It is currently Sun May 20, 2018 11:14 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 6037
franco32 wrote:
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.
I think I agree with you, but nobody cares if there is a carcass left. The beating will continue. Like any Harrison thread.

_________________
"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:07 am
Posts: 8350
Rooney says call on field was correct, but with the rule lies the problem

The catch rule needs to be changed


Quote:
”Look, I think the Jesse James play was actually called the right way,” Rooney said, via the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “That’s the way the rule reads, but I don’t think that should be the rule. I think that he had possession of that ball, reached into the end zone and had possession when he was reaching in. If he were a running back, that would have been a touchdown. Just having consistency in the way plays are officiated like that, I think we have room to improve it.”

There’s a consensus around the league that the catch rule needs to be changed. Add the Steelers to the list of teams that will vote for a rule change this offseason.

_________________
ImageImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:45 pm
Posts: 12589
Jeemie wrote:
Steelafan77 wrote:
The simple fact that James made a football move by diving [after taking a step] over the goal line was indisputable. Once the Goal line is broken..., Touchdown Period! Debate all you want. Exercise in futility, Dilly Dilly....


The...refs...have...never...ruled...what...James...did...to...be...a...football...move.

Never...ever.

Prior...precedent.

I know you're into debating to pump up your post count so I'll only say this one more time. James' football more was the step towards the goal line, the stretch over the goal line, the Football Breaking The Plane of the Goal line before going to the ground Untocuched. Touch down. Carry on....

_________________
Tomlin wrote:
You Know; Really Not A Lot To Say. I Really Don't Plan A Lot For These Moments http://www.steelers.com/videos/videos/T ... b99b3e2551


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch was a TD as was Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 3574
bam morris wrote:
maybe that play in super bowl will make nfl fix the fucking rule...most likely not

This thread shows what is wrong with the NFL!

I'll instantly fix the fucking "What is a Catch" rule...

A catch is a non-reviewable judgment call...... PERIOD!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2073
Still Lit wrote:
Will-the-Shake wrote:
Whatever side one falls on the Jesse James catch/no catch debate, I think it’s pretty clear that the call would have stood has it occurred in the Super Bowl. NFL didn’t want anything offensively successful that looked like a clear touchdown to millions of people, and was called a touchdown on the field, micromanaged into a reversal, rewarding a defense that had failed on the play. I think the first of the two eagles touchdowns that went to review demonstrates this more than the second, where multiple steps were taken and a reversal would have been a travesty.


James did nothing like take multiple steps. Not even close. I still think posters thinking the reversal was obviously flawed are delusional.

If only the fucker had tucked and rolled.


Don’t be full of shit. Earlier in this thread you said there were many reasons to overturn and not overturn. You said it wasn’t a slam dunk. Now you are saying those arguing it shouldn’t be overturned are delusional?

It appears you are the delusional one. Put another way, you said it was ambiguous yet you still think it is delusional to be upset that an ambiguous was overturned?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2073
Jeemie wrote:
Steelafan77 wrote:
The simple fact that James made a football move by diving [after taking a step] over the goal line was indisputable. Once the Goal line is broken..., Touchdown Period! Debate all you want. Exercise in futility, Dilly Dilly....


The...refs...have...never...ruled...what...James...did...to...be...a...football...move.

Never...ever.

Prior...precedent.


We’ve been over this before and you admitting that there is no direct precedent on point. All of the other cases can be distinguished.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2073
Jackie Chiles wrote:
TB wrote:
No it wouldn't. As long as the player survived the initial contact with the ground he would have completed the catch at that point and would have possession.

Wherever he ended up being touched down as he barrel rolled, or was head standing his way to the end zone is where he would be down.

Yes... Plain simple easy.


But that’s the point. I guess you are saying he completed the catch after the first barrel roll. Thus, a subsequent barrel roll would be a football move. You can argue James didn’t commit a separate barrel roll, but that’s a different argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:54 pm
Posts: 2073
TB wrote:
I'm planting my flag in the ground, you guys are 100% wrong.

If you're making a catch, you're doing one of two things:

1) You're upright long enough to be considered a runner with possession of the ball
2) You're what is considered "going to the ground" when attempting to make the catch if you're not upright long enough to be considered a runner and are going to the ground, whether you are contacted or just going to the ground on your own

This whole barrel roll scenario I've already addressed. But I'll spell it out again:

If you are upright long enough to be considered a runner (two steps on the ground, making what we call a "football" move by tucking, turning upfield, warding off a defender) and then go down to make a barrel roll, you can roll on the ground all damn day until you're touched down or score. You have completed the pass and are in possession of the ball as you're rolling.

If you are going to the ground while making a catch, whether touched or untouched, if you control the ball through the initial contact with the ground, you can barrel roll just the same and it's a catch with possession. You show clear control through the initial contact with the ground, you're doing a few barrel rolls, and then lose control of the ball? Either way it's complete, then we'd be looking at a fumble if you at some point during your 100 barrel rolls you lost control of the ball. But if you're going to the ground, lose control of the ball and it makes contact with the ground during that initial contact and initial barrel roll attempt? And you don't regain control of the ball until after it has already hit the ground? Then it's incomplete.

That's what this whole "survive the ground" thing is coming from. You have to "survive" with control of the ball through the initial contact with the ground when you're a player that's going to the ground when making the attempted catch. If you do that, and then start barrel rolling towards the end zone? You're good. You've completed the catch, have possession, do whatever the hell you want at that point. You can go to the ground and in the process be attempting to make a head stand, if you control the ball through the initial contact with the ground and start head standing your way towards the end zone? You're good.

Again, James did none of these. He didn't have any feet on the ground when he was making the catch, was falling to the ground untouched. By rule, he is a "player going to the ground." The idea that he is a "runner" just because as he's falling to the ground he reaches out with the ball towards the goal line is not supported by anything in the rulebook other than you misinterpreting their wording. It's clear from there that if they determined he lost control with the ball contacting the ground before he regained control, then it's incomplete. End of story.


I think we are agreeing on the rule but disagreeing on the facts. I would say that James’ initial contact was with a knee. At this point, he tucked the ball. He then pushed off that knee, changed direction and extended the ball. In the rules, going up field or extending the ball is sufficient to complete the first catch.

Now, perhaps it is possible to argue the above wer to subtle and thus not enough to establish completion of the catch. But that is a subjective fact that must be overturned by indisputable evidence. I think factually murky enough not to be indisputable. His wasn’t de novo review.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 22636
Zeke5123 wrote:
Jeemie wrote:
Steelafan77 wrote:
The simple fact that James made a football move by diving [after taking a step] over the goal line was indisputable. Once the Goal line is broken..., Touchdown Period! Debate all you want. Exercise in futility, Dilly Dilly....


The...refs...have...never...ruled...what...James...did...to...be...a...football...move.

Never...ever.

Prior...precedent.


We’ve been over this before and you admitting that there is no direct precedent on point. All of the other cases can be distinguished.


Yes but there's never direct precedent for practically anything.

They considered what James did all one act and not like barrel rolls. It did happen all in one fluid motion.

I agree they shouldn't have done so but knew they would do so.

_________________
“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: Jesse James Catch vs Ertz Catch
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 2958
If the James play had happened in the EZ it would have been a TD. They have ruled that way several times. Once it is secured and the player is down it is a TD.

and it is why they need to change the rule. No one knows what a catch is.

_________________
"If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" - Will Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 177 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 8 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