Game Thread W1 - Detroit V Chicago (1 Viewer)

[Clifton]

Pretty sure the second butt spin would signify the end of his initial football move.

 

[McJose]

But you're a Bear fan. If this had happened to Devin Hester in the same fashion, you would be arguing the other way.

Waiting for that one. In fact I kinda wish the catch would have counted since I want this whole regime out of there.

Hester wouldn't have made that catch in the first place probably.

 

[UlyssesNorris]

How long is it before the rest of his body hits the ground?

That is irrelevant to your point. You said the play is over when his knee hit.

I said more than that.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The rule isn't written as clearly as it could be (it says that a receiver "must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground," but doesn't make clear whether it simply means after his first foot touches the ground or what), but it was applied today the same way it's always been applied. The receiver must still have possession of the ball when he completes his fall to the ground.

The rule was controversial when it was applied the same way on several occasions last year as well. But it's been applied consistently.

In this case, the ball came out immediately upon hitting the ground. The question is whether the ball hit the ground as part of Johnson's fall, or whether he had already completed his fall before the ball hit the ground. Reasonable minds might differ on that point, but to me it it looks like he puts his right hand down on the ground as part of his fall. (And I just watched it a whole bunch of times in a row.) His arm is going downward because he is falling, and it keeps going downward until his right hand (with the ball in it) hits the ground.

It's a close call, but I think the officials got it right according to the rule.

As for whether the rule is stupid — I agree with most people here that it sure looks like a catch (and I said the same thing about the Louis Murphy play against the Chargers last year), and probably ought to be a catch. But I don't think it's very easy to draft a rule that makes the Calvin Johnson play a catch without also making certain other plays (at midfield) fumbles when they should be incompletions. I think the current rule is less stupid than most people give it credit for, just because pretty much anyone's attempt at drafting a rule to cover this issue will seem stupid in one situation or another.

 

[McJose]

The rule isn't written as clearly as it could be (it says that a receiver "must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground," but doesn't make clear whether it simply means after his first foot touches the ground or what), but it was applied today the same way it's always been applied. The receiver must still have possession of the ball when he completes his fall to the ground.

The rule was controversial when it was applied the same way on several occasions last year as well. But it's been applied consistently.

In this case, the ball came out immediately upon hitting the ground. The question is whether the ball hit the ground as part of Johnson's fall, or whether he had already completed his fall before the ball hit the ground. Reasonable minds might differ on that point, but to me it it looks like he puts his right hand down on the ground as part of his fall. (And I just watched it a whole bunch of times in a row.) His arm is going downward because he is falling, and it keeps going downward until his right hand (with the ball in it) hits the ground.

It's a close call, but I think the officials got it right according to the rule.

As for whether the rule is stupid — I agree with most people here that it sure looks like a catch (and I said the same thing about the Louis Murphy play last year), and probably ought to be a catch. But I don't think it's very easy to draft a rule that makes the Calvin Johnson play a catch without also making certain other plays (at midfield) fumbles when they should be incompletions. I think the current rule is less stupid than most people give it credit for, just because pretty much anyone's attempt at drafting a rule to cover this issue will seem stupid in one situation or another.

This is no place for logic, reasoning, and impartiality. How dare you.

 

[boubucarow]

How long is it before the rest of his body hits the ground?

That is irrelevant to your point. You said the play is over when his knee hit.

I said more than that.

This is nonsense. His knee hit the ground, and he had possession of the ball. If I understand the rule, isn't that the end of it? Why should he have to hold on to it any longer than that?

So, in possession and knee hits ended the play according to you.My example includes in possession and a knee hitting.If the play is over when a knee hits when in possession, it doesn't matter what happens afterwards according to what I am understanding as your logic.

 

[The_Hoser]

The way it's being interpreted, if you applied this rule to defecation you'd never leave the bathroom because you'd never be done taking a crap.

 

[UlyssesNorris]

How long is it before the rest of his body hits the ground?

That is irrelevant to your point. You said the play is over when his knee hit.

I said more than that.

This is nonsense. His knee hit the ground, and he had possession of the ball. If I understand the rule, isn't that the end of it? Why should he have to hold on to it any longer than that?

So, in possession and knee hits ended the play according to you.My example includes in possession and a knee hitting.

If the play is over when a knee hits when in possession, it doesn't matter what happens afterwards according to what I am understanding as your logic.

Yep. Seems to be what the rule says as well, no?Edit: Not sure where you're trying to go with this. If your best argument is that, well, it's open to interperetation as to when possession happens, I'm hard pressed to see how you can view what happened and not see possession. Your whole body doesn't have to hit the ground.

 

[Sweatpants]

Let's see. Bears defense disappears when it matters most. Offense gives up 4 turnovers. No running game. Same as day 1

 

[UlyssesNorris]

By the way, just saw the last Cutler TD pass to Forte again...wow. He was backpedaling the entire play. That was a videogame throw.

 

[boubucarow]

Yep. Seems to be what the rule says as well, no?Edit: Not sure where you're trying to go with this. If your best argument is that, well, it's open to interperetation as to when possession happens, I'm hard pressed to see how you can view what happened and not see possession. Your whole body doesn't have to hit the ground.

So my earlier example is a catch IYO.Should all catches be official once a player is first officially down?Not sure where I was going. Like Tremblay posted, this is much more difficult than we want it to be.

 

[boubucarow]

By the way, just saw the last Cutler TD pass to Forte again...wow. He was backpedaling the entire play. That was a videogame throw.

And the catch as well.

 

[mattmillen]

The rule isn't written as clearly as it could be (it says that a receiver "must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground," but doesn't make clear whether it simply means after his first foot touches the ground or what), but it was applied today the same way it's always been applied. The receiver must still have possession of the ball when he completes his fall to the ground.

The rule was controversial when it was applied the same way on several occasions last year as well. But it's been applied consistently.

In this case, the ball came out immediately upon hitting the ground. The question is whether the ball hit the ground as part of Johnson's fall, or whether he had already completed his fall before the ball hit the ground. Reasonable minds might differ on that point, but to me it it looks like he puts his right hand down on the ground as part of his fall. (And I just watched it a whole bunch of times in a row.) His arm is going downward because he is falling, and it keeps going downward until his right hand (with the ball in it) hits the ground.

It's a close call, but I think the officials got it right according to the rule.

As for whether the rule is stupid — I agree with most people here that it sure looks like a catch (and I said the same thing about the Louis Murphy play against the Chargers last year), and probably ought to be a catch. But I don't think it's very easy to draft a rule that makes the Calvin Johnson play a catch without also making certain other plays (at midfield) fumbles when they should be incompletions. I think the current rule is less stupid than most people give it credit for, just because pretty much anyone's attempt at drafting a rule to cover this issue will seem stupid in one situation or another.

Well then allow the refs some discretion in these rules. NFL are such control freaks.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The rule isn't written as clearly as it could be (it says that a receiver "must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground," but doesn't make clear whether it simply means after his first foot touches the ground or what), but it was applied today the same way it's always been applied. The receiver must still have possession of the ball when he completes his fall to the ground.

The rule was controversial when it was applied the same way on several occasions last year as well. But it's been applied consistently.

In this case, the ball came out immediately upon hitting the ground. The question is whether the ball hit the ground as part of Johnson's fall, or whether he had already completed his fall before the ball hit the ground. Reasonable minds might differ on that point, but to me it it looks like he puts his right hand down on the ground as part of his fall. (And I just watched it a whole bunch of times in a row.) His arm is going downward because he is falling, and it keeps going downward until his right hand (with the ball in it) hits the ground.

It's a close call, but I think the officials got it right according to the rule.

As for whether the rule is stupid — I agree with most people here that it sure looks like a catch (and I said the same thing about the Louis Murphy play against the Chargers last year), and probably ought to be a catch. But I don't think it's very easy to draft a rule that makes the Calvin Johnson play a catch without also making certain other plays (at midfield) fumbles when they should be incompletions. I think the current rule is less stupid than most people give it credit for, just because pretty much anyone's attempt at drafting a rule to cover this issue will seem stupid in one situation or another.

It seems as if you're saying that any rule is going to need to involve a certain degree of judgement, because it's tough to write a rule that isn't stupid when applied to some particular circumstances. And you agree that CJ's catch looked like a catch to an educated observer. So why isn't this really an argument that the officials screwed up in their judgement of how the rule should be applied?

 

[jrat169]

Best has not looked good all game, until the Lions get to the 5 yard line

He has no moves

Right. Let's declare him a bust.

i have been watching football for 30 years and that was the worst call i have ever seen..... the NFL needs to fix this ASAPWTF?!?

 

[Mr.Pack]

The rule isn't written as clearly as it could be (it says that a receiver "must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground," but doesn't make clear whether it simply means after his first foot touches the ground or what), but it was applied today the same way it's always been applied. The receiver must still have possession of the ball when he completes his fall to the ground.

The rule was controversial when it was applied the same way on several occasions last year as well. But it's been applied consistently.

In this case, the ball came out immediately upon hitting the ground. The question is whether the ball hit the ground as part of Johnson's fall, or whether he had already completed his fall before the ball hit the ground. Reasonable minds might differ on that point, but to me it it looks like he puts his right hand down on the ground as part of his fall. (And I just watched it a whole bunch of times in a row.) His arm is going downward because he is falling, and it keeps going downward until his right hand (with the ball in it) hits the ground.

It's a close call, but I think the officials got it right according to the rule.

As for whether the rule is stupid — I agree with most people here that it sure looks like a catch (and I said the same thing about the Louis Murphy play against the Chargers last year), and probably ought to be a catch. But I don't think it's very easy to draft a rule that makes the Calvin Johnson play a catch without also making certain other plays (at midfield) fumbles when they should be incompletions. I think the current rule is less stupid than most people give it credit for, just because pretty much anyone's attempt at drafting a rule to cover this issue will seem stupid in one situation or another.

Sorry MT, the bolded part is just not true.

 

[the branded hand]

Any word on Forte

I second the question...

 

[UlyssesNorris]

The rule isn't written as clearly as it could be (it says that a receiver "must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground," but doesn't make clear whether it simply means after his first foot touches the ground or what), but it was applied today the same way it's always been applied. The receiver must still have possession of the ball when he completes his fall to the ground.

The rule was controversial when it was applied the same way on several occasions last year as well. But it's been applied consistently.

In this case, the ball came out immediately upon hitting the ground. The question is whether the ball hit the ground as part of Johnson's fall, or whether he had already completed his fall before the ball hit the ground. Reasonable minds might differ on that point, but to me it it looks like he puts his right hand down on the ground as part of his fall. (And I just watched it a whole bunch of times in a row.) His arm is going downward because he is falling, and it keeps going downward until his right hand (with the ball in it) hits the ground.

It's a close call, but I think the officials got it right according to the rule.

As for whether the rule is stupid — I agree with most people here that it sure looks like a catch (and I said the same thing about the Louis Murphy play last year), and probably ought to be a catch. But I don't think it's very easy to draft a rule that makes the Calvin Johnson play a catch without also making certain other plays (at midfield) fumbles when they should be incompletions. I think the current rule is less stupid than most people give it credit for, just because pretty much anyone's attempt at drafting a rule to cover this issue will seem stupid in one situation or another.

This is no place for logic, reasoning, and impartiality. How dare you.

Everyone make sure to heed this call to impartiality from the guy who once posted under "GrossmantoHester."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It seems as if you're saying that any rule is going to need to involve a certain degree of judgement, because it's tough to write a rule that isn't stupid when applied to some particular circumstances. And you agree that CJ's catch looked like a catch to an educated observer. So why isn't this really an argument that the officials screwed up in their judgement of how the rule should be applied?

I think there's room in the text of the rule to give the game officials some discretion in how they apply the rule. But it's not up to game officials to grant themselves such discretion and apply the rule differently from how it's always been applied in the past (presumably in accordance with some guidance from the rules committee). A policy like that would have to come from the officials' head office, not from the officials on the field in the heat of the moment. I think it's hard to blame the guys who worked the game today.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In this case, the ball came out immediately upon hitting the ground.

Sorry MT, the bolded part is just not true.

Are you saying there was a delay between when the ball hit the ground and when it popped out of Johnson's hand?

 

[Sweatpants]

This thread has turned into a pile of crap. Out

 

[ditka311]

Let's see. Bears defense disappears when it matters most. Offense gives up 4 turnovers. No running game. Same as day 1

 

[Neal Cassady]

In this case, the ball came out immediately upon hitting the ground.

Sorry MT, the bolded part is just not true.

Are you saying there was a delay between when the ball hit the ground and when it popped out of Johnson's hand?

Yes, I'd say that.

 

[Mr.Pack]

In this case, the ball came out immediately upon hitting the ground.

Sorry MT, the bolded part is just not true.

Are you saying there was a delay between when the ball hit the ground and when it popped out of Johnson's hand?

There was a delay from when the he hit the ground after 2 steps and falling to the turf, and when the ball came out. He had made a football move, the play stopped and he started to get up when the ball came out...... Akin to a baseball player catching a flyball, then going to throw it, but dropping it. Same principle.By the time the ball hit the ground, the play was completely over.

 

[boubucarow]

In this case, the ball came out immediately upon hitting the ground.

Sorry MT, the bolded part is just not true.

Are you saying there was a delay between when the ball hit the ground and when it popped out of Johnson's hand?

There was a delay from when the he hit the ground after 2 steps and falling to the turf, and when the ball came out. He had made a football move, the play stopped and he started to get up when the ball came out...... Akin to a baseball player catching a flyball, then going to throw it, but dropping it. Same principle.By the time the ball hit the ground, the play was completely over.

I see it nothing like that. He was falling all way to the point when he lost the ball. He lost the ball due to the impact of him attempting to break his fall. He wasn't using his right arm to bring himself up. He was using it to stop his descent. Just as you are so adamant that he was getting up with the right hand, I am certain he was still falling. Really there isn't much to say to change either opinion and according to the letter of the law, that perception is the difference in what the ruling would be according to the rulebook.

All of that said, the rules should be stated in a way to make that a catch although that creates such a fine line.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In this case, the ball came out immediately upon hitting the ground.

Sorry MT, the bolded part is just not true.

Are you saying there was a delay between when the ball hit the ground and when it popped out of Johnson's hand?

There was a delay from when the he hit the ground after 2 steps and falling to the turf, and when the ball came out. He had made a football move, the play stopped and he started to get up when the ball came out...... Akin to a baseball player catching a flyball, then going to throw it, but dropping it. Same principle.By the time the ball hit the ground, the play was completely over.

So it doesn't sound like you're disagreeing with the bold.

 

[Badm]

But you're a Bear fan. If this had happened to Devin Hester in the same fashion, you would be arguing the other way.

Waiting for that one. In fact I kinda wish the catch would have counted since I want this whole regime out of there.

Same here. Lovie is unbearable.. He keeps getting dumber and dumber.... I'm almost glad Martz is there to actually add less insanity.....(is that possible????)......Forte saved his job atleast this week...

 

[Sweatpants]

Good job by Costas relaying the message from the NFL. Way to take a stand for what's right, NFL.

 

[TitusIII]

Yeah, the refs blew it, but the Lions were lucky to be within 21 points at that point in time due to TO's....probabably gonna be a long season for both squads, hopefully the fantasy gods will smile on them, at the very least

 

[Sweatpants]

Yeah, the refs blew it, but the Lions were lucky to be within 21 points at that point in time due to TO's....probabably gonna be a long season for both squads, hopefully the fantasy gods will smile on them, at the very least

wat? When did turnovers cease to be a legitimate part of the game? Detroit created the turnovers. Chicago didn't hand the ball off to them in the backfield. Martz going for it on 4th and 1 from the goal line counts as well. The Lions had done nothing on offense in the 2nd half, but Martz and Lovie felt the need to go for it instead of kick the field goal. Why shouldn't the Lions benefit from the Bears mistakes? Coaching mistakes are no different than players mistakes. They both have to do their part to win the game.

 

[boubucarow]

Yeah, the refs blew it, but the Lions were lucky to be within 21 points at that point in time due to TO's....probabably gonna be a long season for both squads, hopefully the fantasy gods will smile on them, at the very least

wat? When did turnovers cease to be a legitimate part of the game? Detroit created the turnovers. Chicago didn't hand the ball off to them in the backfield. Martz going for it on 4th and 1 from the goal line counts as well. The Lions had done nothing on offense in the 2nd half, but Martz and Lovie felt the need to go for it instead of kick the field goal. Why shouldn't the Lions benefit from the Bears mistakes? Coaching mistakes are no different than players mistakes. They both have to do their part to win the game.

And the Lions did cause those turnovers IMO with great hits and a great play by Petersen on the interception.