Imagine if this happens to the Steelers!?

by mikebb on Nov 21, 2011 10:22 AM EST

the steelers are playin the patriots in the championship game, and they score a go-ahead, 4th down td to heath miller with 14 seconds to go. its a 30 - 27 victory & on to the SB!!...woops- wait a minute- theyre reviewing the catch to see if miller controlled the ball throughout the entire process of catching & running & going to the ground & controlling the ball & securing his mouthpiece & crossing the goal line & making a goddam sandwich!!!!! this whole thing about what defines a catch, what constitutes a catch, etc. has GOT to be improved/modified before it literally RUINS and alters an outcome in a Championship Game or Super Bowl! weve seen it in the lions game last year, and of course yesterday with the ravens bengals. how the hell did it get to this point where a catch is now so conditional!??? how the hell did it get to the point of the tuck rule, and every other bs rule? is this really what the fans want, the players want, and ownership wants?? does anyone TRULY know if that was a catch yesterday against the ravens?- i do- it was a CATCH, BUT- according to the new-age conditional rules put in place- not necessarily. its practically impossible to say if its a catch or not when you have a play like that yesterday- so then it comes down to some arbitrary decision based upon who knows what. theyve got replay- which im a proponent of- but it comes with a terrible by-product- crap like that yesterday. replay has reversed countless bad calls- which is great, but this replay stuff on defining catches/non-catches is a disaster-waiting-to-happen for the NFL. then again- maybe its not a disaster- after all- more controversy = more exposure & ratings, right?

the point is- the bengals player caught the ball yesterday for the tying touchdown. tom brady fumbled the ball against the raiders and the pats DID NOT win the game; i dont care WHAT the official outcome was. if the steelers ever get burned on one of these "attorney rules" in a playoff, championship, sb game- im gonna be beyond furious!! its a great game, im a big fan, but theyve gotta find a way to cut this crap out. you either caught the ball or ya didnt, enuff of this conditional catch attorney rule bs!!!!!!

Tweet Comment 42 comments | Add comment | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The tuck rule is #$##$^$^*

If the QB can not get the ball past the line of scrimage its a fumble. No room for debate. It would elimate the tuck rule and reduce the dink and dunks.

by Steeler Nation VA on Nov 21, 2011 12:58 PM EST reply actions

its simple, new rule

any ball that touches the ground behind the line of scrimage is a free ball treated as a fumble, no matter what direction it was thrown or how it got there.

by steelswine on Nov 22, 2011 5:49 PM EST up reply actions

Agree 100%

And I especially hated the fact they showed the Calvin Johnson (non)catch from last season. That was completely different than this one (even though I still think that should’ve been a TD for CJ). CJ was in the endzone when he caught that ball and then went to the ground and lost control. Gresham was out of the endzone and broke the plane of the goal line with control of the ball. Thats it right there, TD. When a RB dives in the enzone and breaks the plane with control of the ball, then loses control when he hits the ground, its not a fumble, its a TD! If you break the the plane of the goal line with control of the ball it should be a TD, not matter what happens before or after.

"If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane" - Jimmy Buffett

by WVSteel6SB on Nov 21, 2011 1:11 PM EST reply actions

^ This

"My mentality is singular in that I want to be world champs each and every year, so that's what we work toward. I have a tough time acknowledging levels of success short of that. That's just how I'm wired." - Mike Tomlin

by MDSTEELERSFAN on Nov 21, 2011 1:51 PM EST up reply actions

Gresham did not ESTABLISH possession.

He caught the ball and in rolling down, rolled into the endzone. He never fully established possession (as the rules define it now). This is why the play wasnt over when he crosssed the plane.

Stay thirsty my friends.

by SteelerMessican on Nov 21, 2011 7:58 PM EST up reply actions

Disagree 110%

The man took two steps with the ball and ran into the end zone with the ball in control. Which by definition is establishing possession (as the rules define it now). The “football move” was made and promptly ignored.

by steeldawg on Nov 22, 2011 8:16 AM EST up reply actions

no, he only had one foot down with possession before getting into the endzone. the second foot was in the endzone. I hate the rule, but they got the call right.

by Dr. Spaceman on Nov 22, 2011 8:52 AM EST up reply actions

Sorry Doc...

But as soon as he takes the steps, the “football move” cancels out the going to the ground. I hat ethe rule too, but they got this one wrong. If the feet weren’t actually running then yes, but since he made the football move of actually running with th ball, the rule DOES NOT APPLY. Blown call.

by steeldawg on Nov 22, 2011 12:21 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed

by MDSTEELERSFAN on Nov 22, 2011 4:03 PM EST up reply actions

No Dawg

As he was catching the ball, he was falling to the ground. He just happened to also cross the plane of the endzone in doing so. THE RULE says he has to maintain possession throughout the fall. Suckazz rule, but until they change it, its the rule. Same rule that overturned Troy’s playoff INT in ’05.

Just cause he crosses the goalline during the fall, doesnt mean he can BYPASS the possession criteria.

Stay thirsty my friends.

by SteelerMessican on Nov 22, 2011 7:45 PM EST up reply actions

But

If you cross the goal line, even just the nose of the football to the field side edge of the line, it’s a touchdown. So, since he had the ball in his hands, in control, why is that not a touchdown?

This message will self destruct

Who the hell's interrupting my Kung Fu? - Black Dynamite

by FrankWyt on Nov 22, 2011 7:48 PM EST up reply actions

cuz he didnt establish possession.

According to the judgement of the refs.

Stay thirsty my friends.

by SteelerMessican on Nov 22, 2011 7:50 PM EST up reply actions

I could not disagree more. He clearly established possession and never lost it even when the ball touched the ground. The ball did jiggle, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have control of it. The former head referee of the NFL said the same thing.

"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
Follow me on Twitter

by John Stephens on Nov 22, 2011 10:08 AM EST up reply actions

agreed and yes I heard that as well about the former head ref....SMDH...

even some of the non-delusional Ravens fans were saying that it was a TD and were fighting about it with each other…LMAO….enough of this BS I say we storm the dayum castle!!!!!

I Feel a Sin Coming On....

by the duchess of steel on Nov 22, 2011 10:16 AM EST up reply actions

The issue is not whether you think he established possession.

Thats a judgement call.

The issue is the comparison with the RB (who has already established possession) crosses the goalline and is adwarded a TD the instant he crosses the goal.

Stay thirsty my friends.

by SteelerMessican on Nov 22, 2011 7:49 PM EST up reply actions

IMHO Both calls were blown and here is why

I get the tuck rule but it was misinterpreted in the Brady case. Yes his arm was going forward and if the ball had come out during that time it would have fallen under the tuck rule. HOWEVER, the ball hit his other (non-throwing) hand and because of this the tuck WAS COMPLETED and Brady was now considered a “runner” capable of fumbling the football, which he did.

As in the case of The Bengals game, or Lions last year the “going to the ground maintaining control” rule is only to be used if the received hasn’t made a football move. In other words if he is double tapping a catch at the sideline (a la Santonio Holmes in SB XLVIII or Mike Wallace against the Packers in ‘09) the receiver must maintain control to the ground. However, if he makes a “football move” such as RUNNING WITH THE BALL IN HIS CONTROL, then the maintaining the ball to the ground does not apply. Both receivers did just this. They took a couple steps with the ball and therefore did not have to keep control of it “on the way to the ground”. What’s next? Catching the ball at the 20 yard line, and being tackled after breaking the plane and not keeping control to the ground being called incomplete?

Both of these rules are being misinterpreted. These were both INCORRECT calls.

by steeldawg on Nov 21, 2011 1:55 PM EST reply actions 3 recs

^ This

by MDSTEELERSFAN on Nov 22, 2011 4:07 PM EST up reply actions

Disagree, just watched it again

When he makes the football move, the ball is juggling. By the time the ball stops juggling, he is already falling. Since he’s falling, he has to MAINTAIN possession throughout the fall. The ball moves when it hits the ground. Sure just slightly, but enough for the refs to determine he didnt have sufficient control.

Stay thirsty my friends.

by SteelerMessican on Nov 22, 2011 7:57 PM EST up reply actions

The ball barely jiggled but he still had control of it, and I don’t give two shits what some old-ass ref says.

by Riddlah. on Nov 22, 2011 8:58 PM EST up reply actions

thats a judgement call

You could argue that EITHER way.

But what you CAN"T argue is that since he crossed the plane of the endzone, it doesn’t matter. According to NFL rules it DOES.

Stay thirsty my friends.

by SteelerMessican on Nov 22, 2011 9:03 PM EST up reply actions

shame

yeah its a shame- bc everyone can see whats coming with this- its only a matter of time- its gonna happen in a playoff game, championship game, or sb. imagine youre a fan, player, owner & this shit happens? i was mad as hell when the raiders got screwed against cheatriots, and im by no means a raider fan; in fact- i dislike them! the league needs to address this, UNLESS- as i suggested- the league WANTS there to be controversial plays to help increase exposure and ratings; that aspect of things can never be ignored- the bottom line is always money. i dont know how cinci was ok with that call. i know they were upset, but i wouldda thought theyd post a bigger reaction to that; that could turn out to be their season right there!- so many ramifications!

by mikebb on Nov 21, 2011 2:06 PM EST reply actions

We may have seen the impact already to the playoffs!

Remember Hines Ward catching the ball against Baltimore? A hit to the head (no penalty) and a second hit after he went down to the ground with control, then the ball dislodges. Incomplete??? Blown call !!

"I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest." Jack Lambert.

by 58 on Nov 21, 2011 4:54 PM EST reply actions

After maintaining control and going to the ground, the ball was dislodged by another defender - that was a complete BS call

by MDSTEELERSFAN on Nov 22, 2011 4:09 PM EST up reply actions

I was furious at that

The nerver of challenging the catch after getting away with an illegal H to H hit. Those penalties are to big and game changing to not be called consitently. Steelers called for one that was questionable Ravens not called on 2 that where clearly H to H.

by thefirst3peat on Nov 22, 2011 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

wow my wireless keyboard

must need batteries lol sorry for the typos.

by thefirst3peat on Nov 22, 2011 5:35 PM EST up reply actions

Rules like the "must maintain possession" rule hurt the NFL's credibility.

If a runner in the open field hits the ground and loses the ball, there’s no harm/no foul. But if you do it in the EZ, they take 6 points off of the scoreboard, possibly deciding the game’s outcome. This is just another kind of double-standard which makes the league look like a joke.

by Billy52 on Nov 22, 2011 1:10 PM EST reply actions

This new officiating is ruining the game

TD called back because of some stupid translation of a rule that is so foggy it shouled “change” the call on the field. Key word CHANGE. And a broken up pass called a penalty because the hit looked too hard. I wanna curse but I don’t so……. This ^I*&*( gets on my ^^(&(&*)(^Y nerves.

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill

by PixburghArn on Nov 22, 2011 1:59 PM EST reply actions

youre a stronger man than i arnold

by klompus on Nov 22, 2011 3:09 PM EST up reply actions

I really can't stand

the NFL’s powers that be. Maybe I need to put some Public Enemy in my Driveby just for them.

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill

by PixburghArn on Nov 22, 2011 3:12 PM EST up reply actions

indeed

People don't ever seem to realize that doing what's right is no guarantee against misfortune.
- William McFee

by stillergorillar on Nov 22, 2011 8:13 PM EST up reply actions

That should actually should say

“Shouldn’t change the call”

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill

by PixburghArn on Nov 22, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions

yes it always seems like it’s ridiculously hard to get the evidence needed to “overturn the call on the field” except when it seems blatantly obvious that it was a score

by klompus on Nov 22, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions

+1

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill

by PixburghArn on Nov 23, 2011 10:34 AM EST up reply actions

It is almost like the NFL has decided

who was going to win the game before it started and was waiting/looking for an opportunity to make sure it happened the way they wanted it to. Doesn’t it seem that way with some of the Patriots’ games also…

Things can always be worse....

by ncmt40 on Nov 22, 2011 3:58 PM EST up reply actions

Exactly

If they ever needed rules to help them fix games for financial gain, they now have plenty of them. They are so bad, they can even overrule obvious observation on tape.

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill

by PixburghArn on Nov 23, 2011 10:35 AM EST up reply actions

f'ing up the game

no question the rules have gotten worse. back to the original point of the post- its either a catch or not, and a fumble or not. if the league allows these lawyer-type rules & interpretations to come into play- it negatively impacts the game & the results. but again- controversy = dollars, so maybe thats what the league wants. soon enuff- maybe even this year- the wrong team will win the SB. its already happened of course- with the cheatriots invalidly winning the sb against the rams due to the phony raiders result and the cheating against steelers and rams, but soon it will be a DIRECT hit on the SB- a team will get screwed on the pivotal play that decides the big game. even if that happened in the steelers favor- i would still be mad & would not accept that kinda result.

by mikebb on Nov 22, 2011 2:41 PM EST reply actions