Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet more crazy stuff in the Cowboys-Raiders game last night with so much on the line for each team. Amazing the difference even in this game came down to a Dallas player barely grazing the Oakland defender's loose chinstrap, hence down by contact- TD negated on the INT return and ultimately the Raiders only get three points. Or the index card used to measure the 4th down Prescott sneak late in the game. Then the other rule so many lament: just like what is a catch and what isn't, Carr fumbles the ball thru the end zone at the end of the game, giving Dallas the ball; game over. Crazy games yesterday.
As for the subject of the Patriots getting the calls; I am not one to float conspiracies around, but something interesting to the catch/non-catch and the rule.... first off, there needs to be conclusive evidence that shows James didn't have possession. I'm not sure that evidence is "conclusive" to overturn the call. The ball moves, yes. But are his hands underneath the ball and if not, can you conclusively proclaim the ball makes contact with the turf? I would not be able to definitively say yes, which means in that case, the play should have stood as originally called. Now go look at Brandin Cooks' game winning catch at the end of the game vs Houston earlier this season that WAS NOT overturned. Now you tell me if one was to be overturned of the two, which should it be? https://twitter.com/CarterCritiques/...23311045058560
As for the subject of the Patriots getting the calls; I am not one to float conspiracies around, but something interesting to the catch/non-catch and the rule.... first off, there needs to be conclusive evidence that shows James didn't have possession. I'm not sure that evidence is "conclusive" to overturn the call. The ball moves, yes. But are his hands underneath the ball and if not, can you conclusively proclaim the ball makes contact with the turf? I would not be able to definitively say yes, which means in that case, the play should have stood as originally called. Now go look at Brandin Cooks' game winning catch at the end of the game vs Houston earlier this season that WAS NOT overturned. Now you tell me if one was to be overturned of the two, which should it be? https://twitter.com/CarterCritiques/...23311045058560
These guys (refs) I believe legitiately try to get the calls right based on what they see and their understanding of the rules. I think the call last night should have stood, but I also wonder if the refs saw an angle from the back of the EZ the production crew did not have access to. The angles shown on TV didn't definitively show the ball touching the ground and if those are the same angles the officials had I don't see how under the rules of the league they could have overturned that call.
I also consider arguing this with any fan with a vested interest in the outcome (ie, a fan of either team) to be an exercise in futility. I've noticed with some fans, the officials are always right when it benefits their team, always wrong when it doesn't. Such is sports fandom!
In other news, I was playing around with the Playoff Machine on ESPN and the Jags can still get HFA in a 3-way tie at 12-4 with the Pats and Steelers. This is unlikely because the Pats are at home against the Bills and Jets in the final two weeks while the Steelers are @ Texans and vs Browns. Still, if these two slip up (and it does happen in the NFL) that would make for quite a story: NOBODY would have given a team like the Jags a chance to be the #1 seed as this season began.
These next two weeks are going to be very exciting for playoff positioning and wild card. Tons of different scenarios for even just the Bills to make the playoffs. My Bills are guaranteed a meaningful week 17 game. That is rare territory for them over the last 17 years. I believe 2004 was their last meaningful week 17 game.
Heck I think there is even a scenario where the Dolphins make it at 8-8 in a four way tie with Chargers, Bills and Titans. And it's actually not that outrageous a scenario. The most difficult thing being Miami having to beat a now surging KC team. Bills are heavy under dogs this Sunday @ New England and Dolphins should be favored against Buffalo in week 17. Chargers would just have to lose @ NYJ or vs Oakland. I could easily see them dropping one of those games. And Titans have a very difficult two games left against the Rams and Jags even with both at home, those two good teams.
I also consider arguing this with any fan with a vested interest in the outcome (ie, a fan of either team) to be an exercise in futility. I've noticed with some fans, the officials are always right when it benefits their team, always wrong when it doesn't. Such is sports fandom! .
Yes, very annoying. All the Patriot homers around me won't even discuss this rationally (and I've defended the Patriots on several accounts when it comes to close calls, accusations of cheating, etc...). I had no stake in the game and could have cared less who won. But this goes of course with all sports teams. I recall arguing with a Ohio State fan, who tried to raise an objection to that NCAA Tournament 2nd round game a few years back, they should have lost to Xavier when Greg Oden shoved the opponent out of bounds while attempting to foul him to stop the clock. Remember that controversial finish? That was an obvious intentional foul, yet wouldn't you know it, the only ones who didn't see it as an intentional foul were naturally, Ohio State fans. After that day, I took the attitude you have: it is indeed an exercise in futility.
As for the subject of the Patriots getting the calls; I am not one to float conspiracies around, but something interesting to the catch/non-catch and the rule.... first off, there needs to be conclusive evidence that shows James didn't have possession. I'm not sure that evidence is "conclusive" to overturn the call. The ball moves, yes. But are his hands underneath the ball and if not, can you conclusively proclaim the ball makes contact with the turf? I would not be able to definitively say yes, which means in that case, the play should have stood as originally called. Now go look at Brandin Cooks' game winning catch at the end of the game vs Houston earlier this season that WAS NOT overturned. Now you tell me if one was to be overturned of the two, which should it be? https://twitter.com/CarterCritiques/...23311045058560
The fact that ANYONE still thinks the NFL "favors" the Patriots after the "Deflategate" debacle is beyond me....
No one talks about all the times the Pats get worked over by the refs only when it happens to the other team.
Last nights game is perfect example, no one is talking about the first half Steelers TD that shouldn't have counted when there was clearly an ineligible receiver downfield, the refs initially got the call right but then inexplicably picked up the flag...and literally NO discussion about that by Romo in the booth...
Imagine if the Pats had scored a TD in the game under the same circumstances....the conspiracy theories would be through the roof...
Gronk had a TD taken away last month at Denver when he CLEARLY had his hands under the ball.
As for the James "catch", I think the video evidence is pretty clear, the left hand comes off the ball, he lands on the ball with his right hand on the side of the ball, the ball hits the ground and moves....no catch
The fact that ANYONE still thinks the NFL "favors" the Patriots after the "Deflategate" debacle is beyond me....
No one talks about all the times the Pats get worked over by the refs only when it happens to the other team.
Last nights game is perfect example, no one is talking about the first half Steelers TD that shouldn't have counted when there was clearly an ineligible receiver downfield, the refs initially got the call right but then inexplicably picked up the flag...and literally NO discussion about that by Romo in the booth...
Imagine if the Pats had scored a TD in the game under the same circumstances....the conspiracy theories would be through the roof...
Gronk had a TD taken away last month at Denver when he CLEARLY had his hands under the ball.
As for the James "catch", I think the video evidence is pretty clear, the left hand comes off the ball, he lands on the ball with his right hand on the side of the ball, the ball hits the ground and moves....no catch
I don;t even know why it's a debate. When you are a receiver the catch is not completed until you land with full control of the ball not touching the ground
Because what I clearly stated above has absolutely nothing to do with the rule. I've yet to see any definitive video that 100% conclusively substantiates reversing the call on the field. My bigger issue is the use of instant replay than the NFL's interpretation of what is or isn't a catch (not that I like that either). I've yet to see CLEAR proof that the ball is definitively touching the turf as the ball crosses the goal line- that is until the ball settles in his hands after the initial bobble and the ball subsequently pushes forward onto one tip with James lying on it. The very end of course the ball is on its tip touching the turf. In between there is nothing that that clearly proves the ball was ever touching the turf. Just because James' hands move doesn't prove anything.
Because what I clearly stated above has absolutely nothing to do with the rule. I've yet to see any definitive video that 100% conclusively substantiates reversing the call on the field. My bigger issue is the use of instant replay than the NFL's interpretation of what is or isn't a catch (not that I like that either). I've yet to see CLEAR proof that the ball is definitively touching the turf as the ball crosses the goal line- that is until the ball settles in his hands after the initial bobble and the ball subsequently pushes forward onto one tip with James lying on it. The very end of course the ball is on its tip touching the turf. In between there is nothing that that clearly proves the ball was ever touching the turf. Just because James' hands move doesn't prove anything.
The link in my post above has the angle that clearly shows the entire ball on the ground and James left hand OFF the ball. Clear as day. Ball crossing the line has nothing to do with the rule James was a receiver not a runner play isn't over when the ball crosses or touches the line until the pass is completed as the player goes to the ground. James didn't complete the catch per the NFL rule video clearly shows this
The link in my post above has the angle that clearly shows the entire ball on the ground and James left hand OFF the ball. Clear as day. Ball crossing the line has nothing to do with the rule James was a receiver not a runner play isn't over when the ball crosses or touches the line until the pass is completed as the player goes to the ground. James didn't complete the catch per the NFL rule video clearly shows this
That's the point people keep missing that only a running back can cross the goal line and have the ball touch the ground. When you are a receiver you have to make sure the ball is secured in your hands once you land on the ground.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
