Ball breaks plane...touchdown! End. Done. Over.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

I agree that the ball didn't wiggle until he stretched out and it hit the ground. But he did and he lost the ball.

You're saying that if a player did the exact same thing James did but instead stretched for only a first down, it'd still be a completion? Even though he lost control of the ball?

Yes. That's the way it should be. I'm not saying the NFL rule book says I'm correct. I'm saying the rule book needs to be corrected if both of James' feet can touch the ground, his knee touches the ground, his pelvis touches the ground, & he makes a conscious decision top turn his body all before the ball gets loose and that results in an incompletion.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Yes. That's the way it should be. I'm not saying the NFL rule book says I'm correct. I'm saying the rule book needs to be corrected if both of James' feet can touch the ground, his knee touches the ground, his pelvis touches the ground, & he makes a conscious decision top turn his body all before the ball gets loose and that results in an incompletion.

Fair enough. As long as you're consistent and realize that you are incorrect according to the NFL rule book.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by kq76

I don't really like that either though. Part of me feels like that's a good play by the defense, but that doesn't necessarily mean the offensive player didn't also make a good play. Good play should be rewarded IMO. This touchdown play is worse though. The defense had very little impact if any on the play.

No. A good play should not be rewarded just because it's a good play. If a defensive guy has an amazing read and has an amazing move on an O-Liner and flushes the QB out of the pocket by shedding an amazing block by the RB and the QB barely gets the ball off as he's falling to the ground should not be awarded with a sack.

The rest of the post, while I see your opinion, I have to disagree with. I (and others) have already shared why.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Yes. That's the way it should be. I'm not saying the NFL rule book says I'm correct. I'm saying the rule book needs to be corrected if both of James' feet can touch the ground, his knee touches the ground, his pelvis touches the ground, & he makes a conscious decision top turn his body all before the ball gets loose and that results in an incompletion.

I just don't see it as a completion. I don't think he "completes" the catch. He starts the catch, goes through a portion of the catch but it doesn't "complete".

I think of it like a catch in baseball. Just because the ball goes into the glove doesn't mean that the catch has been made. He has to maintain possession of the ball. This guy didn't maintain possession of the ball through the process of the catch.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

A pass is caught when a player exhibits control w/2 feet w/in the field of play......

1. before going out of bounds or......
2. before falling to the ground or.....
3. makes a move to advance the ball.

How do you define "exhibits control"?

How do you define "makes a move to advance the ball"?

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

A pass is caught when a player exhibits control w/2 feet w/in the field of play......

1. before going out of bounds or......
2. before falling to the ground or.....
3. makes a move to advance the ball.

Right now, if a player catches a ball in play, touches the pylon with the ball and is forced out of bounds without feet touching the ground and maintains control, it is a TD.

In your rule, it is not.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Right now, if a player catches a ball in play, touches the pylon with the ball and is forced out of bounds without feet touching the ground and maintains control, it is a TD.

In your rule, it is not.

No it's not. A player still has to maintain he was in bounds.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

No it's not. A player still has to maintain he was in bounds.

I'm pretty certain I'm correct.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content...11_Scoring.pdf

Touchdown Plays. A touchdown is scored when:
(c) a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that, after contact by an opponent, no part of the player’s body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Rain King

How do you define "exhibits control"?

The ball doesn't move in his grasp until after he has maintained he was in bounds.

How do you define "makes a move to advance the ball"?

Uhhhh.....when he attempts to move forward..........I think that is pretty self explanatory. Unless you like it when the NFL complicates the simple.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

I just don't see it as a completion. I don't think he "completes" the catch. He starts the catch, goes through a portion of the catch but it doesn't "complete".

I think of it like a catch in baseball. Just because the ball goes into the glove doesn't mean that the catch has been made. He has to maintain possession of the ball. This guy didn't maintain possession of the ball through the process of the catch.

I respect your opinion. I just believe you and the NFL are over complicating what is very easy to do. I can get it that the NFL wants to call it incomplete when a player is bracing himself for a fall or catches it midair while a defender is taking him to the ground. That's the line. But I don't think a player should control the ball, touch the turf at four points & make a conscious decision to advance and see it ruled a drop.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

I'm pretty certain I'm correct.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content...11_Scoring.pdf

Touchdown Plays. A touchdown is scored when:
(c) a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that, after contact by an opponent, no part of the player’s body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or

On a run, yes. But not a pass reception before the player has established the catch.

[old fat bald guy]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

I think of it like a catch in baseball.

I think it is very similar to the baseball rule for what constitutes a catch. If an outfielder dives, catches the ball, lands hard and bounces and loses the ball before he regains control of his body, that's not an out, is it? But if he regains his balance, stands up, and drops the ball while transferring it to his throwing hand, the batter is out.

[rudel.dietrich]

As a non football fan I think the core issue is that the NFL needs to better define the point at which a receiver turns into a runner.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

As a non football fan I think the core issue is that the NFL needs to better define the point at which a receiver turns into a runner.

I agree. That's the problem. Take away the dive and the play wouldn't have been whistled until a Patriot touched him. But because he made the lunge somehow he's not yet a ball carrier.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I personally thought today's call was worse. Thielen was falling down & hit the ground OB before demonstrating control.

Jesse James caught it, landed 2 feet & a knee & then lunged w/the ball. Demonstrating control. I had always thought it was explained that you had to catch it, land & then make a "football move". James executed all three. The 2nd point I have is I saw no conclusive evidence the ball ever hit the ground. So regardless of control or not, I don't see any evidence where it could be overturned.

Bold mine.

A football move. Once you make a football move I believe you are considered a runner. Why can't these refs understand this? Unless I'm wrong here, am I?

The Steelers got absolutely robbed and I say that as a Cowboys fan! It's not like the WR was taken down or caught it while diving, he caught the ball, went down on his own and stretched out the ball over the GL. Those are football moves and a TD, full stop. Don't confuse this with the Dez play (which I still think is a catch) against GB because none of that applied because Dez didn't make a football move.

[old fat bald guy]

No. "A football move" is a phrase that is no longer in the rule book, because it created confusion. If you are on your way to the ground when you catch the ball, and you lose the ball when you hit the ground, it is an incomplete pass. It doesn't matter if you make a "football move" or a Macarena move while you are falling. You are considered a runner when you are no longer a faller.

James' lunge doesn't affect the call one way or the other. He was falling when he caught it, and he lost it when he fell, so legally, he did not catch the ball. A pass that ends up on the ground without being legally caught is incomplete, whether the receiver is in the end zone, at midfield, or counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike.

[BaseballMan]

I'm not gonna say the call was wrong but imo James had more control of the ball as it crossed the endzone when compared to runners trying to stick the ball with one hand over the goal line. If Derek Carr had not fumbled it would be a td and yet he had far less control of the ball.
Yeah i know one is a pass and one is a run and technically its probably the correct call but it seems nit picky. Im not sure but i kinda of would like it to be control at the moment it crosses the goal line.
Still it doesn't matter. It didn't cost them the game as much as Big Ben throwing the int.
And the steelers still have a shot at the super bowl.

[old fat bald guy]

Yeah, I'm not saying it's the best of all possible rules. I'd be fine with it if the rule said he established control of the ball by thrusting it over the goal line, but it doesn't. The NFL is a letter-of-the-law kind of organization when it comes to things like this. I suspect the rule is written the way it is to reduce the necessity for judgment as much as possible. It's not always going to be that clear whether a receiver made a "football move," and there are times it's not clear if he's "going to ground," either, but I think "going to ground" is clear more often. And I think it's obvious in this case.

[BaseballMan]

Sometimes i think the NFL trys to over complicate it. I mean how bad were the calls before the rule changes?
I remember the Renfro's no catch against the steelers in the AFC championship and Butch Johnson's catch against the Broncos in SB 12
but i don't recall just about every great catch being questioned.

[old fat bald guy]

Deadspin has a piece today looking back to the controversy about Bert Emanuel in the 1999 NFC Championship Game between the Rams and the Bucs, If the same play happened today, I don't think many people would even blink about it being called incomplete. He dives, he catches the ball, he lands, the ball hits the ground and moves in a way that demonstrates he isn't controlling it. He does nothing with the ball other than try to catch it, and end up trapping it. The only argument you could possibly make is that his right knee hits the ground first and he still has the ball at that point, but it's all part of a continuous falling motion. According to today's rule the knee could establish that he's inbounds, but not that he completed the catch.

https://deadspin.com/bert-emanuel-wh...the-1821393650