What's new
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)

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.
It's not about making a football move, it's about retaining possession while going to the ground.

Would you call his play a fumble if it occurred in the field of play?

 
They both should've been TDs
This. The rule is dumb
There is no way to write a rule that will agree with your intuition in all cases.
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'.
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.
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.
To avoid confusing terms... Control (ball in your hands and not moving) has a different meaning in this context than Possession (if tackled in play your team is on offense the next play). You can have Control but never gain Possession for several reasons, such as if you never get 2 feet in bounds.

Calvin had Control of the ball. It was in his hands and not moving. He does not have Possession until he completes all of the requirements of a catch. There are 3 requirements (control being one of them) if you do not go to the ground. If you go to the ground before completing those 3, then the 4th requirement of controlling it through hitting the ground is added.

Calvin was already going to the ground at the moment his 2 feet touched down, the 2nd requirement. Looking at the last jpeg I posted can you honestly say he is not falling to the ground at that moment? If he is, then he is going to the ground before completing "a football move". Which means the 4th requirement of controlling the ball through hitting the ground is added before he is deemed to have Possession.

Again, refer to my earlier example. If it was a sideline play and he got control, 1 foot in, ball broke the plane, and 2nd foot afterwards came down out of bounds, you would not say it was a touchdown. You wouldn't say that because you accept that "2 feet in" is a requirement of making a catch. The disconnect here is that you accept the 2 foot requirement, and will use not fulfilling it to disqualify possession. But you're not doing the same for the other requirements, which in this case involves controlling through going to the ground.

 
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.
It's not about making a football move, it's about retaining possession while going to the ground.

Would you call his play a fumble if it occurred in the field of play?
That would fall under 'ground can't cause a fumble', wouldn't it? The defender in the air above him touched him while he had the ball secured. Down by contact.

 
Just reading this, I come away saing '####### stupid'.

In this specific case, the rule was applied correctly.

A catch happens as the result of a three-step process. Under part (a) of the rule, the receiver secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground. Under part (b), he touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands. Then, after part (a) and (b) have been completed, part © comes into play. Under part ©, the catch is a completion if the player maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform “any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).”

Far easier to say the ball crossed the plane of the goal than it is to say 'well, i don't think he had control for long enough'. btw, Calvin did do all 3.

(a) clearly has ball in both hands.

(b) both feet touch the ground

© extends arms with ball in both hands - the football move.

 
They both should've been TDs
This. The rule is dumb
There is no way to write a rule that will agree with your intuition in all cases.
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'.
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.
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.
To avoid confusing terms... Control (ball in your hands and not moving) has a different meaning in this context than Possession (if tackled in play your team is on offense the next play). You can have Control but never gain Possession for several reasons, such as if you never get 2 feet in bounds.

Calvin had Control of the ball. It was in his hands and not moving. He does not have Possession until he completes all of the requirements of a catch. There are 3 requirements (control being one of them) if you do not go to the ground. If you go to the ground before completing those 3, then the 4th requirement of controlling it through hitting the ground is added.

Calvin was already going to the ground at the moment his 2 feet touched down, the 2nd requirement. Looking at the last jpeg I posted can you honestly say he is not falling to the ground at that moment? If he is, then he is going to the ground before completing "a football move". Which means the 4th requirement of controlling the ball through hitting the ground is added before he is deemed to have Possession.

Again, refer to my earlier example. If it was a sideline play and he got control, 1 foot in, ball broke the plane, and 2nd foot afterwards came down out of bounds, you would not say it was a touchdown. You wouldn't say that because you accept that "2 feet in" is a requirement of making a catch. The disconnect here is that you accept the 2 foot requirement, and will use not fulfilling it to disqualify possession. But you're not doing the same for the other requirements, which in this case involves controlling through going to the ground.
so why was Cruz's not ruled incomplete?

 
Just reading this, I come away saing '####### stupid'.

In this specific case, the rule was applied correctly.

A catch happens as the result of a three-step process. Under part (a) of the rule, the receiver secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground. Under part (b), he touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands. Then, after part (a) and (b) have been completed, part © comes into play. Under part ©, the catch is a completion if the player maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform “any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).”

Far easier to say the ball crossed the plane of the goal than it is to say 'well, i don't think he had control for long enough'. btw, Calvin did do all 3.

(a) clearly has ball in both hands.

(b) both feet touch the ground

© extends arms with ball in both hands - the football move.
You are completely leaving out part (d). That if he is going to the ground before all of (a), (b) and © are completed, then he must control the ball through the act of going to the ground.

Is this man falling to the ground? If so, then part (d) applies, because that is the moment (b) 2 feet is complete, which means there hasn't been time to do © yet.

 
They both should've been TDs
This. The rule is dumb
There is no way to write a rule that will agree with your intuition in all cases.
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'.
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.
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.
To avoid confusing terms... Control (ball in your hands and not moving) has a different meaning in this context than Possession (if tackled in play your team is on offense the next play). You can have Control but never gain Possession for several reasons, such as if you never get 2 feet in bounds.

Calvin had Control of the ball. It was in his hands and not moving. He does not have Possession until he completes all of the requirements of a catch. There are 3 requirements (control being one of them) if you do not go to the ground. If you go to the ground before completing those 3, then the 4th requirement of controlling it through hitting the ground is added.

Calvin was already going to the ground at the moment his 2 feet touched down, the 2nd requirement. Looking at the last jpeg I posted can you honestly say he is not falling to the ground at that moment? If he is, then he is going to the ground before completing "a football move". Which means the 4th requirement of controlling the ball through hitting the ground is added before he is deemed to have Possession.

Again, refer to my earlier example. If it was a sideline play and he got control, 1 foot in, ball broke the plane, and 2nd foot afterwards came down out of bounds, you would not say it was a touchdown. You wouldn't say that because you accept that "2 feet in" is a requirement of making a catch. The disconnect here is that you accept the 2 foot requirement, and will use not fulfilling it to disqualify possession. But you're not doing the same for the other requirements, which in this case involves controlling through going to the ground.
so why was Cruz's not ruled incomplete?
Because the refs thought Cruz got 2 feet down and reached with the ball (football move) before he was going to the ground.

Because the booth didn't spot that Cruz only got 1 foot down before reaching for the ball, which meant he was going to the ground before he even got 2 feet down.

It was a bad call that went unnoticed by the people assigned to initiate reviews of bad calls.

 
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.
It's not about making a football move, it's about retaining possession while going to the ground.

Would you call his play a fumble if it occurred in the field of play?
That would fall under 'ground can't cause a fumble', wouldn't it? The defender in the air above him touched him while he had the ball secured. Down by contact.
OK, what if there were no touch from a defender?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Focusing on CJ's non-catch alone...

I'm baffled by the number of people that think this was a catch. Throwing NFL rules and their definitions of a catch aside, I just don't understand how people think he caught the ball. If I were playing backyard football and made this same play (albeit, 24" lower than he did)...I would have been pissed at myself for failing to make the catch after such a great effort. If a baseball player laid out for a ball like this and it fell our of his glove when he hit the ground no one would question it...how is this any different?

Those arguing that the NFL rules, definitions and consistency of the way this rule is administered have legitimate gripes...but it seems like lots of people aren't basing their arguments off of the NFL definition and really think jumping up to make a catch and losing it when you hit the ground actually means you caught the ball.

 
Focusing on CJ's non-catch alone...

I'm baffled by the number of people that think this was a catch. Throwing NFL rules and their definitions of a catch aside, I just don't understand how people think he caught the ball. If I were playing backyard football and made this same play (albeit, 24" lower than he did)...I would have been pissed at myself for failing to make the catch after such a great effort. If a baseball player laid out for a ball like this and it fell our of his glove when he hit the ground no one would question it...how is this any different?
some might argue the difference is that in football, once he broke the plane of the goal line, the play was over.

I'd argue a similar play in baseball would be if a 2B dropped the relay for a double play ball while taking it out of his glove. once he established possession of the ball and steps on 2nd, the runner is out. it doesn't matter that he dropped the ball .5 seconds later.

 
jomar said:
jason12vb said:
Focusing on CJ's non-catch alone...

I'm baffled by the number of people that think this was a catch. Throwing NFL rules and their definitions of a catch aside, I just don't understand how people think he caught the ball. If I were playing backyard football and made this same play (albeit, 24" lower than he did)...I would have been pissed at myself for failing to make the catch after such a great effort. If a baseball player laid out for a ball like this and it fell our of his glove when he hit the ground no one would question it...how is this any different?
some might argue the difference is that in football, once he broke the plane of the goal line, the play was over.

I'd argue a similar play in baseball would be if a 2B dropped the relay for a double play ball while taking it out of his glove. once he established possession of the ball and steps on 2nd, the runner is out. it doesn't matter that he dropped the ball .5 seconds later.
I'd respond to your baseball analogy by saying, "so you want to respond to a controversial topic with a controversial topic another sport? How often does your situation happen and everyone agrees he actually had control of the ball in the first place...let alone has 'possession' with his foot on the bag?"

I realize it's hard to take the NFL's definition out of play here when talking about an NFL play...I just don't see how people actually think it's a catch in common sense terms.

 
jomar said:
jason12vb said:
Focusing on CJ's non-catch alone...

I'm baffled by the number of people that think this was a catch. Throwing NFL rules and their definitions of a catch aside, I just don't understand how people think he caught the ball. If I were playing backyard football and made this same play (albeit, 24" lower than he did)...I would have been pissed at myself for failing to make the catch after such a great effort. If a baseball player laid out for a ball like this and it fell our of his glove when he hit the ground no one would question it...how is this any different?
some might argue the difference is that in football, once he broke the plane of the goal line, the play was over.

I'd argue a similar play in baseball would be if a 2B dropped the relay for a double play ball while taking it out of his glove. once he established possession of the ball and steps on 2nd, the runner is out. it doesn't matter that he dropped the ball .5 seconds later.
Some might argue that, but they'd be wrong, both in terms of how the rules are written and how the same situation is called other places on the field. Your analogy is not relevant, because no one is saying the play is over when the 2b grabs the ball in the middle of a double play. The correct baseball analogy would be a line drive with two outs. If a fielder jumps for the ball, the inning isn't over when he grabs it in the air and gets both feet down, it's over when he hits the ground without losing the ball. Similarly with a catcher making a a tag for the third out at home plate; it's not over when he makes the tag, it's over when he makes the tag without losing the ball.

Ultimate would treat it the same way as football and baseball; if you jump for the disc, grab it in the air, and fall to the ground in the end zone, you need to maintain control of it or it doesn't count as a catch.

 
Or, oh, did you mean when it crosses the goal line while somebody has already caught the ball and established possession?

 
CalBear said:
lod01 said:
CalBear said:
lod01 said:
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.
It's not about making a football move, it's about retaining possession while going to the ground.

Would you call his play a fumble if it occurred in the field of play?
That would fall under 'ground can't cause a fumble', wouldn't it? The defender in the air above him touched him while he had the ball secured. Down by contact.
OK, what if there were no touch from a defender?
That is a fumble if no one touches him. Happened this week in one of the games.

 
jomar said:
jason12vb said:
Focusing on CJ's non-catch alone...

I'm baffled by the number of people that think this was a catch. Throwing NFL rules and their definitions of a catch aside, I just don't understand how people think he caught the ball. If I were playing backyard football and made this same play (albeit, 24" lower than he did)...I would have been pissed at myself for failing to make the catch after such a great effort. If a baseball player laid out for a ball like this and it fell our of his glove when he hit the ground no one would question it...how is this any different?
some might argue the difference is that in football, once he broke the plane of the goal line, the play was over.

I'd argue a similar play in baseball would be if a 2B dropped the relay for a double play ball while taking it out of his glove. once he established possession of the ball and steps on 2nd, the runner is out. it doesn't matter that he dropped the ball .5 seconds later.
I jump at the half foot line near the sideline. I catch the ball. My left foot lands in bounds. The ball crosses the goal line. My right foot lands out of bounds.

The ball crossed the goal line. Is it a touchdown?

No. Because I had not yet completed a legal catch. I did not have possession of the ball. The same was true of CJ. Except instead of failing the requirement to get 2 feet in bounds, Calvin failed the requirement to control the ball all the way through hitting the ground if he goes to the ground during the catch.

 
simple answer:

The ref in the Lions game was playing against the team who had Calvin Johnson in fantasy.

where as in the giants game. the ref had victor cruz

 
The Cruz play should have been ruled incomplete (and that would have been the correct call even if his second foot had touched the ground). Cruz was hit in the air and was in the process of going to the ground even before his first foot landed. The fact that he turned and reached the ball towards the end zone doesn't change that - it was all during the process of going to the ground. He failed to retain control of the ball throughout the process of going to the ground, so it's an incomplete pass according to the rules.

The fact that these plays were possible touchdowns is irrelevant. The first question is whether it was a complete pass or an incomplete pass, and the answer to that question should be the same regardless of whether the play happens at the goal-line or at mid-field.

 
CalBear said:
lod01 said:
CalBear said:
lod01 said:
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.
It's not about making a football move, it's about retaining possession while going to the ground.

Would you call his play a fumble if it occurred in the field of play?
That would fall under 'ground can't cause a fumble', wouldn't it? The defender in the air above him touched him while he had the ball secured. Down by contact.
OK, what if there were no touch from a defender?
That is a fumble if no one touches him. Happened this week in one of the games.
I guarantee that if the Calvin Johnson play was ruled a catch and a fumble, there would have been 20 guys who were playing against the Minnesota D, or who got penalties for fumbles, in here complaining about how stupid the rule is.

 
They should just implement whatever rule college has or whatever rule they had 10 years ago. I don't remember all this BS over what's a catch and what isn't.

 
CalBear said:
jvdesigns2002 said:
CalBear said:
Is intentionally reaching the ball over the goal line, after having both feet down, a football move?
Doesn't matter. Here's the relevant part of the rule:

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact

by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the

field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control,

the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
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.
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.
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?
If CJ was going for a first down instead of a TD I think it could have easily been ruled a reception and fumble..of course he recovered the ball. It appeared he had control with both feet down and then stretched the ball out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear said:
jvdesigns2002 said:
CalBear said:
Is intentionally reaching the ball over the goal line, after having both feet down, a football move?
Doesn't matter. Here's the relevant part of the rule:

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact

by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the

field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control,

the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
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.
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.
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?
If CJ was going for a first down instead of a TD I think it could have easily been ruled a reception and fumble..of course he recovered the ball. It appeared he had control with both feet down and then stretched the ball out.
No cuz ground can't cause a fumble

 
CalBear said:
jvdesigns2002 said:
CalBear said:
Is intentionally reaching the ball over the goal line, after having both feet down, a football move?
Doesn't matter. Here's the relevant part of the rule:

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact

by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the

field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control,

the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
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.
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.
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?
If CJ was going for a first down instead of a TD I think it could have easily been ruled a reception and fumble..of course he recovered the ball. It appeared he had control with both feet down and then stretched the ball out.
No cuz ground can't cause a fumble
I was just going to edit that after watching it again. Pretty sure it would be ruled a first down..with the fumble caused by the ground. Some of the NFL rules are almost impossible to make the correct call.

Bell scores a TD on a play that he reaches out as soon as he takes the handoff and the ball is punched out..looked like a fumble but the tip broke the almighty plane. Johnson catches the ball..both feet hit the ground the ball breaks the plane in his hands..yet it is incomplete. For a runner anything that happens after the ball breaks the plane does not matter.

On another note...After watching the replay Calvin did not need to stretch the ball out..it would have been a TD. Half of his body was going over the goal line.

 
CalBear said:
jvdesigns2002 said:
CalBear said:
Is intentionally reaching the ball over the goal line, after having both feet down, a football move?
Doesn't matter. Here's the relevant part of the rule:

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact

by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the

field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control,

the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
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.
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.
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?
If CJ was going for a first down instead of a TD I think it could have easily been ruled a reception and fumble..of course he recovered the ball. It appeared he had control with both feet down and then stretched the ball out.
No cuz ground can't cause a fumble
The ground can cause a fumble. If a player with the ball falls down without being touched, and the ground causes the ball to come out, it's a fumble.

 
They should just implement whatever rule college has or whatever rule they had 10 years ago. I don't remember all this BS over what's a catch and what isn't.
Here's an NCAA rule interpretation:

Receiver A85 stretches out at the Team B two-yard line and grasps a

forward pass and is going to the ground on his own as he is attempting

to complete the catch. As A85 falls to the ground in the end zone,

the ball immediately comes loose and falls to the ground. RULING:

Incomplete pass. Any receiver going to the ground on his own in the

process of making a catch must maintain control of the ball when he hits

the ground.
Sounds like the NCAA agrees here.

The reason there wasn't this much analysis of these plays is that 10 years ago there weren't millions of fantasy players interested in every play. Who (south of Lake Michigan) would have cared about the result of one play in a Detroit-Minnesota game where the team that had a questionable ruling against them still won?

 
Honest question, was there this type of debate about TD catches 5 years ago? Are there this level of debates about catches in college?

 
Honest question, was there this type of debate about TD catches 5 years ago? Are there this level of debates about catches in college?
Yes there was. As I recall it culminated with uproar over a playoff game-changing play at the end of an early 2000s era Rams playoff game

The result of everyone saying how much the rules weren't clear was the NFL changed them to make them less subjective. They are much easier to apply now. But most people don't bother to apply them before deciding if it was a bad call.

 
Greg, I think you got it backward. In the Rams game, the receiver (Bert Emanuel I think) made the catch, but the football grazed the top of the turf after he had control. Under the rules at the time, ball touches ground = no catch, regardless of whether the received had control. Clear, easy to officiate, but complete nonsense. Which is what got the NFL to start changing that rule in the first place.

 
Squatch said:
strong said:
The big difference is they didnt buzz the officials to review the Cruz play.
It was a scoring play which receives an automatic review--no need for a coach's challenge (if that is what you are saying).
No. That's not what Im saying. To be clearer: the booth official did not initiate further review on the Cruz TD. If he had, it likely would have been overturned by a field official as well.

 
The big difference is they didnt buzz the officials to review the Cruz play.
It was a scoring play which receives an automatic review--no need for a coach's challenge (if that is what you are saying).
No. That's not what Im saying. To be clearer: the booth official did not initiate further review on the Cruz TD. If he had, it likely would have been overturned by a field official as well.
Gotcha, and good point, it didn't seem like they had enough time to review it before the Giants kicked the extra point. And if any play deserved scrutiny, that one did. I knew as soon as they said Calvin's was being reviewed it would be reversed. Of course, I was expecting the same thing with Cruz's. I just chalk that up to Megatron being on my team and Cruz on my opponents.

 
Calvin actually had two feet down before he lost the ball while Cruz didn't. Stupid rule.
:goodposting: I've been watching football for a long time and thought I knew what a catch was. Now I never know if a pass is truly completed until the NFL tells me.

The NFL was so much better back in the 70s and 80s...

 
(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.
This is wrong

You have to COMPLETE THE PROCESS.

The process does not end when the second foot touches. This is the way the NFL has interpreted the role for the past few years

Ir doesn't matter if Cruz got one foot down, two feet down or 10 feet down. He didn't complete the process.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
(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.
This is wrong

You have to COMPLETE THE PROCESS.

The process does not end when the second foot touches. This is the way the NFL has interpreted the role for the past few years

Ir doesn't matter if Cruz got one foot down, two feet down or 10 feet down. He didn't complete the process.
You're misunderstanding.

I never said the process ends when his second foot is down. I'm saying getting 2 feet down is the second of three requirements in the process. And you can't start the third part (a football move) until you fulfill the first two (control and getting 2 feet down).

People are saying his reaching for the goal line was his football move and completed the process. I'm saying if his 2nd foot didn't come down, then it doesn't count as a football move. So whether it came down is important, because if it didn't, then he's going to the ground and he has to now also hold onto the ball through hitting the ground.

 
By the way, Pereira finally got to a recording of the game and was able to watch the replays. When he saw it live that night he was tweeting it was a catch. After watching the replay, he tweeted that it wasn't a catch, for the reasons that we've been saying in the thread here.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top