re: The Steelers got hosed

I figured they would come back after brown went down. This thread is how i learned who won.
Without brown new england to the super bowl. Without edleman.

quote:

---

By rule it wasn’t a catch.

---

That's only because the rule as written lacks and defies common sense on the basis of arbitrary and inconsistent actions as to what constitutes a catch. Why is it "the ground "can't cause a fumble", but a receiver has to "survive the ground" to finish the catch? It's idiotic.

quote:

---

No they didn’t. That was the correct call. I don’t like it either, but they didn’t get hosed.

---

They didn't get hosed by the call, but they got hosed by the idiotic rule.

The refs are ALWAYS in favor of the Patriots. I'm starting to believe these games are more and more rigged. ESPECIALLY when it comes to Brady. If you push him with your pinky finger, they call Unsportsmanlike Conduct and Roughing the Passer. He is the biggest pussy in the league. The Steelers won that game. Period. If it were any other team, they would have called it the other way but since it was the Patriots, it was called in favor of them. Total crock.

I still have yet to see a video angle or picture that shows the ball hit the ground without his hand under it

It that would have been Gronk it would have been called A TD.....

Just saw this::

1. Clear catch in air
2. Clear “football move” toward endzone
3. Not down when ball clearly crossed plane (TD regardless at this point but I’ll continue)
4. Called a touchdown on the field
5. Every camera SHOWS he kept his hand under the ball
6. Not ONE shot of the ball hitting the ground at anytime
7. Therefore NO actual concrete evidence AT ALL of an incomplete pass (only an inference of the ball turning as he ensures his hand stays under they ball)
8. The call, at least, should have stood.

In actuality, it should have been CONFIRMED.

The last thing it should ever have been is overturned. How can you not walk away thinking about betting lines?

quote:

---

Well, the picture two posts up sort of blows that out of the waters, does it not?

---

Depends who you ask. It's more probable than not that the ball is on the ground in that picture, but we don't actually see the ball touching the turf. I'm not sure what the NFL's burden of proof is on replays.

i have no faith in humanity if people are arguing he didn't lose control of catch when hitting ground.

They say it all the time: burden of proof depends on the call on the field.

Once it was called a touchdown they burden of proof had to SHOW DEFINITIVELY the ball on the ground.

If not, and all they have is an inference, the call “stands”