The tuck rule, continuation rule, complete the process rule (1 Viewer)

[shnikies]

Was he bracing himself by using the football or using the football to get up? There is no way to know either way and anyone who thinks they know is BSing. The call could have gone either way. There's no way anyone can be correct unless the first question can be answered and it clearly can't be. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass and since that question can't be answered the ruling on the field stands. If it had been ruled a touchdown initially, I'm sure it would have been upheld also. It sucks but it's the truth.

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."It was ruled a TD initially.

That means a whole bunch of nothing. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass.

 

[Neofight]

Was he bracing himself by using the football or using the football to get up? There is no way to know either way and anyone who thinks they know is BSing. The call could have gone either way. There's no way anyone can be correct unless the first question can be answered and it clearly can't be. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass and since that question can't be answered the ruling on the field stands. If it had been ruled a touchdown initially, I'm sure it would have been upheld also. It sucks but it's the truth.

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."It was ruled a TD initially.

That means a whole bunch of nothing. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass.

You're the one that said if it was ruled a TD initially, it would have been upheld. Just pointing out that it was indeed ruled a TD, initially.Friendo.

 

[jomar]

I'm not sure why you guys continue to argue over the Calvin catch when we have no idea if it was a good call or not at this point. until the questions being asked are answered, how can we even know whether it was the correct call or not?

 

[jomar]

neo, I doubt you're going to get someone to address your point with the Collinsworth link. the people saying this was the correct call are only spouting what the league has told them and cannot deal in the specifics of the rule.

the fact is that none of them have any idea what the exact rule is and neither do we. the league was probably hoping nobody would question the good call/bad rule gibberish. once you start to question it, you realize that this 'going to the ground' rule leaves a whole lot of gray area that nobody knows the correct way to interpret. I'm not sure the fault in admitting you don't know but they sure do fight it or just ignore the questions altogether. I sure don't know the exact rule and when it applies and when it doesn't. I don't know what ends the process either. I wish I did.

 

[Neofight]

I'm not sure why you guys continue to argue over the Calvin catch when we have no idea if it was a good call or not at this point. until the questions being asked are answered, how can we even know whether it was the correct call or not?

Who's arguig? I'm quoting Coen Bros films. As for how possession has been interpreted in the past, look up. Pretty sure your boys got hosed. What's it like being a Lions fan?

 

[jomar]

You're the one that said if it was ruled a TD initially, it would have been upheld. Just pointing out that it was indeed ruled a TD, initially.Friendo.

as an aside, I happened to see the replay again last night on the NFL Network and I'd like to know why the referee watching Calvin lose possession of the ball still immediately signaled TD. did he not know the rule? if the players are expected to know them, you'd think the referees would. or did his eyes tell him that Calvin had possession and two feet down so it didn't matter that he lost the ball? maybe he thought his ###, knee and hand was down too. maybe he thought he lost it while getting up. we'll never know but it'd be a good question to ask that guy.

 

[jomar]

What's it like being a Lions fan?

it sucks. this isn't the first game we've gotten screwed at the end to cost us a victory. see TB and the Pollard catch.1 playoff win in my life, the only guy to ever die during an NFL game, Mike Utley gets paralyzed, Andoslek gets run over mowing his lawn (Utley/Andolsek messed up our very good young o-line right when we were starting to compete for SBs), Barry Sanders quits, 8 years of Millen, 0-16, Gallaraga's perfect game that got f'd. now this.

 

[shnikies]

Was he bracing himself by using the football or using the football to get up? There is no way to know either way and anyone who thinks they know is BSing. The call could have gone either way. There's no way anyone can be correct unless the first question can be answered and it clearly can't be. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass and since that question can't be answered the ruling on the field stands. If it had been ruled a touchdown initially, I'm sure it would have been upheld also. It sucks but it's the truth.

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."It was ruled a TD initially.

That means a whole bunch of nothing. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass.

You're the one that said if it was ruled a TD initially, it would have been upheld. Just pointing out that it was indeed ruled a TD, initially.Friendo.

The only point you're making is your fondness for stating Coen Brothers movie lines. The official call on the field was incomplete, that's all that matters, not what it was initially signaled. That has nothing to do with the review of the play.

 

[jomar]

The only point you're making is your fondness for stating Coen Brothers movie lines. The official call on the field was incomplete, that's all that matters, not what it was initially signaled. That has nothing to do with the review of the play.

the fact that you are arguing this point is stupid. who cares? if you think the play would've stood if they called it a TD on the field, I have news for you. remember what the league has told you, this call is black and white. while going to the ground in an attempt to make the catch, he lost possession of the ball before he completed the process. thats the call. what was called on the field doesn't matter.....whether he was using the ball to brace his fall or to help him up doesn't matter.....whether he set it down or lost control doesn't matter.....he didn't complete this mystical process. and the NFL has kept us in the dark about what exactly it takes to 'complete the process'

 

[Cassius]

How about two feet down in the end zone? In the field of play it has been interpreted as two feet down prior to contact. This was from a play in 2008, the video (see Collinsworth commentary @ about 3:35) of which I have previously linked to. If all you need to do is have two feet down in the field of play, prior to contact, to avoid the stipulations set forth in the "going to the ground" rule, it seems to follow that you would only need two feet down in the end zone if you fall from your own momentum. Especially given the clear language of 8.1.3 item 3: End Zone Catches.

I was hoping more people would look at the link and chime in, but it seems we are all so locked into our own view of things we are not budging. One side certainly seems to be asking the pertinent questions, however.

Similar to jon_mx, if you think this is true, you simply don't watch football that much. Catches that are "catches" before the player hits the ground are called incomplete all the time if the player loses possession of the ball when he hits the ground. Nobody bats an eye when this happens. If you don't know this, there's really no point in even being in this discussion.

 

[Neofight]

Was he bracing himself by using the football or using the football to get up? There is no way to know either way and anyone who thinks they know is BSing. The call could have gone either way. There's no way anyone can be correct unless the first question can be answered and it clearly can't be. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass and since that question can't be answered the ruling on the field stands. If it had been ruled a touchdown initially, I'm sure it would have been upheld also. It sucks but it's the truth.

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."It was ruled a TD initially.

That means a whole bunch of nothing. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass.

You're the one that said if it was ruled a TD initially, it would have been upheld. Just pointing out that it was indeed ruled a TD, initially.Friendo.

The only point you're making is your fondness for stating Coen Brothers movie lines. The official call on the field was incomplete, that's all that matters, not what it was initially signaled. That has nothing to do with the review of the play.

We've already gone over the fallacies accrued in this thread; you'll need to do better than this if you want to actually score a point in the fallacy free for all.

 

[DoubleG]

How about two feet down in the end zone? In the field of play it has been interpreted as two feet down prior to contact. This was from a play in 2008, the video (see Collinsworth commentary @ about 3:35) of which I have previously linked to. If all you need to do is have two feet down in the field of play, prior to contact, to avoid the stipulations set forth in the "going to the ground" rule, it seems to follow that you would only need two feet down in the end zone if you fall from your own momentum. Especially given the clear language of 8.1.3 item 3: End Zone Catches.

I was hoping more people would look at the link and chime in, but it seems we are all so locked into our own view of things we are not budging. One side certainly seems to be asking the pertinent questions, however.

Similar to jon_mx, if you think this is true, you simply don't watch football that much. Catches that are "catches" before the player hits the ground are called incomplete all the time if the player loses possession of the ball when he hits the ground. Nobody bats an eye when this happens. If you don't know this, there's really no point in even being in this discussion.

Please stop. Just let the thread die or let Neo and jomar agree with each other until their faces turn blue. It doesn't matter how many people weigh in with the facts or the rules or anything else. 10 pages isn't enough proof?

Just for the record, one of the officials signified TD - after discussing it, it was ruled incomplete. Therefore the "ruling on the field" was incomplete - not a TD as you keep insisting, but hey if you want to try to change that too, feel free. You two are hilarious. It's over - even the Lions owner's son received clatification and was satisfied (albiet not happy with the rule).

 

[Neofight]

How about two feet down in the end zone? In the field of play it has been interpreted as two feet down prior to contact. This was from a play in 2008, the video (see Collinsworth commentary @ about 3:35) of which I have previously linked to. If all you need to do is have two feet down in the field of play, prior to contact, to avoid the stipulations set forth in the "going to the ground" rule, it seems to follow that you would only need two feet down in the end zone if you fall from your own momentum. Especially given the clear language of 8.1.3 item 3: End Zone Catches.

I was hoping more people would look at the link and chime in, but it seems we are all so locked into our own view of things we are not budging. One side certainly seems to be asking the pertinent questions, however.

Similar to jon_mx, if you think this is true, you simply don't watch football that much. Catches that are "catches" before the player hits the ground are called incomplete all the time if the player loses possession of the ball when he hits the ground. Nobody bats an eye when this happens. If you don't know this, there's really no point in even being in this discussion.

Except that the rules, as stated and linked to, say otherwise. It really doesn't matter how much football one watches, because this play was unlike any of the others it has been compared to. Would you like to discuss the various ways how? That would be a conversation worth having. It's not one many here that think the call was a good one have wanted to engage in, but again, the rules are what they are and the facts are readily viewable in the videos liked.What you are endorsing, the one size fits all-black and white approach, is exactly the approach that lead to this controversy and is making many people (including just about the majority of the FFA) lament the fact that the NFL is putting out a consistently inferior product year after year. If this makes you happy, kudos.

 

[Neofight]

How about two feet down in the end zone? In the field of play it has been interpreted as two feet down prior to contact. This was from a play in 2008, the video (see Collinsworth commentary @ about 3:35) of which I have previously linked to. If all you need to do is have two feet down in the field of play, prior to contact, to avoid the stipulations set forth in the "going to the ground" rule, it seems to follow that you would only need two feet down in the end zone if you fall from your own momentum. Especially given the clear language of 8.1.3 item 3: End Zone Catches.

I was hoping more people would look at the link and chime in, but it seems we are all so locked into our own view of things we are not budging. One side certainly seems to be asking the pertinent questions, however.

Similar to jon_mx, if you think this is true, you simply don't watch football that much. Catches that are "catches" before the player hits the ground are called incomplete all the time if the player loses possession of the ball when he hits the ground. Nobody bats an eye when this happens. If you don't know this, there's really no point in even being in this discussion.

Please stop. Just let the thread die or let Neo and jomar agree with each other until their faces turn blue. It doesn't matter how many people weigh in with the facts or the rules or anything else. 10 pages isn't enough proof?

Just for the record, one of the officials signified TD - after discussing it, it was ruled incomplete. Therefore the "ruling on the field" was incomplete - not a TD as you keep insisting, but hey if you want to try to change that too, feel free. You two are hilarious. It's over - even the Lions owner's son received clatification and was satisfied (albiet not happy with the rule).

Wait a minute, you're not a Bears fan! Were is the circular logic? And he said it was initially ruled a TD. You can't overrule a call on the field without having the ruling by the official in the end zone. But who cares? We were just having fun. You Chicagoans won't even leave those poor Michiganders table scraps, will ya?Honest question for you Double G; what did you think of the Adrian Peterson catch/non-catch back in 2008?

 

[mad sweeney]

Yes,, it does. It's ridiculous, but it does say that since 5 body parts are all in fact body parts. If he's going down, everything going down has to touch first and he has to maintain possession. You have to forget what you know about what constitutes a catch for these circumstances because the rule circumvents that knowledge. Very dumb, but true.

Great, then quote me the f-ing rule and stop giving me a bunch of words that are made up. All the rule says is maintain control after you hit the ground. A lot of people are adding a lot of interpretation. Just show me in the rule which states all this crap. The complete rule is quoted in 382. Show me the words that back up all this. The rule just says "must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". It does not say anything about completing the fall. Once he hits the ground and maintains control, according to the rule, it is a catch. Butt hits the ground, still has control, the rule says it is a catch. If they meant to maintain control throughout the entire fall they should have clearly stated that. Maybe that is not how they instructed the refs on the rule, but the rule says what the rule says and it does not say what people are saying it says.

I never quoted the rule, I've simply pointed out how the NFL has called it and continued to call it after reviewing it in offseasons. You and neo and a few others can't get that through your heads. Even if the rule was made up of 32 non sequiter words that formed no coherent sentences whatsoever, if the NFL has said it interprets it this one particular way for the past upteenth seasons then that's what the rule means. It wasn't a secret or new rule, it's been around for awhile. I knew right away it would be ruled incomplete and if an armchair QB like me knows that's the way it's called then the millionaire pros on the field should know it.

 

[Neofight]

Yes,, it does. It's ridiculous, but it does say that since 5 body parts are all in fact body parts. If he's going down, everything going down has to touch first and he has to maintain possession. You have to forget what you know about what constitutes a catch for these circumstances because the rule circumvents that knowledge. Very dumb, but true.

Great, then quote me the f-ing rule and stop giving me a bunch of words that are made up. All the rule says is maintain control after you hit the ground. A lot of people are adding a lot of interpretation. Just show me in the rule which states all this crap. The complete rule is quoted in 382. Show me the words that back up all this. The rule just says "must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". It does not say anything about completing the fall. Once he hits the ground and maintains control, according to the rule, it is a catch. Butt hits the ground, still has control, the rule says it is a catch. If they meant to maintain control throughout the entire fall they should have clearly stated that. Maybe that is not how they instructed the refs on the rule, but the rule says what the rule says and it does not say what people are saying it says.

I never quoted the rule, I've simply pointed out how the NFL has called it and continued to call it after reviewing it in offseasons. You and neo and a few others can't get that through your heads. Even if the rule was made up of 32 non sequiter words that formed no coherent sentences whatsoever, if the NFL has said it interprets it this one particular way for the past upteenth seasons then that's what the rule means. It wasn't a secret or new rule, it's been around for awhile. I knew right away it would be ruled incomplete and if an armchair QB like me knows that's the way it's called then the millionaire pros on the field should know it.

The NFL has also said two feet down in the field of play and no "going to the ground" applies. Why didn't you know that?

 

[mad sweeney]

Was he bracing himself by using the football or using the football to get up? There is no way to know either way and anyone who thinks they know is BSing. The call could have gone either way. There's no way anyone can be correct unless the first question can be answered and it clearly can't be. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass and since that question can't be answered the ruling on the field stands. If it had been ruled a touchdown initially, I'm sure it would have been upheld also. It sucks but it's the truth.

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."It was ruled a TD initially.

That means a whole bunch of nothing. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass.

You're the one that said if it was ruled a TD initially, it would have been upheld. Just pointing out that it was indeed ruled a TD, initially.Friendo.

Your capacity for wrong is astounding. One ref signaled TD at first, however he was overruled and the official ruling once the refs discussed it was incomplete.

 

[Cassius]

How about two feet down in the end zone? In the field of play it has been interpreted as two feet down prior to contact. This was from a play in 2008, the video (see Collinsworth commentary @ about 3:35) of which I have previously linked to. If all you need to do is have two feet down in the field of play, prior to contact, to avoid the stipulations set forth in the "going to the ground" rule, it seems to follow that you would only need two feet down in the end zone if you fall from your own momentum. Especially given the clear language of 8.1.3 item 3: End Zone Catches.

I was hoping more people would look at the link and chime in, but it seems we are all so locked into our own view of things we are not budging. One side certainly seems to be asking the pertinent questions, however.

Similar to jon_mx, if you think this is true, you simply don't watch football that much. Catches that are "catches" before the player hits the ground are called incomplete all the time if the player loses possession of the ball when he hits the ground. Nobody bats an eye when this happens. If you don't know this, there's really no point in even being in this discussion.

Except that the rules, as stated and linked to, say otherwise. It really doesn't matter how much football one watches, because this play was unlike any of the others it has been compared to. Would you like to discuss the various ways how? That would be a conversation worth having. It's not one many here that think the call was a good one have wanted to engage in, but again, the rules are what they are and the facts are readily viewable in the videos liked.What you are endorsing, the one size fits all-black and white approach, is exactly the approach that lead to this controversy and is making many people (including just about the majority of the FFA) lament the fact that the NFL is putting out a consistently inferior product year after year. If this makes you happy, kudos.

Okay, so you just started watching football then, at least this all makes sense now.

 

[mad sweeney]

You're the one that said if it was ruled a TD initially, it would have been upheld. Just pointing out that it was indeed ruled a TD, initially.Friendo.

as an aside, I happened to see the replay again last night on the NFL Network and I'd like to know why the referee watching Calvin lose possession of the ball still immediately signaled TD. did he not know the rule? if the players are expected to know them, you'd think the referees would. or did his eyes tell him that Calvin had possession and two feet down so it didn't matter that he lost the ball? maybe he thought his ###, knee and hand was down too. maybe he thought he lost it while getting up. we'll never know but it'd be a good question to ask that guy.

A lot of initial signals are wrong from refs nearer or farther from plays. Watch football some weekend, you'll see it repeatedly in every game (it just happened in the Aub/Cle game as I typed). You can ask that guy any question you want, the fact remains that CJ didn't make the catch as per the rule they've gone over and over and reviewed every year. Now here's where you will go off on "you're just repeating nonsense words without thinking and parroting the NFL lines" except that the NFL lines are the ones that matter because they make and enforce the rules and what they say goes. This rule has been called like this for a long time, therefore their lingo, catchwords, interpretations and viewpoint on it are the only thing that matters. What's got you guys so hung up is that it defies football logic that control + body parts doesn't automatically equal a catch like it should, but that's the rules, everyone in the league is taught it and how it's enforced. The fact that you guys all think you know more than the combined knowledge base of the writers, interpreters, enforcers, reviewers (and any other -ers) involved is utterly absurd. What's worse is you guys thinking you're "asking the pertinent questions" when you're just digging a deeper hole of silly around yourselves.

 

[mad sweeney]

How about two feet down in the end zone? In the field of play it has been interpreted as two feet down prior to contact. This was from a play in 2008, the video (see Collinsworth commentary @ about 3:35) of which I have previously linked to. If all you need to do is have two feet down in the field of play, prior to contact, to avoid the stipulations set forth in the "going to the ground" rule, it seems to follow that you would only need two feet down in the end zone if you fall from your own momentum. Especially given the clear language of 8.1.3 item 3: End Zone Catches.

I was hoping more people would look at the link and chime in, but it seems we are all so locked into our own view of things we are not budging. One side certainly seems to be asking the pertinent questions, however.

Similar to jon_mx, if you think this is true, you simply don't watch football that much. Catches that are "catches" before the player hits the ground are called incomplete all the time if the player loses possession of the ball when he hits the ground. Nobody bats an eye when this happens. If you don't know this, there's really no point in even being in this discussion.

Except that the rules, as stated and linked to, say otherwise. It really doesn't matter how much football one watches, because this play was unlike any of the others it has been compared to. Would you like to discuss the various ways how? That would be a conversation worth having. It's not one many here that think the call was a good one have wanted to engage in, but again, the rules are what they are and the facts are readily viewable in the videos liked.What you are endorsing, the one size fits all-black and white approach, is exactly the approach that lead to this controversy and is making many people (including just about the majority of the FFA) lament the fact that the NFL is putting out a consistently inferior product year after year. If this makes you happy, kudos.

You keep thinking this play was unique. It happens all the time, you're just being utterly obtuse to that fact.

 

[mad sweeney]

Yes,, it does. It's ridiculous, but it does say that since 5 body parts are all in fact body parts. If he's going down, everything going down has to touch first and he has to maintain possession. You have to forget what you know about what constitutes a catch for these circumstances because the rule circumvents that knowledge. Very dumb, but true.

Great, then quote me the f-ing rule and stop giving me a bunch of words that are made up. All the rule says is maintain control after you hit the ground. A lot of people are adding a lot of interpretation. Just show me in the rule which states all this crap. The complete rule is quoted in 382. Show me the words that back up all this. The rule just says "must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". It does not say anything about completing the fall. Once he hits the ground and maintains control, according to the rule, it is a catch. Butt hits the ground, still has control, the rule says it is a catch. If they meant to maintain control throughout the entire fall they should have clearly stated that. Maybe that is not how they instructed the refs on the rule, but the rule says what the rule says and it does not say what people are saying it says.

I never quoted the rule, I've simply pointed out how the NFL has called it and continued to call it after reviewing it in offseasons. You and neo and a few others can't get that through your heads. Even if the rule was made up of 32 non sequiter words that formed no coherent sentences whatsoever, if the NFL has said it interprets it this one particular way for the past upteenth seasons then that's what the rule means. It wasn't a secret or new rule, it's been around for awhile. I knew right away it would be ruled incomplete and if an armchair QB like me knows that's the way it's called then the millionaire pros on the field should know it.

The NFL has also said two feet down in the field of play and no "going to the ground" applies. Why didn't you know that?

I have no idea what you're really saying here. Are you pointing out that there is a difference in ruling a catch between being in the field of play and being in the end zone?

 

[jomar]

The fact that you guys all think you know more than the combined knowledge base of the writers, interpreters, enforcers, reviewers (and any other -ers) involved is utterly absurd. What's worse is you guys thinking you're "asking the pertinent questions" when you're just digging a deeper hole of silly around yourselves.

how can I think I know more than all of these people when I freely admit that I do not know the rules surrounding this rule? the same questions I have been asking for pages and pages...what is silly about these questions:1. what can a wr do before he goes to the ground that would make what happens after he hits the ground irrelevant? ie, how many steps does he have to take before going to the ground that a referee would rule he wasn't going to the ground while making the catch?it seems to me that this would be a basic rule and the league would let us all know. they haven't and we don't know. the fact that I would like to know doesn't dig me a deeper hole. 2. how long after hitting the ground can a wr let go of the ball? does he have to stop moving? get up? many examples of wrs in the end zone going to the ground to make a catch then dropping the ball and having it ruled complete. why?if you know as much as the media, league, etc., just please answer the questions so that I can know a TD catch this weekend without having to just trust the officials judgement. there will be another play like this eventually and then we'll be right back here wondering what the rules are. I'm sure the league would rather keep us in the dark and just tell us 'correct call', but how can we know what the correct call is when we don't know the rules?

 

[shnikies]

The only point you're making is your fondness for stating Coen Brothers movie lines. The official call on the field was incomplete, that's all that matters, not what it was initially signaled. That has nothing to do with the review of the play.

the fact that you are arguing this point is stupid. who cares? if you think the play would've stood if they called it a TD on the field, I have news for you. remember what the league has told you, this call is black and white. while going to the ground in an attempt to make the catch, he lost possession of the ball before he completed the process. thats the call. what was called on the field doesn't matter.....whether he was using the ball to brace his fall or to help him up doesn't matter.....whether he set it down or lost control doesn't matter.....he didn't complete this mystical process. and the NFL has kept us in the dark about what exactly it takes to 'complete the process'

Really? Holy &^$#, please tell me you're joking. You think the league is going to say, "if it was originally ruled a touchdown on the field then it would have been upheld?" Please tell me your joking so I can have a little more faith in the intelligence in this world.

 

[SWC]

I think a rule should be made that if someone was thrown into a WR while they are in the air making a game winning TD like Megatron did that there should not be a penalty for the team that threw the player to interrupt the catch, but I currently understand that throwing a player is illegal and not allowed.

 

[Neofight]

Was he bracing himself by using the football or using the football to get up? There is no way to know either way and anyone who thinks they know is BSing. The call could have gone either way. There's no way anyone can be correct unless the first question can be answered and it clearly can't be. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass and since that question can't be answered the ruling on the field stands. If it had been ruled a touchdown initially, I'm sure it would have been upheld also. It sucks but it's the truth.

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."It was ruled a TD initially.

That means a whole bunch of nothing. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass.

You're the one that said if it was ruled a TD initially, it would have been upheld. Just pointing out that it was indeed ruled a TD, initially.Friendo.

Your capacity for wrong is astounding. One ref signaled TD at first, however he was overruled and the official ruling once the refs discussed it was incomplete.

How can he be overruled if it wasn't ruled TD initially, mad? You've defeated your own argument whilst making it. Congrats! Use your winnings to go buy a dictionary.

 

[Neofight]

How about two feet down in the end zone? In the field of play it has been interpreted as two feet down prior to contact. This was from a play in 2008, the video (see Collinsworth commentary @ about 3:35) of which I have previously linked to. If all you need to do is have two feet down in the field of play, prior to contact, to avoid the stipulations set forth in the "going to the ground" rule, it seems to follow that you would only need two feet down in the end zone if you fall from your own momentum. Especially given the clear language of 8.1.3 item 3: End Zone Catches.

I was hoping more people would look at the link and chime in, but it seems we are all so locked into our own view of things we are not budging. One side certainly seems to be asking the pertinent questions, however.

Similar to jon_mx, if you think this is true, you simply don't watch football that much. Catches that are "catches" before the player hits the ground are called incomplete all the time if the player loses possession of the ball when he hits the ground. Nobody bats an eye when this happens. If you don't know this, there's really no point in even being in this discussion.

Except that the rules, as stated and linked to, say otherwise. It really doesn't matter how much football one watches, because this play was unlike any of the others it has been compared to. Would you like to discuss the various ways how? That would be a conversation worth having. It's not one many here that think the call was a good one have wanted to engage in, but again, the rules are what they are and the facts are readily viewable in the videos liked.What you are endorsing, the one size fits all-black and white approach, is exactly the approach that lead to this controversy and is making many people (including just about the majority of the FFA) lament the fact that the NFL is putting out a consistently inferior product year after year. If this makes you happy, kudos.

You keep thinking this play was unique. It happens all the time, you're just being utterly obtuse to that fact.

mad, you truly are a charmer; one that fails to offer evidence, but a charmer. Would you like to attempt to understand how this play is different than the plays listed, starting with the Bears play in '08 (where the ruling was he didn't quite get two feet down, hence the rule could be applied)?

 

[Neofight]

How about two feet down in the end zone? In the field of play it has been interpreted as two feet down prior to contact. This was from a play in 2008, the video (see Collinsworth commentary @ about 3:35) of which I have previously linked to. If all you need to do is have two feet down in the field of play, prior to contact, to avoid the stipulations set forth in the "going to the ground" rule, it seems to follow that you would only need two feet down in the end zone if you fall from your own momentum. Especially given the clear language of 8.1.3 item 3: End Zone Catches.

I was hoping more people would look at the link and chime in, but it seems we are all so locked into our own view of things we are not budging. One side certainly seems to be asking the pertinent questions, however.

Similar to jon_mx, if you think this is true, you simply don't watch football that much. Catches that are "catches" before the player hits the ground are called incomplete all the time if the player loses possession of the ball when he hits the ground. Nobody bats an eye when this happens. If you don't know this, there's really no point in even being in this discussion.

Except that the rules, as stated and linked to, say otherwise. It really doesn't matter how much football one watches, because this play was unlike any of the others it has been compared to. Would you like to discuss the various ways how? That would be a conversation worth having. It's not one many here that think the call was a good one have wanted to engage in, but again, the rules are what they are and the facts are readily viewable in the videos liked.What you are endorsing, the one size fits all-black and white approach, is exactly the approach that lead to this controversy and is making many people (including just about the majority of the FFA) lament the fact that the NFL is putting out a consistently inferior product year after year. If this makes you happy, kudos.

Okay, so you just started watching football then, at least this all makes sense now.

Do you know what an ad hominem is? It's an argument that basically means, you've got nothing. And it's all you've used in this thread addressing my points. Why not argue the facts, since for all you know I could have been a walk-on at a Pac 10 school in the early 90's at WR. Yes, I hope you take that bait.

 

[Neofight]

The only point you're making is your fondness for stating Coen Brothers movie lines. The official call on the field was incomplete, that's all that matters, not what it was initially signaled. That has nothing to do with the review of the play.

the fact that you are arguing this point is stupid. who cares? if you think the play would've stood if they called it a TD on the field, I have news for you. remember what the league has told you, this call is black and white. while going to the ground in an attempt to make the catch, he lost possession of the ball before he completed the process. thats the call. what was called on the field doesn't matter.....whether he was using the ball to brace his fall or to help him up doesn't matter.....whether he set it down or lost control doesn't matter.....he didn't complete this mystical process. and the NFL has kept us in the dark about what exactly it takes to 'complete the process'

Really? Holy &^$#, please tell me you're joking. You think the league is going to say, "if it was originally ruled a touchdown on the field then it would have been upheld?" Please tell me your joking so I can have a little more faith in the intelligence in this world.

I thought you were the one that said that?

 

[Neofight]

Yes,, it does. It's ridiculous, but it does say that since 5 body parts are all in fact body parts. If he's going down, everything going down has to touch first and he has to maintain possession. You have to forget what you know about what constitutes a catch for these circumstances because the rule circumvents that knowledge. Very dumb, but true.

Great, then quote me the f-ing rule and stop giving me a bunch of words that are made up. All the rule says is maintain control after you hit the ground. A lot of people are adding a lot of interpretation. Just show me in the rule which states all this crap. The complete rule is quoted in 382. Show me the words that back up all this. The rule just says "must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". It does not say anything about completing the fall. Once he hits the ground and maintains control, according to the rule, it is a catch. Butt hits the ground, still has control, the rule says it is a catch. If they meant to maintain control throughout the entire fall they should have clearly stated that. Maybe that is not how they instructed the refs on the rule, but the rule says what the rule says and it does not say what people are saying it says.

I never quoted the rule, I've simply pointed out how the NFL has called it and continued to call it after reviewing it in offseasons. You and neo and a few others can't get that through your heads. Even if the rule was made up of 32 non sequiter words that formed no coherent sentences whatsoever, if the NFL has said it interprets it this one particular way for the past upteenth seasons then that's what the rule means. It wasn't a secret or new rule, it's been around for awhile. I knew right away it would be ruled incomplete and if an armchair QB like me knows that's the way it's called then the millionaire pros on the field should know it.

The NFL has also said two feet down in the field of play and no "going to the ground" applies. Why didn't you know that?

I have no idea what you're really saying here. Are you pointing out that there is a difference in ruling a catch between being in the field of play and being in the end zone?

Of course you don't. But you still know everything right? Why don't you look into it. It's pretty simple to understand, and there is even a rule as it pertains to the end zone that is actually written down, for all to see.davearm has said the "going to the ground" rule supersedes the rule mentioned, but has yet to show us where or how he learned this. It has actually been ruled the other way, i.e., two feet shows possession and therefore if a player is hit, then goes to the ground after establishing possession with two feet on the ground, he is not going to the ground. How does this not apply in the end zone? When you are not even touched. And there is a rule which clearly states two feet down in the end zone is a TD.

Ponder this, my friend. Let it marinate.

 

[shnikies]

The only point you're making is your fondness for stating Coen Brothers movie lines. The official call on the field was incomplete, that's all that matters, not what it was initially signaled. That has nothing to do with the review of the play.

the fact that you are arguing this point is stupid. who cares? if you think the play would've stood if they called it a TD on the field, I have news for you. remember what the league has told you, this call is black and white. while going to the ground in an attempt to make the catch, he lost possession of the ball before he completed the process. thats the call. what was called on the field doesn't matter.....whether he was using the ball to brace his fall or to help him up doesn't matter.....whether he set it down or lost control doesn't matter.....he didn't complete this mystical process. and the NFL has kept us in the dark about what exactly it takes to 'complete the process'

Really? Holy &^$#, please tell me you're joking. You think the league is going to say, "if it was originally ruled a touchdown on the field then it would have been upheld?" Please tell me your joking so I can have a little more faith in the intelligence in this world.

I thought you were the one that said that?

Wow, your lack of reading comprehension is truly abysmal. I'm guessing your joking though.

 

[Neofight]

the fact that you are arguing this point is stupid. who cares? if you think the play would've stood if they called it a TD on the field, I have news for you. remember what the league has told you, this call is black and white. while going to the ground in an attempt to make the catch, he lost possession of the ball before he completed the process. thats the call.

what was called on the field doesn't matter.....whether he was using the ball to brace his fall or to help him up doesn't matter.....whether he set it down or lost control doesn't matter.....he didn't complete this mystical process. and the NFL has kept us in the dark about what exactly it takes to 'complete the process'

Really? Holy &^$#, please tell me you're joking. You think the league is going to say, "if it was originally ruled a touchdown on the field then it would have been upheld?" Please tell me your joking so I can have a little more faith in the intelligence in this world.

I thought you were the one that said that?

Wow, your lack of reading comprehension is truly abysmal. I'm guessing your joking though.

What were you trying to say here?

If it had been ruled a touchdown initially, I'm sure it would have been upheld also. It sucks but it's the truth.

 

[Da Guru]

Looks likes Calvins catch is going to get the rule changed.

CHICAGO -- Calvin Johnson's no-catch just might become a catch in the future.

The NFL expects to review the rule that cost the Lions' star receiver a potential winning touchdown in a season-opening loss to Chicago. After Johnson went to the turf with possession, he placed the ball on the ground as he ran to celebrate. It's been one of the season's most discussed -- and dissed -- calls.

"The going-to-the-ground rule definitely will be discussed," NFL competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay said Tuesday at the league's fall meetings. "It's been discussed the last couple of years. It's a difficult rule. It was made for on-field officials, not as much for people watching on TV."

"There's a definite conflict," he added. "We have to go back and look if we extended it too far."

Against Chicago, with Detroit trailing 19-14, Johnson leaped to grab a pass from Shaun Hill in the end zone. He got both feet and a knee on the ground before putting the ball on the grass and beginning to celebrate. It was ruled incomplete because Johnson didn't maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch.

 

[Neofight]

"There's a definite conflict," he added. "We have to go back and look if we extended it too far."

Translation: the interpretation was bogus and we blew the call. One size fits all doesn't work in the NFL.

 

[DoubleG]

"There's a definite conflict," he added. "We have to go back and look if we extended it too far."

Translation: the interpretation was bogus and we blew the call. One size fits all doesn't work in the NFL.

You just wont let it go, will you?The translation could also be exactly what he said. That it's a difficult rule as written and they may change it. The Lions finally won a game. wOOt! Just let it go already.

 

[Neofight]

"There's a definite conflict," he added. "We have to go back and look if we extended it too far."

Translation: the interpretation was bogus and we blew the call. One size fits all doesn't work in the NFL.

You just wont let it go, will you?The translation could also be exactly what he said. That it's a difficult rule as written and they may change it.

The Lions finally won a game. wOOt! Just let it go already.

I'll give you the last word on this, seeing as you seem to have a bit of a guilt complex over the call and assume everyone that realizes the call was blown is a Lions fan (I am not). What does conflict mean to you? Do you think he was referring to the rules conflicting, or that the Lions are conflicted over the rules, or some other esoteric meaning? Perhaps the Bears fans are conflicted over the W (fear not, Ditka lovers, they will make changes to the rulebook, not the records of the teams)?

What was extended too far? The rules are written and available for anyone to look at. Was it the interpretation that he is talking about? How would one extend a rule too far without embellishing it or just plain screwing it up?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I agree with the OP.

Tuck rule, continuation, complete the process - should all be gone.

They should also use common sense with roughing the passer. a finger to the helmet isnt roughing.

 

[DoubleG]

"There's a definite conflict," he added. "We have to go back and look if we extended it too far."

Translation: the interpretation was bogus and we blew the call. One size fits all doesn't work in the NFL.

You just wont let it go, will you?The translation could also be exactly what he said. That it's a difficult rule as written and they may change it.

The Lions finally won a game. wOOt! Just let it go already.

I'll give you the last word on this, seeing as you seem to have a bit of a guilt complex over the call and assume everyone that realizes the call was blown is a Lions fan (I am not). What does conflict mean to you? Do you think he was referring to the rules conflicting, or that the Lions are conflicted over the rules, or some other esoteric meaning? Perhaps the Bears fans are conflicted over the W (fear not, Ditka lovers, they will make changes to the rulebook, not the records of the teams)?

What was extended too far? The rules are written and available for anyone to look at. Was it the interpretation that he is talking about? How would one extend a rule too far without embellishing it or just plain screwing it up?

No you won't. Everyone on the planet (or at least those that have been in the SP long enough) know that you will only give me the last word until I post a response that you disagree with. But why not...First off, as I am not the one who made th comments, nor do we have access to the full interview, we are guessing at what he meant in regards to the two statements you question (and decided to read your own bias into). Since he clearly stated that "It's a difficult rule. It was made for on-field officials, not as much for people watching on TV." - I figured that would be a better place to start rather than any made-up-out-of-thin air interpretation that we might apply, as those could include nonobjective baggage.

So in regards to the "conflict" - I believe he is referring to his final statement (i.e. "It was made for on-field officials, not as much for people watching on TV") - which seems to indicate, that is more of an on-the-spot judgement call - not one that is easily judged black and white on replay.

In terms of "extended it too far", I'm not sure why you seem so confused. When read in context (instead of pulling it out to make a point), it's fairly obvious that he is simply referring to the rule itself.

If you just read the full text of what he said, I really don't understand how you can't understand what he meant.

"The going-to-the-ground rule definitely will be discussed. It's been discussed the last couple of years. It's a difficult rule. It was made for on-field officials, not as much for people watching on TV. There's a definite conflict," he added. "We have to go back and look if we extended it too far."

But lest I force you to break your word in regards to letting me have the final say, I will live with my ignorance of why can't seem to grasp what he said. There is no need to clarify.