldered but slim. Tall and muscular, but fast. Too speedy for linebackers to cover but too large for safeties to handle.


Can't post the rest pay site good read though.

Bumpy road brings Grimble’s journey to Steelers - http://dkpittsburghsports.com/2016/09/20/bumpy-road-brings-grimbles-journey-steelers/

When Green returns we will have a potentially monster TE group.

 

[POP]

I knew nothing about this guy. I thought he was a big WR. I don't think he scored that TD by the way. He lost possession just as he was crossing the goal line and he never regained it.

 

[CoolieMan]

he took two steps and dove across the goal line. he lost possession when the ball hit the turf but picked the ball back up in the endzone. That was a touchdown

 

[MTC]

Big weapon and a playmaker in process. Grimble has shown he can get open

 

[antdrewjosh]

It was definitely a Td he established possession before he dove and once the ball crosses the plane play over. Not the same as catching it in the end zone and going to the ground

 

[Wingman]

Facts instead of hyperbole, what a concept.

 

[SteelBuckeye]

I knew nothing about this guy. I thought he was a big WR. I don't think he scored that TD by the way. He lost possession just as he was crossing the goal line and he never regained it.

It's in the books as a TD ... So, "officially" he scored it. That's all that matters to me.

 

[Steelerfan81]

It was 100% a TD.

 

[diver]

It does illustrate the point of who the hell knows what is a catch.

When I saw the play, I thought it was going to be overturned. Do you guys remember in the 2008 AFCC game against the Ravens, early in the game Santonio Holmes had an almost identical play to the one Grimble had Sunday? That play in the AFCC game always kinda pissed me off, I thought that was a TD. It was called a TD and they overturned it. I don't know why I remember that, hell the Steelers won. But if they had lost that game, that overturn would be burning us to this day.

 

[wig]

I don't think he scored that TD by the way. He lost possession just as he was crossing the goal line and he never regained it.

Did you even watch the same game? As soon as the ball crossed the plane of the goal line, he'd scored a TD. It was a done deal. But Beyond that, he did recover the ball in the end-zone after it slipped out of his hands, after he hit the ground, after he crossed the plane...

So, the referees would have had themselves a terrible conundrum had they decided to call it a fumble. Since he recovered it. They would have do decide.

A) did he fumble it before the Endzone, then recover inside the endzone?
B) did he fumble inside the Endzone, then subsequently recover his own fumble?
C) was there no fumble at all because we remember that old rule, the ground can't cause a fumble...
D) was he down by contact before he crossed the plane or fumbled the ball? Oh ****! Now we got issues.

Or... Did he cross the plane, with control, score the TD. Subsequently lose the ball after he had crossed the plane and scored, then picked up the the football?

I think we just stick to the easy interpretation of the rules that say as soon as the ball crosses the plane and is in the player's control it's a TD. Hey! We're done here.

 

[diver]

Did you even watch the same game? As soon as the ball crossed the plane of the goal line, he'd scored a TD. It was a done deal. But Beyond that, he did recover the ball in the end-zone after it slipped out of his hands, after he hit the ground, after he crossed the plane...

So, the referees would have had themselves a terrible conundrum had they decided to call it a fumble. Since he recovered it. They would have do decide.

A) did he fumble it before the Endzone, then recover inside the endzone?
B) did he fumble inside the Endzone, then subsequently recover his own fumble?
C) was there no fumble at all because we remember that old rule, the ground can't cause a fumble...
D) was he down by contact before he crossed the plane or fumbled the ball? Oh ****! Now we got issues.

Or... Did he cross the plane, with control, score the TD. Subsequently lose the ball after he had crossed the plane and scored, then picked up the the football?

I think we just stick to the easy interpretation of the rules that say as soon as the ball crosses the plane and is in the player's control it's a TD. Hey! We're done here.

Pop has a point, though.

Why is it then that a receiver, if he makes the catch IN the endzone, gets two feet down, gets tackled and does not control the ball when he hits the ground, is that not a catch? He broke the plane, for **** sake, cause he was in the end zone.

 

[Wingman]

because he has to control the ball get two feet down and make a football move. Grimble did that, caught the ball, controled the ball shifted it to one hand while he put one hand down to balance and lunge for the goal line. He then grasped the ball with both hands and stretched for the goal line with the ball extended in front of him. The ball broke the plane of the goal line and at that point it is a touch down. Since he had gone from a receiver to a runner, yards after the catch, he no longer had to control it to the ground.

 

[antdrewjosh]

Wing has it the difference is the football move he did all that. In the end zone you don't need to make a football move because you are already in the end zone. Just keep possession all the way to the ground if you fall

 

[diver]

because he has to control the ball get two feet down and make a football move. Grimble did that, caught the ball, controled the ball shifted it to one hand while he put one hand down to balance and lunge for the goal line. He then grasped the ball with both hands and stretched for the goal line with the ball extended in front of him. The ball broke the plane of the goal line and at that point it is a touch down. Since he had gone from a receiver to a runner, yards after the catch, he no longer had to control it to the ground.

Look, I know you are right. I am not arguing with the explanation as much as I am with the rule. Why would one need to make a football move if you are already in the endzone with two feet down? To me it should either be catch, two feet, TD regardless of what happens after that if in other plays all you have to do is break the plane, or it is never a TD unless you maintain possession of the ball all the way through until the whistle regardless of the play. To me one or the other would simplify things for the refs and the fans.

 

[diver]

Wing has it the difference is the football move he did all that. In the end zone you don't need to make a football move because you are already in the end zone. Just keep possession all the way to the ground if you fall

I posted to fast and didn't see yours. Still, if when a player, as soon as he breaks the plane the play is over in other situations, to be consistent I think that should apply to catches. Catch, two feet, TD.

The play that frustrates me is when a guy is running out to the side, sticks the ball out, breaks the plane, gets hit and loses possession but TD. To me that should be no more of a TD than the catch rule. Possess it all the way until the whistle, regardless of situation.

Do you remember the Holmes play from the AFCC game that year that I referenced? I'm telling you, it was really no different he the Grimble play but was overturned. I hate the inconsistencies.

 

[antdrewjosh]

You making it too hard Diver..once you break the plane its over. Just try to think of it like that..

 

[diver]

You making it too hard Diver..once you break the plane its over. Just try to think of it like that..

Heh. Maybe. I don't mean to be an ***, but once you catch the ball in the endzone with two feet, haven't you broken the plane? Shouldn't it be over at that point?

BTW, I found the Holmes play on Youtube. Man, it is almost the same thing as the Grimble play. I may be wrong though in that it wasn't overturned, it was called incomplete on the field, which makes a difference.

Also, how is the Grimble play different than the Dez Bryant no catch in Green Bay? Again, I am not arguing with you. I have a problem with the inconsistency of the NFL in these calls. IMO they could easily simplify it.

 

[antdrewjosh]

Heh. Maybe. I don't mean to be an ***, but once you catch the ball in the endzone with two feet, haven't you broken the plane? Shouldn't it be over at that point?

BTW, I found the Holmes play on Youtube. Man, it is almost the same thing as the Grimble play. I may be wrong though in that it wasn't overturned, it was called incomplete on the field, which makes a difference.

Are you referring to plays where the player goes to the ground in the end zone?? If you are its not over because the players has to keep possession all the way thru. On catches in the end zone where he is standing, he doesn't have to make a football move but he does need get two feet down of course and also display possession for whatever amount the refs deems acceptable to demonstrate a catch

 

[MT~Forged]

I knew nothing about this guy. I thought he was a big WR. I don't think he scored that TD by the way. He lost possession just as he was crossing the goal line and he never regained it.

It was a TD the NANO SECOND the ball crossed the goal line, at which point the play is OVER

 

[MT~Forged]

Pop has a point, though.

Why is it then that a receiver, if he makes the catch IN the endzone, gets two feet down, gets tackled and does not control the ball when he hits the ground, is that not a catch? He broke the plane, for **** sake, cause he was in the end zone.

The rules are DIFFERENT for plays that carry the ball INTO the End Zone and those plays were the ball is PASSED INTO the End Zone. A ball CAUGHT in the End Zone are subject to the rules for completed passes, a ball possessed in the field of play and then CARRIED into the End Zone just requires the ball to break the plane while in possession of the ball carrier.

 

[Wingman]

Heh. Maybe. I don't mean to be an ***, but once you catch the ball in the endzone with two feet, haven't you broken the plane? Shouldn't it be over at that point?

BTW, I found the Holmes play on Youtube. Man, it is almost the same thing as the Grimble play. I may be wrong though in that it wasn't overturned, it was called incomplete on the field, which makes a difference.

Also, how is the Grimble play different than the Dez Bryant no catch in Green Bay? Again, I am not arguing with you. I have a problem with the inconsistency of the NFL in these calls. IMO they could easily simplify it.

If they did not have the rule different for the end zone it would be almost impossible to break up a pass or to have an incomplete. Some reasons for the inconsistencies are the rules can be changed from season to season, they can be interpreted differently by different crews, they can be enforced or interpreted differently from season to season, the zebras just flat out blow a lot of calls, and I believe there is some tampering by the league to keep games close, or in some cases to out right effect the outcome, the later could be by the league or the particular crew.

 

[stillwright]

I have to agree with Driver. When I saw the play I right away thought of the Holmes catch he was/is referring too. I thought the TD was going to be overturned, but then I also thought the Bungles fumble at the end of the game was going to be overturned.

 

[antdrewjosh]

I think it's sad that we as fans have to even have this convo. Shouldn't be this difficult

 

[Stryker]

Honestly, I can see how this play can be ruled both a TD and an incomplete pass. That's how ****** up the rules are in the NFL at defining a catch.