Patriots @ Steelers: Official Game Thread

You don't get it. Having the ball and knee down doesn't mean you made a catch. You still need to show control through the entire contact with the ground and not just the initial moment the knee is down. He reached and lost it before contact with the ground was survived. He took a risk and blew it.

 

The NFL used the Dez play as an example for the following year and instructed the officials that going forward that type of play was to be ruled a catch. It has been at times ruled a catch and other times not a catch.

#Inconsistency

 

Well we can argue until were blue in the face....IMO he controlled the ball to the ground by placing his knee on the ground then leaned forward over the goal line for a TD

 

At the end of the day it depends on who the ref is

 

He was always falling forward. That is the difference. He didn't secure it to a knee, stop and then lean forward. The whole thing was still going to ground. That was the difference and they never put that in doubt on the review. They only were looking at the bobble. Which should be the real point of contention. I'd argue it rolled but stayed secured the whole time.

 

I will ask again if a NE defender touches him w his knee down is it a catch?

 

No. Not until he controls after the contact with the ground until he is essentially still. This isn't about the downing rule but about actually controlling the catch through contact, whether it be the ground or another player.

 

Are you sure you saw the play? Lol

 

Ya. The Pat never touched him. I was playing hypothetical which you seemingly were asking. He never officially had control. There was no point you could say he caught that ball and became a runner. He was falling forward from the moment he got it even if it was a reach done by his own choice. He then had the ball touch the ground and right after that it slipped out of his grip. That happened before he survived the contact with the ground. So no catch.

 

I was asking cause if a NE defender would have touched him the play would have been over w the ball on the 1 yd line cause he had control of the ball and was on a knee

 

Wrong. It would not have been a catch. As I said if the NE defender touched him at the 1 and James still reached and lost it he would have still lost the ball before surviving contact with the ground. The only difference would have been that if he never lost it it would have been down at the one instead of a TD.

 

Well I dont know how to screen shot a play but on CBS if you pause it at 4 secs of the play you can see he has full possession of the ball w a knee down after that he becomes a runner

 

He does have it secured with a knee down but it still isn't a complete catch until he survives the rest of the contact with the ground. So he hasn't become a runner yet. If he was then yes it's a TD the moment he crosses the plane of the goalline, but a screen shot shows nothing. He is still continuing to go forward to ground when his knee was down so he technically has not caught it yet and thus not a runner.

It's the same as a player catching a ball on the sideline, having his knee inbounds first when he falls but then rolling OOB and losing the ball. He had the ball in a secure grip when his knee was down inbounds but he lost it because he didn't survive contact with the ground as part of his fall, so no catch. It's the same inbounds whether it be in the endzone or between the 0s.

 

Not true cause once he crosses the plane the play is over

 

Again, that is only if he is deemed a runner. I am saying he is not deemed a runner until he actually catches it which would not be until he survives contact with the ground. He never did.

 

Well I feel it was a TD and you disagree and the game is over....its all good

 

What a joke...Clearly the NFL is not going to allow a Super Bowl to happen without Tom Brady being involved.

I saw James score, and then had to take a very important phone call....The next thing I know, Patriots win. lmao!

I would feel sorry for you guys, but I just can't...

 

I already said so but it's seemed to be missed... I would argue that while the ball did move it was still secured against his arm the whole time and perhaps should still be control and thus a catch. It could have at least not been indisputable evidence to deem that to have come loose.

 

For that reason I would not have overturned it. I think he caught it if that was the original call, but I am completely against the reasons of being in the moment when he crossed the goalline.

 

That call was complete BS. He had control through the play enough to break the plane. The ground can't cause a fumble elsewhere so why there? They said "it did not survive the ground" which is complete garbage. There have been many examples of just players hands breaking the plane without his body in the end zone. It's a terrible call and it is absolutely inexcusable that after this long in business the NFL does not have an easy, definitely, consistent definition ofwhat the fuck a catch is. That is one of those things that will ruin the game.