Week 15 Other Games

[Fosco33]

I don't know what a TD is anymore. The steelers went two plays to go ahead - looked like a TD. Guy goes to ground and then is touched in the end zone as ball is moving.

Then a freak INT.

Over ruled two calls on the field today.

[Joemailman]

I don't know what a TD is anymore. The steelers went two plays to go ahead - looked like a TD. Guy goes to ground and then is touched in the end zone as ball is moving.

Then a freak INT.

Over ruled two calls on the field today.

The problem is the rule. In reality, that's a catch and then he lost it after he crossed the goal line. But the way the rule is, I think they made the right call. Unbelievable ending. And a dumb play by Big Ben to throw a slant into triple coverage.

[woodbuck27]

The problem is the rule. In reality, that's a catch and then he lost it after he crossed the goal line. But the way the rule is, I think they made the right call. Unbelievable ending. And a dumb play by Big Ben to throw a slant into triple coverage.

Bullshit. That was as you said a catch.

As soon as that ball was reached and crossed the plane of the Goal Line it was at that instant...A TOUCHDOWN !

The game is being ruined by shoddy Officiating or Officials that don't know the damn Rules. The NFL has to act Professional and hire Legit Pro Officials as any Pro League has the good sense to do.

The Game's being ruined by over commercialization and causing Fan interest to decline, NOT anything to do with rightful Protests. Look at the TD celebrations now literally mocking all that BS and no Protests. It's becoming something else all together again. You never know what the NEXT fricken surprize is going to be to F..K up a game.

I know this is a fact because I'm an NFL Pro Pickem dedicated NFL fan.

The NFL game of Football is turning into 'a Circus'.

[mraynrand]

Bullshit. That was as you said a catch.

As soon as that ball was reached and crossed the plane of the Goal Line it was at that instant...A TOUCHDOWN !

No, it was correctly ruled. The rule is going to the ground. Every ref has said the same thing. Your opinion doesn't count. Had he not been going to the ground during the catch, it would have been a TD. They could easily change the rule for goal line and end-zone. To say if the receiver has gained control of the ball in the end zone or breaking the plane, then a TD is rewarded and the play is over. That would get rid of the going to the ground silliness in the end zone at least.

[Fosco33]

No, it was correctly ruled. The rule is going to the ground. Every ref has said the same thing. Your opinion doesn't count. Had he not been going to the ground during the catch, it would have been a TD. They could easily change the rule for goal line and end-zone. To say if the receiver has gained control of the ball in the end zone or breaking the plane, then a TD is rewarded and the play is over. That would get rid of the going to the ground silliness in the end zone at least.

Refs called a similar play a TD for the Steelers vs Bengals early in 2016.

https://247sports.com/nfl/pittsburgh...2016-112426756

If he was hit causing him to go to the ground - then I may agree as the rule is written today. But he clearly caught it and fell/dove without getting touched.

At very least not consistent in the officiating. At worst - a terribly over complicated rule.

If it quacks like a duck...

[mraynrand]

Refs called a similar play a TD for the Steelers vs Bengals earlier this year.

If he was hit causing him to go to the ground - then I may agree as the rule is written today. But he clearly caught it and fell/dove without getting touched.

At very least not consistent in the officiating. At worst - a terribly over complicated rule.

If it quacks like a duck...

I may be wrong but I thought it didn't matter about going to the ground - that it makes no difference whether you are hit or going on your own. If you are going to the ground you have to maintain possession all the way through your fall to the ground.

But I agree about changing the rule regardless of being hit: on TD plays, if you establish control of the ball in the end zone or establish control and it breaks the plane, that is, once the ball is in control in the end zone it's a TD and nothing after that should matter.

[hoosier]

I may be wrong but I thought it didn't matter about going to the ground - that it makes no difference whether you are hit or going on your own. If you are going to the ground you have to maintain possession all the way through your fall to the ground.

But I agree about changing the rule regardless of being hit: on TD plays, if you establish control of the ball in the end zone or establish control and it breaks the plane, that is, once the ball is in control in the end zone it's a TD and nothing after that should matter.

That doesn't make any sense. Let's take an extreme case: guy catches the ball going to the ground on his back as he enters the endzone; he's cradling the ball in his chest, but it moves as his back hits the ground. The ball, though moving, never leaves his chest, which is pointed up to the sky, until he finally secures it. If the ball never hits the ground and the player never goes out of bounds, it cannot not be a catch.

[hoosier]

The problem is the rule. In reality, that's a catch and then he lost it after he crossed the goal line. But the way the rule is, I think they made the right call. Unbelievable ending. And a dumb play by Big Ben to throw a slant into triple coverage.

The part that doesn't make sense to me is that there is no replay angle (at least not that CBS aired) showing that the ball clearly hit the ground. If it moves but the receiver's hand is cradling it and the ball never hits the ground, it's a catch. Was there a secret angle showing contact with the ground?

[mraynrand]

The part that doesn't make sense to me is that there is no replay angle (at least not that CBS aired) showing that the ball clearly hit the ground. If it moves but the receiver's hand is cradling it and the ball never hits the ground, it's a catch. Was there a secret angle showing contact with the ground?

It seemed obvious to me that it moved in his hand because and after it hit the ground.

[hoosier]

It seemed obvious to me that it moved in his hand because and after it hit the ground.

It may seem that way to you but to overturn the call on the field there has to be irrefutable evidence. "Seems obvious" isn't irrefutable: the ball could have moved because his hand hit the ground.

[mraynrand]

It may seem that way to you but to overturn the call on the field there has to be irrefutable evidence. "Seems obvious" isn't irrefutable: the ball could have moved because his hand hit the ground.

OK, I see what you're saying. The refs thought it was irrefutable. The irony of course is that they generally hate to overturn their ruling on the field, so they kinda look like chumps twice over in this call, from your perspective (which a lot of people agree with).