Current Events > So... Steelers got screwed last night?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I Like Toast posted...

So what rule do you think that the NFL gave to call them with opposite results?

Don't really care because neither has anything to do with the play this topic is about. Both of those plays are irrelevant to this discussion.

The Steelers receiver was never a runner because he never completed the catch. He was falling down in the process of catching the ball, so it's an incomplete pass. You aren't called a runner if you don't complete the pass when you're falling to the ground.
---

CableZL posted...

Don't really care because neither has anything to do with the play this topic is about.

does matter since it's the exact rule, it's almost like you're trying to avoid admitting that.

BTW, how did Tate end up on his back if he wasn't going down?

The Steelers receiver was never a runner because he never completed the catch

Except he did, when his knee hit and he lunged for the endzone. Just like how the NFL decided that tate was a runner, and thus the play is over since it broke the plane, and the giants WR, who didn't go to the ground, wasn't a runner, so the ensuing int counts.

but here, the nfl also upheld both of these calls, despite again, being called differently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uag-ClYRMs

and here's good old dean upholding this catch
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000310656/article/dean-blandino-says-referees-made-correct-calls-in-playoff-game

where the player didn't survive going to the ground as well, because they decided that he was a runner and thus awarded forward progress so the play ended.

are you getting it yet? are you understanding I Like Toast posted...

It's inexcusable this bullshit >>>>>>wasn't fixed <<<<<<<<<after DezCaughtIt. There exists no reason for going to the ground to factor at all. If the ground or defender jars it loose it's a fumble.

---

I Like Toast posted...

Except he did, when his knee hit and he lunged for the endzone.

He was still falling when his knee hit. He didn't control the ball all the way to the ground. This isn't a hard concept.
---

CableZL posted...

This isn't a hard concept.

If it wasn't, you wouldn't keep avoiding answering simple questions because you know that you're wrong and that you don't actually understand the rule.

I Like Toast posted...

BTW, how did Tate end up on his back if he wasn't going down?

I Like Toast posted...

but here, the nfl also upheld both of these calls, despite again, being called differently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uag-ClYRMs

and here's good old dean upholding this catch
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000310656/article/dean-blandino-says-referees-made-correct-calls-in-playoff-game

where the player didn't survive going to the ground as well, because they decided that he was a runner and thus awarded forward progress so the play ended.

---

I Like Toast posted...

and here's good old dean upholding this catch
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000310656/article/dean-blandino-says-referees-made-correct-calls-in-playoff-game

You seem to have a hard time with explanations. They literally said that if contact is what causes you to go to the ground, you don't have to survive the ground.

Transcript:

Did the receiver have both feet down prior to him getting contacted, which sent him to the ground? If that's the case, then he doesn't have to hold onto it when he hits the ground.

Therefore, irrelevant.

Calvin Johnson in falling to the ground in the process of making the catch, and lost control of the ball when it hit the ground. Incomplete.

In the Victor Cruz case, you can easily argue that contact is what caused him to go to the ground, and he got a foot and a hand down and the ball stretched over the goal line before he lost control.
---

I Like Toast posted...

BTW, how did Tate end up on his back if he wasn't going down?

Blandino literally says "this is not a receiver that is going to the ground." He got both feet down and was standing up with the ball, and contact caused him to fall afterward.
---

So yeah, it doesn't seem to matter how many times it's explained to you. You have trouble comprehending. You repeatedly take things out of context in attempt to help your argument, but post the entire video that you're taking quotes out of context from and act as if nothing else was said that completely changes the point.
---

CableZL posted...

They literally said that if contact is what causes you to go to the ground, you don't have to survive the ground.

Dez went to the ground because Shields tripped him up. WHOOPS. Shit, look at you having to argue against yourself again. Randle stays on his feet, takes 3 steps in the end zone, then is contacted, but wasn't ruled to have finished the process so interception.

Here's crabtree upright, catches the ball inbounds, his pushed by the defender, overturned incomplete

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/22/9778984/michael-crabtree-caught-a-ball-started-running-took-three-more-steps

you still not figuring out the problem? you still not seeing that the nfl will use anything to defend whatever call they make in regards to this rule and that there is absolutely no consistency as it's entirely reliant upon when you define the receiver as a runner.

but please, keep trying to argue out of both ends. I love watching hypocrites in action.
---

I Like Toast posted...

CableZL posted...

They literally said that if contact is what causes you to go to the ground, you don't have to survive the ground.

Dez went to the ground because Shields tripped him up. WHOOPS. Shit, look at you having to argue against yourself again. Randle stays on his feet, takes 3 steps in the end zone, then is contacted, but wasn't ruled to have finished the process so interception.

Here's crabtree upright, catches the ball inbounds, his pushed by the defender, overturned incomplete

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/22/9778984/michael-crabtree-caught-a-ball-started-running-took-three-more-steps

you still not figuring out the problem? you still not seeing that the nfl will use anything to defend whatever call they make in regards to this rule and that there is absolutely no consistency as it's entirely reliant upon when you define the receiver as a runner.

but please, keep trying to argue out of both ends. I love watching hypocrites in action.

I think that Craptree situation should have been ruled a catch according to the rules. I agree about the lack of consistency in calls, but there are still a number of situations where the NFL has admitted error after the fact.

The steelers play still wasn't a catch according to the rules, though.
---

Harry Douglas, upright, takes 2 steps, defender tackles him down. ruled incomplete instead of a catch and fumble despite it being the defender taking him down.

https://twitter.com/AdamStites_/status/667536323100577795

OBJ, caught, upright, defender tackles him down, ruled incopmplete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qULrb8IFC8o

i can keep going and keep showing play after play after play after play after play of how you keep spewing bullshit because you don't get the rule.
---

I Like Toast posted...

Harry Douglas, upright, takes 2 steps, defender tackles him down. ruled incomplete instead of a catch and fumble despite it being the defender taking him down.

https://twitter.com/AdamStites_/status/667536323100577795

OBJ, caught, upright, defender tackles him down, ruled incopmplete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qULrb8IFC8o

i can keep going and keep showing play after play after play after play after play of how you keep spewing bullshit because you don't get the rule.

Obj never actually goes down there, should have been a touchdown

Steelers play still wasn't a catch.
---

CableZL posted...

but there are still a number of situations where the NFL has admitted error after the fact.

So infrequently that googling NFL admits call was wrong it turns up a result from 2012 within the first 5 results. And never in regards to the catch rule. Which you'd think Mr "these plays are irrelevant" would you know, be consistent. Not you know, a hypocrite like you are.

CableZL posted...

s. I agree about the lack of consistency in calls

I know, unlike you i'm not illiterate. It doesn't take me 4 hours to realize when someone says that the rule should have been fixed years prior that they are arguing that it was called incorrectly and spend 4 hours defending the call with hypocritical logic and proving how little you understand the rule in place.
---

I Like Toast posted...

I know, unlike you i'm not illiterate. It doesn't take me 4 hours to realize when someone says that the rule should have been fixed years prior that they are arguing that it was called incorrectly and spend 4 hours defending the call with hypocritical logic and proving how little you understand the rule in place.

You were literally saying he became a runner when never actually caught the ball according to the rules.
---

CableZL posted...

Obj never actually goes down there, should have been a touchdown

so, since the NFL admits they're wrong, i'm sure you can link the NFL admitting they were wrong on the call right? i mean, your argument is founded on, "the nfl said it's right and they must know the rule book better than you!"

CableZL posted...

You were literally saying he became a runner when never actually caught the ball according to the rules.

because he literally can be defined as becoming a runner because that is how the rules are written. Which was explictly stated to you

I Like Toast posted...

The play could be called either way with how the rules are written, because contrary to CableZL's belief, going to the ground only matters until you are determined to be a runner. Which you can easily state that when his knee touches the ground and he changes his momentum he has survived the ground and become a runner. Or you can just as easily say that changing you'd momentum isn't enough as he's still falling so that the call is correct. There is no reason for going to the ground to be in the rule books after Dez and this shit would have never happened

and has been repeatedly proven to you with the multiple videos posted.
---

I Like Toast posted...

The play could be called either way with how the rules are written, because contrary to CableZL's belief, going to the ground only matters until you are determined to be a runner. Which you can easily state that when his knee touches the ground and he changes his momentum he has survived the ground and become a runner

He's obviously still falling when his knee hit the ground. His knee didn't break the fall at all. He continued to fall, and the ball hit the ground, causing him to lose control. Incomplete pass.

Refs got it right.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

lmao why are you still trying to convince the densest person on CE something that every sane person could see last night?

I'm bored
---

CableZL posted...

Refs got it right.

Refs called it a touchdown. Refs don't review plays anymore, I thought you knew the rule book? oh wait no, we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't.

BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you? Or you can just admit that there's nothing about being tackled to the ground or not and that the entire rule is about what defines a receiver as a runner, not about going to the ground. And that the steelers were screwed by this rule still being vague and arbitrary after it already happened in a playoff game and every fan agreed that the rule is broken and needs to be fixed. Yet week after week this conversation keeps happening.

CableZL posted...

His knee didn't break the fall at all.

oh, so he has force powers and changed his momentum with the power of his mind. That's a pretty awesome star wars tie in, you'd think they'd advertise that a little more.
---

I Like Toast posted...

Refs called it a touchdown. Refs don't review plays anymore, I thought you knew the rule book? oh wait no, we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't.

BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you? Or you can just admit that there's nothing about being tackled to the ground or not and that the entire rule is about what defines a receiver as a runner, not about going to the ground. And that the steelers were screwed by this rule still being vague and arbitrary after it already happened in a playoff game and every fan agreed that the rule is broken and needs to be fixed. Yet week after week this conversation keeps happening.

I misspoke. The NFL got it right.

In order to be a runner, you have to have possession of the ball. An incomplete pass is not having possession of the ball.

I get it, Toast. You get your panties in a bunch every time the Patriots win a game. Let it go. The Patriots won.
---

I Like Toast posted...

oh, so he has force powers and changed his momentum with the power of his mind. That's a pretty awesome star wars tie in, you'd think they'd advertise that a little more.

He didn't break his fall. He was still falling and lost control of the ball.

Let it go. I know you hate the Patriots, but they won.
---

I Like Toast posted...

BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that.

You yourself said you found examples of the NFL admitting errors. You said the NFL confirms everything, and I simply said they've admitted errors a number of times in the past. You found examples of them admitting errors in the past.

Again, let it go. You have an unhealthy hatred of Tom Brady and the Patriots.

It was rightfully an incomplete pass according to the rules. Regardless of whether refs/the NFL got it right or wrong in the past, they ended up at the correct conclusion in this case.
---

CableZL posted...

you have to have possession of the ball.

Which he has when he has 2 hands firmly on the ball and his knee touches the ground. Again, why do you think they call it complete the process and surive the ground. In order to do either, you have to have already caught the ball.

CableZL posted...

You yourself said you found examples of the NFL admitting errors.

I Like Toast posted...

BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...

And never in regards to the catch rule. Which you'd think Mr "these plays are irrelevant" would you know, be consistent. Not you know, a hypocrite like you are.

CableZL posted...

He didn't break his fall.

so how did he change his momentum from going towards the sideline to going towards the endzone?

here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner

after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

Which he did both.

CableZL posted...

Again, let it go. You have an unhealthy hatred of Tom Brady and the Patriots.

TIL the calvin johnson, Dez Bryant, Randle, Eifert, Freeman, etc, etc, etc, etc play all happened against the patriots.

Wait, shit, no, I've been against the rule since it helped my very team win a game. It's almost like the pats benefiting from it is irrelevant and only you have brought it up. I know you don't actually understand what the word irrelevant means, so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.
---

I Like Toast posted...

so how did he change his momentum from going towards the sideline to going towards the endzone?

He was moving diagonally when he dove and he kept falling diagonally. His knee did hit the ground, but he kept falling diagonally afterward. Ball hit the ground and he lost control.

He did have control of the ball with his hand, but he didn't keep control through the process of the catch. He didn't survive the ground.
---

CableZL posted...

He was moving diagonally when he dove and he kept falling diagonally.

at a drastically different angle.

CableZL posted...

He didn't survive the ground.

because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...

here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

I Like Toast posted...

BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...

so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.

---

The NFL decided he wasn't a runner because he didn't compete the catch.

He didn't survive the ground.
---

That was clearly a touchdown.

Steelers should've won the game because of it. They got cheated out of it.

I now know why the Patriots have gotten such a bad rep & being called cheaters by everyone else.

Shinobi120 posted...

That was clearly a touchdown.

Steelers should've won the game because of it. They got cheated out of it.

I now know why the Patriots have gotten such a bad rep by everyone else.

Nope it was an incomplete pass. You have to keep control of the ball all the way to the ground according to the rules. He didn't do that.
---

CableZL posted...

Shinobi120 posted...

That was clearly a touchdown.

Steelers should've won the game because of it. They got cheated out of it.

I now know why the Patriots have gotten such a bad rep by everyone else.

Nope it was an incomplete pass. You have to keep control of the ball all the way to the ground according to the rules. He didn't do that.

Nope, one of the Steelers' players caught the ball & had the ball over the goal line when he was down.

I Like Toast posted...

TIL the calvin johnson, Dez Bryant, Randle, Eifert, Freeman, etc, etc, etc, etc play all happened against the patriots.

Wait, s***, no, I've been against the rule since it helped my very team win a game. It's almost like the pats benefiting from it is irrelevant and only you have brought it up

Or it's almost like you go out of your way to insult Tom Brady on a regular basis. Let it go, Toast.
---

Shinobi120 posted...

CableZL posted...

Shinobi120 posted...

That was clearly a touchdown.

Steelers should've won the game because of it. They got cheated out of it.

I now know why the Patriots have gotten such a bad rep by everyone else.

Nope it was an incomplete pass. You have to keep control of the ball all the way to the ground according to the rules. He didn't do that.

Nope, one of the Steelers' players caught the ball & had the ball over the goal line when he was down.

Nope. He lost control of the ball when it hit the ground. He was falling in the process of making the catch. If you're falling in the process of the catch, you have to keep control of the ball all the way to the ground.
---

The rule:

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.

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.

The Steelers receiver was going to the ground in the act of catching a pass and did not maintain control of the ball after his initial contact with the ground.

Thus it was an incomplete pass. Whether the NFL has got it right or wrong in the past is irrelevant. The NFL got the call right in the end here. Incomplete pass.
---

CableZL posted...

You have to keep control of the ball all the way to the ground according to the rules.

unless the NFL decides you don't, which i've already given you video proving. Meanwhile you keep arguing against yourself. And running from answering questions.

CableZL posted...

Or it's almost like you go out of your way to insult Tom Brady on a regular basis. Let it go, Toast.

And yet, you brought him out as a desperate way to try to change the subject

I Like Toast posted...

because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...
here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

I Like Toast posted...
BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...
so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

oh NOW all of a sudden you fuckers want to worry about what a catch is..when it happened to Dez it was "SUCK IT UP THATS THE RULE DEAL WITH IT"...but now its "man, this is odd, maybe we should question it"....Fuck you guys.

No fuck you, that was a catch.
---

I Like Toast posted...

unless the NFL decides you don't, which i've already given you video proving. Meanwhile you keep arguing against yourself. And running from answering questions.

I agree, the refs and/or the NFL has got the call wrong in the past. That doesn't really matter in this case, though, becase they got the call right.
---

I Like Toast posted...

I Like Toast posted...

because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...
here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional step

There is a specific rule about players going to the ground in the process of the catch, which is in play here. He didn't keep control of the ball all the way to the ground.

I Like Toast posted...

I Like Toast posted...
BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I simply said the NFL has admitted errors in the past, which you found examples of.
---

I feel like I'm reading the same post over and over again the past 100 or so posts.
---

CableZL posted...

That doesn't really matter in this case

Weird since you said the NFL would admit they were wrong so them defending this call is supposed to mean something. But yet, they never do say they got this wrong do they? Why is it so hard for you to admit every argument you have tried is flawed and that you do not understand the rule? CableZL posted...

There is a specific rule about players going to the ground in the process of the catch

And that specific rule only applies if you are not a runner. Which you refuse to understand.
---

I Like Toast posted...

And that specific rule only applies if you are not a runner. Which you refuse to understand.

And the Steelers receiver was not a runner because he never completed the catch. The rule about players going to the ground in the process of a catch applies exactly to this situation.
---

Eve-L posted...

I feel like I'm reading the same post over and over again the past 100 or so posts.

It's what happens when a hypocrite (cable) argues a stubborn fuck (me). Cable keeps trying to change the subject because he doesn't want to admit he's wrong and doesn't understand the rule and I can keep quoting myself since he can't address any of it.
---

I Like Toast posted...

It's what happens when a hypocrite (cable) argues a stubborn f*** (me). Cable keeps trying to change the subject because he doesn't want to admit he's wrong and doesn't understand the rule and I can keep quoting myself since he can't address any of it.

LOL, you're the one who doesn't understand the rule.

You can't become a runner if you don't complete the catch.
---

CableZL posted...

And the Steelers receiver was not a runner because he never completed the catch

He did when his knee touched the ground. But you don't know the actual rule.
---

I Like Toast posted...

He did when his knee touched the ground. But you don't know the actual rule.

He didn't when his knee touched the ground because he was still falling. If you're falling to the ground in the act of catching the pass, you have to control the ball all the way to the ground. He was falling before his knee touched. He was falling when his knee touched. He was still falling after his knee touched.

His knee touching the ground didn't break his fall.
---

CableZL posted...

You can't become a runner if you don't complete the catch

Except becoming a runner is completing the catch . But you have no clue what the rule is. You have to either become a runner or survive the fall. I Like Toast posted...

The play could be called either way with how the rules are written, because contrary to CableZL's belief, going to the ground only matters until you are determined to be a runner. Which you can easily state that when his knee touches the ground and he changes his momentum he has survived the ground and become a runner. Or you can just as easily say that changing you'd momentum isn't enough as he's still falling so that the call is correct. There is no reason for going to the ground to be in the rule books after Dez and this shit would have never happened

---

CableZL posted...

His knee touching the ground didn't break his fall

I Like Toast posted...

oh, so he has force powers and changed his momentum with the power of his mind. That's a pretty awesome star wars tie in, you'd think they'd advertise that a little more.

---

I Like Toast posted...

Except becoming a runner is completing the catch

I agree

I Like Toast posted...

You have to either become a runner or survive the fall

Correct. He didn't become a runner, though, because he didn't complete the catch. He had control of the ball at one point during the fall, but he lost control of the ball when it hit the ground. You have to survive the ground if you're falling to the ground in the process of the catch. He didn't do that.
---

CableZL posted...

He didn't become a runner,

I Like Toast posted...

The play could be called either way with how the rules are written, because contrary to CableZL's belief, going to the ground only matters until you are determined to be a runner. Which you can easily state that when his knee touches the ground and he changes his momentum he has survived the ground and become a runner. Or you can just as easily say that changing you'd momentum isn't enough as he's still falling so that the call is correct. There is no reason for going to the ground to be in the rule books after Dez and this shit would have never happened

CableZL posted...

He didn't become a runner, though, because he didn't complete the catch

Literally the memory of a fruit fly
CableZL posted...

Like Toast posted...
Except becoming a runner is completing the catch

I agree

---

I Like Toast posted...

oh, so he has force powers and changed his momentum with the power of his mind. That's a pretty awesome star wars tie in, you'd think they'd advertise that a little more.

He didn't really change his momentum. He contorted his body while he was falling. He was still moving in the same direction when hit the ground as when he dove.
---

I Like Toast posted...

Which you can easily state that when his knee touches the ground and he changes his momentum he has survived the ground and become a runner.

Nope. He dove, was falling toward the ground, and contorted his body to try to put the ball over the line. He didn't change his momentum. He hit the ground moving the same direction as he was moving when he dove.
---

If he would have kept his feet and turned toward the end zone and ran/dove/flipped/cartwheeled/etc. into the endzone, THAT would be "becoming a runner." Since he kept falling after he dove and hit the ground, the "going to the ground" rule applies.
---

CableZL posted...

He was still moving in the same direction when hit the ground as when he dove.

Not even remotely since he would have landed on his back and slid towards the sideline, instead he pivoted his body to the shortest distance to the goalline.

CableZL posted...

the "going to the ground" rule applies.

It applies because the NFL arbitrary decide it should. Which you know and why you keep avoiding

I Like Toast posted...

because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...
here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

I Like Toast posted...
BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...
so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.

---