2017 Steelers: MyFace Champions
- Thread starter tims4wins
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, he may be able to walk in 3-4 weeks if it’s a low-grade injury, but run effective routes? He’ll need a couple months to fully get back to that.
I’m not a doctor, but been there, done that too, and after the calf healed the achilles weakness and pain started (and then two months later the joyous pulmonary embolism occurred!). And I’m no Brown, but I was pretty young when it happened and in really, really good shape. It’s no joke.
The announcers were only confused because they didn't see the ball move until about the 10th replay. Once Romo saw the ball move on replay, he knew there was a good chance it was going to be overturned, and he said as much.
The ball breaking the plane doesn't matter here because it's not a catch until the receiver who is making the catch while falling completes the catch all the way to the ground. This has been consistently applied for years now.
There was one really good angle that showed the bottom hand spun completely off the ball and the top hand pinned it to the ground.
It didn't cause the fumble. There wasn't a fumble.
1) Because he wasn't touched before catching the ball, his knee/elbow touching didn't make him down.
2) Because he went to the ground in the process of making the catch, which is the second-most-debatable part of the ruling, his possession of the ball has to "survive the ground" in order for the catch to be complete, even if he's already in the end zone. If he had taken maybe a few more steps before crossing the goal line, such that he was clearly not still in the process of making the catch (and had thus become a runner), it may not have mattered what happened after he crossed the goal line. But they ruled that his catch and his hitting the ground were related.
3) The ruling that he lost possession of the ball as he hit the ground seemed a bit shaky to me, as a Pats fan. At absolute best (for us), it was reeeeeeeeeally close. Looked like he still had it wedged between his wrist and other hand. Mere contact with the ground does not mean it's incomplete if he never lost possession - the ruling held that he lost possession. That's the part I would focus your rage on.
It's the same as the Dez Bryant playoff catch/non-catch situation from a few years ago (edit: as I now see other people have likewise observed). The look of it, to the proverbial "50 people in the bar", was (A) possession, (B) crossed the goal line, (C) hit the turf but he was already in so it doesn't matter. But since the NFL rulebook has to draw bright unambiguous lines, even if they don't entirely make sense, it's a counterintuitive result. And even to arrive at that result, they had to decide two things (the italicized bits above) that really could have gone either way.
Last edited:
There was one clear replay angle which showed his bottom hand spin completely off the ball and the ball was briefly pinned to the ground with the top hand before it rolled back to the wrist of the bottom hand. All the other replays I saw only showed the ball moving, but there is one that is definitive.
It's not actually debatable whether he was going to the ground in the process of making the catch. A player is going to the ground in the process if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is CLEARLY a runner. He was never upright - he was falling to the ground while making the catch. This is open and shut.
You're also confused about "losing possession." That's not the standard. It's losing control, and you cannot have control when the ball is spinning like it did. When it finally touched the ground, it was clearly trapped between his body, the ground, and his right hand.
Ben should have thrown the ball away once he double clutched on the fake spike. No one forced him to make that throw.
Interesting. Can you find a link on it? The replays I've seen (mostly the NFL highlights clip) suggest that he may have not had his right hand on it when it hit, but weren't dispositive. Like, I'd call it 60-40 that he lost it momentarily, if betting I'd say he probably did lose it, but it certainly wasn't as obvious as you're claiming, not from the replays I saw on CBS.
Someone just put it in the game ball thread. It's at exactly 1:38 in the linked video.
Hatred of the correct application of the catch rules as written is one of the few things that seems to unite BbtL posters in consensus.
We see it in a different thread each season, but it seasons to come up at least once a season, and everyone agrees: It sucks.
We see it in a different thread each season, but it seasons to come up at least once a season, and everyone agrees: It sucks.
Outside of a Halloween win by the Steelers in 2004, Pittsburgh really hasn't won a meaningful game against New England in Pittsburgh since the 1998 AFC Divisional playoff when they won 7-6.
.
They beat the Pats 25-17 in Pittsburgh in 2011. Now, if you want to know something really crazy: a Big Ben-led-Steelers team has never beaten a Tom Brady-led Pats team in Foxboro. Here are the scores
36-17(2016-2017 AFC title game)
28-21(9/10/15)
55-31(11/3/13)
34-13(12/9/07)
The link is here, thanks for that. You could drive yourself mad going full Zapruder film on it. I remain on my original assessment - it's more likely than not that James lost control, but it's a bold, confident call by the officials at the crucial moment in the game, in a hostile road stadium... it's very like Joe West calling interference on A-Rod for The Slap. Frankly, given that West had a clear view of the play which was blindingly obvious on replay, there was far less doubt in West's case than with Corrente's officiating crew here today.
The overturn decision comes from the NFL Command Center, not from Corrente's crew.
I had a Kordell Stewart 40-yard TD run flashback on Smith-Schuster's 69-yard dash up the sideline.
To be fair to him.. he also said he made a bad throw, but people seem to be cutting that part out.
Romo said he wasn’t sure what was taking so long before he saw the replay of the ball moving, and his hands coming off the ball, as he crossed the plane. As soon as he saw that he said that that was what they were looking at and that he didn’t think it was a catch by rule.
Yeah, a lot of people aren't seeing, or don't want to see this pic. It shows his left hand completely off the ball. Which means that the ball has to be sitting on the ground. He only has 2 fingers on his right hand possible under the ball.I think this is the really indisputable one.
Sorry. I think the rule is good. It's a consistent application of the catch rule; the process of the catch trumps whether you crossed the plane of the end zone. Said another way, if any of the James / Johnson / Dez catches happened at the 50, they would be incomplete and it would be fairly clear. You're not a runner yet so you can't just reach the ball across the plane and end the play.
The contrast I would make is the fumbling into the end zone = lost possession rule that took away that Jets touchdown earlier in the year. We discussed it then, but IMO that is a very bad rule because it unreasonably changes the way a normal football rule (fumbling) works just because you're at the goal line. Had that fumble happened anywhere else on the field, the Jets keep the ball. If you fumble at the pylon, you LOSE the ball. That's a truly insane "spirit" of the rule even if I understand the letter of the rule (you shouldn't be able to score, but just give them the ball at the 1 or wherever the runner had last possessed it).
The spirit of the rule is fairly straightforward here. If anything it highlights that the "possession to the ground" rule is hard to rule on, and often what looks like a catch in real time is revealed to be incomplete on replay. Particularly tricky is whether a player has established himself as a runner or not before going to the ground or losing the ball. But that is difficult regardless of where the ball is on the field.
I do think on the Calvin Johnson non-catch he got screwed a little bit, since he seemingly put the ball down on purpose thinking the play was over and he had scored. But he needs to be aware.
Not sure I agree with that particular photo being the "indisputable" one. The left hand clearly isn't under the ball but it could still be in contact. The evidence you need has to clearly show the ground aiding the catch. If he has a finger or two under the ball and has control then it doesn't matter how many fingers or hands are under the ball. Not that hard for a 6'7 human to control a football with 1 finger and the backside of his hand.
Someone else had posted a screen shot of the nose of the ball hitting the ground. That to me was the indisputable part assuming the ball moves at any point after the ground comes into contact with it. You really need a GIF to show indisputable evidence in this case unless there is a clear photo of the ball on the ground with James hand not under it at all.
I wonder if he normally wears gloves or if he wore those due to the rain. Seems odd to lose control of the ball in fashion he did.
He is known to have good hands.
He better be careful. If he gets called for intentional grounding the game is over.
Where are the comms coming from here? Is he saying he heard "don't clock it" in his helmet or Tomlin yelling from the sideline? How exactly does the sideline to QB communications work in a hurry-up situation? Not sure I've really ever thought about that. IIRC in a normal non-hurried situation the comms cut off with 15 seconds left on the play clock, but can you actually be getting instructions from the sideline right up to the snap in a situation like yesterday?
Underrated aspect was Smith-Schuster getting getting tired on the play so he doesn’t run all the way to the end zone. When he first got away at the sideline I thought he was just going to burn his jets all the way to the end zone.
name the last time a QB got called for sailing a ball out the back of the end zone over crossbar and a teammates head for intentional grounding?
The ball wouldn't have to move after that point, if it's moving due to even his hands hitting the ground that shows a lack of control at which point he has to gain control before any part of the ball touches the ground.
if Brady threw the ball out the back of the end zone from his own end zone that would be amazing. He didn’t. I almost throw the caveat in there but thought people smart enough to see the difference.
If there is some recent example where a QB got called for sailing one out the back of the end zone with the ball 15 feet off the ground uncatchable and he got called for intentional ground, I missed it.
It happened to Brady in Seattle in 2012. He threw it out of the back of the end zone late in the first half and got called for grounding. It probably cost the Pats the game.
Brady got called for it in Seattle a few years back at the end of the first half...other than that, never seen it called
On a positive, we finally saw a QB get called for what Brady got called for in the second Giants Super Bowl. Yesterday Wilson airmailed one out of bounds from his own end zone and was called for grounding.
I'm pretty astounded that people aren't more incredulous at the idea that a major league quarterback says that he thought that the right play on 3rd and goal from the 7 with 15 seconds left was to clock it and basically forego any shot at winning in regulation.
Wasn't that a safety for holding in the end zone? I was only half watching, but I think that was the call unless similar plays happened twice.
Exactly. When watching live before the play started I was thinking there is no way they'll spike it with enough time left for a shot to the end zone before kicking. Nobody on D bought the fake spike because it would have been a colossally dumb play to run.
I'll have to go back and watch it, but it sure seemed the D-Line bought it. While the secondary was fully engaged, I don't remember there being any rush at all.
On the post-game show they asked the question what Tomlin and the OC (and Roethlisberger) were doing during the replay review. They seemed to have no series of plays in mind, and no situational awareness. The cross was risky if you weren't sure you could get out of bounds; the third-down play was a train wreck. Whether it is Big Ben, Tomlin, the OC or (most likely) all three that was chaos, and none of them seemed to be ready for that moment.
Was the reversal a surprise? Sure. As the review went past 30 seconds should they have been planning? I'll bet a lot the team on the other sidelines was, and it shows.
The problem was that they did not have a play ready, and for whatever reason there wasn't enough time to signal to the offense that they were running a slant to Eli. No other receivers or backs make a move towards the end zone, because noone knows where to go. So the chance of being able to do a pick play, rub route, whatever is basically gone. Easy for the Pats to cover Eli with 3 defenders.
OT has at least a 50/50 chance of success. Heinz Field is not an easy place for visiting kickers. That play as drawn up had at best a 10% chance of ending the game in regulation.
They were only rushing 4. It's funny, none of the 3 DL on the right side make much of a push, while the sole Pats defender on the left almost gets to Roethlisberger as he's throwing.
Might be the design of the play to keep Roethlisberger or a back from running it in.
Yeah, the two DTs (Wise, and I couldn't see the other one, Butler, maybe?) seemed to get a decent push right at the snap (I guess to try disrupt the spike and maybe get Ben to throw it off an OL's foot), but then just stop. Looked like Flowers bit on the first pump by Ben, and then kept going to pressure him.
I'd like to think Brady would have thrown it down by the feet of one of his eligible receivers once he realized the pass to his one option wasn't there.
- Status