ImageImageImageImage

OT: Patriots

Moderators: sully00, Parliament10

CeltsfaninDC
Veteran
Posts: 2,946
And1: 1,379
Joined: Oct 26, 2005
     

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#81 » by CeltsfaninDC » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:25 pm

Homerclease wrote:
CeltsfaninDC wrote:
Homerclease wrote:He became a runner when he reached for the goal line. At that point he’s no different than an rb. He had established himself in the field of play. Ridiculous

Absolutely not.....
He hadn't made the catch at that point so he couldn't have been a runner. He knocked the ball out of his own hand which is why it was never a catch.

Sure he had, he made the catch before he even stretched out to score

No, he made the catch before he even left the huddle
threrf23
RealGM
Posts: 12,801
And1: 2,070
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#82 » by threrf23 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:28 pm

According to the rulebook it seems that it was the right call. Although, it depends on the exact definition of what constitutes a player's "initial contact with the ground." I mean, he did initially appear to maintain possession of the ball after his knee hit the ground. If the call went against the Pats I would have been pissed.

The Packers got shafted yesterday in the closing minutes of their game with the Panthers. I'm not completely sure whether the call was technically right or wrong, but I feel like in every other game I have watched this year that would have been ruled a fumble (ETA I meant incomplete pass).
ZeroTolerance
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,694
And1: 863
Joined: Jun 20, 2016
     

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#83 » by ZeroTolerance » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:33 pm

London2Boston wrote:Also I love how after the Gronk TD for 2, he was all dancing and Brady scolded him and told him it wasn't over. Highlighted their contrasting personalities.

Edit:

Read on Twitter


Gronk can be too much of a clown sometimes.....But he's our clown! :)

Gotta love Tom for keeping him in line....
threrf23
RealGM
Posts: 12,801
And1: 2,070
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#84 » by threrf23 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:34 pm

Homerclease wrote:He had already caught the ball and secured possession before he lunged for the end zone.


You realize that his knee was down before he lunged for the goal line? A runner would have been ruled down short of the endzone.

Not that that matters, because according to the rulebook he was never considered a runner. I'm just saying.
Smitty731
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 21,211
And1: 23,834
Joined: Feb 09, 2014
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#85 » by Smitty731 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:56 pm

threrf23 wrote:
Homerclease wrote:He had already caught the ball and secured possession before he lunged for the end zone.


You realize that his knee was down before he lunged for the goal line? A runner would have been ruled down short of the endzone.

Not that that matters, because according to the rulebook he was never considered a runner. I'm just saying.


He wouldn't have been ruled down. He wasn't touched. You aren't down in the NFL if a knee hits. That is a college rule.
threrf23
RealGM
Posts: 12,801
And1: 2,070
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#86 » by threrf23 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:02 pm

Smitty731 wrote:
He wouldn't have been ruled down. He wasn't touched. You aren't down in the NFL if a knee hits. That is a college rule.


You are right. I wasn't thinking about that and did not realize he hadn't been touched.
Homerclease
RealGM
Posts: 24,949
And1: 23,051
Joined: Dec 09, 2015

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#87 » by Homerclease » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:13 pm

threrf23 wrote:
Homerclease wrote:He had already caught the ball and secured possession before he lunged for the end zone.


You realize that his knee was down before he lunged for the goal line? A runner would have been ruled down short of the endzone.

Not that that matters, because according to the rulebook he was never considered a runner. I'm just saying.

Not true, he wasn’t down by contact.
Smitty731
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 21,211
And1: 23,834
Joined: Feb 09, 2014
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#88 » by Smitty731 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:18 pm

Thought this was interesting:

Read on Twitter
Captain_Caveman
RealGM
Posts: 18,613
And1: 22,101
Joined: Jun 25, 2007

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#89 » by Captain_Caveman » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:19 pm

Homerclease wrote:
Captain_Caveman wrote:
Homerclease wrote:He wasn’t going to the ground. The act of the catch was already complete. He was trying to score


Read on Twitter


This isn't even debatable. He is 100% going to the ground during the catch and 100% loses "control" of the ball once he does, with the ball 100% touching the ground when that happens. Completely irrefutable in every possible way.

If you want to be mad at the rule, go for it. But you are creating your own rules on this one.

Except they made the same exact opposite call in the Giants vs Seahawks game week 7. IMO he’s a runner when the ball crosses the plane in this situation, rule doesn’t apply here


The simultaneous catch play where the ball never hit the ground?

Look at the replay I just posted and tell me what you are arguing here. Are you saying James was not going to the ground during the catch? That the ball didn't come loose after hitting the ground? That the ball didn't touch the ground?

I think you are being willfully ignorant. This could not be more clear under the rules. There is legitimately no grey area here whatsoever.
Smitty731
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 21,211
And1: 23,834
Joined: Feb 09, 2014
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#90 » by Smitty731 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:19 pm

Captain_Caveman
RealGM
Posts: 18,613
And1: 22,101
Joined: Jun 25, 2007

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#91 » by Captain_Caveman » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:21 pm

Homerclease wrote:
threrf23 wrote:
Homerclease wrote:He had already caught the ball and secured possession before he lunged for the end zone.


You realize that his knee was down before he lunged for the goal line? A runner would have been ruled down short of the endzone.

Not that that matters, because according to the rulebook he was never considered a runner. I'm just saying.

Not true, he wasn’t down by contact.


Doesn't matter if he was touched or not as far as calling it a completed pass. He was diving during the catch and had to maintain control all the way through the ground (unless ball never touches the ground).
Homerclease
RealGM
Posts: 24,949
And1: 23,051
Joined: Dec 09, 2015

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#92 » by Homerclease » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:31 pm

Captain_Caveman wrote:
Homerclease wrote:
threrf23 wrote:
You realize that his knee was down before he lunged for the goal line? A runner would have been ruled down short of the endzone.

Not that that matters, because according to the rulebook he was never considered a runner. I'm just saying.

Not true, he wasn’t down by contact.


Doesn't matter if he was touched or not as far as calling it a completed pass. He was diving during the catch and had to maintain control all the way through the ground (unless ball never touches the ground).

I’m taking the play and basically breaking it in half. Part one - completed catch/establishing in bounds. Part two - football move and dive for the end zone. He grabs the ball and secures it, drops to one knee and reaches for the goal line. Should’ve been 6 points
Homerclease
RealGM
Posts: 24,949
And1: 23,051
Joined: Dec 09, 2015

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#93 » by Homerclease » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:33 pm

Captain_Caveman wrote:
Homerclease wrote:
Captain_Caveman wrote:
Read on Twitter


This isn't even debatable. He is 100% going to the ground during the catch and 100% loses "control" of the ball once he does, with the ball 100% touching the ground when that happens. Completely irrefutable in every possible way.

If you want to be mad at the rule, go for it. But you are creating your own rules on this one.

Except they made the same exact opposite call in the Giants vs Seahawks game week 7. IMO he’s a runner when the ball crosses the plane in this situation, rule doesn’t apply here


The simultaneous catch play where the ball never hit the ground?

Look at the replay I just posted and tell me what you are arguing here. Are you saying James was not going to the ground during the catch? That the ball didn't come loose after hitting the ground? That the ball didn't touch the ground?

I think you are being willfully ignorant. This could not be more clear under the rules. There is legitimately no grey area here whatsoever.

Yes, it was very much like the fail Mary but he didn’t complete the catch all the way through and “survive the ground”. The official point blank says he establishes control, loses control and then establishes control again even though he was out of bounds. Not even the NFL knows what they are doing with these plays. There is zero consistency at all
Smitty731
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 21,211
And1: 23,834
Joined: Feb 09, 2014
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#94 » by Smitty731 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:34 pm

Homerclease wrote:
Captain_Caveman wrote:
Homerclease wrote:Not true, he wasn’t down by contact.


Doesn't matter if he was touched or not as far as calling it a completed pass. He was diving during the catch and had to maintain control all the way through the ground (unless ball never touches the ground).

I’m taking the play and basically breaking it in half. Part one - completed catch/establishing in bounds. Part two - football move and dive for the end zone. He grabs the ball and secures it, drops to one knee and reaches for the goal line. Should’ve been 6 points


It doesn't work like that though. It is all one play. I think the literally hundreds of people who have said the call was made correctly should be enough to end this argument.

We probably all agree that the rule is stupid on some level or another, but the call was made correctly per the way the NFL sees the play.
Homerclease
RealGM
Posts: 24,949
And1: 23,051
Joined: Dec 09, 2015

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#95 » by Homerclease » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:48 pm

Smitty731 wrote:
Homerclease wrote:
Captain_Caveman wrote:
Doesn't matter if he was touched or not as far as calling it a completed pass. He was diving during the catch and had to maintain control all the way through the ground (unless ball never touches the ground).

I’m taking the play and basically breaking it in half. Part one - completed catch/establishing in bounds. Part two - football move and dive for the end zone. He grabs the ball and secures it, drops to one knee and reaches for the goal line. Should’ve been 6 points


It doesn't work like that though. It is all one play. I think the literally hundreds of people who have said the call was made correctly should be enough to end this argument.

We probably all agree that the rule is stupid on some level or another, but the call was made correctly per the way the NFL sees the play.

I don’t see the play the way the nfl saw it in this instance. I understand the rule just fine, I also don’t think it applies here
Captain_Caveman
RealGM
Posts: 18,613
And1: 22,101
Joined: Jun 25, 2007

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#96 » by Captain_Caveman » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:58 pm

Homerclease wrote:
Captain_Caveman wrote:
Homerclease wrote:Not true, he wasn’t down by contact.


Doesn't matter if he was touched or not as far as calling it a completed pass. He was diving during the catch and had to maintain control all the way through the ground (unless ball never touches the ground).

I’m taking the play and basically breaking it in half. Part one - completed catch/establishing in bounds. Part two - football move and dive for the end zone. He grabs the ball and secures it, drops to one knee and reaches for the goal line. Should’ve been 6 points


And I'm just citing the rulebook.

Going to ground during catch = having to maintain control of the ball all the way through the ground.
Homerclease
RealGM
Posts: 24,949
And1: 23,051
Joined: Dec 09, 2015

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#97 » by Homerclease » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:06 pm

Captain_Caveman wrote:
Homerclease wrote:
Captain_Caveman wrote:
Doesn't matter if he was touched or not as far as calling it a completed pass. He was diving during the catch and had to maintain control all the way through the ground (unless ball never touches the ground).

I’m taking the play and basically breaking it in half. Part one - completed catch/establishing in bounds. Part two - football move and dive for the end zone. He grabs the ball and secures it, drops to one knee and reaches for the goal line. Should’ve been 6 points


And I'm just citing the rulebook.

Going to ground during catch = having to maintain control of the ball all the way through the ground.

Which he did, and then he dove for the end zone
Captain_Caveman
RealGM
Posts: 18,613
And1: 22,101
Joined: Jun 25, 2007

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#98 » by Captain_Caveman » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:34 pm

Homerclease wrote:
Captain_Caveman wrote:
Homerclease wrote:I’m taking the play and basically breaking it in half. Part one - completed catch/establishing in bounds. Part two - football move and dive for the end zone. He grabs the ball and secures it, drops to one knee and reaches for the goal line. Should’ve been 6 points


And I'm just citing the rulebook.

Going to ground during catch = having to maintain control of the ball all the way through the ground.

Which he did, and then he dove for the end zone


Not the rule, but I'm done, lol.
SmartWentCrazy
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 14,092
And1: 21,670
Joined: Dec 29, 2014

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#99 » by SmartWentCrazy » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:36 pm

UNCBlue012 wrote:Screw the Pats. lol The Steelers got so screwed last night.

Hell of a game against two of the league's best, but dammit that hurt.

That being said: DOUBLE GRONK, CONVERT THE FIRST DOWN WHEN YOU'RE UP 8 WITH 3 MINUTES TO GO AND CATCH THE PICK ON THE PATRIOTS FINAL DRIVE.

Ok, I'm mad but done.


Yah, I don’t get why they didn’t go for it there. Everyone knew Brady was going to go down and score, it didn’t matter if he had to go 35 yards or 80. It’s like when Belichick went for it on 4th and 2 vs Indy years back, the other QB is scoring no matter what.

Also, worst case scenario and the Pats have a short field, he’ll score quicker and you’ll get the ball back with more time. Best case scenario? Pats burn all their TOs making it harder to come back. Bizarre decision from a guy who usually makes risky calls.
User avatar
Bad-Thoma
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,224
And1: 3,877
Joined: Feb 22, 2006
Location: Still riding proud on the C's bandwagon

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#100 » by Bad-Thoma » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:47 pm

Wes-J wrote:
Bad-Thoma wrote:I know people like to call this rule and the tuck rule stupid rules, even us Pats fans when we've benefited from them in a couple glaring instances, but I actually disagree on both counts (though there is always room for refinement). The reason the rules are written the way they are is to take away the subjective nature of the calls for the referees during an instant replay. The tuck rule in particular was made to simplify an officials decision in case of a replay, instead of trying to decide whether the quarterbacks arm was moving forward to pass and ball was knocked lose resulting in an incompletion or whether the his arm was moving forward to "tuck" the ball back in and it was knocked lose resulting in a fumble. In some cases it's more clear than others what is happening, i.e. Brady moving the ball forward to tuck it back in during the snow bowl, and in others it's not clear at all, so they design the rule in a way that makes it a clear, rules based decision for a referee rather than a subjective interpretation by the referee. In doing this they protect the integrity of the game by limiting opportunity for the officials to make game changing decisions based on imperfect human interpretation, particularly with the use of instant replay. It's easy for fans to point at a particular instance where the rule looks to be written poorly but across the body of work of the nfl there is always going to be some outliers. If there are too many outliers, they adapt the rule, it's a process.

All that said, this particular case isn't even arguable. James caught the ball on the way to the ground and the ball was jarred lose by the ground. If it happened anywhere else on the field or hadn't cost Pitt the game we wouldn't even be talking about it, but because people don't understand the order of operations necessary to establish a receiver becoming a runner before breaking the plane of the end zone creates an automatic dead ball situation it's got everyone in a huff.

That also brings to mind another example designed to take interpretation out of the minds of the refs and into the rule books, the crossing the plane of the end zone rule. When a runner extends the ball in an attempt to score it greatly increases the chance of the ball being knocked lose, and when this is happening in game changing moments it is critical that the call of when a runner is down and when the ball is fumbled be accurate. With the relatively high rate of occurrence of this play combined with the split second nature of trying to get into the end zone it would place a lot of pressure on the referees and also create a lot of undue scrutiny on the referees, so they simplified the whole thing with the dead ball upon crossing the plane rule. It's actually brilliant because it also makes it easier to score and higher scoring football appeals to a broader base of fans.


Uh no, that's not it. I get it. But thanks for the assumption.


Poor phrasing on my part, but to be fair it was a long post for me in general, never mind on my first cup of coffee. But you really picked that out of all of that to respond to?

Return to New England Patriots