drunkenmonks
Footballguy
He didn't complete the process. Wtf.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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.
How does Victor Cruz get that TD and Calvin's is reversed? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter drunkenmonks
- Start date
Man of Zen
Footballguy
It's almost like they were completely different officiating crews.
mr roboto
Footballguy
This is the point. If he has possession before and crosses the plane, TD. If he has yet to show possession and can't complete the catch (hold it through the ground) then no TD.
renesauz
IBL Representative
I saw both. Cruz TURNED AND REACHED. Calvin was falling as he caught it and just reached. Very similar plays and both judgment calls. Agree that it seems inconsistent at first glance and I also agree it's a stupid rule, but there's no doubt in my mind that Nicks did more to establish possession than Calvin did.
(FWIW...I own both in different leagues but the Cruz TD meant nothing to me W/L wise, while the Calvin overturn might cost me one game)
(FWIW...I own both in different leagues but the Cruz TD meant nothing to me W/L wise, while the Calvin overturn might cost me one game)
Army Eye
Footballguy
That's the thing, the crew gets tired from flying to every game across the country in one day, and that's when the inconsistencies happen.
ImTheScientist
Footballguy
Cruz can dance, Calvin not so much.
drunkenmonks
Footballguy
lod01
Footballguy
Pretty much shows the stupidity of this loosely called joke of a 'rule'. Exactly what is a 'football move'. Sure looks like Calvin's lunge to cross the plane was a 'football move'. He got 2 feet down in the field of play and dove across with BOTH hands wrapped around the football. But no, his is ruled incomplete by the incompetant.
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR
Footballguy
(edit: I refer here to CJ's catch from past years... second post further below about today's catch)
In order to catch a ball you have to accomplish a series of things. You must:
a) Control the ball, and continue to maintain control while you
b) get both feet down, or 1 other body part
c) control the ball long enough to make a football move.
d) If before you have done all of those, you begin to go to the ground, you must also control the ball all the way through "the act of going to the ground".
Until you have done that, you do not have "possession" in the way that a RB does. So it doesn't matter if the ball cross the goal line, or is incomplete in the end zone during all of that. If you lose control of the ball before everything is completed, you never had possession, so it's impossible for you to score.
So what happened with Calvin Johnson's famous play from a few years ago? He did everything except when he hit the ground he used his momentum of hitting the ground to roll towards his feet. And he dropped the ball along the way in doing so. If he held it a quarter second longer, you could say he clearly finished going to the ground. If he dropped it a quarter second earlier, you could clearly say he was still going to the ground. Instead he dropped it right in that grey area where you say, "Well, he was kind of still going to the ground and kind of about to spring to his feet." It was in doubt if he was still going to the ground when he left go of the ball. If in doubt, it is not a catch.
Compare that with Cruz. *IF* Cruz got two feet down, with control, and was not going to the ground, and then lunged for the goal line, the lunge counts as a football move. (It's even given as an example in the rulebook of a football move) And it would be a touchdown.
The point of dispute is whether Cruz got 2 feet down. I will argue it is indisputable in the goal line replay that his right foot went down, and he was clearly falling to the ground without his left foot having ever hit. So he did not get 2 feet down yet, so could not begin having it long enough to make a football move. Because of that he had to control it going to the ground.
So recap, in CJ's case, he drops the ball right around the moment that "going to the ground" is complete. Because it was in the grey area, when in doubt it's incomplete.
In Cruz's catch, they ruled he got 2 feet down and was not going to the ground, but instead that he lunged for the goal line which is his football move. I think they blew the "got 2 feet down" part. If I'm right, then Cruz has to control the ball through going to the ground same as Megatron and it's incomplete.
In order to catch a ball you have to accomplish a series of things. You must:
a) Control the ball, and continue to maintain control while you
b) get both feet down, or 1 other body part
c) control the ball long enough to make a football move.
d) If before you have done all of those, you begin to go to the ground, you must also control the ball all the way through "the act of going to the ground".
Until you have done that, you do not have "possession" in the way that a RB does. So it doesn't matter if the ball cross the goal line, or is incomplete in the end zone during all of that. If you lose control of the ball before everything is completed, you never had possession, so it's impossible for you to score.
So what happened with Calvin Johnson's famous play from a few years ago? He did everything except when he hit the ground he used his momentum of hitting the ground to roll towards his feet. And he dropped the ball along the way in doing so. If he held it a quarter second longer, you could say he clearly finished going to the ground. If he dropped it a quarter second earlier, you could clearly say he was still going to the ground. Instead he dropped it right in that grey area where you say, "Well, he was kind of still going to the ground and kind of about to spring to his feet." It was in doubt if he was still going to the ground when he left go of the ball. If in doubt, it is not a catch.
Compare that with Cruz. *IF* Cruz got two feet down, with control, and was not going to the ground, and then lunged for the goal line, the lunge counts as a football move. (It's even given as an example in the rulebook of a football move) And it would be a touchdown.
The point of dispute is whether Cruz got 2 feet down. I will argue it is indisputable in the goal line replay that his right foot went down, and he was clearly falling to the ground without his left foot having ever hit. So he did not get 2 feet down yet, so could not begin having it long enough to make a football move. Because of that he had to control it going to the ground.
So recap, in CJ's case, he drops the ball right around the moment that "going to the ground" is complete. Because it was in the grey area, when in doubt it's incomplete.
In Cruz's catch, they ruled he got 2 feet down and was not going to the ground, but instead that he lunged for the goal line which is his football move. I think they blew the "got 2 feet down" part. If I'm right, then Cruz has to control the ball through going to the ground same as Megatron and it's incomplete.
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR
Footballguy
My bad, didn't see CJ had a catch today.
The video posted above from today's game, CJ's should be incomplete as well. He got control of the ball, and got 2 feet down. He is already going to the ground when this happens. He does not get 2 feet down, with his balance, and then make a football move. At the moment his second foot hits, if he wanted to avoid hitting the ground, could he?
No. So he's going to the ground and has to control it through the act of going to the ground.
The video posted above from today's game, CJ's should be incomplete as well. He got control of the ball, and got 2 feet down. He is already going to the ground when this happens. He does not get 2 feet down, with his balance, and then make a football move. At the moment his second foot hits, if he wanted to avoid hitting the ground, could he?
No. So he's going to the ground and has to control it through the act of going to the ground.
Pipes
Footballguy
GregR
Footballguy
In the youtube video of CJ with the replay, at 13 seconds he gets 1 foot down. At 15 seconds he gets his 2nd foot down and he's at about a 30 degree angle to the ground. There is no way anyone can honestly say he is not already going to the ground when he gets his 2nd foot down.
So he has to control the ball all the way through the act of going to the ground. It bounces around when he hits the ground, so incomplete.
So he has to control the ball all the way through the act of going to the ground. It bounces around when he hits the ground, so incomplete.
GregR
Footballguy
renesauz
IBL Representative
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
They both should be touchdowns--the rule is stupid and relies far too much on subjectivity. The thing that I don't understand is how Calvin--who has earned the right to be considered one of the elite players in the game-- doesn't ever seem to get the benefit of the doubt in these calls. I don't own Calvin in any leagues---so this is not me being sour--but I can't think of a player as elite as Calvin in any US professional sport--who literally gets the wrong side of every coin flip call. It's plain ridiculous.
Pipes
Footballguy
Cruz was also going to the ground as he got his second foot down and it appears the ball comes out at that exact same time.
GregR
Footballguy
Right, which is why both should have been incomplete. Cruz's was a bad call. CJ's was a good call, by the rules.
Cruz's was not ruled incomplete because a lot of people seem to have missed that he did NOT get his 2nd foot down at the same time as his first. It didn't hit until about the same time his elbow hit (which would fulfill the same requirement as 2 feet). Obviously he was going to the ground by then.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
GregR
Footballguy
Ok, I made an animated gif to show the play. Here is Cruz's touchdown: http://imgflip.com/i/3hxh4
Remember, he has to 1) control the ball, 2) get 2 feet/1 other body part down, 3) make a football move. He cannot make a football move first or second. The first two must be completed first.
In this replay it starts with him still in the air, having caught the ball but not yet having touched the ground. Focus on his left foot. You can see it is in the air at the start. His right foot touches the ground (1 foot down), but his left does not yet. It swings past him still in the air and then he falls to the ground.
Now the refs apparently assumed both feet hit the ground. If they had, then he would have 1) control and 2) 2 feet down, and so reaching for the goal line would be a football move.
But as this replay shows, he did not get his 2nd (left) foot down first. So he has not completed the second requirement of making a catch until either his left foot hits, or his elbow hits. Either will fullfill the requirement.
His elbow hits possibly about the same time his left foot might. Clearly at that point he is already falling to the ground. So therefore instead of "making a football move" he now has to "control the ball through the act of going to the ground". And the ball comes out as he hits the ground.
So it should not have been a catch, because he did not get 2 feet down and make a move before he was going to the ground... so had to control it while hitting the ground. What Pereira and others are saying erroneously is that he got 2 feet down with control. If he had, then reaching for the goal counts as a football move. But they are just wrong about both feet, they didn't pay attention to the final replay which shows otherwise.
Remember, he has to 1) control the ball, 2) get 2 feet/1 other body part down, 3) make a football move. He cannot make a football move first or second. The first two must be completed first.
In this replay it starts with him still in the air, having caught the ball but not yet having touched the ground. Focus on his left foot. You can see it is in the air at the start. His right foot touches the ground (1 foot down), but his left does not yet. It swings past him still in the air and then he falls to the ground.
Now the refs apparently assumed both feet hit the ground. If they had, then he would have 1) control and 2) 2 feet down, and so reaching for the goal line would be a football move.
But as this replay shows, he did not get his 2nd (left) foot down first. So he has not completed the second requirement of making a catch until either his left foot hits, or his elbow hits. Either will fullfill the requirement.
His elbow hits possibly about the same time his left foot might. Clearly at that point he is already falling to the ground. So therefore instead of "making a football move" he now has to "control the ball through the act of going to the ground". And the ball comes out as he hits the ground.
So it should not have been a catch, because he did not get 2 feet down and make a move before he was going to the ground... so had to control it while hitting the ground. What Pereira and others are saying erroneously is that he got 2 feet down with control. If he had, then reaching for the goal counts as a football move. But they are just wrong about both feet, they didn't pay attention to the final replay which shows otherwise.
Last edited by a moderator:
Squatch
Footballguy
Thanks for the gif, Greg. Last night I didn't notice he only got one foot down. That definitely should have had the same outcome as Calvin's non-catch. (Aside: Seriously, this only seems to happen to Megatron when I roster him in my main league, so sorry fellow owners--it's on me)
Here's another thing I noticed from the gif: The Cowboy defender's helmet comes off prior to the ball crossing the goal line. What's the rule on that? I know that if a ballcarrier's helmet comes off, the play is ruled dead at the spot. Is that not the case for a defender? Just curious.
Here's another thing I noticed from the gif: The Cowboy defender's helmet comes off prior to the ball crossing the goal line. What's the rule on that? I know that if a ballcarrier's helmet comes off, the play is ruled dead at the spot. Is that not the case for a defender? Just curious.
lod01
Footballguy
Sure there is, if you have 2 feet down and the ball crosses the goalline, it's a TD. It's really that simple. Instead, it's a cluster #### of did he 'make a football move'. Calvin had 2 feet down and the ball firmly in both hands as he crossed the goal line.
A RB can leap off the ground put the ball across the goalline and it's a TD regardless of wether a defender knocks it out of his hands. He doesn't need to 'complete a football move'.
Last edited by a moderator:
Man of Zen
Footballguy
Taking a handoff and leaping off the ground IS "a football move." Possession was established when he took the handoff successfully.
The rule as you'd have it written would allow a receiver who gets blasted in the EZ by an alert defender and coughs the ball up instantly to be credited with a TD, which wouldn't be a reception anywhere else on the field. Because the receiver hasn't yet established possession.
Last edited by a moderator:
socrates
Footballguy
This rule is assiten...worse than assinine. Put it this way, if Calvin doesn't MAKE THE FOOTBALL MOVE of purposely extending the ball across the line and just tucks it in after clearly catching it and falling in to endzone, he would have held on to it for an easy call. If Calvin had put both feet down one yard farther out of the end zone, then took a third step and did the same exact thing it would have been a td. Bottom line is he caught it, possessed it with both feet down OUTSIDE of the endzone, then extended it across the plane, then fell on it. Should have been a TD. Stupid rule. End of story.
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
While this might be true--coming up with a rule where the enforcement involves an insane amount of subjectivity is also ridiculous. Could you imagine if speed limits were approximately 55mph? This entire "football move" nonsense can be interpreted differently from officiating crew to officiating crew--which was exactly what happened yesterday with cruz and calvin.
GregR
Footballguy
That's only because a RB already has possession of the ball. A receiver who hasn't completed the catch does not. And realize "control" in completing a catch and "possession" mean different things here.
The equivalent for a RB would be the ball is pitched to him but he never catches it cleanly and is juggling it when he crosses the goal line. Since he has not yet gained possession, it is not a touchdown. For a receiver, he does not have possession unless every element of the catch is completed.
This isn't any different than it used to be. Let's say 6 years ago before the rule change, a receiver gets control of the ball, 1 foot down, the ball crosses the goal line, and then his 2nd foot comes down out of bounds. You wouldn't say that was a touchdown because he never made the catch, so never had possession of the ball when it crossed the goal line. It's the same exact thing now. Just the NFL made more stringent and objective what has to happen before it is considered a catch.
The real issue is people want to keep judging it by "do I think he held it long enough" instead of judging it by how the rule reads, where they use events where possible (going to the ground, a football move) to determine the point when the requirements are completed.
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR
Footballguy
Yes it is. But that only completes a catch if you are not already going to the ground.
If someone has his balance when he gets his 2 feet down, and reaches the ball over the goal lin while maintaining control throughout, it is a catch.
If someone is in Calvin Johnson's situation where he is falling to the ground when his feet touch down, or falling to the ground before completing the football move, then there is the added requirement he control the ball through the act of going to the ground. Which is why Calvin's was correctly ruled a non-catch. He lost control of the ball when he hit the ground.
Man of Zen
Footballguy
CalBear
Footballguy
Doesn't matter. Here's the relevant part of the rule:
It doesn't matter where the goal line is, it matters whether the receiver maintains possession while going to the ground; otherwise he has not completed the catch. Calvin Johnson clearly didn't.
I'd say Victor Cruz didn't, either, but his act of going to the ground was a lot slower than Calvin's; it could be argued that the act of completing the reception and going to the ground were separate. Or that he went to the ground when he landed on his elbow, and then extended the ball across the line.
GregR
Footballguy
Yes, an important part of is that a) Control and b) 2 feet / 1 body part have to both take place before long enough to "perform any act common to the game" can take place. And if he's going to the ground before the final part, then he has to maintain control all the way through going to the ground.
Here's Calvin at each step along the way.
Here he has control, no feet down yet: Calvin_control.jpg
Here his left foot hits, 1 foot down: Calvin_1st_foot.jpg
Here his right foot hits behind his other foot, 2 feet down: Calvin_2nd_foot.jpg
At the moment of that last picture, if Calvin is not going to the ground already, he could have made a football move before going to the ground, and it would be a catch. But clearly he is already going to the ground by the time his 2nd foot hits. And his "long enough to commit a football move" doesn't start until the 2nd foot is down.
So he has to control it all the way through going to the ground, which he doesn't.
Here's Calvin at each step along the way.
Here he has control, no feet down yet: Calvin_control.jpg
Here his left foot hits, 1 foot down: Calvin_1st_foot.jpg
Here his right foot hits behind his other foot, 2 feet down: Calvin_2nd_foot.jpg
At the moment of that last picture, if Calvin is not going to the ground already, he could have made a football move before going to the ground, and it would be a catch. But clearly he is already going to the ground by the time his 2nd foot hits. And his "long enough to commit a football move" doesn't start until the 2nd foot is down.
So he has to control it all the way through going to the ground, which he doesn't.
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
The last part of your post was the key here. Arguing that the completion and going to the ground were separate act--or his landing on his elbow--etc--- the speed of a potential completion or imcompletion is irrelevant--and this is why the rule is stupid. The last part of your posting is perfect evidence for how subjective the rule is-- officials have to use their opinions on if the completion and reaching for the td are one act or two separate ones, or if the speed of the play would lean them into feeling that control was established..etc--- the enforcement of the rule relies faaaar too much on subjectivity. I wouldn't disagree if both were called non-td's--but I do think that it's insane to say that it is okay to say that one clearly is a td and the other clearly isn't.
schooner44
Footballguy
The gound should not be able to cause a fumble and it should not be able to cause a reception to become incomplete...just plain stupid. Both should be TD catches as they both crossed the plane of the goalline.
ebsteelers
Footballguy
can i get a gif of calvin didnt see it and dont have youtube at the office
jomar
Footballguy
the fact that nobody knows what is a TD catch anymore is reason enough to lose this rule, IMO.
the only difference I see in the 2 plays is that Cruz was hit by a defender, but looking at the rule, that doesn't matter. both should have been TDs.
the only saving grace for me is that this one didn't cost the Lions a game.
the only difference I see in the 2 plays is that Cruz was hit by a defender, but looking at the rule, that doesn't matter. both should have been TDs.
the only saving grace for me is that this one didn't cost the Lions a game.
CalBear
Footballguy
OK, let's think about the world where these two statements are true; the ground can't cause a fumble, and it can't cause a reception to become incomplete. Let's assume Calvin's catch is fully within the field of play. What's your call? If the ground can't make it not be a reception, and it can't make it be a fumble, is it down at the point where he dropped the ball? That doesn't seem to make any sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
There's no way to remove subjectivity from this situation; every play is slightly different and in the end the refs have to make a judgement call about whether it's a reception or not. If you change the rule, you just change the point at which the subjectivity comes in.
Let me go again to the Calvin reception and assume it's in the field of play. You are suggesting that we should define a reception as controlling the ball and getting two feet down. So you think Calvin's play should be a reception and a fumble?
Squatch
Footballguy
It was a scoring play which receives an automatic review--no need for a coach's challenge (if that is what you are saying).
To anyone: Back to the point I made about the defender's helmet coming off: Anyone know the rule for that?
lod01
Footballguy
Calvin HAD posession. Video clearly shows 2 hands clutching the ball as he crosses the plane but because they deemed his 2 feet down prior to crossing the line NOT a football move, it was an incompletion. Prettty much as dumb a rule as one can make up. Guy has now been ripped off twice due to the dumbest 'rule' in football.
jomar
Footballguy
I think the whole 'going to the ground in the act of catching the ball' was originally supposed to apply when a receiver dove for the ball. Dove, like both feet off the ground, parallel to the ground, type of catch. if the guy could hang onto it after crashing the ground, it was a catch. if it came loose and touched the ground, no catch. then the officials in that Lions-Bears game a few years ago got it all twisted and made a bad call which the league then had to justify. Ever since then, all it has done is muddy the waters for what constitutes a catch. what was wrong with the 'possession and two feet down' rule they had?
