If the NFL is wondering why the ratings are going down, then they should watch the end of yesterday's Pats/Steelers game. Nobody knows what the rules are anymore. BTW, there is also the rule that the video evidence on the instant replay has to be indisputable to overturn the call on the field. Yes the ball moved, but his fingers on his right hand were under the ball the whole time.
If the ground can't cause a fumble, then how can it prevent a catch? I think the NFL needs to pick a side that is consistent regardless of the type of play.
BTW, the only reason why people are talking about this play, is because of the controversy surrounding it and common sense saying that it was a catch. If the refs called it a touchdown after the replay, then no one would have been questioning the catch today, because of how obvious it was.
My understanding is that they changed the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule to "receiver must maintain control through the fall."
"The ground cannot cause a fumble" is in fact not a rule. It's a convenient shortcut for the fact that if you're tackled and lose the ball when it hits the ground, you're down by contact in the second the ball touches the ground. The ground can, in fact, cause a fumble, if you fall without contact and lose the ball. It's not rocket science, but memespeak is dangerous like that.
Still has nothing to do with the situation, though. The rule is clear cut in that you can't use the ground to maintain control of the ball while making a catch, and that's exactly what happened here.
Not really. He made the catch, but the NFL has a silly rule that you have to maintain control of . a catch all the way through hitting the ground. It's a silly rule that has always caused head scratching decisions. Had that play happened in the middle of the field and instead of him lunging for the end zone, for example, somebody popped the ball loose (because they dove low or it hit their foot, etc..) it would've been ruled a catch and a fumble. He CLEARLY had possession. He just reached out to put it over the goal line. Or, had it been a running play and he reached across the end zone it would have been a TD before any lost possession. But, the NFL has this silly rule that on a catch where you hit the ground, you need to maintain possession all the way through the play. So, by the letter of the law it was the correct play. Just another bad rule that benefitted the Patriots.
Oh wow. I guess I get that. If I were a Pittsburg fan I'd probably respond that the play then ends when he breaks the plane.
It just sorta seems there are multiple ways to justify a catch and only one way to justify it's not a catch and that's what they used.
It's pretty counter intuitive.
"So you're saying he made the catch and crossed the plane so it's a catch?" Nope. We're saying no catch.
"So you're saying he made the catch and he fumbled and recovered it?" Nope. We're saying no catch.
"So you're saying he made a catch and nobody touched him, but then he failed to make a football move so he's still in the process of making...." Nope. We're saying no catch.
He caught the ball as he was going to the ground, so the only way he can establish possession in that scenario is by hanging onto the ball all the way through "the catch process," which includes surviving contact with the ground. His "possession" of the ball didn't survive contact with the ground, as replay clearly shows him bobbling the ball when the ball hits the ground.
It is true that the ground cannot cause a fumble, but in this case the ground
didn't cause a fumble; you have to have possession in order to fumble, and he never established possession, because he didn't complete "the catch process." If he'd survived his landing—that is, if he had come down with the ball, and not let the ball touch the ground—then he would've established possession, and if he'd
then broken the plane, it would've been a touchdown. But he broke the plane
before he'd established possession (and, as it turns out, he
never established possession, because once the ball touched the ground, it was an incomplete pass).
Earlier I referenced Edelman's catch in last year's Super Bowl; that was a catch because Edelman had his hands under the ball, so even though Edelman's
hands touched the ground, the
ball never touched the ground. That needed to happen for James's play to be a catch, but it didn't.