steelerfury.com
http://www.steelerfury.com/forum/

Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
http://www.steelerfury.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10172
Page 16 of 18

Author:  swissvale72 [ Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch

Soon as I saw the first replay, knew we were getting fucked!!

Author:  GreekSteel [ Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch

swissvale72 wrote:
Soon as I saw the first replay, knew we were getting fucked!!




yup

Author:  Donnie Brasco [ Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch

Jeemie wrote:
Donnie...stop being ridiculous.

One doesn’t have to “measure body parts” to know there’s no way James was holding the ball when it hit the ground and bounced up.

The call was a travesty, but rightly called according to the rules.

That’s why the rules are going to be changed.


I'm being no more ridiculous than the opposing viewpoint. Again, zippo evidence to overturn THE CALL ON THE FIELD. So no, according to their "rules" they overrode their standard to make a new standard to say "I'm 99% certain that ball hits the ground because I'm making a PRESUMPTION his finger isn't under there"

That's not how the rule is written and you know that (bc I know you're not that dumb)

Refs ruled Inc - I could live with that
Refs ruled TD - I could live with that

No indisputable evidence either way to overturn the call

Author:  VASteelerGuy [ Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch

Still Lit wrote:

Not true. I very likely would have dropped the pass.


:lol: :lol: - probably most of us as well

Author:  Jeemie [ Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch

Donnie Brasco wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Donnie...stop being ridiculous.

One doesn’t have to “measure body parts” to know there’s no way James was holding the ball when it hit the ground and bounced up.

The call was a travesty, but rightly called according to the rules.

That’s why the rules are going to be changed.


I'm being no more ridiculous than the opposing viewpoint. Again, zippo evidence to overturn THE CALL ON THE FIELD. So no, according to their "rules" they overrode their standard to make a new standard to say "I'm 99% certain that ball hits the ground because I'm making a PRESUMPTION his finger isn't under there"

That's not how the rule is written and you know that (bc I know you're not that dumb)

Refs ruled Inc - I could live with that
Refs ruled TD - I could live with that

No indisputable evidence either way to overturn the call


There’s not zippo evidence.

Ball touched the ground...ball moved...you can see James did not maintain control of it.

You’re arguing with homer glasses because you want it to be an example of Refs’ favoritism to the Pats.

Author:  Still Lit [ Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch

Jeemie wrote:
Donnie Brasco wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Donnie...stop being ridiculous.

One doesn’t have to “measure body parts” to know there’s no way James was holding the ball when it hit the ground and bounced up.

The call was a travesty, but rightly called according to the rules.

That’s why the rules are going to be changed.


I'm being no more ridiculous than the opposing viewpoint. Again, zippo evidence to overturn THE CALL ON THE FIELD. So no, according to their "rules" they overrode their standard to make a new standard to say "I'm 99% certain that ball hits the ground because I'm making a PRESUMPTION his finger isn't under there"

That's not how the rule is written and you know that (bc I know you're not that dumb)

Refs ruled Inc - I could live with that
Refs ruled TD - I could live with that

No indisputable evidence either way to overturn the call


There’s not zippo evidence.

Ball touched the ground...ball moved...you can see James did not maintain control of it.

You’re arguing with homer glasses because you want it to be an example of Refs’ favoritism to the Pats.


Isn't the argument that a pinky could have been under the ball? You don't have x ray vision so how can you know? This thread is on spin cycle.

Of course the ball hit the ground.

Author:  Donnie Brasco [ Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch

Jeemie wrote:
Donnie Brasco wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Donnie...stop being ridiculous.

One doesn’t have to “measure body parts” to know there’s no way James was holding the ball when it hit the ground and bounced up.

The call was a travesty, but rightly called according to the rules.

That’s why the rules are going to be changed.


I'm being no more ridiculous than the opposing viewpoint. Again, zippo evidence to overturn THE CALL ON THE FIELD. So no, according to their "rules" they overrode their standard to make a new standard to say "I'm 99% certain that ball hits the ground because I'm making a PRESUMPTION his finger isn't under there"

That's not how the rule is written and you know that (bc I know you're not that dumb)

Refs ruled Inc - I could live with that
Refs ruled TD - I could live with that

No indisputable evidence either way to overturn the call


There’s not zippo evidence.

Ball touched the ground...ball moved...you can see James did not maintain control of it.

You’re arguing with homer glasses because you want it to be an example of Refs’ favoritism to the Pats.


If you don't recall the Bert Emmanuel rule, the ball can move if you have control of it

And no, I could care less about how this play impacted the Pats, the Jets or some other fucking franchise. My point remains is that they applied a standard to this play that went against what their own guildelines were

Lock 10 lawyers in a room, give them the letter of the law and the video evidence and I promise you all 10 do not come to the same conclusion.
That's what's defined as "indisputable"

Author:  franco32 [ Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch

Image

This is why you can't rely on still images. From this angle, James looks like the ball rolled from his left hand onto his right hand. It also looks like there are enough fingers under the ball to have secured the catch.

A still image at a millisecond point in time isn't going to give you conclusive evidence unless his fingers are off the ball and it is touching grass. Therefore, you only have video to go by. The video is inconclusive because his forearm blocks the view of the ball.

I honestly have nothing to gain by taking this position. It's not like you guys are a bunch of Pats fans and I'm trying to prove a point to you. I honestly to this day cannot tell from the video whether that ball conclusively touched the ground. I honestly really can't. Therefore, in my opinion, the call should have stood.

But, we have to move on and just disagree. If we beat this horse any more, there will be no carcass left.

Author:  Stillerz Bar [ Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch

Donnie Brasco wrote:
If you don't recall the Bert Emmanuel rule, the ball can move if you have control of it

And no, I could care less about how this play impacted the Pats, the Jets or some other fucking franchise. My point remains is that they applied a standard to this play that went against what their own guildelines were

Lock 10 lawyers in a room, give them the letter of the law and the video evidence and I promise you all 10 do not come to the same conclusion.
That's what's defined as "indisputable"

Actually the Corey Clement TD catch showed the application of that rule as well. On Inside the NFL they had a mike on the ref and he said the ball moved but Clement had control.

As the hosts discussed both contested Iggles TDs they all seemed to agree that different standrds were applied in that game than during the regular season. IMO the reason is because this year Riveron started from scratch on each play rather than apply the “indisputable evidence” rule. That is also why his reviews took so damn long.

I’m hoping that the directive came down from the league to go back to indisputable rather than “What do I think it should be.” My preference would be to put a one minute clock on the replays - if you can decide that quickly then it isn’t indisputable and the call stands. They simply have to fix the issue of never knowing whether a TD is a TD or not.

Author:  Jackie Chiles [ Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch

Poltargyst wrote:
Jobus Rum wrote:
Jackie Chiles wrote:
Get rid of replay and call it on the field.

This cannot be said enough.

This cannot be argued with enough. As Jeemie said, there should be replay for the most egregious of errors, we just need to get rid of the nit picking.

If they want replay it must be done real time and only have 30 seconds to do it. No super slow motion and lengthy review time.

Page 16 of 18 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/