It is currently Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:02 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 939
I imagine each person will see what they want to see. I have not seen this angle previously.

What I think it shows conclusively is that ignoring the clause about irrefutable evidence created an inconclusive decision that is very refutable.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:06 am
Posts: 9085
I think they called it correctly according to the letter of the stupid rule


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 939
Meaning you are 100% certain that his fingers are not under the ball holding it above the ground.

This is most likely one of the last frames before the left hand starts heading back towards the ball. It is so obvious that they made the huge assumption the ball is on the ground or that the ground helped him control the ball. Why go through the processing power of wondering, assuming, parsing, magnifying, zooming, pivoting, triangulating, wordsmitihing....just confirm it as called on the field and deneuter the whole controversy. Anything else, and you are not serving the best interests of the shield!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:22 am
Posts: 8608
What a bonehead. Hold on to the GD ball.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23089
Me too- which is why I'm pushing for the stupid rule to be amended so reaching out/stretching out to make a play if the player has made initial contact with the ground ought to be enough to establish the catch.

If a player can make the stretch while maintaining control, that clearly indicates a catch has been made. It's simply common sense.

Oh, and Mr. Knows Everything About Football Bill Belichick made a ridiculously stupid statement in support of the rule as currently written.
Quote:
"Well, I think that's really a conversation for people like Al [Riveron] and the league and so forth. But, there's always been a philosophy in the league and it's gone back several decades of philosophically whether you want to have a catch and a fumble or an incomplete pass, and the philosophy has always been incomplete pass. Otherwise, you'd have a million catches and fumbles. I agree with that," Belichick said.


Um...no, Mr. Belichick, you would not have "a million catches and fumbles".

First, plays like Jesse James' and Dez Bryant's, as high profile as they are, simply don't happen all that much. Creating rules for rare occurrences is how over-officiating happens.

Second, Mr. Belichick, there's this little rule that reads "THE GROUND CAN'T CAUSE A FUMBLE"! So that narrows down possible fumble plays to those plays where the ball is swatted away as it's being reached out. But those ALREADY EXIST on running plays, so WHO CARES?

_________________
“Your ability to think concisely, your ability to make good judgments is much easier on Thursday night than during the heat of the game."

"That Super Bowl was not won yesterday. It was won in a small room in Philadelphia, two weeks ago."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 23089
LakecrestSteeler wrote:
Meaning you are 100% certain that his fingers are not under the ball holding it above the ground.

This is most likely one of the last frames before the left hand starts heading back towards the ball. It is so obvious that they made the huge assumption the ball is on the ground or that the ground helped him control the ball. Why go through the processing power of wondering, assuming, parsing, magnifying, zooming, pivoting, triangulating, wordsmitihing....just confirm it as called on the field and deneuter the whole controversy. Anything else, and you are not serving the best interests of the shield!


Unless you believe as Beth does that the NFL scripts outcomes for money and other reasons.

If a lot of money was out on the Steelers, or big crooked money was on the Patriots, then you can make a circumstantial case for them wanting to assure the Pats covered the 2.5 point spread.

Except the Steelers had a dozen chances to put this game away and didn't. Such conspiracy theories fail for this reason because too much is out of control.

_________________
“Your ability to think concisely, your ability to make good judgments is much easier on Thursday night than during the heat of the game."

"That Super Bowl was not won yesterday. It was won in a small room in Philadelphia, two weeks ago."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am
Posts: 939
Another irritating historical note is that the touchdown has its roots in rugby and early football with the actual touching down of the ball determining where you kick the try. Imagine that; setting the ball on the ground and letting go.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:55 pm
Posts: 1665
I don't think it should have been overturned based on this, but I do believe you can reasonably assume that the ball is, in fact, on the ground.

Of course "reasonably assume" isn't the standard for overturning calls. But at the end of the day, I think it was the right call based on the rules in place.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 11072
As I watch that play, JJ catches it and starts to bring it in....knee down.....untouched he then extends the ball over the GL.

That's a TD. Surviving the ground - if we're to apply any common sense at all - was never intended to conjoin a dive (a running action) after the catch, nor to nullify a clearly completed catch because he stumbled for several steps.

A rule intended to clarify and take subjectivity out that fails to be either consistent or clear is obviously a horrible rule that needs to go. The solution is actually worse than the problem it was supposed to fix.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Picture is worth a 1000 words?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:22 am
Posts: 8608
And all he had to do was secure the ball, untouched, going to the ground. Sigh.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BarryFoster, Google [Bot], Miter Saw, Steelergenie and 41 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