Pittsburgh Troll Agrees With Overturning the TD

[billikens]

Guess I should put my two-cents in.

Yes, it is similar to the tuck rule game in that it was a controversial call (i.e., game changing) that some people acknowledged followed the written rule but should not have been called anyway (to me, a curious position to have. What is the NFL, or any organized sport, without strict rules and an adherence to them? What is this, the NBA?). The difference, to me, is that the tuck rule was an obscure provision that most people did not know about (at the time I thought the fumble call was going to be overturned as an incomplete pass because TB's arm was moving forward) so it was abnormal and confused people, but the rule for a catch requiring the ball to be controlled to the ground is a pretty normal, commonplace provision that is invoked all the time.

In this instance, the ball clearly rotated when James slammed it on the ground in the end zone - the only thing that could have caused that rotation was the ground, and you can see that he momentarily lost then regained hold of the ball. To me, the only question was if him putting his knee down before twisting around and putting it on the ground somehow interrupted his fall to the ground. It's pretty clear it did not, but was part of the act of him falling, so it wasn't a catch. The fault lies with the receiver, who afterwards was quoted as saying he didn't realize it wasn't a catch. He certainly knew that the ball rolled around a little when he hit the ground with it, so James's fault was 1) not maintaining control of the football all the way to the ground and 2) not knowing the rules specific to his position. He was simply trying too hard and ruined the play by doing so, a not infrequent occurence in the NFL.

Like I said before, acknowledging that a call followed a rule but should not have been called anyway is an untenable position, It is based upon emotion and subjectivity and can't be taken seriously. And to say that the rules committee will change it after the season is ridiculous as well. Change it to what? That a receiver can let a thrown ball roll around on the ground and still call it a catch? Ordinarily, it is a no brainer, the only difference here is that his knee hit ground first and he broke the plain before putting the ball on the ground. Close calls shouldn't be the reason to change or not correctly call rules, and on replay, it appears this wasn't that much of a close call. As the official said, the knee and breaking the plain have nothing to do with him controlling ball to ground. It's just that the Steelers lost a close one in a significant game and a lot of people hate the Patriots. Those aren't good reasons not to follow the rule, either.

 

[patfanken]

The more I ponder on it, and after seeing the replay about 100 times now, I think I've changed my position. Was it the right call? Probably. But the call on the field was TD. Was there undisputable evidence that the meat of the ball hit the ground? I say no. Yes, the ball moved, but it's allowed to if general possession is secured. James' right hand was underneath the ball the whole time. I've seen no angle where we can see that his hand was not underneath the ball the entire time. They didn't have grounds to overturn the original call.

Eh well, it's all spilled milk now.

Actually no GK, the stupid part of the rule is that even AFTER control has been established (as it was in this case) in order to be an "official NFL catch" control has to be maintained ALL the way "to the ground". And there's the rub for the Steelers in this case. When he stretched for the endzone he CLEARLY lost control of the ball when it hit the ground. It literally flipped before he got control of it again. That WAS conclusive evidence in this case. Once the you know the rule, (which many understandably don't) it was clear it wasn't a catch. If you didn't know or understand the rule, it would be easy to see why you'd have a problem with the call.

I know you aren't being a jerk about this, but I just wanted to point out the error of your last post. There are still supposedly smart analysts who are saying that the the second the ball crossed the GL the play should have ended. And that's correct if it was a run, but NOT with a catch. It's catch, control, and here's the key part, ALL the way to the ground....even in the endzone

 

[Gatekeeper]

OR you can look at it from another direction, GK.

Even though the Steelers were playing at home with an emotional crowd behind them. Even though Ben had his BEST game by far vs the Pats if not his entire career (as far as accuracy, field management, and moving the chains go) Even the pick was on the money. It was just that Rowe got his hand on it. Even though the Steelers went into this game with their best offensive and defensive game plans in recent memory, IMHO. Even though Brady was not particularly sharp (for his standards), and the Pats didn't execute as well as the the Steelers did for most of the game. Even though the Steelers had a huge advantage in time of possession. Even though the Pats were short our leading tackler and best run defender, not to mention we lost OUR best defensive player back in week 5. Even after ALL that, the Steelers were never able to get more than one score ahead of the beleaguered Pats.

That should tell you something beyond the fact the Pats were lucky to get out of P-town with a win. You guys where playing sub standard opponents that you managed to beat by the skin of your teeth for a month now. You had your share of good bounces, luck and calls during THOSE games. THIS time the pendulum finally shifted the other way, and the Pats got the win. That's the way it goes.

I wouldn't make too much of ANY individual game. BB has taught us that each game is its own individual entity that neither takes from the the past or is predictable from the future. There are a lot of Pats fans who think that because we've done so well in the past against Pittsburgh we "own" them. Fortunately BB doesn't think follow that line of thinking.

So when/if we meet again, there will likely be some changes to the cast of characters on both sides. The game plans will be different in various degrees, the officials will be different, the weather will be different, and the result COULD be different. It will all depend on who plays the best and "makes the most big plays", and/or gets the lucky bounces or calls.

BTW- when your friends start the "refs are out to get us" crap, you might want to point out this. Just saw a screen shot of the TD to Rogers. There was a OLman at least 3 yds down field on the this play. Ask your friends, why was the flag picked up??????? I know there are a lot of Pats fans who are conspiracy theorists who would like to know.

Well, I believe they actually held an 11 point lead for awhile in the 4th, but your overall point is valid. This is just the kind of thing that happens between these two teams. NE is just destined to prevail. It is correct that each game is its own entity, but I'm a firm believer in "higher forces" being involved in sports stuff for certain situations and durations of time. You guys are familiar with that idea (Curse of the Bambino, Buckner, etc.) As it stands, it just seems like no matter what happens physically on the field, the Pats are destined to beat the Steelers in the end. Something higher is controlling this! And then the whole situation feeds off itself by becoming mental f***ery for the players and coaches. Meaning, if I'm thinking about this type of thing, you can bet the Steelers are too.

Again, I hope there is some way to "reverse the curse" between now and January.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Neat claim. Prove it. You cannot possibly demonstrate that to be the case. Maybe he would have made a difference in the outcome of the game, maybe he wouldn't have. For all you know, he could have a huge, game changing turnover. We don't know. My point is, it is ridiculous to use injuries as an excuse for losing. Brown's injury didn't force Ben to throw a stupid, reckless pick in chip shot FG range.

The Patriots were horrible and they still won. Instead of considering it to be a moral victory, that should concern you. What do you think the odds are that the Pats play that poorly in a playoff rematch? Assuming that both teams even make it that far.

Well, again, I'm isolating it to only the guys available entering the game itself. Meaning I'm not factoring in the absence of Shazier, Haden, Hogan, etc. I don't think you will find even one semi-knowledgeable football fan who would not say that AB adds a whole different game-changing dynamic for a defense to concern itself with. There was a lot less room for the other WR's after he left.

And yes, the Pats were not super impressive, and that's two games in a row now. Perhaps that should be a point of concern?

 

[Kdo5]

I called it right away. Can't call that a secure catch.

The game was lost with conservative play calling at the end by Haley. Disgusted but hopefully AB will be back for the rematch. It'll make a difference. Great game.

I appreciate this post. But yeah it won't make a difference. Steelers have zero chance in Foxboro unless Brady/Gronk get hurt. Patriots are deeper in their heads than ever before.

I am hoping you guys are in the AFCCG. Jags are the only team that could maybe give us head aches on the offensive end.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Guess I should put my two-cents in.

Yes, it is similar to the tuck rule game in that it was a controversial call (i.e., game changing) that some people acknowledged followed the written rule but should not have been called anyway (to me, a curious position to have. What is the NFL, or any organized sport, without strict rules and an adherence to them? What is this, the NBA?). The difference, to me, is that the tuck rule was an obscure provision that most people did not know about (at the time I thought the fumble call was going to be overturned as an incomplete pass because TB's arm was moving forward) so it was abnormal and confused people, but the rule for a catch requiring the ball to be controlled to the ground is a pretty normal, commonplace provision that is invoked all the time.

In this instance, the ball clearly rotated when James slammed it on the ground in the end zone - the only thing that could have caused that rotation was the ground, and you can see that he momentarily lost then regained hold of the ball. To me, the only question was if him putting his knee down before twisting around and putting it on the ground somehow interrupted his fall to the ground. It's pretty clear it did not, but was part of the act of him falling, so it wasn't a catch. The fault lies with the receiver, who afterwards was quoted as saying he didn't realize it wasn't a catch. He certainly knew that the ball rolled around a little when he hit the ground with it, so James's fault was 1) not maintaining control of the football all the way to the ground and 2) not knowing the rules specific to his position. He was simply trying too hard and ruined the play by doing so, a not infrequent occurence in the NFL.

Like I said before, acknowledging that a call followed a rule but should not have been called anyway is an untenable position, It is based upon emotion and subjectivity and can't be taken seriously. And to say that the rules committee will change it after the season is ridiculous as well. Change it to what? That a receiver can let a thrown ball roll around on the ground and still call it a catch? Ordinarily, it is a no brainer, the only difference here is that his knee hit ground first and he broke the plain before putting the ball on the ground. Close calls shouldn't be the reason to change or not correctly call rules, and on replay, it appears this wasn't that much of a close call. As the official said, the knee and breaking the plain have nothing to do with him controlling ball to ground. It's just that the Steelers lost a close one in a significant game and a lot of people hate the Patriots. Those aren't good reasons not to follow the rule, either.

Well, at the very least, there is probably going to have to be some kind of modification or refinement to the rule, if not an outright change. Ambiguous terminology such as "football move" and "surviving the ground" just doesn't cut it.

And the gray area is even more blurry with such ideas as "one knee = two feet." If one knee = two feet, does twisting and reaching on one knee, as James did, = running on two feet?

The funniest part of this whole situation is that this pedestrian and unknown tight end for the Steelers has suddenly found himself the focus of the football world, and may end up having a rule named after him. Every football fan in America now knows who Jesse James is, whether he likes it or not!

 

[Gatekeeper]

I appreciate this post. But yeah it won't make a difference. Steelers have zero chance in Foxboro unless Brady/Gronk get hurt. Patriots are deeper in their heads than ever before.

I am hoping you guys are in the AFCCG. Jags are the only team that could maybe give us head aches on the offensive end.

I refuse to equal your level of confidence with pessimism! The Steelers have about a month to figure out how to reverse this "curse." They showed they can rattle Brady a bit and get him to make mistakes, and showed they can move the ball against the Pats and score. I'd say a rematch is by no means a done deal!

 

[Gatekeeper]

Also, next week could be the classic "trap" or let-down game for the Pats. I know BB is good at guarding against such things, but it does happen.

 

[Bruins29]

Also, next week could be the classic "trap" or let-down game for the Pats. I know BB is good at guarding against such things, but it does happen.

It just happened 2 weeks ago.

 

[FourierSeries]

Well, again, I'm isolating it to only the guys available entering the game itself. Meaning I'm not factoring in the absence of Shazier, Haden, Hogan, etc. I don't think you will find even one semi-knowledgeable football fan who would not say that AB adds a whole different game-changing dynamic for a defense to concern itself with. There was a lot less room for the other WR's after he left.

And yes, the Pats were not super impressive, and that's two games in a row now. Perhaps that should be a point of concern?

Pats were missing a couple of players in their front 7, including one of their best defenders this season, and Hogan, who shredded the Steelers with ease last season.

All 3 should play come January, and possibly even Mitchell, as well. The real bad news for Pittsburgh is that Big Ben has sucked **** on the road for 3 years now, especially in Foxboro.

 

[dafoe2016]

Well, again, I'm isolating it to only the guys available entering the game itself. Meaning I'm not factoring in the absence of Shazier, Haden, Hogan, etc. I don't think you will find even one semi-knowledgeable football fan who would not say that AB adds a whole different game-changing dynamic for a defense to concern itself with. There was a lot less room for the other WR's after he left.

And yes, the Pats were not super impressive, and that's two games in a row now. Perhaps that should be a point of concern?

You are getting dangerously close to troll territory. It always eventually devolves into that when a fan of another team shows up on one of these Patriots forums.

If you want to continue making excuses go ahead. It's pathetic, but if some team dominated my team for nearly two decades maybe I might be grasping at straws to find a moral victory as well. Sure, the Patriots play over the last two weeks against a terrible Dolphins team and an overrated Steelers team is concerning. But I am not concerned with the Steelers should the Pats meet them in the playoffs. Nor should I be.

 

[dafoe2016]

Wouldn't the same thing apply to

Also, next week could be the classic "trap" or let-down game for the Pats. I know BB is good at guarding against such things, but it does happen.

Wouldn't that be even more true of the Steelers against Houston considering how inferior their coaching is to that of the Patriots? As evidenced by the mass confusion on the Steelers final play of the game and by the fact that the Steelers have played down to their competition all year. Eventually that will backfire, even against a bad team. You make no sense.

I doubt many Pats fans would be worried if we had to go to Pittsburgh in the playoffs anyway.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

Pats currently without their
#1, #3 and #4 WR (Edelman, Hogan and Mitchell)
#1 RT (Cannon)
#1, #2 and #3 LB (Hightower, Van Noy and McClellin)
#3 and #4 DT (Branch and Valentine)
Top Rookie draft pick (Rivers- DE/LB)
Lost #2 RB during the game
That's not even counting Bennett who would still be playing if his hamstring didn't go.


Pats fans are the last people that want to hear injuries being an excuse.

You forgot our #2 RT Waddle. We're playing 3rd stringer Fleming right now until Waddle can come back healthy

 

[XLIX]

Well, again, I'm isolating it to only the guys available entering the game itself. Meaning I'm not factoring in the absence of Shazier, Haden, Hogan, etc. I don't think you will find even one semi-knowledgeable football fan who would not say that AB adds a whole different game-changing dynamic for a defense to concern itself with. There was a lot less room for the other WR's after he left.

And yes, the Pats were not super impressive, and that's two games in a row now. Perhaps that should be a point of concern?

The Patriots just beat the Steelers on the road. For you to claim that isn’t impressive is more an insult to your own team than to NE.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, at the very least, there is probably going to have to be some kind of modification or refinement to the rule, if not an outright change. Ambiguous terminology such as "football move" and "surviving the ground" just doesn't cut it.

There is nothing ambiguous about surviving the ground, but that isn’t what the rule states, it is how that part of the rule that says you must maintain possession all the way through landing in the ground is referred to by referees.
There is no viable change to the rule that would improve it.

And the gray area is even more blurry with such ideas as "one knee = two feet." If one knee = two feet, does twisting and reaching on one knee, as James did, = running on two feet?

Ok now you ate suggestion rule changes because of your personal ignorance of the rules.
One knee=two feet was John maddens description of the fact that when making a catch upright you need 2 feet in but if, WITH CONTACT BY THF DEFENSE, something other than a foot or hand touches the ground you are down by contact, and therefore in bounds.

The funniest part of this whole situation is that this pedestrian and unknown tight end for the Steelers has suddenly found himself the focus of the football world, and may end up having a rule named after him. Every football fan in America now knows who Jesse James is, whether he likes it or not!

This is only an issue for people who don’t understand the rule.

 

[jam757]

Here's the thing, the rule was previously changed to add clarity to what exactly constitutes a catch. I do think they will review the rule but highly doubt any changes will be made as it will only add to the problems. I think this makes more sense if you think about it happening at the 50 yard line, as others have mentioned, then obviously incomplete. Now if we want to change it and say you do not need to "survive the ground" then there will be many more fumbles. Not necessarily a bad thing but I'm just not sure how you can really change it and make everyone happy. Receivers first instinct is to reach out for the goal line when in fact they should pull the ball in and curl and turn to guarantee they secure and complete the catch.

 

[Ring 6]

Here's the thing, the rule was previously changed to add clarity to what exactly constitutes a catch. I do think they will review the rule but highly doubt any changes will be made as it will only add to the problems. I think this makes more sense if you think about it happening at the 50 yard line, as others have mentioned, then obviously incomplete. Now if we want to change it and say you do not need to "survive the ground" then there will be many more fumbles. Not necessarily a bad thing but I'm just not sure how you can really change it and make everyone happy. Receivers first instinct is to reach out for the goal line when in fact they should pull the ball in and curl and turn to guarantee they secure and complete the catch.

To satisfy those that don’t like the rule you would have to change it to if you break the plane WHILE IN THE PROCESS OF GAINING POSSESSION you are awarded a a TD even if you never ultimately gain possession. That would create epic disaster.
By that rule getting 2 hands on the ball in the end zone and dropping it would be a TD.


Otherwise people just need to listen when they are told that a player attempting to make a catch does not have possession until he completes the catch and therefore did not break the plane while in possession of the football.

 

[Kontradiction]

The Patriots just beat the Steelers on the road. For you to claim that isn’t impressive is more an insult to your own team than to NE.

1. Beat them on the road.

2. Beat them in what was essentially a regular season Super Bowl for the team where they threw everything but the kitchen sink (including wheeling Shazier up to a box and showing him on the jumbotron).

3. Beat them in spite of starting a MASH squad at DT and LB and with their top pass rusher still rounding back into form.

4. Beat them on the offensive side of the ball without their starting LT, Edelman, and Hogan.

5. Beat them coming off of a part in the schedule where they played 5 of 6 on the road (with Pittsburgh being the 5th, and final).

6. Beat them on a short week.

The Pittsburgh troll can feel free to put that in his pope and smike it.

 

[Bruins29]

Gatekeeper isnt really a troll though he will become one soon.. He is just a massive homer who really can't be objective. Tolls post **** they know isnt true just to irritate people (Avacado Ice Cream, K.Dog, Cutie Pie etc). Gatekeeper really believes the nonsense he posts.

 

[FourierSeries]

NE is just destined to prevail. It is correct that each game is its own entity, but I'm a firm believer in "higher forces" being involved in sports stuff for certain situations and durations of time.

Higher forces are involved in games between the Pats and Steelers. They're called Bill Belichick and Tom Brady.