Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Either trolling or more familiar with the rule.
I left room in there for the other option, I just didn't name it.
This much is obvious. It is not as though he was diving for the ball, laying out lengthwise and grasping it with one or both hands. He came down with it in both hands in the middle of the endzone, turned to brace his fall with his left hand while clearly possessing the football, slides on his ### for a good few yards and then pushed off the ground with his left hand (out of bounds) and leg. According to a post by Snogger on the first page there may be some distinction about his hand placing him out of bounds from his own momentum. Whether or not this is true, there is no way you can be deemed to be going to the ground when you are a full 5 yards from where you first grabbed the ball and put your feet down and two yards from where your ### first left an impact on the end zone. If the spirit of the rule meant that by going to the ground one has turned, braced, slid and then gone out of bounds prior to moving in an upward direction then yes, clearly this was not a catch.
Might as well give it up. Every ref, head of ref's, Goodell, the coach, etc could say it is the correct interpretation of the rule...but they will argue and say you're just trolling. Simple matter is it is the correct interpretation of the rule. The rule needs to be further tweaked because it should have been a catch. Unfortunately by the rule, it wasn't.
Not according to the rule book.
The spirit of the rule is that you have to have possession of the ball when you're done falling to the ground.Some things that don't matter:
I can't argue with this. If you are under the impression that he still has more "going to the ground" to do after his A** is on the ground...okay. All I can say is that physics wouldn't agree.
His right hand was clearly going to the ground; the rest of his body had contacted the ground for 2 or more yards. What if he had spiked the ball from his knees? Would this have negated the TD? How about if he slid all the way out of the end zone and hit the padded wall and lost the ball only then?It is nearly impossible to prove intent, but it sure looked like he was willfully slamming the ball to the turf in a manner that was indicative of a completed process. Any conceived of football move was well completed by the time that his right hand was the only part of his body moving in a downward direction. Do you believe this was the intent of the sections of rules brought up?
I think he's saying that the rule is bad, which shows a grasp of it.
So one could not spike it from a prone position then? You catch the game winning TD and slam it over your shoulder prior to getting up; this should be ruled an incompletion? If sliding 5 feet on your backside isn't "done falling to the ground" I can't see how laying on your back could be deemed as much.
I'll say again, I think his downward momentum was such that his right hand, holding the ball, would have contacted the ground even if he wasn't in a hurry to get back up. It looked to me like a part of the process of going to the ground, not a part of a process of getting up, celebrating, spiking the ball, or anything else.
None of these conclusions follow from what I've said.
You didn't answer my question. If it's not when the bolded happens, then is it one, two or three seconds thereafter?
I see, it's when the player STOPS. So if a player immediately shoots up off the ground, goes to dunk it at the goal post and Tony Gonzalez dejects it out of his hands 7 seconds later, it's not a touchdown? By your definition that's the case because he still hasn't stopped.
His ### can be on the ground while his arm's momentum is still carrying it and the ball downward.
Spiking it from his knees would be a clear and definite "second move" (for lack of a better term). Seemingly, by his quote after the game, that spiking it may have actually been his intent but in this case it wasn't clear enough from his body's motion in "going to the ground" (which isn't a literal legal term and may include a long slide depending on the situation). He also "lost" possession almost instantaneously after it hit the ground without any clear "second move" to indicate a celebration type move. It sucks, it happens every year and it needs to be changed, but it was absolutely, by (stupid) rule, an incompletion and if CJ didn't know that rule and did it on purpose then it was his mental error that lost the game for the Lions.
Stops going to the ground is what we're talking about here.
Maybe I worded it wrong and you jumped all over it. He was still in the process of making the catch and didn't maintain possession thru to the end of his fall. It's not my rule man, but it was the right call by definition in the rulebook.
I agree completely with #3 and #3.
Obviously it is a judgement call by the ref. Don't leave it open to interpretation and there is no issue. This thread shows that it wasn't clear one way or the other. To some it looks like he released it intentionally. To some it looks like contact with the ground caused him to lose possession before the catch was complete, at least according to the rules. I bet in the future he holds on to it for at least three seconds.
What you said was "done falling to the ground." What is that? I had one conclusion, the rest were merely questions. My conclusion is that when you land on your feet with the ball in your hands, you pivot to brace your fall with one hand, you slide on your tuckus for a few yards and then pivot again as you race out of the endzone by placing your other hand on the ground (only in a much more demonstrative manner than that) that somewhere therein lies a point when you are "done falling to the ground." Where is that? It would seem to me that "done falling" is prior to a movement in an upward direction. But like you said reasonable minds can disagree
Thanks, FixedI agree completely with #3 and #3.
In your honest opinion, when did he start moving away from the ground?
The problem is that the hand holding the ball did not start in an upward direction until almost exactly the same moment as when the ball hit the ground. What his feet, tookus or rest of his body was doing don't matter if the ball is still moving to the ground.
Now THIS we agree with. Whether it was a good call or a poor call; what a boneheaded play by Calvin regardless. You have the game winning ball in your hands. Stay there on the ground holding it! I don't care if you're still laying there when a 16 year old comes by with a carpet broom and says, "Mr. Johnson, I'm sorry. I need to get that popcorn under you". You don't just carelessly roll and leave it open to interpretation like that. Which really makes me question Calvin's mental game. He seems to find a way to botch the clutch moments. At least, early in his career he has.
Look if you and I were to sit down and analyze the play frame by frame in super mega hyper slo-mo, we probably wouldn't agree on exactly which frame is the one where the act of going to the ground ends, and getting back up/celebrating/whatever begins.To me, it looks like his momentum was enough that the ball in his right hand was going to touch the ground regardless of what his intentions were, or what he was trying to do. Therefore the "act of going to the ground" necessarily includes that action, and thus possession must be maintained beyond that action.
Who cares what his hand was doing when he was done falling? His right hand didn't brace his fall, his left hand did. Is the argument then that the ball must be done falling and not the player? Like I had asked previously: what if he was sliding on his knees after a catch, Danny Zuko style, and decided to spike it right in Vince Fontaine's mug? Is that not a touchdown? Clearly his arm was falling.
It wasn't possible for him to simply slide out of bounds on his ###? Why assume his right hand was going to do anything unless he was pivoting to get up off his keister and run out of the back of the endzone?You don't need mega hyper slo-mo to see that momentum was not what caused him to pivot from his ample posterior. Or even just hyper slo-mo.
Let me ask it another way: when you fall, how do you get up?
After I'm positive, without any doubt in anyone's mind that I am down with a GW TD in my hands (plural).I've answered your spiking question but you seem not to have seen it. Spiking it is a clear and definite additional move that easily signifies that the receiver has stopped going to the ground.
Rarely, if ever, by leaning on a football.
Well, it was a better response than this.But you didn't really answer the question, did you? And how can a receiver whose momentum is still carrying him forward have clearly "stopped going to the ground"? In the case of Danny Zuko, he is still moving while not making an effort to get up. Calvin had pivoted and was using his right hand to do something just prior to running out of the end zone. Either it was A) spiking the ball (less likely, though there did seem to be some intent there), B) getting up or C) falling. These last two options appear to be at odds.
But you're not a football player, I assume. Imagine you were.
It was a silly question so I gave you a silly answer.
OK. Why so? The contention is he was still falling ("stops going to the ground"). You moved the goalposts a bit by framing it as the ball moving in a downward direction (or not in an upward direction). I don't think this is per the rule book, but correct me if I am wrong. Still, how would you expect one to get up after they caught the ball with one hand (or two hands then braced their fall with one)? The fact that Calvin got up quickly shouldn't really factor in here, but I'm thinking this is where the confusion lies.
Yes I did answer, but I wasn't specific. You need to make it clear that your action of getting up is separate from your action in going to ground. In this case, his momentum was still going downwards, his arcing arm was still moving downward and if he can hold onto the ball with one hand for his fall then he can easily stand up using the ball to push himself up and keep hold of the ball. What you're not getting, and it's reasonable not to get because the rule is stupid, is that going to ground covers the entire action of going down and "sticking" the landing. That means holding onto it until all your body parts are done moving downwards and you're holding the ball clearly in a down position. Logic would dictate that catching it and getting two feet done should be enough, but this rule defies logic. The last two options in your abc options up above aren't at odds when you do things too fast to determine, definitively, that the actions are separate. He didn't and the signs point to the fact that he didn't because he didn't know the rules and that's unacceptable.What makes you think I assume a catch needs to be made with two hands? I din't say that and don't think that. What I do KNOW however, is that if he kept both hands on the ball during his fall you'd be celebrating your first road game in what, 3 years?
Listen to any analyst that has been talking about it all day, the call was correct according to the rules as written.
You are proving my point about the fact that the confusion really lies in the speed and manner in which Johnson was getting up. Going down and getting up are two distinct actions, but you claim the line is blurred by the fact that he did them "too fast". Well, that is what slow motion instant replay is for; that is a judgement call the refs made and not in the rule itself. That is unacceptable. As well, no one has backed up a few really basic assumptions about what he did and why. Would you, assuming you had the skills and the speed of Calvin Johnson, have used your right hand to propel yourself up from the ground? Of course you wouldn't, because you know the rules. Only the rule doesn't say anything about using the ball to push yourself up from the ground, nor does it say anything about the downward movement of the ball as per j3r3m3y's take. So what it boils down to is that Calvin got up too fast, and in doing so let go of the ball before the refs interpretation of the rule deemed was sufficient. Only the rule doesn't mention anything about duration or how soon a player can move away from the ground.
OK. Only not all of them are saying that, and even if they all were what does that mean to you?
Mentioning it and assuming I assume you need two hands are completely different things. But like I said, if he held onto the ball with two hands, Lions win. Slo mo instant replay is still going to show that pretty much the instant the ball, in his downwards swinging arm, touched the ground, he loses possession of it whether on purpose or by accident. If it was on purpose, then he's an idiot for not knowing the rules and not doing everything he can to assure it's ruled a TD. If it was an accident, he should've wrapped the ball tight in both hands and fallen to the ground, sacrfice the body as he's paid millions to do, and ensure the win.
OK, there are a couple that don't understand that the rule is flawed, not the call. There are even some in this thread that think this.
That's a long way to go to say there is no difference between falling down and getting up. Had he fallen down on his tush with the ball in both hands, counted to ten and then turned and put the ball on the ground (inadvertently or by design) as he got up you are saying that it should have been ruled an incompletion, simply because his arm moved in a downward motion as he got up. That's basically what he did, only at a faster speed. The rule is fine, but the interpretation is clouded by (the speed of) this particular set of circumstances. It seems likely that when it was written they didn't even have this type of scenario in mind. And since you can't anticipate every scenario beforehand, there has to be some measure of subjective reasoning. Here it simply failed.Slow motion doesn't change the fact that his movement was getting up off the ground, it merely allows you to see it more clearly. Perhaps they should give the refs training in kinesiology, because slow motion ain't cutting it.
This reasoning beats fallacies. Marginally so.
So you are right and those who write, interpret and apply these rules are wrong?
I know what getting up looks like. If the rule is a matter of done moving downward, then clearly it was a misinterpretation of the rule. I'll wait to hear Pereira follow up on this later in the week (and I was not able to hear him live), but he has admitted fault before. It wouldn't surprise me if they make a clarification here. If a guy is going to the ground and does not complete a catch when he hits the ground - completing his fall without controlling the ball - that is one thing. That is not what happened today. Getting up fast or using your arm in a downward motion to do so should not be confused with the act of going to the ground. Nowhere have I seen this described in the rules put forward as part of the "process". Nor have I seen a mention of the balls downward (or upward) motion, as you mentioned.Take mad sweeney's statement, for example, that had he used two hands to go to the ground with the ball that we wouldn't be having this debate. Well, why not? Say he falls on his bum with both hands on the ball, turns (obviously more slowly due to having both hands on the ball) and puts it down as he pivots to get up. Say he just leaves it there nicely for the ref to pick up. Is that a TD? How is it different other than the amount of time taken and one hand vs. two? If this is about falling vs. getting up it seems like study of human movement might help a bit. The mechanics are pretty clear even if the rule isn't.
