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!

Ertz took three steps.

James didn’t.

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

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.

Yeah, this thread is beyond absurd.

Not even close. James never established as a runner.

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.

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.

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. It wasn't.

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

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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

From page 31 of the official NFL rulebook:



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.

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.

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



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




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.

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

EDIT:

TB answered this for me...

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.

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.

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.

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.