Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch

Stallworth16 · **Joined:** Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:23 pm **Posts:** 3665

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!

Jeemie · **Joined:** Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm **Posts:** 24616

Ertz took three steps.

James didn’t.

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

TB · **Joined:** Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:13 pm **Posts:** 4276

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.

Still Lit · **Joined:** Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am **Posts:** 10828

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.

Yeah, this thread is beyond absurd.

Jackie Chiles · **Joined:** Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:10 am **Posts:** 967

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!

Not even close. James never established as a runner.

Zeke5123 · **Joined:** Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm **Posts:** 2376

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.

fortythree · **Joined:** Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm **Posts:** 2527

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.

ChippedHamSandwich · **Joined:** Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:34 pm **Posts:** 585

You guys seem to have all the answers when it comes to this.

You should apply with the NFL offices tomorrow morning, they could use some brainiacs.

Those two plays are incredibly similar, James even brought the ball into his chest before he extended.

fortythree · **Joined:** Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm **Posts:** 2527

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.

No. It wasn't.

bam morris · **Joined:** Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:18 pm **Posts:** 11105

maybe that play in super bowl will make nfl fix the fucking rule...most likely not

Zeke5123 · **Joined:** Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm **Posts:** 2376

fortythree wrote:

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.

No. It wasn't.

I've explained it numerous times. I've posted the language of the rule. All you have done is say "Nope." Care to post the rule and explain how it wasn't a catch? I know you won't but Ill be waiting.

Still Lit · **Joined:** Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am **Posts:** 10828

ChippedHamSandwich wrote:

You guys seem to have all the answers when it comes to this.

You should apply with the NFL offices tomorrow morning, they could use some brainiacs.

Those two plays are incredibly similar, James even brought the ball into his chest before he extended.

No. James on his knees twisting to EZ. Iggles dude took like three steps.

Louis Lipps Service · **Joined:** Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:55 pm **Posts:** 2177

fortythree wrote:

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.

No. It wasn't.

Not at all. James was going down as he made the catch, which is exactly the case the rule was written for.

Ertz was freely running after the catch.

Jobus Rum · **Joined:** Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:58 pm **Posts:** 7566

You can argue that James made a football move...there is no doubt that Ertz made a football move...

Zeke5123 · **Joined:** Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm **Posts:** 2376

Jobus Rum wrote:

You can argue that James made a football move...there is no doubt that Ertz made a football move...

This is of course correct. I wouldn't say argue w/r/t James' catch (I think it is close), but impossible to say it was conclusive (which is what was needed).

Jackie Chiles · **Joined:** Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:10 am **Posts:** 967

Louis Lipps Service wrote:

Not at all. James was going down as he made the catch, which is exactly the case the rule was written for.

Ertz was freely running after the catch.

Yes. As dumb as the rule is James was not a runner and did not survive the ground as a catch. Ertz was a runner plain and simple.

Jeemie · **Joined:** Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm **Posts:** 24616

Still Lit 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.

Yeah, this thread is beyond absurd.

Well, FWIW, I believe they SHOULD count what James did as a catch.

TB · **Joined:** Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:13 pm **Posts:** 4276

From page 31 of the official NFL rulebook:

Quote:

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. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is
incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

James didn't stay upright enough to demonstrate he was a runner, was considered a "player going to the ground," lost control of the ball with it touching the ground before he regained control.

By rule, it was incomplete.

Now, whether the rule should be changed is a completely different argument.

Miter Saw · **Joined:** Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:48 am **Posts:** 1251

Rule was written for when a player catches ball while going to ground. James went to ground, then turned. James should've been a catch. Nfl realized their errors and started changing the way they call it. It's been called differently since James. So, way I see it, steelers should get half a sb tnite.

Zeke5123 · **Joined:** Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm **Posts:** 2376

Jackie Chiles wrote:

Louis Lipps Service wrote:

Not at all. James was going down as he made the catch, which is exactly the case the rule was written for.

Ertz was freely running after the catch.

Yes. As dumb as the rule is James was not a runner and did not survive the ground as a catch. Ertz was a runner plain and simple.

Once again, far from clear that he was not a runner. The rule for becoming a runner is:

Quote:

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

He both tucked and turned up field. Therefore, James completed this part of this catch rule.

The only thing added by going to the ground is, that in addition to the above, the receiver going to the ground

Quote:

... must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

The initial contact was James' knee. James then pushed off that knee as he tried to go into the EZ. Thus, James survived initial contact.

Remember -- the replay booth must determine that James either did not (i) tuck it or turn up field OR (ii) not maintain control of the ball after his initial contact with the ground BASED ON IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. I don't see how that was satisfied in the James' catch.

fortythree · **Joined:** Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:22 pm **Posts:** 2527

Zeke5123 wrote:

I've explained it numerous times. I've posted the language of the rule. All you have done is say "Nope." Care to post the rule and explain how it wasn't a catch? I know you won't but Ill be waiting.

He does not maintain possession of the ball because it hit the fucking ground.

EDIT:

TB answered this for me...

Quote:

From page 31 of the official NFL rulebook:

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. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is
incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Zeke5123 · **Joined:** Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm **Posts:** 2376

TB wrote:

From page 31 of the official NFL rulebook:

Quote:

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. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is
incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

James didn't stay upright enough to demonstrate he was a runner, was considered a "player going to the ground," lost control of the ball with it touching the ground before he regained control.

By rule, it was incomplete.

Now, whether the rule should be changed is a completely different argument.

You missed the key word initial. James had a push off from his knee. That should satisfy the rule. You also forgot the issue of burden of proof. The question isn't whether you think it is a catch, or that James did not make enough of a move to establish being runner. The burden is irrefutable evidence. Given that the rule is subjective, unless it is clear cut (i.e., the player hits the ground on initial contact and the ball pops out), presumably you must go with the subjective judgment on the field. That is to say, you respect the burden of proof.

Miter Saw · **Joined:** Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:48 am **Posts:** 1251

People somehow don't see james make a move after his initial contact with the ground it's hilarious how they tow the party line bc that's what Romo said or whatever.

Anyway the sound of Pats fans complaining about calls in a loss for once is going to sound like sweet music.

Zeke5123 · **Joined:** Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm **Posts:** 2376

fortythree wrote:

Zeke5123 wrote:

I've explained it numerous times. I've posted the language of the rule. All you have done is say "Nope." Care to post the rule and explain how it wasn't a catch? I know you won't but Ill be waiting.

He does not maintain possession of the ball because it hit the fucking ground.

EDIT:

TB answered this for me...

Quote:

From page 31 of the official NFL rulebook:

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. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is
incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Yeah read my post above and my response to TB. He is wrong and isn't parsing the language well or accounting for the burden of proof.

Jeemie · **Joined:** Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm **Posts:** 24616

Miter Saw wrote:

People somehow don't see james make a move after his initial contact with the ground it's hilarious how they tow the party line bc that's what Romo said or whatever.

Anyway the sound of Pats fans complaining about calls in a loss for once is going to sound like sweet music.

I’ve already said I believe what James did WAS a catch.

But that the NFL Has NEVER RULED that a player that did what James did was establishing himself as a runner.

Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch

Who is online