NFL robs the Steelers

[Hank Kingsley]

The only reason that ball was knocked lose was because he hit the ground. He caught the ball and was not contacted by another player. Maybe you can use the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule for this type of play.

As a running back if you stumble without contact, fall to the ground and the ground knocks the ball free it's a fumble.

 

[Vitamike]

If Pittsburgh fans want to gripe, I think there best case is the obvious no call of PI on interception play, if anything.

Rowe totally grabs Juju by the arm before he tips the ball to his teammate.

That hold allows Rowe to get to the ball first to tip it away.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

If Pittsburgh fans want to gripe, I think there best case is the obvious no call of PI on interception play, if anything.

Rowe totally grabs Juju by the arm before he tips the ball to his teammate.

That hold allows Rowe to get to the ball first to tip it away.

Damn, never even though to see it that closely

Those tight emotional plays, the refs never catch those, but I believe it

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Here's my question for people who believe it to be a "shitty rule".

What is your alternative? Prior to 2010, we had very blurry rules with what a catch was. It was kind of just up to the refs discretion. There were many questionable plays, where there was a pass into the end zone ruled a TD. When the receiver possessed a ball for no more than a split second, with two feet down. Then, had it knocked out of his hands immediately.

I like the way the catch rules are set-up now, because we at least have a set criteria for what is required of a player to make a completed catch.

Now, if you can find a middle-ground between each extreme and we can set up better criteria. I'm obviously all ears.

There seems to be a lot of complaining about this rule when it's applied, but I almost NEVER hear someone bring up alternatives.

As far as I can see, there is no perfect way to set-up the catch rules. There will always be head-scratching rulings. Right now, I do think that this is the lesser of two evils.

So much of the game is still subjective and at the discretion of the officials. I say we go back to pre-2010. Let the officials make the call. Like most sporting events you'll love the call 50% of the time and hate it the other 50% of the time. It's kind of like asking a group of guys in the bar was it or wasn't it a catch. Forget the rest of this bs.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

If Pittsburgh fans want to gripe, I think there best case is the obvious no call of PI on interception play, if anything.

Rowe totally grabs Juju by the arm before he tips the ball to his teammate.

That hold allows Rowe to get to the ball first to tip it away.

Should they gripe about the push/hold off by Martavius Bryant on his TD catch
Asking for a friend.

 

[Wazmankg]

The call is what it is. Just a shame that a game like that had to be decided on such a controversial call. Oh and to me that was a TD and the Steelers got robbed.

The thing is.. it wasn't. It happened on 1st down.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Here's my question for people who believe it to be a "shitty rule".

What is your alternative? Prior to 2010, we had very blurry rules with what a catch was. It was kind of just up to the refs discretion. There were many questionable plays, where there was a pass into the end zone ruled a TD. When the receiver possessed a ball for no more than a split second, with two feet down. Then, had it knocked out of his hands immediately.

I like the way the catch rules are set-up now, because we at least have a set criteria for what is required of a player to make a completed catch.

Now, if you can find a middle-ground between each extreme and we can set up better criteria. I'm obviously all ears.

There seems to be a lot of complaining about this rule when it's applied, but I almost NEVER hear someone bring up alternatives.

As far as I can see, there is no perfect way to set-up the catch rules. There will always be head-scratching rulings. Right now, I do think that this is the lesser of two evils.

For me...the whole BS part of the rule is the going to the ground part...had the player maintained his feet and did the exact same thing...by rule it's a TD.

I think if a player has the ball and make makes a football move...it's a catch...if the ball hits the ground after that it's a fumble.

 

[redseat]

Agreed. The Jets probably have no shot in the last game, but Buffalo has something to prove next week and a shot at the playoffs. The #1 seed is hardly in the bag, especially seeing the Steelers should be able to take care of business the last two games.

The Bills and Jets have something to play for.. The Bills to get into the post season and hell the Jets would love to have them be the ones to knock the Patriots out of the # 1 seed. Fortunately both games are at Gillette

ESPN gives the Pats 89% to win against the Bills

91.8% chance against the Jets.....

 

[richig07]

The only reason that ball was knocked lose was because he hit the ground. He caught the ball and was not contacted by another player. Maybe you can use the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule for this type of play.

Well, the ground can cause a fumble. That's an old rule, that many people still believe is in existence. It is not.

The ground can cause both a fumble, and an incompletion (obviously, lol).

Personally, I don't see the alternative. Obviously, I think the ground has to be able to cause an incompletion. Or else... that would result in a lot of ridiculous passes being ruled "complete". As there's constantly receivers diving for a ball, catching it and then losing it upon hitting the ground.

 

[richig07]

For me...the whole BS part of the rule is the going to the ground part...had the player maintained his feet and did the exact same thing...by rule it's a TD.

I think if a player has the ball and make makes a football move...it's a catch...if the ball hits the ground after that it's a fumble.

You have to be on your feet, in order to make a "football move". That's where many get confused.

Catch a ball on your feet, turn up field and dive across the goal line... lose the ball after crossing? You're good. Catch a ball while going to the ground, and turn for the goal line as a part of ONE SINGULAR motion. It's an incompletion.

I understand the gripe... but I am not sure you can declare something a "football move", if a player isn't on his feet. Ya know?

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

For me...the whole BS part of the rule is the going to the ground part...had the player maintained his feet and did the exact same thing...by rule it's a TD.

I think if a player has the ball and make makes a football move...it's a catch...if the ball hits the ground after that it's a fumble.

My problem is I still didnt see it hit the ground

We all saw it come loose, but did we really see it leave James' hands at any point clear enough to overrule?

 

[Vitamike]

Should they gripe about the push/hold off by Martavius Bryant on his TD catch
Asking for a friend.

Honestly was reeling in the moment with the blowout in Seattle for most of your game, so I didn't see it. But flipped over after the game and I did see that obvious hold by Rowe which led to a turnover.

Griping on a no call offensive PI which is hardly ever called doesn't compare IMO to them refs keeping their hands in their pockets when the defensive PI leads to a game ending turnover.

Just can't let a defender get away with that while the ball is in the air, ever but especially when it leads to a game ending turnover.

FWIW - I have no dog in this fight. Would like to have a chance for a revenge Superbowl with either of these two teams.

 

[Wazmankg]

The only reason that ball was knocked lose was because he hit the ground. He caught the ball and was not contacted by another player. Maybe you can use the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule for this type of play.

No it can't .. but you have to establish possession first and have some definitive criteria for that, which is the crux of the matter. There is always going to be some interpretation required regardless of what the rule is. I thought Dez's should have been called a catch and I think Calvin Johnson's way back when against the Bears should have been called a catch, even under the current rule. But this one I don't think was all that arguable. 400+ posts here says I'm wrong about that but I'd be disappointed if I was a Steelers fan, too.

 

[Vitamike]

Catch a ball on your feet, turn up field and dive across the goal line... lose the ball after crossing? You're good.

The Dez Bryant play disagrees with this statement...

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Honestly was reeling in the moment with the blowout in Seattle for most of your game, so I didn't see it. But flipped over after the game and I did see that obvious hold by Rowe which led to a turnover.

Griping on a no call offensive PI which is hardly ever called doesn't compare IMO to them refs keeping their hands in their pockets when the defensive PI leads to a game ending turnover.

Just can't let a defender get away with that while the ball is in the air, ever but especially when it leads to a game ending turnover.

FWIW - I have no dog in this fight. Would like to have a chance for a revenge Superbowl with either of these two teams.

Well first we disagree on the DPI by Rowe. So do many of the so called experts on tv. Just sayin.
We also disagree that if it's a penalty in the early stages of a game it's a penalty at the end a game.Call it all the time or don't call it.
Also OPI has as much of a game changer if not more considering the offense already has so many things in their favor.

 

[black francis]

If Goodell ran the NBA

"the backboard is only there as an attachment for the rim. hitting any part of the backboard on a made shot is one point. however, on a layup, you may use the backboard for the full two points, but not in the last 2 minutes of the game"

"you must complete the basket. if you fall down while making a basket, the points will not count"

"if you are trying to dunk, the ball must not hit any part of the rim or it will not count as a basket"

 

[Hank Kingsley]

For me...the whole BS part of the rule is the going to the ground part...had the player maintained his feet and did the exact same thing...by rule it's a TD.

I think if a player has the ball and make makes a football move...it's a catch...if the ball hits the ground after that it's a fumble.

Dez and I agree.

But that's not how it works so Dez agrees it shouldn't count.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

My problem is I still didnt see it hit the ground

We all saw it come loose, but did we really see it leave James' hands at any point clear enough to overrule?

It simply has to move.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

It simply has to move.

Your wife makes it move

 

[black francis]

Love how Pats fans are now experts on rules technicalities and explanations, but still dont grasp how deflating balls is illegal.