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

[TheMaus2]

The Patriots have won the Evil League of Evil for the regular season.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by TGH-Adfabre

Doubtful, defenders have been separating receiver from the ball for years. They would rule he did not make a "football move" and establish himself as a runner.

Then a person can't call that a catch.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

What if, in that conscious effort of extending the ball forward, a defensive player had swatted the ball out? Would that have then been a fumble?

I would've called it that. But according to Bizzaro World, he never got a chance to complete the catch by "surviving the ground".

[old fat bald guy]

A "football move" is not a thing. It is not in the NFL rulebook. You have to demonstrate that you are a runner. If you're falling, you're not running.

The "plane of the goal line" is also irrelevant in this case. If you don't catch the ball, that's an incomplete pass. It doesn't matter where you are.

The merits of the rule are debatable, but the call isn't. It was clearly an incomplete pass.

[Rain King]

For anyone complaining about this being incomplete, I challenge you to type out the Rule how it should read in order to call that a catch.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I would've called it that. But according to Bizzaro World, he never got a chance to complete the catch by "surviving the ground".

Then you'd be wrong.

[cephasjames]

@Cobra Mgr, would James' play have been a complete pass had he not been attempting to cross the goal line?

[old fat bald guy]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

@Cobra Mgr, would James' play have been a complete pass had he not been attempting to cross the goal line?

If it plays out the same way, no. If he keeps the ball from hitting the ground because he isn't trying to cross the goal line, and he hangs on to it, yes.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by old fat bald guy

If it plays out the same way, no. If he keeps the ball from hitting the ground because he isn't trying to cross the goal line, and he hangs on to it, yes.

Which is why it wasn't a touchdown: consistency in rule following.

[kq76]

Was the call correct according to the rules? Sure, okay, but count me as one of those who believe as soon as you cross the endzone it should be a touchdown. The endzone is clearly a special area of the field and should have special rules.

If he wasn't lunging for the endzone he likely would have caught it just fine, but since he was lunging for it he put himself in danger of losing control of the ball. One might say, "well, that's the risk you take trying to stretch it into a touchdown", but I don't think it's right to take the yardage away completely. At the very least I think you should get the yardage up until the point where you lunged for the endzone.

This "runner" distinction is nonsense to me. What if a receiver stops, turns around, doesn't move his feet, catches the ball, then before he can move he gets whacked to the ground without losing control of the ball? Is he a runner? I wouldn't say so, but should it a completed pass? I would say so.

EDIT: Here's another thing, "he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground". From what I saw his knee clearly touches the ground and he still has control of the ball. It's only once he's flat on the ground with all fours that he loses control. How much "until after initial contact" do you need? 5 seconds, 10 seconds? Once initial contact is made, just call it.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by kq76

If he wasn't lunging for the endzone he likely would have caught it just fine,

If a player catches a ball in the air and is then pushed out of bounds, it's not a catch. If he wasn't pushed out of bounds, he likely would have caught it just fine...

See...that thinking doesn't work.

Originally Posted by kq76

What if a receiver stops, turns around, doesn't move his feet, catches the ball, then before he can move he gets whacked to the ground without losing control of the ball? Is he a runner? I wouldn't say so, but should it a completed pass? I would say so.

Doesn't lose control? So the ball doesn't hit the ground? Then yeah...completed pass. But for the Steelers player, the ball DOES hit the ground. If that same situation you have had had the ball hit the ground, depending on the bang-bang of this...yeah, incomplete.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by kq76

If he wasn't lunging for the endzone he likely would have caught it just fine, but since he was lunging for it he put himself in danger of losing control of the ball. One might say, "well, that's the risk you take trying to stretch it into a touchdown", but I don't think it's right to take the yardage away completely. At the very least I think you should get the yardage up until the point where you lunged for the endzone.

The pass to James was incomplete, but yet, based on the bold, you want to award him yardage? So, you feel like a receiver should be given yardage even on incomplete passes as long as he at least momentarily held onto the ball? So, technically, a team could get a first down on an incomplete pass as long as the receiver momentarily held the ball while past the first down marker?

Originally Posted by kq76

EDIT: Here's another thing, "he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground". From what I saw his knee clearly touches the ground and he still has control of the ball. It's only once he's flat on the ground with all fours that he loses control. How much "until after initial contact" do you need? 5 seconds, 10 seconds? Once initial contact is made, just call it.

Enough time to determine if the catch is complete or not. Which it wasn't. Because he lost control of the ball.

[cephasjames]

This is really pretty simple: it was an incomplete pass because he lost control of the ball. He didn't complete the play. He should not be rewarded for a completed play when he didn't complete it.

It's akin to a runner bobbling the ball as he crosses the goal line: until he gains control of the ball and completes the play it doesn't matter that the ball has crossed the plane. If he does not regain control of the ball and complete the play he is not rewarded with a touchdown.

[old fat bald guy]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Which is why it wasn't a touchdown: consistency in rule following.

It's also why James made a bad play. Here's something you see good receivers do ... they roll over onto their backs to put their bodies between the ball and the ground. If it doesn't hit the ground, you can lose possession when you hit the ground, regain it, and it's a catch. As long as you're inbounds, a pass isn't incomplete until it hits the ground.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

If a player catches a ball in the air and is then pushed out of bounds, it's not a catch. If he wasn't pushed out of bounds, he likely would have caught it just fine...

See...that thinking doesn't work.

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.

Doesn't lose control? So the ball doesn't hit the ground? Then yeah...completed pass. But for the Steelers player, the ball DOES hit the ground. If that same situation you have had had the ball hit the ground, depending on the bang-bang of this...yeah, incomplete.

But by the sound of the rule, it doesn't sound to me like he's a runner (in the scenario I gave) and therefore it shouldn't be a completed pass either. This "runner" term is a key part of the rule as far as I can tell. Otherwise I think the James play should have been a completed pass. What I'm saying is at the point where this video is paused at 22 seconds, I think it should be considered a completed pass. I understand it's not according to the rule, but I don't like it.

And FWIW, I probably dislike the Steelers more than any other team (I'm still smarting from that Seahawks-Steelers Superbowl) and I usually find myself rooting for the Patriots. Not here though.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Then you'd be wrong.

According to the NFL. Common sense isn't part of the rule book.

Originally Posted by Rain King

For anyone complaining about this being incomplete, I challenge you to type out the Rule how it should read in order to call that a catch.

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.

Originally Posted by cephasjames

@Cobra Mgr, would James' play have been a complete pass had he not been attempting to cross the goal line?

Yes. The ball didn't wiggle once until his elbow hit the ground after his dive across the end zone. So if he just went down it would have never gotten loose. Because he made the split second decision to get it across and it was jarred loose. But he had control of it the entire way up until then.

[TGH-Adfabre]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Then a person can't call that a catch.

I agree. I do not think the rule is the problem. I think the quality of slow motion replay has made real time decisions almost impossible. I think they have to decide which set of unintended consequences they are willing to accept.

[TGH-Adfabre]

Originally Posted by old fat bald guy

A "football move" is not a thing. It is not in the NFL rulebook. You have to demonstrate that you are a runner. If you're falling, you're not running.

The "plane of the goal line" is also irrelevant in this case. If you don't catch the ball, that's an incomplete pass. It doesn't matter where you are.

The merits of the rule are debatable, but the call isn't. It was clearly an incomplete pass.

Thanks, that makes sense about establishing as a runner.

[TribeFanInNC]

Originally Posted by TGH-Adfabre

I agree. I do not think the rule is the problem. I think the quality of slow motion replay has made real time decisions almost impossible. I think they have to decide which set of unintended consequences they are willing to accept.

Agree.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Yes. The ball didn't wiggle once until his elbow hit the ground after his dive across the end zone. So if he just went down it would have never gotten loose. Because he made the split second decision to get it across and it was jarred loose. But he had control of it the entire way up until then.

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?