AJ's 'shoulda been' TD catch.

[NewColtsFan]

Another strange thread considering......    we won the game.

 

But it turns into an "AJ continues to disappoint thread" all based on one play, and it's a play he didn't do anything wrong.

 

Matt's pass was late,  and frankly looked like a pop-up....  AJ should've called "the infield fly rule"....     he couldn't do anything to make it come down into his arms any faster.

 

He caught when he caught it.    His momentum took one foot out of bounds.

 

The problem with the play was with Matt,  not with AJ.

 

I appreciate that once the community here decides that a player sucks -- suddenly everything that player does becomes his fault.   Even when its not.    Unfortunately,  that's been a constant theme here since I arrived in May of 2012.     So, I have no doubt that was happening prior to my arrival.

 

A little perspective goes a long, long way.............

[Indyfan4life]

Another strange thread considering...... we won the game.

But it turns into an "AJ continues to disappoint thread" all based on one play, and it's a play he didn't do anything wrong.

Matt's pass was late, and frankly looked like a pop-up.... AJ should've called "the infield fly rule".... he couldn't do anything to make it come down into his arms any faster.

He caught when he caught it. His momentum took one foot out of bounds.

The problem with the play was with Matt, not with AJ.

I appreciate that once the community here decides that a player sucks -- suddenly everything that player does becomes his fault. Even when its not. Unfortunately, that's been a constant theme here since I arrived in May of 2012. So, I have no doubt that was happening prior to my arrival.

A little perspective goes a long, long way.............

As I said earlier MH could have thrown the ball a lot better to him than what he did. Wouldn't of matter who caught that, staying in bounds would have been really hard. People here just need someone to be a scapegoat, and unfortunately, it's AJ. Pretty sure Whalen was the recipient of a lot of hate here at one point.

[ColtsLegacy]

Another strange thread considering......    we won the game.

 

But it turns into an "AJ continues to disappoint thread" all based on one play, and it's a play he didn't do anything wrong.

 

Matt's pass was late,  and frankly looked like a pop-up....  AJ should've called "the infield fly rule"....     he couldn't do anything to make it come down into his arms any faster.

 

He caught when he caught it.    His momentum took one foot out of bounds.

 

The problem with the play was with Matt,  not with AJ.

 

I appreciate that once the community here decides that a player sucks -- suddenly everything that player does becomes his fault.   Even when its not.    Unfortunately,  that's been a constant theme here since I arrived in May of 2012.     So, I have no doubt that was happening prior to my arrival.

 

A little perspective goes a long, long way.............

 

How is whether we won or not relevant to this thread? I saw a play that should have been a TD, from what I saw, that everyone just accepted as incomplete, including the Colts. I'm curious what everyone else saw and I want to see the play again since I lost it from my DVR.

 

This was not supposed to be an AJ stinks thread.

 

I disagree that it was all on Matt, it wasn't a great throw. But, AJ could have made a better effort to stay in bounds, though, I, obviously, believe he did stay in bounds anyway.

[krunk]

Hasslebeck through that ball up late. That's why there was very little room. Did not have much to do with Andre to me.

[krunk]

Another strange thread considering...... we won the game.

But it turns into an "AJ continues to disappoint thread" all based on one play, and it's a play he didn't do anything wrong.

Matt's pass was late, and frankly looked like a pop-up.... AJ should've called "the infield fly rule".... he couldn't do anything to make it come down into his arms any faster.

He caught when he caught it. His momentum took one foot out of bounds.

The problem with the play was with Matt, not with AJ.

I appreciate that once the community here decides that a player sucks -- suddenly everything that player does becomes his fault. Even when its not. Unfortunately, that's been a constant theme here since I arrived in May of 2012. So, I have no doubt that was happening prior to my arrival.

A little perspective goes a long, long way.............

I agree with you on this one NCF. The throw was late. It put Andre in a bad spot.

[Smonroe]

What angle were you watching it from? As I said, I went frame by frame from behind and it looked evident he had that ball before his first foot came up. I was watching with someone else who saw the same thing.

It was the cbs replay. I'll see if the all 22 is better.

[Hoose]

I agree with you on this one NCF. The throw was late. It put Andre in a bad spot.

Yup. Hasselback was late with the throw. AJ was open. Personally, I think he was out of bounds, but it doesn't matter. We won.

AJ did the job; was open; the QB should have had it there. Next week, I bet he does.

[ColtsLegacy]

If a mod could link this post and/or the album in my OP, that'd be great. TIA

 

 

Exactly how I remember it. TD!

 

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/album/462-/

 

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2633-1/

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2634-2/

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2635-3/

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2636-4/

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2637-5/

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2638-6/

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2639-7/

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2640-8/

 

 

Ball nearly there foot flat on ground:

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2641-9/

Ball closer foot still flat:

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2642-10/

Ball can't be seen, in chest, foot still down:

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2643-11/

Ball still in chest, foot still down:

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2644-12/

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2645-13/

second foot down:

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2646-14/

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/2647-15/

 

Yep, that's a TD, folks.

[MB-ColtsFan]

Another strange thread considering......    we won the game.

 

But it turns into an "AJ continues to disappoint thread" all based on one play, and it's a play he didn't do anything wrong.

 

Matt's pass was late,  and frankly looked like a pop-up....  AJ should've called "the infield fly rule"....     he couldn't do anything to make it come down into his arms any faster.

 

He caught when he caught it.    His momentum took one foot out of bounds.

 

The problem with the play was with Matt,  not with AJ.

 

I appreciate that once the community here decides that a player sucks -- suddenly everything that player does becomes his fault.   Even when its not.    Unfortunately,  that's been a constant theme here since I arrived in May of 2012.     So, I have no doubt that was happening prior to my arrival.

 

A little perspective goes a long, long way.............

My disagreement with you on this is the " he didn't do anything wrong " comment. I've seen players 3 feet out of bounds and still try to drag their feet. AJ was very close and didn't try to stay in bounds with the second step. To me (I.e.,my opinion) he should have made a better effort to keep his feet in on that pass regardless where it was placed.

For the record, I am one of the biggest supporters of AJ on here. It was just a bad effort on this one in my eyes.

[ColtRider]

If not going to the ground, two feet in and touching put of bounds with a foot/toe immediately makes the play dead. If not bobbling the ball it is a reception and marked where he steps out of bounds (if sideline) and a TD if stepping out of the end zone. If caught in the end zone and not stepping out of bounds, the receiver must hold the ball just long enough to be capable of avoiding or warding off a defender (be established as a runner)..

Here's the correct ruling on ColtsBlueFL's last sentence.

I, too, recorded the game ColtsLegacy. I saw it exactly like you did. Frame by frame. I thought it was a TD. Then, I went after the rule book. And, here it is ... AJ does have control, both feet in, but not to "establish a runner". If the play would've been reviewed, I'm afraid it would have gone exactly as they called it on the field. No TD.

These plays have been frequent over the last several weeks. For the most part, the refs have got it right. Some of the calls like the Seattle game, batting the ball out the end zone, OBjr catch or non catch, go beyond my realm of understanding.

[ColtsLegacy]

Here's the correct ruling on ColtsBlueFL's last sentence.

I, too, recorded the game ColtsLegacy. I saw it exactly like you did. Frame by frame. I thought it was a TD. Then, I went after the rule book. And, here it is ... AJ does have control, both feet in, but not to "establish a runner". If the play would've been reviewed, I'm afraid it would have gone exactly as they called it on the field. No TD.

These plays have been frequent over the last several weeks. For the most part, the refs have got it right. Some of the calls like the Seattle game, batting the ball out the end zone, OBjr catch or non catch, go beyond my realm of understanding.

 

He does not have to establish himself as a runner in that situation. If he caught it with 2 feet in, it's a TD.

 

My friend has All 22 and let me use it (see post #48, 2 posts up). It was a TD, as I remembered.

[ColtRider]

He does not have to establish himself as a runner in that situation. If he caught it with 2 feet in, it's a TD.

 

My friend has All 22 and let me use it (see post #48, 2 posts up). It was a TD, as I remembered.

That's exactly how I saw it. Remember, they called it no catch on the field. If it gets reviewed, there has to be substantial evidence to over rule. Dunno. To be honest, they may or may not have confirmed it. The angle I got, looked like TD to me.

[ColtsLegacy]

That's exactly how I saw it. Remember, they called it no catch on the field. If it gets reviewed, there has to be substantial evidence to over rule. Dunno. To be honest, they may or may not have confirmed it. The angle I got, looked like TD to me.

 

It may very well have stood but you absolutely must challenge that play. The risk was very minimal and the reward was huge.

 

Plus, it was a TD 

[ColtRider]

He does not have to establish himself as a runner in that situation. If he caught it with 2 feet in, it's a TD.

 

My friend has All 22 and let me use it (see post #48, 2 posts up). It was a TD, as I remembered.

You know what? I just took another 12 looks at this play on DVR and compared them to what you posted from all22.

That's a TD! Even if you can't see in front of AJ, there's a ref looking right at him from our blind side. He would've seen non-control and called it. So, that's not it. I'm convinced now. TD!

In hindsight, the Colts would've won the challenge, if Pagano had thrown the flag. Anyway, we won the game. But, that could've been very interesting if we hadn't.

[ricker182]

I was the only one in the chat defending coltslegacy and said it was really close.

Looks like a TD to me in the frame by frame and you absolutely have to challenge that.

I can see people saying maybe it wasn't a indisputable catch, but you have to challenge that.

[NewColtsFan]

How is whether we won or not relevant to this thread? I saw a play that should have been a TD, from what I saw, that everyone just accepted as incomplete, including the Colts. I'm curious what everyone else saw and I want to see the play again since I lost it from my DVR.

 

This was not supposed to be an AJ stinks thread.

 

I disagree that it was all on Matt, it wasn't a great throw. But, AJ could have made a better effort to stay in bounds, though, I, obviously, believe he did stay in bounds anyway.

 

 

I wasn't referring to you and your series of posts about whether the catch was inbounds or not.

 

I only mentioned those who think AJ screwed up.    There were several posters who went very negative on AJ....

[RockThatBlue]

It may very well have stood but you absolutely must challenge that play. The risk was very minimal and the reward was huge.

Plus, it was a TD

Yup, I was shocked we didn't challenge that. If Atlanta would have marched down the field for a game winning TD, not challenging that could have lost the game. Thankfully it didn't. Should have threw the red flag.

[ricker182]

I wasn't referring to you and your series of posts about whether the catch was inbounds or not.

I only mentioned those who think AJ screwed up. There were several posters who went very negative on AJ....

To be fair, there is no reason why he shouldn't be dragging his feet there.

He's been in the league how long and was an "elite" WR.

He has to be better.

[weslo1812]

To be fair, there is no reason why he shouldn't be dragging his feet there.

He's been in the league how long and was an "elite" WR.

He has to be better.

Easy for you to say from a fans perspective. All of us fans can sit here from behind our television and say this player should do this and should have done that. It's not just that easy though, when your the player having to execute.

[VaAllDay757]

Uh no, that is not the rule. Catch it and have two feet in bounds is all. Possession providing the ball isn't moving can be a nano second in bounds.

Wrong obviously they didn't say he had possession by the time his first foot hit the ground

[chrisfarley]

I had an opportunity to listen to the Falcons broadcast on Sirius XM radio and when they reviewed the play, they were looking for Chuck to pull the red challenge flag out. The guys in the Colts booth must not of been able to get a good replay.

Sounds like something Bill Belichick was behind

[Cynjin]

The angle that was shown actually looked more like the receiver had his hands in there. It wasn't much of a view but I'd say it definitely shouldn't have been called.

That's what I thought when I saw the play, but I could not be sure without a better view.

[Jdubu]

Wrong obviously they didn't say he had possession by the time his first foot hit the ground

now I'm not even sure you know what point you are arguing about. Read the thread, it's made clearer.

[ColtsBlueFL]

yes this was my point and I assumed I was making the same point as the previous poster. But this non catch today didn't have the ball swatted out so I assumed this was the same kind of discussion. My fault for not being as clear.

 

 

He does not have to establish himself as a runner in that situation. If he caught it with 2 feet in, it's a TD.

 

My friend has All 22 and let me use it (see post #48, 2 posts up). It was a TD, as I remembered.

 

The NFL removed 'football move from the rulebook, the tried to clarify with a description. Whether a ball was swatted out or not truly isn't the issue. Here is the new official language from the NFL on a catch-

 

"In order to complete a catch, a receiver must clearly become a runner. He does that by gaining control of the ball, touching both feet down and then, after the second foot is down, having the ball long enough to clearly become a runner, which is defined as the ability to ward off or protect himself from impending contact. If, before becoming a runner, a receiver falls to the ground in an attempt to make a catch, he must maintain control of the ball after contacting the ground. If he loses control of the ball after contacting the ground and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. Reaching the ball out before becoming a runner will not trump the requirement to hold onto the ball when you land. When you are attempting to complete a catch, you must put the ball away or protect the ball so it does not come loose."

 

A Receiver that has possession, both feet down can either hold it long enough to be able to avoid or ward off contact, or step out of bounds with a foot (avoiding contact from a defender).  If he touches out of bounds with any other body part, then the going to the ground extension applies. A ball that is swatted out may show the Refs the receiver was not able to avoid or ward off contact from the defender, thus not a runner and no catch.

 

The Refs try to get it right, but if it goes to review, Dean Blandino always gets it in the Refs ear to get it right.  Blandino is very consistent following this.

 

I did not get to watch the game on TV, I heard it on Sirius XM radio.  Refs must have ruled possession wasn't achieved until after the one foot came off the turf, thus never truly got two feet down in bounds. Because of the above explanation, two feet down in bounds and a step out of bounds (if not bobbling the ball) is possession and a catch.  But if not called a catch on the field, Irrefutable evidence to the contrary is needed for Blandino to overturn the Refs on the field call. Falcons Broadcasters said it was real close, which means maybe have to stay with the onfield call if Pagano challenged it.

[Narcosys]

Another strange thread considering...... we won the game.

But it turns into an "AJ continues to disappoint thread" all based on one play, and it's a play he didn't do anything wrong.

Matt's pass was late, and frankly looked like a pop-up.... AJ should've called "the infield fly rule".... he couldn't do anything to make it come down into his arms any faster.

He caught when he caught it. His momentum took one foot out of bounds.

The problem with the play was with Matt, not with AJ.

I appreciate that once the community here decides that a player sucks -- suddenly everything that player does becomes his fault. Even when its not. Unfortunately, that's been a constant theme here since I arrived in May of 2012. So, I have no doubt that was happening prior to my arrival.

A little perspective goes a long, long way.............

He didn't need to take another step. He should have toe tapped and went to the ground with it. Yes on matt, but it still could have been a td

[Narcosys]

Yep, that's a TD, folks.

You couldn't have picked a worse angle. There's no way to determine if he has control of the ball. At what point does he have control? Just cause it hit his chest, does not mean he has control.

[ColtsBlueFL]

He does not have to establish himself as a runner in that situation. If he caught it with 2 feet in, it's a TD.

 

My friend has All 22 and let me use it (see post #48, 2 posts up). It was a TD, as I remembered.

 

That may have been true some time in the past, but it is no longer the case in 2015.  The NFL catch rules require ALL receivers establish as a runner before a catch is awarded, or maintain possession all the way through the process (going to the ground).

[ColtsBlueFL]

He didn't need to take another step. He should have toe tapped and went to the ground with it. Yes on matt, but it still could have been a td

 

Yup, as long as it doesn't come out on contact with the ground.

[King Colt]

Wasn't the idea of replay supposed to resolve all questions? Instead the NFL will re-examine what a catch is when the season ends. Sad. Not over turning some calls is strictly politics now. "Inconclusive" evidence is now a cover to keep some official employed. 

[Narcosys]

Yup, as long as it doesn't come out on contact with the ground.

 

Well if he had control, and to his chest, it shouldn't come out at all.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Well if he had control, and to his chest, it shouldn't come out at all.

 

One would hope.  Yet NFL receivers lose control of the ball on contact with the ground very often, and it will be ruled incomplete every single time (unless the receiver was established as a runner  before going to the ground).

[Narcosys]

One would hope.  Yet NFL receivers lose control of the ball on contact with the ground very often, and it will be ruled incomplete every single time (unless the receiver was established as a runner  before going to the ground).

 

No different than stepping out of bounds.  I'd take that chance on myself than leaving it up to the refs to interpret my steps.

[ColtsLegacy]

That may have been true some time in the past, but it is no longer the case in 2015.  The NFL catch rules require ALL receivers establish as a runner before a catch is awarded, or maintain possession all the way through the process (going to the ground).

 

Going to the ground immediately is not considered "establishing yourself as a runner" (I don't see how it could be) but will still be considered a catch as long as 2 feet are in and you hold onto the ball through the ground. Andre clearly maintained possession through the ground.

 

I don't know what you're trying to prove, you're not saying anything I don't already know. The point is, what Andre did was enough for a TD. Period.

[ColtsLegacy]

You couldn't have picked a worse angle. There's no way to determine if he has control of the ball. At what point does he have control? Just cause it hit his chest, does not mean he has control.

 

Those are the only 2 angles that lazy CBS cared to show. The assumption is he didn't bobble it and I think that's a safe assumption from how smooth the catch is from AJ  and the reaction from the ref on the pylon who was looking straight at him (he didn't call it complete or incomplete, he let the ref from behind do it). I'll try to find a better angle when All22 is posted.

 

I think it's pretty clearly a smooth catch, though.

[MR. Blueblood]

That may have been true some time in the past, but it is no longer the case in 2015.  The NFL catch rules require ALL receivers establish as a runner before a catch is awarded, or maintain possession all the way through the process (going to the ground).

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

I take it you didn't see the Vikings/GB game where Rodgers throws a TD to Jones right along the sideline of the end zone.  Jones only had time to get both feet down, certainly wasn't in a position to establish himself as a runner, before falling on his knees OOB.  Guess what????  It was a catch and a TD.

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

Going to the ground immediately is not considered "establishing yourself as a runner" (I don't see how it could be) but will still be considered a catch as long as 2 feet are in and you hold onto the ball through the ground. Andre clearly maintained possession through the ground.

 

I don't know what you're trying to prove, you're not saying anything I don't already know. The point is, what Andre did was enough for a TD. Period.

 

Again, my statement-

 

"The NFL catch rules require ALL receivers establish as a runner before a catch is awarded, or maintain possession all the way through the process (going to the ground)."

 

One or  the other. Either one.  But that is it.  If we are still saying the same thing, then consider this an agreement post. 

 

Because your claim- "Going to the ground immediately is not considered "establishing yourself as a runner"  while true, doesn't directly apply to anything I have said as I have never implied that it does.

[MR. Blueblood]

That may have been true some time in the past, but it is no longer the case in 2015.  The NFL catch rules require ALL receivers establish as a runner before a catch is awarded, or maintain possession all the way through the process (going to the ground).

 

 

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

I take it you didn't see the Vikings/GB game where Rodgers throws a TD to Jones right along the sideline of the end zone.  Jones only had time to get both feet down, certainly wasn't in a position to establish himself as a runner, before falling on his knees OOB.  Guess what????  It was a catch and a TD.

 

In my example it does qualify as your going to the ground point, but you see TD's all the time where the catch is in the end zone, and all they do is come down with 2 feet, no attempt to become a runner (as they just stand there after making the catch), in some cases no room to even become a runner, and it is still called a TD as long as they have maintained possession (whether they go to the ground or not).

[ColtsBlueFL]

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

I take it you didn't see the Vikings/GB game where Rodgers throws a TD to Jones right along the sideline of the end zone.  Jones only had time to get both feet down, certainly wasn't in a position to establish himself as a runner, before falling on his knees OOB.  Guess what????  It was a catch and a TD.

 

 

I'm sorry, I'm not wrong at all.  If he went to the ground and didn't lose possession, he gets the TD for maintaining possession all the way through the process.  In that case, you don't have to be established as a runner.  I read the rules, and the operations manual and understand them.  Here is the Point of Emphasis from the 2015 NFL operation manual-

 

• The language pertaining to a catch was clarified to provide a better understanding of the rule. In order to complete a catch, a receiver must clearly become a runner. He does that by gaining control of the ball, touching both feet down and then, after the second foot is down, having the ball long enough to clearly become a runner, which is defined as the ability to ward off or protect himself from impending contact. If, before becoming a runner, a receiver falls to the ground in an attempt to make a catch, he must maintain control of the ball after contacting the ground. If he loses control of the ball after contacting the ground and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. Reaching the ball out before becoming a runner will not trump the requirement to hold onto the ball when you land. When you are attempting to complete a catch, you must put the ball away or protect the ball so it does not come loose.

And here is the pertinent section  (Rule 8, Article 3) in the 2015 Rule book.

 

ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS

A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
2. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
3. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2).

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

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.

Item 2. Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

Item 3. End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in the field of play.

Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

Read through my posts and find the part that disagrees with the official NFL Rulebook or NFL Operations Manual.  I think many issues people are having with the catch ruling os they haven't read the recent changes in the rule nor understand how and when they apply.

[ColtsBlueFL]

In my example it does qualify as your going to the ground point, but you see TD's all the time where the catch is in the end zone, and all they do is come down with 2 feet, no attempt to become a runner (as they just stand there after making the catch), in some cases no room to even become a runner, and it is still called a TD as long as they have maintained possession (whether they go to the ground or not).

 

It's in the rules posted above.  If a guy stands there after making a catch, is he not in a position to have the ability to ward off or protect himself from any impending contact from an opponent?

 

Y / N

 

If Y, then this applies from end zone catches-

 

"...the ball is dead when the catch is completed."  Thus a TD.

 

Dean Blandino has mentioned several times in interviews that just having enough time after that catch to be capable of trying to avoid or ward off the opponent is enough.  The actual act itself doesn't have to come about, just the time frame that would allow it.

[ColtRider]

Going to the ground immediately is not considered "establishing yourself as a runner" (I don't see how it could be) but will still be considered a catch as long as 2 feet are in and you hold onto the ball through the ground. Andre clearly maintained possession through the ground.

 

I don't know what you're trying to prove, you're not saying anything I don't already know. The point is, what Andre did was enough for a TD. Period.

Okay. I took another several looks at this play this morning after the dozen or so last night. Every single move that AJ performed last night in the end zone satisfied myself & the rule book. I first thought this was a TD. Then, went to rule posted by ColtsBlueFL. I then summized that he "may not" have established himself as a runner. I looked at this play 16 times. Then, compared it to the all22 post by ColtsLegacy. I then realized that AJ did, in fact, established himself as a runner.

1. AJ catches the ball with one foot down, in bounds. All the while having the sideline ref watching him for control. No call there.

2. AJ has the ball after having one foot down, then the second foot comes down in bounds.

3. He has both feet down, in bounds, in control of the ball.

4. Thereby, establishing himself as a runner before going out of bounds and to the ground.

TD! Pagano should've challenged. This is what I saw after reviewing this on my own. The call on the field was no catch/TD. Irrefutable evidence to over rule was there, IMO. I really do not see how they could've called it any different.