It is currently Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:27 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2222
TB wrote:

Zeke, you're completely misinterpreting this and missing the point.

To be considered a "runner" you actually have to be taking steps. The key part of the bolded above that you quoted is "taking additional steps." You can only take additional steps if you've taken steps to begin with. That is the intent. Catch, one step, two step, and then making what we call a football move (tucking the ball away, warding off a defender, turning upfield, or taking additional steps). You do that, you're a runner.

James took zero steps. He was falling to the ground onto his knees as he was attempting to make the catch. He was literally falling to the ground while the ball was still in the air. It doesn't matter if he tried to tuck it as he was going to the ground, or was lunging out with the football, by rule, he was going to the ground. He was not a runner. As such, he had to maintain control of the ball through the contact with the ground. He didn't control it, it hit the ground, it was not a catch by NFL rule. End of story.


A more reasonable point, but still not a winning one. Words have to be interpreted within the context of the surrounding words. Here, there is a three part rule for a catch. The bolded above is part three. In part two, the rule provides that two feet or any other body part. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to substitute "any other body part" for second foot (i.e., once part two was complete).

The rejoinder to this is that second foot was written into the rule; not completion of part two. But there are problems with this reading. Principally, this rule is a general rule for a catch. If we really believe that the third condition can only be satisfied by the ability to make a football move after a second step has been taken, then it would seem that no sliding catches could ever be catches unless the receiver steps up to take a step. But that is absurd! We understand that the receiver can make a football move after "any other body part" touches the ground, and therefore the receiver satisfies part three.

With all of that said, the NFL rule book is poorly drafted. It is unclear what circumstances Part III would apply to that would not render going to the ground rule superfluous.

Finally, you seem to be strawmannirg (likely unintentionally) my argument. James didn't just tuck the ball as he was going to the ground. My argument is that James (a) went to the ground on one knee to make the catch, and then (b) changed his body, and extended the ball. Thus, his initial contact is separated from part (b). Based on the modifier "initial" in the NFL rulebook, the existence of (b) in the James' fact pattern should lead to the conclusion that he did in fact survive the ground.

Once more, none of the rules are clearly written. But it appears on balance that the (i) the League got it wrong and (ii) there is enough subjective integration that the standard of review should've controlled this particular case.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:22 pm
Posts: 232
James fell to one knee, Ertz had two feet down.

By rule both did what was needed to establish themselves as a runner. Ertz tucked, took steps and reached for the end zone, James tucked and then reached for the endzone - completing one of the designated tasks to fully be a runner.

Both were catches... the only difference is the NFL incorrectly attempts to invoke this going to the ground rule section which is not needed - considering they already establish a clear ruling on what becomes of a runner... I mean why put into the first part of the ruling about one knee, or one body part if you are just going to remove them later with "going to the ground"...

It's over lawyered nonsense, and the NFL looks stupid time and time again because of it.


Last edited by ToddHaleysNineIron on Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:22 pm
Posts: 232
And just so we have the first part before Item 1. Here it is

Quote:
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.


The part "touches the ground inbounds with both feet, or any part of his body" is simply not needed if you are going to always trump it with "GOING TO THE GROUND". The only way going to the ground is invoked is if the above is not fulfilled.

As written - James fulfilled all of this. His knee went down and he had possession... and if you don't think so - see the sideline catches AB pulls off when he's got about a millisecond of control as both toes touch to see the standard given for "control". To determine if he has the ball long enough to become a runner, they don't use "time" or even "steps" but they clearly define what a player must do - one of which is tuck the ball away, or turn up field. James clearly turns up field because that's the only way to get the end zone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9669
Zeke5123 wrote:
TB wrote:

Zeke, you're completely misinterpreting this and missing the point.

To be considered a "runner" you actually have to be taking steps. The key part of the bolded above that you quoted is "taking additional steps." You can only take additional steps if you've taken steps to begin with. That is the intent. Catch, one step, two step, and then making what we call a football move (tucking the ball away, warding off a defender, turning upfield, or taking additional steps). You do that, you're a runner.

James took zero steps. He was falling to the ground onto his knees as he was attempting to make the catch. He was literally falling to the ground while the ball was still in the air. It doesn't matter if he tried to tuck it as he was going to the ground, or was lunging out with the football, by rule, he was going to the ground. He was not a runner. As such, he had to maintain control of the ball through the contact with the ground. He didn't control it, it hit the ground, it was not a catch by NFL rule. End of story.


A more reasonable point, but still not a winning one. Words have to be interpreted within the context of the surrounding words. Here, there is a three part rule for a catch. The bolded above is part three. In part two, the rule provides that two feet or any other body part. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to substitute "any other body part" for second foot (i.e., once part two was complete).

The rejoinder to this is that second foot was written into the rule; not completion of part two. But there are problems with this reading. Principally, this rule is a general rule for a catch. If we really believe that the third condition can only be satisfied by the ability to make a football move after a second step has been taken, then it would seem that no sliding catches could ever be catches unless the receiver steps up to take a step. But that is absurd! We understand that the receiver can make a football move after "any other body part" touches the ground, and therefore the receiver satisfies part three.

With all of that said, the NFL rule book is poorly drafted. It is unclear what circumstances Part III would apply to that would not render going to the ground rule superfluous.

Finally, you seem to be strawmannirg (likely unintentionally) my argument. James didn't just tuck the ball as he was going to the ground. My argument is that James (a) went to the ground on one knee to make the catch, and then (b) changed his body, and extended the ball. Thus, his initial contact is separated from part (b). Based on the modifier "initial" in the NFL rulebook, the existence of (b) in the James' fact pattern should lead to the conclusion that he did in fact survive the ground.

Once more, none of the rules are clearly written. But it appears on balance that the (i) the League got it wrong and (ii) there is enough subjective integration that the standard of review should've controlled this particular case.


James catch could have been ruled a TD, but is reasonably not ruled a TD according to language. Only move he made was twisting and lunging for the goal. Problem
Is that it is possible to argue that the lunge and going to the ground could not be separated from one another bc he "swiveled" on his knees.

Ertz took three running steps and so unlike James it is impossible to argue otherwise.

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:50 pm
Posts: 4450
fortythree wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Ertz took three steps.

James didn’t.

They haven’t counted what James did as a football move since the rule was changed.


This.

Just because Michaels and Collinsworth are fucking morons and don't know the rule doesn't mean Jesse's drop is suddenly a catch.

Is their anyone in sports media that wasn’t personally nice to you that you do like?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23264
That we're having this argument shows what a bad rule this is.

And point of fact is...the rule punishes a player for trying to make a play.

That's just dumb...except, of course, to the NFL.

_________________
“A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to dumb and primitive behavior.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23264
Suwanee88 wrote:
fortythree wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Ertz took three steps.

James didn’t.

They haven’t counted what James did as a football move since the rule was changed.


This.

Just because Michaels and Collinsworth are fucking morons and don't know the rule doesn't mean Jesse's drop is suddenly a catch.

Is their anyone in sports media that wasn’t personally nice to you that you do like?


I actually like Collinsworth most of the time, but he was a moron last night.

Officials actually fairly officiated both Eagles' TDs last night, and he just kept going on and on about them like he was a Bob Kraft's lover or something.

_________________
“A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to dumb and primitive behavior.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:22 pm
Posts: 232
Still Lit wrote:

James catch could have been ruled a TD, but is reasonably not ruled a TD according to language. Only move he made was twisting and lunging for the goal. Problem
Is that it is possible to argue that the lunge and going to the ground could not be separated from one another bc he "swiveled" on his knees.

Ertz took three running steps and so unlike James it is impossible to argue otherwise.


The language of the first part of the rule is pretty clear. He only needs one move, and what you describe as twisting and lunging I would think to almost anyone not trying to mangle the language as satisfying "turning upfield". Turning upfield is a pretty easy interpretation - we don't need anything else, we don't need to differentiate between a swivel and a fall, or anything like that - did James turn upfield with the ball... I think it's a pretty clear yes... especially considering he caught the ball with his back to the end zone.

As written - the only time "going the ground" should be invoked is if the player making the catch does not satisfy the "becoming the runner" rule, James did - and so it should have been complete.

The "going to the ground" is for a player making a catch, coming down, and falling to the ground without satisfying the part of becoming a runner, say a sideline catch. If James had caught the ball falling to a knee, and then fell directly to the ground - THEN we could invoke the going to the ground rule because he didn't turn upfield or tuck the ball... but because he did - he instantly becomes a runner based on how the rule is written.

The problem here is the NFL mangled its own rule - and uses "going to the ground" far too often when the rule as written clearly determines when section 1 should be invoked. They ignored, and have done so, often just randomly, the first part of the rule to get to section 1.

Again - if while extending the ball over the goal line - a Patriot player knocks the ball out of his hand - the "going to the ground" can't be invoked and I would bet it would be considered a catch and a touchdown because it crossed the goal line.


Last edited by ToddHaleysNineIron on Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5494
fortythree wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Ertz took three steps.

James didn’t.

They haven’t counted what James did as a football move since the rule was changed.


This.

Just because Michaels and Collinsworth are fucking morons and don't know the rule doesn't mean Jesse's drop is suddenly a catch.


I have a feeling Michales and Collinsworth expected the officials to overturn it and they were getting out in front of the outrage towards the NFL by trying to rationalize why it wasn't a catch.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 3142
Zeke5123 wrote:
TB wrote:
:lol: No.

Ertz took three steps before he was even contacted, then lunged and crossed the plane. James took 0 steps, was falling as he caught it. Not that hard to see the clear difference.


I do agree the Ertz call was easy. If they overturned that, then well that's absurd.

But James went to a knee and made a COD move. By letter of rule, it was a catch.


The real key for changing the rule is that no one was sure if that was a catch. Until the announcement no one was sure.

I am more glad that the clement catch was not over ruled. I hate the Zapurder-like treatment of catches. " Look it shifts half an inch as he is switching hands. It must be a bobble!!"

I will add that James did not fall as a continuation of the catch. He twisted and lunged. Go to the NCAA rule for a catch and force the replay folks to learn what indisputable evidence means.

_________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Henri Poincaré


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2222
Still Lit wrote:
Zeke5123 wrote:
TB wrote:

Zeke, you're completely misinterpreting this and missing the point.

To be considered a "runner" you actually have to be taking steps. The key part of the bolded above that you quoted is "taking additional steps." You can only take additional steps if you've taken steps to begin with. That is the intent. Catch, one step, two step, and then making what we call a football move (tucking the ball away, warding off a defender, turning upfield, or taking additional steps). You do that, you're a runner.

James took zero steps. He was falling to the ground onto his knees as he was attempting to make the catch. He was literally falling to the ground while the ball was still in the air. It doesn't matter if he tried to tuck it as he was going to the ground, or was lunging out with the football, by rule, he was going to the ground. He was not a runner. As such, he had to maintain control of the ball through the contact with the ground. He didn't control it, it hit the ground, it was not a catch by NFL rule. End of story.


A more reasonable point, but still not a winning one. Words have to be interpreted within the context of the surrounding words. Here, there is a three part rule for a catch. The bolded above is part three. In part two, the rule provides that two feet or any other body part. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to substitute "any other body part" for second foot (i.e., once part two was complete).

The rejoinder to this is that second foot was written into the rule; not completion of part two. But there are problems with this reading. Principally, this rule is a general rule for a catch. If we really believe that the third condition can only be satisfied by the ability to make a football move after a second step has been taken, then it would seem that no sliding catches could ever be catches unless the receiver steps up to take a step. But that is absurd! We understand that the receiver can make a football move after "any other body part" touches the ground, and therefore the receiver satisfies part three.

With all of that said, the NFL rule book is poorly drafted. It is unclear what circumstances Part III would apply to that would not render going to the ground rule superfluous.

Finally, you seem to be strawmannirg (likely unintentionally) my argument. James didn't just tuck the ball as he was going to the ground. My argument is that James (a) went to the ground on one knee to make the catch, and then (b) changed his body, and extended the ball. Thus, his initial contact is separated from part (b). Based on the modifier "initial" in the NFL rulebook, the existence of (b) in the James' fact pattern should lead to the conclusion that he did in fact survive the ground.

Once more, none of the rules are clearly written. But it appears on balance that the (i) the League got it wrong and (ii) there is enough subjective integration that the standard of review should've controlled this particular case.


James catch could have been ruled a TD, but is reasonably not ruled a TD according to language. Only move he made was twisting and lunging for the goal. Problem
Is that it is possible to argue that the lunge and going to the ground could not be separated from one another bc he "swiveled" on his knees.

Ertz took three running steps and so unlike James it is impossible to argue otherwise.


I’m not arguing the Ertz catch. Would give a will opinion. But it seems you agree that with James it is at least questionable whether he satisfied the rule. Since it is questionable, the burden of proof requires staying with the call on the field. Note this burden requires staying with the call even if you think no catch is more likely than catch.

I don’t know why everyone is ignoring the burden of proof piece.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:45 pm
Posts: 13517
Because it doesn't fulfill their agenda... ertz made the catch just like the James play was a catch. JMO


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 10477
I think they both catches and should be catches.. eagles guy was slightly more of a catch. tho I thought refs were gonna take it. fix it nfl..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9669
ToddHaleysNineIron wrote:
Still Lit wrote:

James catch could have been ruled a TD, but is reasonably not ruled a TD according to language. Only move he made was twisting and lunging for the goal. Problem
Is that it is possible to argue that the lunge and going to the ground could not be separated from one another bc he "swiveled" on his knees.

Ertz took three running steps and so unlike James it is impossible to argue otherwise.


The language of the first part of the rule is pretty clear. He only needs one move, and what you describe as twisting and lunging I would think to almost anyone not trying to mangle the language as satisfying "turning upfield". Turning upfield is a pretty easy interpretation - we don't need anything else, we don't need to differentiate between a swivel and a fall, or anything like that - did James turn upfield with the ball... I think it's a pretty clear yes... especially considering he caught the ball with his back to the end zone.

As written - the only time "going the ground" should be invoked is if the player making the catch does not satisfy the "becoming the runner" rule, James did - and so it should have been complete.

The "going to the ground" is for a player making a catch, coming down, and falling to the ground without satisfying the part of becoming a runner, say a sideline catch. If James had caught the ball falling to a knee, and then fell directly to the ground - THEN we could invoke the going to the ground rule because he didn't turn upfield or tuck the ball... but because he did - he instantly becomes a runner based on how the rule is written.

The problem here is the NFL mangled its own rule - and uses "going to the ground" far too often when the rule as written clearly determines when section 1 should be invoked. They ignored, and have done so, often just randomly, the first part of the rule to get to section 1.

Again - if while extending the ball over the goal line - a Patriot player knocks the ball out of his hand - the "going to the ground" can't be invoked and I would bet it would be considered a catch and a touchdown because it crossed the goal line.


Thus I said James' catch could reasonably be declared a TD. What you and others refuse to accept is that the "twist" was reasonably inseparable from the going to ground. I think anyone with a brain knows it's a TD, but the rule as written allows that twist to be defined as an act of going to the ground. He swiveled while going down. Sucks.

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2222
Still Lit wrote:
ToddHaleysNineIron wrote:
Still Lit wrote:

James catch could have been ruled a TD, but is reasonably not ruled a TD according to language. Only move he made was twisting and lunging for the goal. Problem
Is that it is possible to argue that the lunge and going to the ground could not be separated from one another bc he "swiveled" on his knees.

Ertz took three running steps and so unlike James it is impossible to argue otherwise.


The language of the first part of the rule is pretty clear. He only needs one move, and what you describe as twisting and lunging I would think to almost anyone not trying to mangle the language as satisfying "turning upfield". Turning upfield is a pretty easy interpretation - we don't need anything else, we don't need to differentiate between a swivel and a fall, or anything like that - did James turn upfield with the ball... I think it's a pretty clear yes... especially considering he caught the ball with his back to the end zone.

As written - the only time "going the ground" should be invoked is if the player making the catch does not satisfy the "becoming the runner" rule, James did - and so it should have been complete.

The "going to the ground" is for a player making a catch, coming down, and falling to the ground without satisfying the part of becoming a runner, say a sideline catch. If James had caught the ball falling to a knee, and then fell directly to the ground - THEN we could invoke the going to the ground rule because he didn't turn upfield or tuck the ball... but because he did - he instantly becomes a runner based on how the rule is written.

The problem here is the NFL mangled its own rule - and uses "going to the ground" far too often when the rule as written clearly determines when section 1 should be invoked. They ignored, and have done so, often just randomly, the first part of the rule to get to section 1.

Again - if while extending the ball over the goal line - a Patriot player knocks the ball out of his hand - the "going to the ground" can't be invoked and I would bet it would be considered a catch and a touchdown because it crossed the goal line.


Thus I said James' catch could reasonably be declared a TD. What you and others refuse to accept is that the "twist" was reasonably inseparable from the going to ground. I think anyone with a brain knows it's a TD, but the rule as written allows that twist to be defined as an act of going to the ground. He swiveled while going down. Sucks.


Lit—once again you seem to leave out the burden of proof. Are you saying based on the rule as written there was irrefutable evidence that it was not a catch? If you aren’t, then you agree the NFL fucked up?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9669
Zeke5123 wrote:
Lit—once again you seem to leave out the burden of proof. Are you saying based on the rule as written there was irrefutable evidence that it was not a catch? If you aren’t, then you agree the NFL fucked up?


I'm saying calling the James catch a TD is defeasible within the language of the rule. And I use the term defeasible on purpose and with care here.

TDs are reviewable. If the ref thinks the twist is inseparable from going to ground, then the ref does not admit a football move occurred.

The rule needs to be fixed. As written, calling it a TD is defeasible. I don't like it. I can understand why, even if I disagree with it.

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:13 pm
Posts: 3982
ToddHaleysNineIron wrote:
And just so we have the first part before Item 1. Here it is

Quote:
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.


The part "touches the ground inbounds with both feet, or any part of his body" is simply not needed if you are going to always trump it with "GOING TO THE GROUND". The only way going to the ground is invoked is if the above is not fulfilled.

As written - James fulfilled all of this. His knee went down and he had possession... and if you don't think so - see the sideline catches AB pulls off when he's got about a millisecond of control as both toes touch to see the standard given for "control". To determine if he has the ball long enough to become a runner, they don't use "time" or even "steps" but they clearly define what a player must do - one of which is tuck the ball away, or turn up field. James clearly turns up field because that's the only way to get the end zone.


You're still missing it. The bolded above goes back to my earlier point. "And" is a key word. It's not "or" it's "and." You have to fulfill the first part (two feet or any other part of the body other than his hands), which James did, AND maintain control of the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. You're not a runner without taking steps or remaining upright enough to demonstrate you're clearly a runner. James took 0 steps, was literally falling to the ground as the ball was still coming towards him.

As such, he was considered going to the ground. Which is where you must maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground, which he didn't do. By rule, it is not a catch.

As for your sideline example, it's the same thing. If AB is going to the ground as he is tapping his toes on a sideline catch, he has to maintain control through the ground. They check for that on replays every single time that happens. If he remains upright, he's obviously not going to the ground.

_________________
SteelThrillsseeker wrote:
Dad showed up after work and according to her the entire hospital hears my dad yell you are not naming our son Hoss.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9669
Re: TB, yes.

The conjunctives in the rule are not exclusive, but inclusive and epexegetical.

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2222
TB wrote:
ToddHaleysNineIron wrote:
And just so we have the first part before Item 1. Here it is

Quote:
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.


The part "touches the ground inbounds with both feet, or any part of his body" is simply not needed if you are going to always trump it with "GOING TO THE GROUND". The only way going to the ground is invoked is if the above is not fulfilled.

As written - James fulfilled all of this. His knee went down and he had possession... and if you don't think so - see the sideline catches AB pulls off when he's got about a millisecond of control as both toes touch to see the standard given for "control". To determine if he has the ball long enough to become a runner, they don't use "time" or even "steps" but they clearly define what a player must do - one of which is tuck the ball away, or turn up field. James clearly turns up field because that's the only way to get the end zone.


You're still missing it. The bolded above goes back to my earlier point. "And" is a key word. It's not "or" it's "and." You have to fulfill the first part (two feet or any other part of the body other than his hands), which James did, AND maintain control of the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. You're not a runner without taking steps or remaining upright enough to demonstrate you're clearly a runner. James took 0 steps, was literally falling to the ground as the ball was still coming towards him.

As such, he was considered going to the ground. Which is where you must maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground, which he didn't do. By rule, it is not a catch.

As for your sideline example, it's the same thing. If AB is going to the ground as he is tapping his toes on a sideline catch, he has to maintain control through the ground. They check for that on replays every single time that happens. If he remains upright, he's obviously not going to the ground.


Except to be a runner the rule doesn’t require taking steps, but basically making a football move including turning up field. Don’t know why you are ignoring this part of the rule.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 3765
Stallworth16 wrote:
The NFL owes Outlaw and the Steelers a formal apology.

James had more control of the ball than Ertz did throughout the catch. It was a very similar play.
Good call on Ertz. Bad call on James. A Pats loss is the next best thing to Steelers Victory. Good job IGGLES!


I think it was a political call. They knew it was the same as the James play, they just didn't want everyone waking up Monday morning screaming about how another TD overturned by NY handed the Pats another win, and a Super Bowl win to boot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2222
Still Lit wrote:
Zeke5123 wrote:
Lit—once again you seem to leave out the burden of proof. Are you saying based on the rule as written there was irrefutable evidence that it was not a catch? If you aren’t, then you agree the NFL fucked up?


I'm saying calling the James catch a TD is defeasible within the language of the rule. And I use the term defeasible on purpose and with care here.

TDs are reviewable. If the ref thinks the twist is inseparable from going to ground, then the ref does not admit a football move occurred.

The rule needs to be fixed. As written, calling it a TD is defeasible. I don't like it. I can understand why, even if I disagree with it.


That’s the point of a burden or proof. If a point is open, and the burden of proof high, the decision cannot
Be overturned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:48 pm
Posts: 1459
Zeke5123 wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
Zeke5123 wrote:
Lit—once again you seem to leave out the burden of proof. Are you saying based on the rule as written there was irrefutable evidence that it was not a catch? If you aren’t, then you agree the NFL fucked up?


I'm saying calling the James catch a TD is defeasible within the language of the rule. And I use the term defeasible on purpose and with care here.

TDs are reviewable. If the ref thinks the twist is inseparable from going to ground, then the ref does not admit a football move occurred.

The rule needs to be fixed. As written, calling it a TD is defeasible. I don't like it. I can understand why, even if I disagree with it.


That’s the point of a burden or proof. If a point is open, and the burden of proof high, the decision cannot
Be overturned.

Zeke, I have followed this closely and you are right, imo. Maybe, the others just don't want to acknowledge it is my guess. You've done a great analytical job and have removed all emotion from the debate. Some others have not. Are you a lawyer by chance?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9669
Zeke5123 wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
Zeke5123 wrote:
Lit—once again you seem to leave out the burden of proof. Are you saying based on the rule as written there was irrefutable evidence that it was not a catch? If you aren’t, then you agree the NFL fucked up?


I'm saying calling the James catch a TD is defeasible within the language of the rule. And I use the term defeasible on purpose and with care here.

TDs are reviewable. If the ref thinks the twist is inseparable from going to ground, then the ref does not admit a football move occurred.

The rule needs to be fixed. As written, calling it a TD is defeasible. I don't like it. I can understand why, even if I disagree with it.


That’s the point of a burden or proof. If a point is open, and the burden of proof high, the decision cannot
Be overturned.


Obviously the reviewer thought there was conclusive evidence to overturn. I gave my reason as to why the ref might have thought so. We'd have to ask the guy.

_________________
TB wrote:
Breaking news: Tom Brady is also better than Ben Roethlisberger. Jerry Rice is better than Antonio Brown. Your mom is a bigger slut than my mom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James was more of a TD than Ertz
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23264
Zeke5123 wrote:
Still Lit wrote:
Zeke5123 wrote:
Lit—once again you seem to leave out the burden of proof. Are you saying based on the rule as written there was irrefutable evidence that it was not a catch? If you aren’t, then you agree the NFL fucked up?


I'm saying calling the James catch a TD is defeasible within the language of the rule. And I use the term defeasible on purpose and with care here.

TDs are reviewable. If the ref thinks the twist is inseparable from going to ground, then the ref does not admit a football move occurred.

The rule needs to be fixed. As written, calling it a TD is defeasible. I don't like it. I can understand why, even if I disagree with it.


That’s the point of a burden or proof. If a point is open, and the burden of proof high, the decision cannot
Be overturned.


But Riveron thought it was conclusive evidence to overturn, and he has prior precedent upon which to rely.

Even if not, and it was an error, errors happen. Well-prepared teams overcome them.

What was the travesty is that Tomlin, Haley, and Ben were not using the extended timeout to plan the next two plays, and if Mike Tomlin is to be believed, what discussion was happening centered on an outcome that Tomlin's replay guy in the booth should have told him had ZERO CHANCE OF HAPPENING. Jesse James was NEVER going to be ruled down at the one. A cursory look at the replay would have confirmed that.

_________________
“A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to dumb and primitive behavior.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:13 pm
Posts: 3982
Zeke, you're still missing it. To be a runner you have to be either taking steps or upright long enough to demonstrate you're clearly a runner.

You're literally trying to argue that you're a "runner" when falling to the ground. Think about that for a minute.

_________________
SteelThrillsseeker wrote:
Dad showed up after work and according to her the entire hospital hears my dad yell you are not naming our son Hoss.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group