I have seen bang bang plays ruled fumbles (because of "football moves")

[JonLP24]

But the ball moving after reaching over the goaline is incomplete? Catch or no? Those that seen NE vs Pitt know what I'm talking about

12 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Touchdown
	7 (58%)
	Incomplete pass
	4 (33%)
	I didn't see the play
	1 (8%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[aaaaaa5a]

1. Ridiculous call based on a ridiculous rule.

The ball will always be moving when using slow motion replay to this degree. The Steeler player never lost control of the ball. It should have been a TD.

The Patriots are lucky. AGAIN.

[Cattledog]

4. It's turning football into a game that is dependent on micro movement. Why even have human referees?

[brush]

11. They're not lucky. The league always rules for the fucking Patriots going back to the tuck...

rule game against the Raiders.

That was a touchdown today and the Steelers win was taken away from them.

[Sailor65x1]

22. Yes they sure do

Patriots fans are hysterically just like Trump votors in their passionate denials. Almost everyone else has been seeing it for quite some time.

[ExciteBike66]

27. Just keep in mind that the Steelers got a break early in the game on their first TD.

The refs went so far as to pick up a thrown flag and make a no-call.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

14. This ruling is consistent with the Thielen ruling last week.

When you are going to the ground in the process of catching a ball, you have to have position of the ball all the way through getting up again. He did not. He bobbled it when it hit the ground.

I think it's a bullshit rule, but that ruling was correct with the current rule and consistent with the Vikings game last week (and that ruling would have changed the outcome of the game, too).

[Roland99]

2. Megatrons was incomplete. So was this.

[flotsam]

3. You can say what you like about the rule

but it calls for control through the ground. His left elbow hit and the ball was not under his control when his right elbow came down. Argue for a rule change but this year that is an incomplete pass.

[True Dough]

5. I thought it was a complete pass, but not a TD

I thought James had established control long enough but also figured his knee touched the ground before the broke the plane.

[Ohio Dem]

8. He wasn't down because there was no contact. nt

[True Dough]

9. In that case

I would say it was a TD!

[Ohio Dem]

10. It would have been if he'd maintained control.

But, by the rule, I didn't think he did.

[True Dough]

12. I thought he had control while breaking the plane

Definitely would have ruled that a TD.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

15. It's not about breaking the plane when you are in the process of catching the ball.

Breaking the plane is only when you are a runner (which a receiver would be once the ball is caught and a football move is made--not when they are in the process of catching).

In the process of catching the ball, you have to come up with the ball after maintaining control. If he had rolled to his back and the ball had not touched the ground while he bobbled it and then he came up with it, it would have been a TD. He tried to be a hero and, as a result, didn't catch the ball. He knows the rules.

[True Dough]

21. Then I don't like the rule!

And that's all I have to say about that!

[Brother Buzz]

13. It would have been a completed pass and the ball spotted on the one yard line...

in college ball


I looked at the replay and I believe he definitely had control when the ball broke the end zone plane - Touchdown, baby!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

16. In this play (going down in the process of a catch) it isn't about breaking the plane.

See above for my description. This wasn't a touchdown according to current rules.

[Brother Buzz]

17. Rules, schmules

The ball was under control when it broke the plane, ending the play. What's more, it would have been a touchdown if it was a running back who took a knee before breaking the end zone plane.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

18. Yeah, but running backs are different.

If it had been a receiver that caught the ball, turned, took two steps and then fell to his knee, it would also have been a touchdown.

I think it's a bullshit rule, but it's the rule and they've been consistent with this. Thielen had the same call two weeks ago and that TD would have changed the game against the Panthers.

[JonLP24]

23. He wasn't touched. His knee was down but no one

Touched him til he was in the end zone.

[Auggie]

6. Bay Area had the 49ers/Titans. But it was a hell of a game too.

[ExciteBike66]

28. Us Pats fans got lucky in that CBS switched to that game right after the Steelers game.

We love our Jimmy G!

[Auggie]

32. He's looking very good in Kyle Shanahan's system

[Cattledog]

7. It took so long to get a ruling because Kraft called Trump who called Goodell.

The rest is history.

[Yavin4]

19. I don't ever want to hear another Boston fan ever complain about the Yankees

After that bullshit call.

[Docreed2003]

20. They made the right call based on the rule...but the rule blows

See Dez Bryant’s playoff catch/non-catch a few years ago, or Megatron’s catch/non-catch. It sucks, but it is the rule. The Patriot hate here is hilarious though

[JonLP24]

24. Complete history of the NFL's dumb catch rule confusing people

The 2015 season has been defined by the NFL's controversial rule for determining whether a catch was made and there have already been several calls cast into the spotlight. It's certainly not a new issue and was really cast into the spotlight in 2010 when a would-be touchdown reception for Calvin Johnson of the Detroit Lions was overturned and ruled incomplete.

Since then, big moments like Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Dez Bryant in the 2014 postseason against the Green Bay Packers, have caused many to call for a change to a confusing rule. And it has been changed, but never substantially.

Prior to the 2015 season, the rule was clarified to remove the words "football move" from the catch rule, but it was a matter of semantics that didn't change much about the actual content of the rule. Here's how the NFL clarified the catch rule in March 2015:

In order to complete a catch, a receiver must clearly become a runner. He does that by gaining control of the ball, touching both feet down and then, after the second foot is down, having the ball long enough to clearly become a runner, which is defined as the ability to ward off or protect himself from impending contact. If, before becoming a runner, a receiver falls to the ground in an attempt to make a catch, he must maintain control of the ball after contacting the ground. If he loses control of the ball after contacting the ground and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. Reaching the ball out before becoming a runner will not trump the requirement to hold onto the ball when you land. When you are attempting to complete a catch, you must put the ball away or protect the ball so it does not come loose.

https://www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/nfl/2015/11/20/9746130/nfl-catch-rule-controversies-calvin-johnson-referees?__twitter_impression=true

I have seen receivers that make a catch are popped but because they are quick they made a couple of "football moves" it is a fumble but reaching is control but that movement plus the right hand was under the ball too if he didn't try to reach it would be a catch. Why wouldn't it be a fumble he recovered?

control, two feet and have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game." Why can't reaching into the end zone be considered an act common in the game? It should be a catch by that point.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. I Voted Incomplete, But. . .

. . .under the verbiage of the rule (which was shown as a graphic on both ESPN and NFL Network last night), it was the right call.

Should it have been a TD? I say yes. But, under the current rule, no.

[ExciteBike66]

26. I think it came down to a judgment call on what is a "football move"

part of the problem (in all of these borderline cases) is that the moves all came so fast.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

30. I don't believe "football move" is in the rule anymore. They clarified that.

People still use that phrase, but it is not the rule.

[ExciteBike66]

31. They removed that phrase, but the rule still takes into account whether he transitioned from a

receiver to a runner. That transition point would be called a "football move" by people who are speaking informally, methinks.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

33. I agree.

I think it's a stupid rule. But, I do like the "become a runner" language better than "football" move because it describes it better.

[unblock]

29. the problem is the rule requires control to be demonstrated *after* both feet hit the ground.

he caught it and tucked it before extending it to reach for the goal line, which all demonstrates control.

the problem is, he tucked it before his feet his the ground. by the time his feet are on the ground, he is already extending it to the goal line. then, when it hits the goal line, it touches the ground.

had he started to extend to the goal line after his feet hit the ground, touchdown.
had he put one hand under the ball so that it didn't touch the ground, touchdown.
had the rule allowed for demonstrating control prior to both feet touching the ground, touchdown.

as written, technically incomplete, but why? why should demonstrating control prior to both feet touching be necessary for a pass to be considered complete?

demonstrating control should be a requirement.
both feet down in-bounds should be a requirement.
control specifically happening after the second? where's the need for that?

silly rule.

[Iggo]

34. Good call.