NFL Rules ruining the game (1 Viewer)

[CaGamblers]

I am so freaking pissed after watching Calvin Johnson making a nice TD catch to have it called "a no catch" because he didn't finish the play all the way to the ground. Then I watched another nice TD catch by Josh Morgan reversed because he was forced out of bounds.

The game is being over legislated - Let them play!

 

[Magnus_CA]

Lemme guess...Calvin Johnson owner?

 

[Army Eye]

No way do you have to be a Megatron owner to be outraged at that game.

 

[T J]

I HATE that rule. I know what the rule is and why they ruled it the way they did, but they seriously need to take a look at it. That was a TD.

How is it any different than a runner crossing the goal line but losing the ball a split second after the ball crossed the plane. They still rule that a TD. Johnson's catch was much more clearly a TD (in my estimation) than some of those situations I mentioned.

 

[RUSF18]

How is it any different than a runner crossing the goal line but losing the ball a split second after the ball crossed the plane. They still rule that a TD. Johnson's catch was much more clearly a TD (in my estimation) than some of those situations I mentioned.

The short answer is that it's completely different. In one case it is a guy who has already established possession before the goal line, and in the other he is still in the act of establishing possession.

 

[mystykoekaki]

That was pretty much a TD catch.

 

[jon_mx]

No way do you have to be a Megatron owner to be outraged at that game.

I was sitting next to a Bear fan in a bar, and he could not believe the call.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

How is it any different than a runner crossing the goal line but losing the ball a split second after the ball crossed the plane. They still rule that a TD. Johnson's catch was much more clearly a TD (in my estimation) than some of those situations I mentioned.

The short answer is that it's completely different. In one case it is a guy who has already established possession before the goal line, and in the other he is still in the act of establishing possession.

This is the right answer. You know how in Madden, once they cross the goal line everyone lets up because the computer knows the play is "over?" In a perfect world it would be like that. The play would end. If you're in the end zone you haven't established anything prior to getting there.

 

[jon_mx]

How is it any different than a runner crossing the goal line but losing the ball a split second after the ball crossed the plane. They still rule that a TD. Johnson's catch was much more clearly a TD (in my estimation) than some of those situations I mentioned.

The short answer is that it's completely different. In one case it is a guy who has already established possession before the goal line, and in the other he is still in the act of establishing possession.

What does it take to establish possession? Two-feet, getting hit, a knee, an ###, an elbow, and a hand, and then another hand before the ball comes out. That is not possession?

 

[BobbyLayne]

What does it take to establish possession? Two-feet, getting hit, a knee, an ###, an elbow, and a hand, and then another hand before the ball comes out. That is not possession?

Sorry, that's not enough.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBS8tTsnWE

That's Louis Murphy getting ripped off in Week 1 2009. Two feet, butt, elbow, off hand, didn't completed the process.

Now watch that all the way through and tell me if the Patriots receiver at the end of the clip completed the process.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlig...Megatron-non-TD

Two feet, a knee, the biggest rump in the galaxy, an off hand, but you released the ball to push yourself up and celebrate.

I'm sorry Calvin, you didn't complete the process.

It's a process oriented league.

 

[cobalt_27]

I don't have Calvin in any leagues. As a football fan, though, I wish the rules would reflect what would happen on the field. That's all.

That was a touchdown catch...one foot, two feet, a butt, and a hand down in the end zone. Touchdown. I don't care if he spikes the ball, puts it down, whatever, after that. Calvin won the game for Detroit there, and the refs/NFL are a bunch of idiots to say otherwise.

 

[Sam Quentin]

It's actually a misinterpretation of the "rule" that seems to have become popular.

They basically intended to remove the "football move" interpretation, but they screwed it up.

Once the second foot lands, he has made it "to the ground."

 

[trader jake]

I don't have Calvin in any leagues. As a football fan, though, I wish the rules would reflect what would happen on the field. That's all.That was a touchdown catch...one foot, two feet, a butt, and a hand down in the end zone. Touchdown. I don't care if he spikes the ball, puts it down, whatever, after that. Calvin won the game for Detroit there, and the refs/NFL are a bunch of idiots to say otherwise.

 

[Team ROFLCOPTERS]

I can see this one turning into a venting thread. Johnson needed to be more responsible with that catch. It's almost like he was hot dogging it.

 

[Jayrok]

I don't have Calvin in any leagues. As a football fan, though, I wish the rules would reflect what would happen on the field. That's all.That was a touchdown catch...one foot, two feet, a butt, and a hand down in the end zone. Touchdown. I don't care if he spikes the ball, puts it down, whatever, after that. Calvin won the game for Detroit there, and the refs/NFL are a bunch of idiots to say otherwise.

That was a TD. BS call. Two feet down is one thing, but when his butt touched the ground he was down... especially since he was touched by the defender while he was on the ground. Why wasn't he down by contact at that point?

 

[Donnybrook]

The ball is allowed to touch the ground as long as the reciever clearly maintains possession. At least that what the refs were saying when Meachan bobled the ball and traped in against his hip in the NFC championship game.

So which is it?

 

[DonnyT33]

How is it any different than a runner crossing the goal line but losing the ball a split second after the ball crossed the plane. They still rule that a TD. Johnson's catch was much more clearly a TD (in my estimation) than some of those situations I mentioned.

The short answer is that it's completely different. In one case it is a guy who has already established possession before the goal line, and in the other he is still in the act of establishing possession.

i thought he had possession..TWICE. Near perfectly caught ball..called no good...pure BS.

 

[McJose]

Good call. No catch. Move on.

 

[Magnus_CA]

I can see this one turning into a venting thread. Johnson needed to be more responsible with that catch. It's almost like he was hot dogging it.

Unfortunately the burden of proof is on the receiver. This is nothing new. If Calvin raised his paw with ball in hand it's a TD and a W.

 

[FavreCo]

I can see this one turning into a venting thread. Johnson needed to be more responsible with that catch. It's almost like he was hot dogging it.

No doubt that he did not know the rule as stupid as it is.Ya know. I cant even call something that stupid a rule.

 

[GoBirds]

I don't have Calvin in any leagues. As a football fan, though, I wish the rules would reflect what would happen on the field. That's all.That was a touchdown catch...one foot, two feet, a butt, and a hand down in the end zone. Touchdown. I don't care if he spikes the ball, puts it down, whatever, after that. Calvin won the game for Detroit there, and the refs/NFL are a bunch of idiots to say otherwise.

Exactly. He made the play and they got ripped of by a terrible rule.

 

[ThePittbully]

I can see why a fantasy owner might be upset, but its far from an easy call. I have to say if I was the ref I probably wouldn't give him the TD. He turns over and either breaks his fall with the football causing it to squirt out or just chooses to let it go, either way it makes it a questionable catch. You want the TD? Secure the ball and come up with it.

 

[jon_mx]

I can see why a fantasy owner might be upset, but its far from an easy call. I have to say if I was the ref I probably wouldn't give him the TD. He turns over and either breaks his fall with the football causing it to squirt out or just chooses to let it go, either way it makes it a questionable catch. You want the TD? Secure the ball and come up with it.

He wasn't breaking his fall, he was in the process of bouncing up. He should have not tried to get up I guess.

 

[southeastjerome]

That was pretty bad. Johnson is comfortable with one hand on the ball, its like he's being penalized for being a beast. I guess you can view it as a mental error, but I disagree with the rule.

 

[ThePittbully]

I can see why a fantasy owner might be upset, but its far from an easy call. I have to say if I was the ref I probably wouldn't give him the TD. He turns over and either breaks his fall with the football causing it to squirt out or just chooses to let it go, either way it makes it a questionable catch. You want the TD? Secure the ball and come up with it.

He wasn't breaking his fall, he was in the process of bouncing up. He should have not tried to get up I guess.

watching in real time it looked like all in one motion, and plays aren't called in slow motion

 

[jon_mx]

I can see why a fantasy owner might be upset, but its far from an easy call. I have to say if I was the ref I probably wouldn't give him the TD. He turns over and either breaks his fall with the football causing it to squirt out or just chooses to let it go, either way it makes it a questionable catch. You want the TD? Secure the ball and come up with it.

He wasn't breaking his fall, he was in the process of bouncing up. He should have not tried to get up I guess.

watching in real time it looked like all in one motion, and plays aren't called in slow motion

Johnson's real problem then is being to smooth. I would have just laid flat on my back for a while then slowly rolled over. Johnson tried to bounce up quickly and lost the ball in that process.

 

[Chumpson]

The way I see it he caught the ball with both hands, then maintained possession with one hand to the ground on his butt. Then in the process of getting up he dropped the ball. Seemed like a catch to me and it doesn't affect any of my games.

 

[death of the cool]

To me it seemed that the refs were looking for a reason not to call it a TD rather than just making the call. It was at first called a TD by the ref close to the play....then he was i guess overruled by another ref, and then they go to the booth to say the call stand.

Instead of the refs looking for a technicality to disregard a play (which is what it seems replay has now turned into in the NFL), all it takes is for there to be some common sense.....my guess is a great majority of people with nothing at stake (bear/lion fan or fantasy owners) would view that as a catch....and that they got the call wrong.

You can write NFL rules until you are blue in the face, but there is always going to be some subjectivity with certain calls. The NFL needs to work on hiring the correct people to make those calls (on the field or in the booth) rather than writing more rules that just gives the incompetent people more room to screw up games.

 

[Synthesizer]

The Lions also got ripped off a few years ago when Harrington threw a game-winning TD pass to Pollard. The replay system sucks. During some replays, they'll analyze every microsecond and blade of grass. But at other times (like today) there is referee interpretation and all of that is thrown out the window. Terrible system.

 

[mad sweeney]

How is it any different than a runner crossing the goal line but losing the ball a split second after the ball crossed the plane. They still rule that a TD. Johnson's catch was much more clearly a TD (in my estimation) than some of those situations I mentioned.

The short answer is that it's completely different. In one case it is a guy who has already established possession before the goal line, and in the other he is still in the act of establishing possession.

What does it take to establish possession? Two-feet, getting hit, a knee, an ###, an elbow, and a hand, and then another hand before the ball comes out. That is not possession?

Nope. Seems like that post is eerily similar to another post I read about this play... Creepy.

 

[Winky the tunnel ferret]

It's a stupid rule but it's been a stupid rule for a couple of years.

Calvin should know the rules of the game he's playing.

This is not the first time this rule has received attention over a controversial call.

This is his fault.

 

[Chairshot]

My understanding is that the continuation rule only counts when the player is going to the ground while in the process of gaining possession of the ball (on a diving catch, on a play where he leaves his feet to catch the ball and is hit in the air, etc).

He seemed to have possession of the ball when he came down with it. A play is dead the second a possessed ball crosses the goal line. If a player is in the end zone with possession of a ball and 2 feet on the ground, the play is dead and it's a TD - at that point it wouldn't matter if another player slaps the ball out of his hands, he spikes it, throws it into the stand, etc. - the play is over.

At least that's what I always thought the rule was. Is this not true?

 

[gump]

The NFL is not proactive enough.

Us Bucs fans will never forget/forgive for the Bert Emmanuel Rule. Unfortunately it took a play in the waning moments of the NFC Championship Game that the whole world was watching to make the league realize was a stupid rule it was.

This is a billion $ entity. Review the rules in the offseason...every offseason...and change what needs to be changed BEFORE it rears it's ugly head on national TV.

 

[mad sweeney]

My understanding is that the continuation rule only counts when the player is going to the ground while in the process of gaining possession of the ball (on a diving catch, on a play where he leaves his feet to catch the ball and is hit in the air, etc).He seemed to have possession of the ball when he came down with it. A play is dead the second a possessed ball crosses the goal line. If a player is in the end zone with possession of a ball and 2 feet on the ground, the play is dead and it's a TD - at that point it wouldn't matter if another player slaps the ball out of his hands, he spikes it, throws it into the stand, etc. - the play is over.At least that's what I always thought the rule was. Is this not true?

It is not true. It should be, but it isn't.

 

[Chairshot]

My understanding is that the continuation rule only counts when the player is going to the ground while in the process of gaining possession of the ball (on a diving catch, on a play where he leaves his feet to catch the ball and is hit in the air, etc).

He seemed to have possession of the ball when he came down with it. A play is dead the second a possessed ball crosses the goal line. If a player is in the end zone with possession of a ball and 2 feet on the ground, the play is dead and it's a TD - at that point it wouldn't matter if another player slaps the ball out of his hands, he spikes it, throws it into the stand, etc. - the play is over.

At least that's what I always thought the rule was. Is this not true?

It is not true. It should be, but it isn't.

I just checked in the 2010 Rule Book and I found the following. I've included 2 sections because they could be useful in the discussion. I've bolded the parts I was talking about. "Note 2" under "Catch" is what I was thinking about. It would seem to me that the play should be a TD because of Note 2, but maybe that's just my interpretation. Johnson definitely had possession of the ball when both feet hit the ground and he wasn't in the process of going to the ground before that. At least that's my estimation of the situation.

PLAYER POSSESSION: Article 7

A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds

(See 3-2-3).

To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered,

a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the

ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other

part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous,

there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as

distinguished from touching or muffing).

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession

of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the

ball after he touches 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, there is no

possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch,

interception, or recovery.

Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent)

in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline,

he must retain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the act of falling

to the ground and after hitting the ground, or there is no possession.

Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered

loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has

been a loss of possession.

CATCH: A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in

flight (See 8-1-3).

Note 1: It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control

of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the

ball has touched the ground.

Note 2: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, and there is

contact by a defender causing the ball to come loose before the runner is down by

contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a

touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss

of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

 

[Class Dismissed]

To me it seemed that the refs were looking for a reason not to call it a TD rather than just making the call. It was at first called a TD by the ref close to the play....then he was i guess overruled by another ref, and then they go to the booth to say the call stand.

Instead of the refs looking for a technicality to disregard a play (which is what it seems replay has now turned into in the NFL), all it takes is for there to be some common sense.....my guess is a great majority of people with nothing at stake (bear/lion fan or fantasy owners) would view that as a catch....and that they got the call wrong.

You can write NFL rules until you are blue in the face, but there is always going to be some subjectivity with certain calls. The NFL needs to work on hiring the correct people to make those calls (on the field or in the booth) rather than writing more rules that just gives the incompetent people more room to screw up games.

According to Al Michaels, There is a new rule this year where the 2nd call, the call to overrule the initial call, automatically becomes the official call on the field.I sure would like to know where the 2nd official was on the field.

To me it is complete BS that the 2nd call always refutes the 1st......It makes absolutely zero sense.

How about just making sure the call is right in the field first.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

To me it seemed that the refs were looking for a reason not to call it a TD rather than just making the call. It was at first called a TD by the ref close to the play....then he was i guess overruled by another ref, and then they go to the booth to say the call stand.Instead of the refs looking for a technicality to disregard a play (which is what it seems replay has now turned into in the NFL), all it takes is for there to be some common sense.....my guess is a great majority of people with nothing at stake (bear/lion fan or fantasy owners) would view that as a catch....and that they got the call wrong.You can write NFL rules until you are blue in the face, but there is always going to be some subjectivity with certain calls. The NFL needs to work on hiring the correct people to make those calls (on the field or in the booth) rather than writing more rules that just gives the incompetent people more room to screw up games.

This.

 

[MNTom]

My understanding is that the continuation rule only counts when the player is going to the ground while in the process of gaining possession of the ball (on a diving catch, on a play where he leaves his feet to catch the ball and is hit in the air, etc).

He seemed to have possession of the ball when he came down with it. A play is dead the second a possessed ball crosses the goal line. If a player is in the end zone with possession of a ball and 2 feet on the ground, the play is dead and it's a TD - at that point it wouldn't matter if another player slaps the ball out of his hands, he spikes it, throws it into the stand, etc. - the play is over.

At least that's what I always thought the rule was. Is this not true?

It is not true. It should be, but it isn't.

I just checked in the 2010 Rule Book and I found the following. I've included 2 sections because they could be useful in the discussion. I've bolded the parts I was talking about. "Note 2" under "Catch" is what I was thinking about. It would seem to me that the play should be a TD because of Note 2, but maybe that's just my interpretation. Johnson definitely had possession of the ball when both feet hit the ground and he wasn't in the process of going to the ground before that. At least that's my estimation of the situation.

PLAYER POSSESSION: Article 7

A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds

(See 3-2-3).

To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered,

a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the

ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other

part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous,

there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as

distinguished from touching or muffing).

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession

of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the

ball after he touches 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, there is no

possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch,

interception, or recovery.

Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent)

in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline,

he must retain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the act of falling

to the ground and after hitting the ground, or there is no possession.

Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered

loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has

been a loss of possession.

CATCH: A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in

flight (See 8-1-3).

Note 1: It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control

of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the

ball has touched the ground.

Note 2: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, and there is

contact by a defender causing the ball to come loose before the runner is down by

contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a

touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss

of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

I think it is complete because of note 1. He never lost possession of the ball. Thus this rule should not apply.

 

[j3r3m3y]

No way do you have to be a Megatron owner to be outraged at that game.

I was sitting next to a Bear fan in a bar, and he could not believe the call.

I guess he doesn't know the rules then. The rule might need to be changed but it was applied correctly.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

No way do you have to be a Megatron owner to be outraged at that game.

I was sitting next to a Bear fan in a bar, and he could not believe the call.

I guess he doesn't know the rules then. The rule might need to be changed but it was applied correctly.

No, it wasn't. This rule inherently involves some judgement on the part of the officials to distinguish between the process of catching the ball and the process of, well, getting up off the ground after completing the catch. And they clearly screwed up that judgement. After watching the replay a few times and reading other people's opinions on this, I'm settling in on the position that the rule itself is fine, but the officials botched it in practice.

 

[j3r3m3y]

My understanding is that the continuation rule only counts when the player is going to the ground while in the process of gaining possession of the ball (on a diving catch, on a play where he leaves his feet to catch the ball and is hit in the air, etc).

He seemed to have possession of the ball when he came down with it. A play is dead the second a possessed ball crosses the goal line. If a player is in the end zone with possession of a ball and 2 feet on the ground, the play is dead and it's a TD - at that point it wouldn't matter if another player slaps the ball out of his hands, he spikes it, throws it into the stand, etc. - the play is over.

At least that's what I always thought the rule was. Is this not true?

It is not true. It should be, but it isn't.

I just checked in the 2010 Rule Book and I found the following. I've included 2 sections because they could be useful in the discussion. I've bolded the parts I was talking about. "Note 2" under "Catch" is what I was thinking about. It would seem to me that the play should be a TD because of Note 2, but maybe that's just my interpretation. Johnson definitely had possession of the ball when both feet hit the ground and he wasn't in the process of going to the ground before that. At least that's my estimation of the situation.

PLAYER POSSESSION: Article 7

A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds

(See 3-2-3).

To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered,

a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the

ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other

part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous,

there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as

distinguished from touching or muffing).

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession

of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the

ball after he touches 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, there is no

possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch,

interception, or recovery.

Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent)

in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline,

he must retain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the act of falling

to the ground and after hitting the ground, or there is no possession.

Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered

loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has

been a loss of possession.

CATCH: A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in

flight (See 8-1-3).

Note 1: It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control

of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the

ball has touched the ground.

Note 2: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, and there is

contact by a defender causing the ball to come loose before the runner is down by

contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a

touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss

of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

I think it is complete because of note 1. He never lost possession of the ball. Thus this rule should not apply.

Note one is why it is incomplete.

 

[j3r3m3y]

No way do you have to be a Megatron owner to be outraged at that game.

I was sitting next to a Bear fan in a bar, and he could not believe the call.

I guess he doesn't know the rules then. The rule might need to be changed but it was applied correctly.

No, it wasn't. This rule inherently involves some judgement on the part of the officials to distinguish between the process of catching the ball and the process of, well, getting up off the ground after completing the catch. And they clearly screwed up that judgement. After watching the replay a few times and reading other people's opinions on this, I'm settling in on the position that the rule itself is fine, but the officials botched it in practice.

And as I said earlier in the thread, he should have not left it open to such judgement. Hang on to the damn ball.

 

[mad sweeney]

No way do you have to be a Megatron owner to be outraged at that game.

I was sitting next to a Bear fan in a bar, and he could not believe the call.

I guess he doesn't know the rules then. The rule might need to be changed but it was applied correctly.

No, it wasn't. This rule inherently involves some judgement on the part of the officials to distinguish between the process of catching the ball and the process of, well, getting up off the ground after completing the catch. And they clearly screwed up that judgement. After watching the replay a few times and reading other people's opinions on this, I'm settling in on the position that the rule itself is fine, but the officials botched it in practice.

The rule is absolutely terrible. Control of the ball with two feet or any other combo of accepted body parts down in the EZ should be a TD. That rule makes it not so. The refs made an extremely unpopular call and it was the right one. Too bad Megatron didn't know the rule, because this quote makes it clear that he didn't and also seems to imply that letting go of the ball was on purpose.

Johnson was “shocked” by the call, saying, “I figure if I got two feet and a knee down, to me that is a catch that’s why I got up and took off,” he said.

I'm shocked that a WR that isn't a rookie in his first game doesn't know this rule and, regardless, hold onto the ball and hold off the celebration on a huge road-woes-streak breaking, game winning TD.

 

[Chairshot]

I can't get past the fact that if he has possession of the ball with 2 feet down in the end zone the ball is dead. It doesn't matter that he goes to the ground after the fact, because the play is dead as soon as he has possession and 2 feet down.

It seems really simple. I don't see how the rule applies to this situation at all.

I can definitely understand why Johnson didn't understand the rule because I've heard people say more then once that if you have possession with 2 feet down in the end zone, the play is over. He had that.

I just can't see why the continuation rule would apply to this specific situation.

 

[schu]

I can't get past the fact that if he has possession of the ball with 2 feet down in the end zone the ball is dead. It doesn't matter that he goes to the ground after the fact, because the play is dead as soon as he has possession and 2 feet down.It seems really simple. I don't see how the rule applies to this situation at all.I can definitely understand why Johnson didn't understand the rule because I've heard people say more then once that if you have possession with 2 feet down in the end zone, the play is over. He had that.I just can't see why the continuation rule would apply to this specific situation.

Exactly.Can you imagine the cheap shots this call will encourage now that they've added uncertainty as to when the play is over in the endzone?

 

[mad sweeney]

I can't get past the fact that if he has possession of the ball with 2 feet down in the end zone the ball is dead. It doesn't matter that he goes to the ground after the fact, because the play is dead as soon as he has possession and 2 feet down.

It seems really simple. I don't see how the rule applies to this situation at all.

I can definitely understand why Johnson didn't understand the rule because I've heard people say more then once that if you have possession with 2 feet down in the end zone, the play is over. He had that.

I just can't see why the continuation rule would apply to this specific situation.

Exactly.Can you imagine the cheap shots this call will encourage now that they've added uncertainty as to when the play ends in the endzone.

It's been this way for at least 5 years and every year there's a number of TDs called back by it and cheap shots have not been encouraged by it.

 

[mad sweeney]

I can't get past the fact that if he has possession of the ball with 2 feet down in the end zone the ball is dead. It doesn't matter that he goes to the ground after the fact, because the play is dead as soon as he has possession and 2 feet down.

It seems really simple. I don't see how the rule applies to this situation at all.

I can definitely understand why Johnson didn't understand the rule because I've heard people say more then once that if you have possession with 2 feet down in the end zone, the play is over. He had that.

I just can't see why the continuation rule would apply to this specific situation.

It does matter because that's how they've implemented this rule for at least 5 years now.

 

[MNTom]

The NFL is not proactive enough.Us Bucs fans will never forget/forgive for the Bert Emmanuel Rule. Unfortunately it took a play in the waning moments of the NFC Championship Game that the whole world was watching to make the league realize was a stupid rule it was.This is a billion $ entity. Review the rules in the offseason...every offseason...and change what needs to be changed BEFORE it rears it's ugly head on national TV.

What is ironic, is I think that play is what encouraged this rule. The original intent was when a receiver was diving and had possession but the the ball hit the ground it is a reception. It was not, IMO, meant to be used in this type of situation. Too much overinterpretation by the officials.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The NFL is not proactive enough.

Us Bucs fans will never forget/forgive for the Bert Emmanuel Rule. Unfortunately it took a play in the waning moments of the NFC Championship Game that the whole world was watching to make the league realize was a stupid rule it was.

This is a billion $ entity. Review the rules in the offseason...every offseason...and change what needs to be changed BEFORE it rears it's ugly head on national TV.

Granting Emanuel that catch would simply have made it an easier 4th down IIRC. The team had scored zero touchdowns in that game. No reason to think it changed anything. But yeah, I agree that it takes high-profile exposure to nudge them along. If Calvin's play had occurred in the Saints/Colts SB, we might not even be dealing with it today.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Good call. No catch. Move on.

Not sure what the fuss is about. Pretty simple call imo.