Every one of us on here while watching a Diaco coached UConn football game

[HuskyHawk]

Simplifying the wording of the rule would probably solve the issues most folks have. Regarding this type of play. Most fans understand two points of contact with the ground inbounds and a demonstration of control of the ball (which James clearly had). That should be the rule. Done.

Regarding Replays of TOs and TDs, you need replay. Most officials have proven themselves far too inept. Unless the games involves Cleveland, half the fans are going to be ticked off.

Fumbling through the endzone should absolutely be a turnover and touchback. If you are referring to the Pats/Jets game from earlier this season (You have to be. There is no connection between the two points...Other than the Patriots), there was clearly a fumble. My thought now is the same as when it happened. The Jets should have gotten the ball on the 1 foot line. What was unclear is where the ball went out of bounds as Seferian-Jenkins rolled over the pylon.

For this particular play with James there is an easy way to think about it. Move him back five yards. Take the goal line out of it, because it is irrelevant. Was it a catch? No. The ball moved as he went to the ground. I've seen that called a non catch two dozen times this year. So it's incomplete. No TD. I think they need to explain the rule better.

 

[Husky25]

For this particular play with James there is an easy way to think about it. Move him back five yards. Take the goal line out of it, because it is irrelevant. Was it a catch? No. The ball moved as he went to the ground. I've seen that called a non catch two dozen times this year. So it's incomplete. No TD. I think they need to explain the rule better.

We do not disagree one iota.

As I said in my original post, Common sense leads me to think it was a catch, but I at least understand what the officials were looking and how they drew their conclusion, unlike the Dez Bryant non-catch from a few years ago (Jumped, caught the ball, landed, took two steps, and fell to the ground. Dare I say Bryant even tucked it a little bit).

However, a very crucial point is missed if you take the goal line out of it. It was first down and if James catches the ball on the 5, he probably tucks it in. The goal line introduces the temptation to stretch for the extra foot.

 

[HuskyHawk]

We do not disagree one iota.

As I said in my original post, Common sense leads me to think it was a catch, but I at least understand what the officials were looking and how they drew their conclusion, unlike the Dez Bryant non-catch from a few years ago (Jumped, caught the ball, landed, took two steps, and fell to the ground. Dare I say Bryant even tucked it a little bit).

However, a very crucial point is missed if you take the goal line out of it. It was first down and if James catches the ball on the 5, he probably tucks it in. The goal line introduces the temptation to stretch for the extra foot.

I know, and it cost him. Had he just caught it, no extension, and rolled in it would be a TD. He screwed up by thinking like a runner. Not saying this is easy for these guys. But the NFL has applied this rule consistently for a few years now since they got rid of the "football move" language.

 

[Kemba429]

A rule is a rule. The rule might be really stupid but it shouldnt not be enforced because its the Patriots.

 

[BlueDogs]

Look, you're wrong, just let it go. You're arguing that he had possession. The refs determined he didn't have possession because he didn't complete the reception. When he hit the ground the ball was jarred loose (and made contact with the ground), therefore he never completed the catch, and didn't have possession. You have to establish possession before the rule you keep referencing is even relevant. So yes, there is pass completion requirement.

For goodness sake, the ball is dead once it intersects the goal line. Read the rule. The rule says if possession exists in the field of play when it crosses the plane there is a touchdown .... it doesn't say, "subject to the pass completion rule" The player had possession in the field of play obviously by the fact he was able to move the ball and extend it over the goal line. It's illogical to conclude contact with the ground after the ball is dead controls. If the pass was caught in the end zone, the pass completion rule holds because there is no prior possession before the goal line.

 

[Husky25]

The rule says if possession exists in the field of play when it crosses the plane there is a touchdown .... it doesn't say, "subject to the pass completion rule"

Read what you just wrote again...while keeping in mind that 1) possession does not exist unless the pass is completed and 2) the pass is not completed unless the ball is controlled by the receiver through the ground.

 

[BlueMAB]

For goodness sake, the ball is dead once it intersects the goal line. Read the rule. The rule says if possession exists in the field of play when it crosses the plane there is a touchdown .... it doesn't say, "subject to the pass completion rule" The player had possession in the field of play obviously by the fact he was able to move the ball and extend it over the goal line. It's illogical to conclude contact with the ground after the ball is dead controls. If the pass was caught in the end zone, the pass completion rule holds because there is no prior possession before the goal line.

Possession didn’t exist in the field of play because he never completed the catch because he went to the ground.

A completion isn’t made if the player goes to the ground, the ball makes contact with the ground and then is jarred loose. The goal line is secondary to the completion.

The fact he fell down almost as soon as he first touched the ball means he clearly didn’t demonstrate he was up long enough to become a runner.

You’re wrong but keep beating that drum if it makes you feel better.

Completing a Catch | NFL Football Operations

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.


I’m done talking to this brick wall.

 

[BlueDogs]

Possession didn’t exist in the field of play because he never completed the catch because he went to the ground.

A completion isn’t made if the player goes to the ground, the ball makes contact with the ground and then is jarred loose. The goal line is secondary to the completion.

The fact he fell down almost as soon as he first touched the ball means he clearly didn’t demonstrate he was up long enough to become a runner.

You’re wrong but keep beating that drum if it makes you feel better.

Completing a Catch | NFL Football Operations

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.


I’m done talking to this brick wall.

I give.