The tuck rule, continuation rule, complete the process rule (1 Viewer)

[Tarlyn]

His momentum while "going to the ground" forced his hand with the ball into the ground and it forced it from his hand as shown by his hand squeezing together as the ball squirts out from it.

Its much more obvious in regular time instead of super slo mo that his momentum while falling forced his body into that wierd turn and his hand with the ball into the ground.

 

[Neofight]

His momentum while "going to the ground" forced his hand with the ball into the ground and it forced it from his hand as shown by his hand squeezing together as the ball squirts out from it.Its much more obvious in regular time instead of super slo mo that his momentum while falling forced his body into that wierd turn and his hand with the ball into the ground.

I believe what you are seeing is that he is closing his hand to push off the ground with it closed, which is actually pretty easy to see in slow motion. It is not as if he is reaching back for the ball, looking for it or even thinking about it. He is already too busy celebrating his touchdown. His second act was getting up and running through the end zone.

 

[Tarlyn]

His momentum while "going to the ground" forced his hand with the ball into the ground and it forced it from his hand as shown by his hand squeezing together as the ball squirts out from it.Its much more obvious in regular time instead of super slo mo that his momentum while falling forced his body into that wierd turn and his hand with the ball into the ground.

I believe what you are seeing is that he is closing his hand to push off the ground with it closed, which is actually pretty easy to see in slow motion. It is not as if he is reaching back for the ball, looking for it or even thinking about it. He is already too busy celebrating his touchdown. His second act was getting up and running through the end zone.

Completely disagree......agree rule is stupid and without it of course it was a TD.....with rule I fully believe it was called at it should have been and every single analyst I have seen on TV including the Lions themselves agree.

 

[Neofight]

His momentum while "going to the ground" forced his hand with the ball into the ground and it forced it from his hand as shown by his hand squeezing together as the ball squirts out from it.Its much more obvious in regular time instead of super slo mo that his momentum while falling forced his body into that wierd turn and his hand with the ball into the ground.

I believe what you are seeing is that he is closing his hand to push off the ground with it closed, which is actually pretty easy to see in slow motion. It is not as if he is reaching back for the ball, looking for it or even thinking about it. He is already too busy celebrating his touchdown. His second act was getting up and running through the end zone.

Completely disagree......agree rule is stupid and without it of course it was a TD.....with rule I fully believe it was called at it should have been and every single analyst I have seen on TV including the Lions themselves agree.

So you believe he was concerned that he had lost the ball and that is why he closed his hand? If so, why wouldn't he appear concerned immediately thereafter and turn around to pick it up? He was already celebrating. That weird turn was him pivoting from a sitting on his ### position to running in a split second. And he closed his hand so that he wouldn't tweak a finger or a thumb. Yes, I'm sure you doubt all of that, but that is the way an athletes body would react in that situation.

 

[Tenacious D]

If Calvins catch was ruled a TD I do not think any Chicago fan would have even blinked or complained.

I was at the game. After watching the replay in the stadium, pretty much every Bears fan there was resigned to the fact it was a TD. The scattered Lions fans had their arms raised as the ref headed back on the field. Everyone there was shocked when the play stood as called. Obviously happy with the outcome, but any reasonable Bears fan felt a little guilty the Lions didn't at least get a courtesy reach around with that call.

 

[davearm]

If a guy is going to the ground and does not complete a catch when he hits the ground - completing his fall without controlling the ball - that is one thing. That is not what happened today.

You keep stating this as fact.Not only is it not fact, but moreover the officials came to the exact opposite conclusion. They ruled that's exactly what happened.

 

[Neofight]

If a guy is going to the ground and does not complete a catch when he hits the ground - completing his fall without controlling the ball - that is one thing. That is not what happened today.

You keep stating this as fact.Not only is it not fact, but moreover the officials came to the exact opposite conclusion. They ruled that's exactly what happened.

Like I stated before, he was clearly getting up. Getting up is a distinct act from falling down, unless you agree with mad sweeney that the speed with which you do this somehow has something to do with it. It is apparently a bit hard for them to see (or understand) that but I have seen it and heard it described by analysts as such (some of whom think the rule still applies, some of whom don't). The video doesn't lie on this point.Now, show me where the rule states getting up is part of the process. I haven't seen that and therein lies the problem, the misinterpretation and the difference between similar calls such as Louis Murphy's drop and similarly blown calls such as Sims-Walker's incompletion that was ruled a catch. Those guys were not getting up, they were on the way down or on the ground rolling. See the difference? Calvin was getting up to celebrate. 8.1.3 doesn't come close to addressing this; but even still it is not an argument of semantics, it is an argument of physics.

As far as this play is concerned they can use it as a teaching moment to help the refs understand exactly at which point a player is done falling and is motioning to get up. A guy that is taking a step out of the end zone is clearly not falling into it.

 

[davearm]

If a guy is going to the ground and does not complete a catch when he hits the ground - completing his fall without controlling the ball - that is one thing. That is not what happened today.

You keep stating this as fact.Not only is it not fact, but moreover the officials came to the exact opposite conclusion. They ruled that's exactly what happened.

Like I stated before, he was clearly getting up. Getting up is a distinct act from falling down, unless you agree with mad sweeney that the speed with which you do this somehow has something to do with it. It is apparently a bit hard for them to see (or understand) that but I have seen it and heard it described by analysts as such (some of whom think the rule still applies, some of whom don't). The video doesn't lie on this point.Now, show me where the rule states getting up is part of the process. I haven't seen that and therein lies the problem, the misinterpretation and the difference between similar calls such as Louis Murphy's drop and similarly blown calls such as Sims-Walker's incompletion that was ruled a catch. Those guys were not getting up, they were on the way down or on the ground rolling. See the difference? Calvin was getting up to celebrate. 8.1.3 doesn't come close to addressing this; but even still it is not an argument of semantics, it is an argument of physics.

As far as this play is concerned they can use it as a teaching moment to help the refs understand exactly at which point a player is done falling and is motioning to get up. A guy that is taking a step out of the end zone is clearly not falling into it.

He wasn't clearly getting up.

 

[Neofight]

If a guy is going to the ground and does not complete a catch when he hits the ground - completing his fall without controlling the ball - that is one thing. That is not what happened today.

You keep stating this as fact.Not only is it not fact, but moreover the officials came to the exact opposite conclusion. They ruled that's exactly what happened.

Like I stated before, he was clearly getting up. Getting up is a distinct act from falling down, unless you agree with mad sweeney that the speed with which you do this somehow has something to do with it. It is apparently a bit hard for them to see (or understand) that but I have seen it and heard it described by analysts as such (some of whom think the rule still applies, some of whom don't). The video doesn't lie on this point.Now, show me where the rule states getting up is part of the process. I haven't seen that and therein lies the problem, the misinterpretation and the difference between similar calls such as Louis Murphy's drop and similarly blown calls such as Sims-Walker's incompletion that was ruled a catch. Those guys were not getting up, they were on the way down or on the ground rolling. See the difference? Calvin was getting up to celebrate. 8.1.3 doesn't come close to addressing this; but even still it is not an argument of semantics, it is an argument of physics.

As far as this play is concerned they can use it as a teaching moment to help the refs understand exactly at which point a player is done falling and is motioning to get up. A guy that is taking a step out of the end zone is clearly not falling into it.

He wasn't clearly getting up.

I'll ask you again, how do you get up when you fall? Simple question, but you've avoided it. He put his left hand out to brace his fall while he controlled the ball with his right. By the time he puts his right hand (and the ball) on the ground his ### is off of it. How did that happen if he was not getting up? Come on now, you've had the better part of a day to look at the replay and answer these simple questions for yourself.

I know Calvin is a serious athlete but he does not have powers of levitation, Holmes

 

[davearm]

If a guy is going to the ground and does not complete a catch when he hits the ground - completing his fall without controlling the ball - that is one thing. That is not what happened today.

You keep stating this as fact.Not only is it not fact, but moreover the officials came to the exact opposite conclusion. They ruled that's exactly what happened.

Like I stated before, he was clearly getting up. Getting up is a distinct act from falling down, unless you agree with mad sweeney that the speed with which you do this somehow has something to do with it. It is apparently a bit hard for them to see (or understand) that but I have seen it and heard it described by analysts as such (some of whom think the rule still applies, some of whom don't). The video doesn't lie on this point.Now, show me where the rule states getting up is part of the process. I haven't seen that and therein lies the problem, the misinterpretation and the difference between similar calls such as Louis Murphy's drop and similarly blown calls such as Sims-Walker's incompletion that was ruled a catch. Those guys were not getting up, they were on the way down or on the ground rolling. See the difference? Calvin was getting up to celebrate. 8.1.3 doesn't come close to addressing this; but even still it is not an argument of semantics, it is an argument of physics.

As far as this play is concerned they can use it as a teaching moment to help the refs understand exactly at which point a player is done falling and is motioning to get up. A guy that is taking a step out of the end zone is clearly not falling into it.

He wasn't clearly getting up.

I'll ask you again, how do you get up when you fall? Simple question, but you've avoided it. He put his left hand out to brace his fall while he controlled the ball with his right. By the time he puts his right hand (and the ball) on the ground his ### is off of it. How did that happen if he was not getting up? Come on now, you've had the better part of a day to look at the replay and answer these simple questions for yourself.

I know Calvin is a serious athlete but he does not have powers of levitation, Holmes

For the third or fourth time, my interpretation is that it was Johnson's momentum that brought his right hand (and the ball) to the ground, and not an act of getting up. As I look at it, he tumbled down in an awkward enough way that his right hand was also needed to brace himself as he fell.You can keep repeating over and over what you think is clear, but it's not going to make it true.

 

[Neofight]

You keep stating this as fact.

Not only is it not fact, but moreover the officials came to the exact opposite conclusion. They ruled that's exactly what happened.

Like I stated before, he was clearly getting up. Getting up is a distinct act from falling down, unless you agree with mad sweeney that the speed with which you do this somehow has something to do with it. It is apparently a bit hard for them to see (or understand) that but I have seen it and heard it described by analysts as such (some of whom think the rule still applies, some of whom don't). The video doesn't lie on this point.Now, show me where the rule states getting up is part of the process. I haven't seen that and therein lies the problem, the misinterpretation and the difference between similar calls such as Louis Murphy's drop and similarly blown calls such as Sims-Walker's incompletion that was ruled a catch. Those guys were not getting up, they were on the way down or on the ground rolling. See the difference? Calvin was getting up to celebrate. 8.1.3 doesn't come close to addressing this; but even still it is not an argument of semantics, it is an argument of physics.

As far as this play is concerned they can use it as a teaching moment to help the refs understand exactly at which point a player is done falling and is motioning to get up. A guy that is taking a step out of the end zone is clearly not falling into it.

He wasn't clearly getting up.

I'll ask you again, how do you get up when you fall? Simple question, but you've avoided it. He put his left hand out to brace his fall while he controlled the ball with his right. By the time he puts his right hand (and the ball) on the ground his ### is off of it. How did that happen if he was not getting up? Come on now, you've had the better part of a day to look at the replay and answer these simple questions for yourself.

I know Calvin is a serious athlete but he does not have powers of levitation, Holmes

For the third or fourth time, my interpretation is that it was Johnson's momentum that brought his right hand (and the ball) to the ground, and not an act of getting up. As I look at it, he tumbled down in an awkward enough way that his right hand was also needed to brace himself as he fell.You can keep repeating over and over what you think is clear, but it's not going to make it true.

You said he "wasn't clearly getting up". You can keep saying that, but he already was up. His butt is clearly off the ground with him using only his left arm and leg. Do you not see this? I'm sure I could come up with a video still, but it is obvious even in the slow motion. So, how wasn't he clearly getting up if he was already getting up, in your opinion? Forget about momentum or intent, because that is merely my opinion v. yours. Let's talk about the facts.

 

[Insein]

Serious question.....say that a WR makes a catch in the back of the end zone....clearly in possession of the ball, gets 2 feet inbounds. He falls out of bounds and the ball comes loose when he hits the ground.....is that not a TD anymore?

Take it a step further. What if a guy makes the catch in the end zone, gets 2 feet down, but his momentum makes him run into the camera guy and drops the ball. Is that not completing the process?

 

[Insein]

What I don't get is, the first official (guy in the video) clearly signals TD. He had the best view of anyone on the field. Who overruled him to call that not a catch? I can see a review but it should have been ruled a TD on the field if the guy who's right there calls it a TD.

 

[davearm]

You said he "wasn't clearly getting up". You can keep saying that, but he already was up. His butt is clearly off the ground with him using only his left arm and leg. Do you not see this? I'm sure I could come up with a video still, but it is obvious even in the slow motion. So, how wasn't he clearly getting up if he was already getting up, in your opinion? Forget about momentum or intent, because that is merely my opinion v. yours. Let's talk about the facts.

What you're expressing is an opinion, not a fact.More specifically, your conclusion that butt off the ground constitutes the end of the falling process is a) not a fact, and b) incorrect, in my opinion.

 

[Billy Bats]

Like I stated before, he was clearly getting up. Getting up is a distinct act from falling down, unless you agree with mad sweeney that the speed with which you do this somehow has something to do with it. It is apparently a bit hard for them to see (or understand) that but I have seen it and heard it described by analysts as such (some of whom think the rule still applies, some of whom don't). The video doesn't lie on this point.

Now, show me where the rule states getting up is part of the process. I haven't seen that and therein lies the problem, the misinterpretation and the difference between similar calls such as Louis Murphy's drop and similarly blown calls such as Sims-Walker's incompletion that was ruled a catch. Those guys were not getting up, they were on the way down or on the ground rolling. See the difference? Calvin was getting up to celebrate. 8.1.3 doesn't come close to addressing this; but even still it is not an argument of semantics, it is an argument of physics.

As far as this play is concerned they can use it as a teaching moment to help the refs understand exactly at which point a player is done falling and is motioning to get up. A guy that is taking a step out of the end zone is clearly not falling into it.

He wasn't clearly getting up.

I'll ask you again, how do you get up when you fall? Simple question, but you've avoided it. He put his left hand out to brace his fall while he controlled the ball with his right. By the time he puts his right hand (and the ball) on the ground his ### is off of it. How did that happen if he was not getting up? Come on now, you've had the better part of a day to look at the replay and answer these simple questions for yourself.

I know Calvin is a serious athlete but he does not have powers of levitation, Holmes

For the third or fourth time, my interpretation is that it was Johnson's momentum that brought his right hand (and the ball) to the ground, and not an act of getting up. As I look at it, he tumbled down in an awkward enough way that his right hand was also needed to brace himself as he fell.You can keep repeating over and over what you think is clear, but it's not going to make it true.

You said he "wasn't clearly getting up". You can keep saying that, but he already was up. His butt is clearly off the ground with him using only his left arm and leg. Do you not see this? I'm sure I could come up with a video still, but it is obvious even in the slow motion. So, how wasn't he clearly getting up if he was already getting up, in your opinion? Forget about momentum or intent, because that is merely my opinion v. yours. Let's talk about the facts.

He wasn't up yet. He was still in the process of finishing the catch because he was falling/sliding. He lost control of the ball at the very last moment of finishing the catch and starting a new action (getting up) If he was completely standing and under control then dropped it, spiked it, threw it into the stands, it would have counted.

 

[davearm]

What I don't get is, the first official (guy in the video) clearly signals TD. He had the best view of anyone on the field. Who overruled him to call that not a catch? I can see a review but it should have been ruled a TD on the field if the guy who's right there calls it a TD.

Honestly this is the best thing Johnson and the Lions have in their favor. Where the falling-to-the-ground process ends is ambiguous and open to interpretation. (As I've stated I thought he lost the ball while he was still in the process of falling, but the opposite conclusion is absolutely defensible too.)Since the call on the field was TD, what's required to overturn is indisputable evidence.

 

[Neofight]

You said he "wasn't clearly getting up". You can keep saying that, but he already was up. His butt is clearly off the ground with him using only his left arm and leg. Do you not see this? I'm sure I could come up with a video still, but it is obvious even in the slow motion. So, how wasn't he clearly getting up if he was already getting up, in your opinion? Forget about momentum or intent, because that is merely my opinion v. yours. Let's talk about the facts.

What you're expressing is an opinion, not a fact.More specifically, your conclusion that butt off the ground constitutes the end of the falling process is a) not a fact, and b) incorrect, in my opinion.

OK, but I've got video of this "opinion". And physics on my side.

 

[Neofight]

He wasn't clearly getting up.

I'll ask you again, how do you get up when you fall? Simple question, but you've avoided it. He put his left hand out to brace his fall while he controlled the ball with his right. By the time he puts his right hand (and the ball) on the ground his ### is off of it. How did that happen if he was not getting up? Come on now, you've had the better part of a day to look at the replay and answer these simple questions for yourself. I know Calvin is a serious athlete but he does not have powers of levitation, Holmes

For the third or fourth time, my interpretation is that it was Johnson's momentum that brought his right hand (and the ball) to the ground, and not an act of getting up. As I look at it, he tumbled down in an awkward enough way that his right hand was also needed to brace himself as he fell.You can keep repeating over and over what you think is clear, but it's not going to make it true.

You said he "wasn't clearly getting up". You can keep saying that, but he already was up. His butt is clearly off the ground with him using only his left arm and leg. Do you not see this? I'm sure I could come up with a video still, but it is obvious even in the slow motion. So, how wasn't he clearly getting up if he was already getting up, in your opinion? Forget about momentum or intent, because that is merely my opinion v. yours. Let's talk about the facts.

He wasn't up yet. He was still in the process of finishing the catch because he was falling/sliding. He lost control of the ball at the very last moment of finishing the catch and starting a new action (getting up) If he was completely standing and under control then dropped it, spiked it, threw it into the stands, it would have counted.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that the "process of finishing the catch" includes getting up off the ground. Let's go by the rules here, as this whole process argument has already been perverted by the media, the refs, this thread and others.

 

[Insein]

What I don't get is, the first official (guy in the video) clearly signals TD. He had the best view of anyone on the field. Who overruled him to call that not a catch? I can see a review but it should have been ruled a TD on the field if the guy who's right there calls it a TD.

Honestly this is the best thing Johnson and the Lions have in their favor. Where the falling-to-the-ground process ends is ambiguous and open to interpretation. (As I've stated I thought he lost the ball while he was still in the process of falling, but the opposite conclusion is absolutely defensible too.)Since the call on the field was TD, what's required to overturn is indisputable evidence.

The guy in the video called TD but they overruled him and said incomplete BEFORE they reviewed it. I want to know who had a better view than that guy to overrule.

 

[Neofight]

What I don't get is, the first official (guy in the video) clearly signals TD. He had the best view of anyone on the field. Who overruled him to call that not a catch? I can see a review but it should have been ruled a TD on the field if the guy who's right there calls it a TD.

Honestly this is the best thing Johnson and the Lions have in their favor. Where the falling-to-the-ground process ends is ambiguous and open to interpretation. (As I've stated I thought he lost the ball while he was still in the process of falling, but the opposite conclusion is absolutely defensible too.)Since the call on the field was TD, what's required to overturn is indisputable evidence.

No it isn't, due to a rule change that says an overruling of the initial call on the field takes precedence (i.e., the second ref carries the weight, regardless of where he is positioned on the field with regards to a particular play).

 

[Insein]

What I don't get is, the first official (guy in the video) clearly signals TD. He had the best view of anyone on the field. Who overruled him to call that not a catch? I can see a review but it should have been ruled a TD on the field if the guy who's right there calls it a TD.

Honestly this is the best thing Johnson and the Lions have in their favor. Where the falling-to-the-ground process ends is ambiguous and open to interpretation. (As I've stated I thought he lost the ball while he was still in the process of falling, but the opposite conclusion is absolutely defensible too.)Since the call on the field was TD, what's required to overturn is indisputable evidence.

No it isn't, due to a rule change that says an overruling of the initial call on the field takes precedence (i.e., the second ref carries the weight, regardless of where he is positioned on the field with regards to a particular play).

Thats really a rule? Cause just on common sense, that is a terrible rule.

 

[Billy Bats]

I'll ask you again, how do you get up when you fall? Simple question, but you've avoided it. He put his left hand out to brace his fall while he controlled the ball with his right. By the time he puts his right hand (and the ball) on the ground his ### is off of it. How did that happen if he was not getting up? Come on now, you've had the better part of a day to look at the replay and answer these simple questions for yourself. I know Calvin is a serious athlete but he does not have powers of levitation, Holmes

For the third or fourth time, my interpretation is that it was Johnson's momentum that brought his right hand (and the ball) to the ground, and not an act of getting up. As I look at it, he tumbled down in an awkward enough way that his right hand was also needed to brace himself as he fell.You can keep repeating over and over what you think is clear, but it's not going to make it true.

You said he "wasn't clearly getting up". You can keep saying that, but he already was up. His butt is clearly off the ground with him using only his left arm and leg. Do you not see this? I'm sure I could come up with a video still, but it is obvious even in the slow motion. So, how wasn't he clearly getting up if he was already getting up, in your opinion? Forget about momentum or intent, because that is merely my opinion v. yours. Let's talk about the facts.

He wasn't up yet. He was still in the process of finishing the catch because he was falling/sliding. He lost control of the ball at the very last moment of finishing the catch and starting a new action (getting up) If he was completely standing and under control then dropped it, spiked it, threw it into the stands, it would have counted.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that the "process of finishing the catch" includes getting up off the ground. Let's go by the rules here, as this whole process argument has already been perverted by the media, the refs, this thread and others.

His slide was the end process of finishing the catch. He lost the ball and the very end of his slide, which was part of the process. Incomplete.

 

[Neofight]

What I don't get is, the first official (guy in the video) clearly signals TD. He had the best view of anyone on the field. Who overruled him to call that not a catch? I can see a review but it should have been ruled a TD on the field if the guy who's right there calls it a TD.

Honestly this is the best thing Johnson and the Lions have in their favor. Where the falling-to-the-ground process ends is ambiguous and open to interpretation. (As I've stated I thought he lost the ball while he was still in the process of falling, but the opposite conclusion is absolutely defensible too.)Since the call on the field was TD, what's required to overturn is indisputable evidence.

No it isn't, due to a rule change that says an overruling of the initial call on the field takes precedence (i.e., the second ref carries the weight, regardless of where he is positioned on the field with regards to a particular play).

Thats really a rule? Cause just on common sense, that is a terrible rule.

It is my understanding that this was changed this off season, per a broadcast yesterday.

 

[Neofight]

For the third or fourth time, my interpretation is that it was Johnson's momentum that brought his right hand (and the ball) to the ground, and not an act of getting up. As I look at it, he tumbled down in an awkward enough way that his right hand was also needed to brace himself as he fell.You can keep repeating over and over what you think is clear, but it's not going to make it true.

You said he "wasn't clearly getting up". You can keep saying that, but he already was up. His butt is clearly off the ground with him using only his left arm and leg. Do you not see this? I'm sure I could come up with a video still, but it is obvious even in the slow motion. So, how wasn't he clearly getting up if he was already getting up, in your opinion? Forget about momentum or intent, because that is merely my opinion v. yours. Let's talk about the facts.

He wasn't up yet. He was still in the process of finishing the catch because he was falling/sliding. He lost control of the ball at the very last moment of finishing the catch and starting a new action (getting up) If he was completely standing and under control then dropped it, spiked it, threw it into the stands, it would have counted.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that the "process of finishing the catch" includes getting up off the ground. Let's go by the rules here, as this whole process argument has already been perverted by the media, the refs, this thread and others.

His slide was the end process of finishing the catch. He lost the ball and the very end of his slide, which was part of the process. Incomplete.

Thanks for sticking to the rules.

 

[Billy Bats]

You said he "wasn't clearly getting up". You can keep saying that, but he already was up. His butt is clearly off the ground with him using only his left arm and leg. Do you not see this? I'm sure I could come up with a video still, but it is obvious even in the slow motion. So, how wasn't he clearly getting up if he was already getting up, in your opinion? Forget about momentum or intent, because that is merely my opinion v. yours. Let's talk about the facts.

He wasn't up yet. He was still in the process of finishing the catch because he was falling/sliding. He lost control of the ball at the very last moment of finishing the catch and starting a new action (getting up) If he was completely standing and under control then dropped it, spiked it, threw it into the stands, it would have counted.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that the "process of finishing the catch" includes getting up off the ground. Let's go by the rules here, as this whole process argument has already been perverted by the media, the refs, this thread and others.

His slide was the end process of finishing the catch. He lost the ball and the very end of his slide, which was part of the process. Incomplete.

Thanks for sticking to the rules.

What don't you understand?!

 

[DoubleG]

This is really fairly simple (albiet perhaps a poor rule):

1. In making the catch he goes to the ground.

2. As part of his going to the ground, the ball comes in contact with the ground.

3. The player fails to demonstrate posession after the ball comes in contact with the ground.

4. By rule, this is not a catch.

 

[Neofight]

He wasn't up yet. He was still in the process of finishing the catch because he was falling/sliding. He lost control of the ball at the very last moment of finishing the catch and starting a new action (getting up) If he was completely standing and under control then dropped it, spiked it, threw it into the stands, it would have counted.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that the "process of finishing the catch" includes getting up off the ground. Let's go by the rules here, as this whole process argument has already been perverted by the media, the refs, this thread and others.

His slide was the end process of finishing the catch. He lost the ball and the very end of his slide, which was part of the process. Incomplete.

Thanks for sticking to the rules.

What don't you understand?!

It's a problem I've had since I was wee lad. I want to understand, truly I do.Now about that rulebook...

 

[Neofight]

This is really fairly simple (albiet perhaps a poor rule):

1. In making the catch he goes to the ground.

2. As part of his going to the ground, the ball comes in contact with the ground.

3. The player fails to demonstrate posession after the ball comes in contact with the ground.

4. By rule, this is not a catch.

Right. Can you back this up per the rulebook?

 

[davearm]

You said he "wasn't clearly getting up". You can keep saying that, but he already was up. His butt is clearly off the ground with him using only his left arm and leg. Do you not see this? I'm sure I could come up with a video still, but it is obvious even in the slow motion. So, how wasn't he clearly getting up if he was already getting up, in your opinion? Forget about momentum or intent, because that is merely my opinion v. yours. Let's talk about the facts.

What you're expressing is an opinion, not a fact.More specifically, your conclusion that butt off the ground constitutes the end of the falling process is a) not a fact, and b) incorrect, in my opinion.

OK, but I've got video of this "opinion". And physics on my side.

Actually physics is not on your side. Watch it again and focus just on Johnson's right arm as he goes down. It accelerates as his left side hits the ground.This downward momentum is very clearly part of the falling process, and IMO this is what brought the ball in contact with the turf.That is, Johnson didn't put his right hand down voluntarily, to push himself back up. It went down involuntarily, as part of the falling process.

 

[davearm]

What I don't get is, the first official (guy in the video) clearly signals TD. He had the best view of anyone on the field. Who overruled him to call that not a catch? I can see a review but it should have been ruled a TD on the field if the guy who's right there calls it a TD.

Honestly this is the best thing Johnson and the Lions have in their favor. Where the falling-to-the-ground process ends is ambiguous and open to interpretation. (As I've stated I thought he lost the ball while he was still in the process of falling, but the opposite conclusion is absolutely defensible too.)Since the call on the field was TD, what's required to overturn is indisputable evidence.

The guy in the video called TD but they overruled him and said incomplete BEFORE they reviewed it. I want to know who had a better view than that guy to overrule.

Thanks for that. Whatever the call on the field was, should've stood. Sounds like it did.

 

[Billy Bats]

Nowhere in the rules does it state that the "process of finishing the catch" includes getting up off the ground. Let's go by the rules here, as this whole process argument has already been perverted by the media, the refs, this thread and others.

His slide was the end process of finishing the catch. He lost the ball and the very end of his slide, which was part of the process. Incomplete.

Thanks for sticking to the rules.

What don't you understand?!

It's a problem I've had since I was wee lad. I want to understand, truly I do.Now about that rulebook...

From the ref on the field...

"The ruling on the field is that the runner did not complete the catch during the process of the catch".

I'll ask you again, what don't you understand about that explanation?

ETA: From the same ref, after the game...

Q: What is the rule used on the near Detroit touchdown at the end of the game?

Steratore: The ruling is that in order for the catch to be completed he has got to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch.

Q: He was on his behind before he rolled over. If he stayed on his behind would it have been a touchdown?

Steratore: No. We don’t play with the two feet or one knee or anything of that scenario. We’re talking now about the process of the catch. He’s catching the football, as he goes to the ground, he must maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process. So as he continues to fall if he fell with two feet and his elbow hit the ground and came out it would be incomplete.

Q: It looked like he had the ball up in one hand while on his rear end, but there was continuation?

Steratore: Well, the process was not finished until he finished that roll and the entire process of that catch.

Q: How long did it take to determine that?

Steratore: We had the normal time [one minute] as far as the video was concerned. We would not run it any longer

 

[Neofight]

You said he "wasn't clearly getting up". You can keep saying that, but he already was up. His butt is clearly off the ground with him using only his left arm and leg. Do you not see this? I'm sure I could come up with a video still, but it is obvious even in the slow motion.

So, how wasn't he clearly getting up if he was already getting up, in your opinion? Forget about momentum or intent, because that is merely my opinion v. yours. Let's talk about the facts.

What you're expressing is an opinion, not a fact.More specifically, your conclusion that butt off the ground constitutes the end of the falling process is a) not a fact, and b) incorrect, in my opinion.

OK, but I've got video of this "opinion". And physics on my side.

Actually physics is not on your side. Watch it again and focus just on Johnson's right arm as he goes down. It accelerates as his left side hits the ground.This downward momentum is very clearly part of the falling process, and IMO this is what brought the ball in contact with the turf.

That is, Johnson didn't put his right hand down voluntarily, to push himself back up. It went down involuntarily, as part of the falling process.

You are arguing opinion. Fact is his butt was off the ground and he was already pushing off the ground with his left side. Physics would dictate this is so because, well, his ### is off the ground and his right hand is in the air. He could have just as easily flipped the ball over his right shoulder in an attempt to blindly toss it to the ref. You think that might have changed their minds?

You see what I am getting at here. This is a subjective thing you are broaching; I am of the opinion that Calvin slammed the ball down for emphasis. No, instead I think he was going to slam it then thought better and slowed it down a bit because he didn't want to crush any ants. It doesn't matter what I say because I am neither right nor wrong. And so are you neither as well.

What I can say for certain, objectively, is that the catch satisfies some of the items in 8.1.3 and others just don't address this scenario. In other words, at best it is a TD, at worst it is not written into the rulebook (which is completely understandable and even expected). But instead of realizing this and ruling accordingly, the officials stretched the definitions and created this whole mystery of the process of a catch — which people really seem to latch onto and has created all sorts of unintended consequences — but which is not clearly delineated in the rulebook. They could have merely looked at the tape, understood that it clearly shows him getting off the ground (not a subjective observation, that) and said well, it must be a TD since he is clearly not on the way to the ground. Their opinion about his arm motion shouldn't factor into their decision at all, objectively speaking.

 

[Neofight]

What I don't get is, the first official (guy in the video) clearly signals TD. He had the best view of anyone on the field. Who overruled him to call that not a catch? I can see a review but it should have been ruled a TD on the field if the guy who's right there calls it a TD.

Honestly this is the best thing Johnson and the Lions have in their favor. Where the falling-to-the-ground process ends is ambiguous and open to interpretation. (As I've stated I thought he lost the ball while he was still in the process of falling, but the opposite conclusion is absolutely defensible too.)Since the call on the field was TD, what's required to overturn is indisputable evidence.

The guy in the video called TD but they overruled him and said incomplete BEFORE they reviewed it. I want to know who had a better view than that guy to overrule.

Thanks for that. Whatever the call on the field was, should've stood. Sounds like it did.

This is bizarre logic. Would you have said this if the first official, who was right next to the play, was not overruled?

 

[Neofight]

His slide was the end process of finishing the catch. He lost the ball and the very end of his slide, which was part of the process. Incomplete.

Thanks for sticking to the rules.

What don't you understand?!

It's a problem I've had since I was wee lad. I want to understand, truly I do.Now about that rulebook...

From the ref on the field...

"The ruling on the field is that the runner did not complete the catch during the process of the catch".

I'll ask you again, what don't you understand about that explanation?

ETA: From the same ref, after the game...

Q: What is the rule used on the near Detroit touchdown at the end of the game?

Steratore: The ruling is that in order for the catch to be completed he has got to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch.

Q: He was on his behind before he rolled over. If he stayed on his behind would it have been a touchdown?

Steratore: No. We don’t play with the two feet or one knee or anything of that scenario. We’re talking now about the process of the catch. He’s catching the football, as he goes to the ground, he must maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process. So as he continues to fall if he fell with two feet and his elbow hit the ground and came out it would be incomplete.

Q: It looked like he had the ball up in one hand while on his rear end, but there was continuation?

Steratore: Well, the process was not finished until he finished that roll and the entire process of that catch.

Q: How long did it take to determine that?

Steratore: We had the normal time [one minute] as far as the video was concerned. We would not run it any longer

What is the "process of the catch" and when does it end? He was coming off the ground when he put his right hand down, so the roll was complete. Or does he have to be standing for the roll to be complete? Where is that in the rulebook? And, technically speaking, was it a roll or a pivot, and does a pivot constitute a "second act"? And are second acts even considered in the case of the roll/dodge/parry/thrust/spin *thwap!*?There is no rule that addresses this play. Difficult for the black and whiters amongst us, but I find it refreshing to have the debate. What would you wager there is a rule change (or clarification) coming over this episode? And if so, which I think is likely, will they screw it up and make it worse? I think this is likely as well. The rules are fine as written, they just need to understand the difference between a roll and running out of the end zone in celebration. Overly officious interpretations are the real problem. No different than with politicos, but that is another forum.

 

[davearm]

What I don't get is, the first official (guy in the video) clearly signals TD. He had the best view of anyone on the field. Who overruled him to call that not a catch? I can see a review but it should have been ruled a TD on the field if the guy who's right there calls it a TD.

Honestly this is the best thing Johnson and the Lions have in their favor. Where the falling-to-the-ground process ends is ambiguous and open to interpretation. (As I've stated I thought he lost the ball while he was still in the process of falling, but the opposite conclusion is absolutely defensible too.)Since the call on the field was TD, what's required to overturn is indisputable evidence.

The guy in the video called TD but they overruled him and said incomplete BEFORE they reviewed it. I want to know who had a better view than that guy to overrule.

Thanks for that. Whatever the call on the field was, should've stood. Sounds like it did.

This is bizarre logic. Would you have said this if the first official, who was right next to the play, was not overruled?

There's nothing bizarre at all with my logic. The replay rules state that undisputable evidence is required for an overturn. Indisputable evidence does not exist to support either completion or incompletion. Therefore whichever call was made on the field must stand, which apparently is what happened, since the near-side official that signaled touchdown was overruled on the field before the replay process was initiated.

 

[jomar]

The replay rules state that undisputable evidence is required for an overturn. Indisputable evidence does not exist to support either completion or incompletion. Therefore whichever call was made on the field must stand, which apparently is what happened, since the near-side official that signaled touchdown was overruled on the field before the replay process was initiated.

wrong. there was sufficient evidence to call whatever the refs wanted to. they want an incompletion? well, there's the ball on the ground. lets call it incomplete. they want to call it a TD? well, he did have 2 feet down, could argue he made a 2nd move, can clearly see he had possession when his butt, knee, and hand all were on the ground. if you went frame by frame, you could probably see that his butt was now coming up off the ground so that catch process was done arguably.plenty of video evidence for these buffoons. don't let them off the hook with this lousy excuse.

 

[Neofight]

Honestly this is the best thing Johnson and the Lions have in their favor. Where the falling-to-the-ground process ends is ambiguous and open to interpretation. (As I've stated I thought he lost the ball while he was still in the process of falling, but the opposite conclusion is absolutely defensible too.)Since the call on the field was TD, what's required to overturn is indisputable evidence.

The guy in the video called TD but they overruled him and said incomplete BEFORE they reviewed it. I want to know who had a better view than that guy to overrule.

Thanks for that. Whatever the call on the field was, should've stood. Sounds like it did.

This is bizarre logic. Would you have said this if the first official, who was right next to the play, was not overruled?

There's nothing bizarre at all with my logic. The replay rules state that undisputable evidence is required for an overturn. Indisputable evidence does not exist to support either completion or incompletion. Therefore whichever call was made on the field must stand, which apparently is what happened, since the near-side official that signaled touchdown was overruled on the field before the replay process was initiated.

I can see the second, overruling ref now: "The ruling on the field will not stand, man." All he was missing was the robe and a cocktail.But still, how does that make either the rule change or the ruling yesterday a good thing?

 

[Billy Bats]

Thanks for sticking to the rules.

What don't you understand?!

It's a problem I've had since I was wee lad. I want to understand, truly I do.Now about that rulebook...

From the ref on the field...

"The ruling on the field is that the runner did not complete the catch during the process of the catch".

I'll ask you again, what don't you understand about that explanation?

ETA: From the same ref, after the game...

Q: What is the rule used on the near Detroit touchdown at the end of the game?

Steratore: The ruling is that in order for the catch to be completed he has got to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch.

Q: He was on his behind before he rolled over. If he stayed on his behind would it have been a touchdown?

Steratore: No. We don’t play with the two feet or one knee or anything of that scenario. We’re talking now about the process of the catch. He’s catching the football, as he goes to the ground, he must maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process. So as he continues to fall if he fell with two feet and his elbow hit the ground and came out it would be incomplete.

Q: It looked like he had the ball up in one hand while on his rear end, but there was continuation?

Steratore: Well, the process was not finished until he finished that roll and the entire process of that catch.

Q: How long did it take to determine that?

Steratore: We had the normal time [one minute] as far as the video was concerned. We would not run it any longer

What is the "process of the catch" and when does it end? He was coming off the ground when he put his right hand down, so the roll was complete. Or does he have to be standing for the roll to be complete? Where is that in the rulebook? And, technically speaking, was it a roll or a pivot, and does a pivot constitute a "second act"? And are second acts even considered in the case of the roll/dodge/parry/thrust/spin *thwap!*?There is no rule that addresses this play. Difficult for the black and whiters amongst us, but I find it refreshing to have the debate. What would you wager there is a rule change (or clarification) coming over this episode? And if so, which I think is likely, will they screw it up and make it worse? I think this is likely as well. The rules are fine as written, they just need to understand the difference between a roll and running out of the end zone in celebration. Overly officious interpretations are the real problem. No different than with politicos, but that is another forum.

I would think the process of the catch ends when any motion involved before, during or after the catch has ended and the player is performing another "act" or "action". So no, his roll/dodge/parry/thrust/spin *thwap!* wasn't a new act, it was the continuation of his catch. I believe they interpreted his right arm swinging and hitting the ground as the ending of the process of his catch, which I agree with. He was coming to a stop and using that right hand to stop himself, THEN get up. But unfortunately for CJ his last process of the catch included dropping the ball, before getting up. If he had held onto the ball for another split second, it would have counted becuase he would then have been starting to get up, his new "act" or "action.

I said earlier in the thread that I think the rule stinks, but IMO it was interpreted correctly by the refs.

 

[jomar]

What is the "process of the catch" and when does it end?

I would think the process of the catch ends when any motion involved before, during or after the catch has ended and the player is performing another "act" or "action".

I realize you're just responding to his question, but can we see something about this from the NFL Rulebook that the referees used to call it incomplete. what each of us thinks really doesn't matter. the NFL and some media are spitting this out there like it is gospel but I still have not seen any concrete rule on when the process is complete. if you're going to make this ruling, at least they could point us to the rulebook where it says something on it. and like I've said now many times, I don't think whatever unwritten rule they are citing should have been used and he clearly demonstrated possession with 2 feet down before he went into the act of falling down. he did not go to the ground while trying to make the catch. but if the refs want to argue that, I'd say that he did have the ball on the ground. the question now becomes how long must he hold it for? no one has an answer thus far. no one. how long can he roll around on the ground before letting go of the ball? 1 second? 3 seconds? 5 seconds?

 

[Neofight]

What don't you understand?!

It's a problem I've had since I was wee lad. I want to understand, truly I do.Now about that rulebook...

From the ref on the field...

"The ruling on the field is that the runner did not complete the catch during the process of the catch".

I'll ask you again, what don't you understand about that explanation?

ETA: From the same ref, after the game...

Q: What is the rule used on the near Detroit touchdown at the end of the game?

Steratore: The ruling is that in order for the catch to be completed he has got to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch.

Q: He was on his behind before he rolled over. If he stayed on his behind would it have been a touchdown?

Steratore: No. We don’t play with the two feet or one knee or anything of that scenario. We’re talking now about the process of the catch. He’s catching the football, as he goes to the ground, he must maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process. So as he continues to fall if he fell with two feet and his elbow hit the ground and came out it would be incomplete.

Q: It looked like he had the ball up in one hand while on his rear end, but there was continuation?

Steratore: Well, the process was not finished until he finished that roll and the entire process of that catch.

Q: How long did it take to determine that?

Steratore: We had the normal time [one minute] as far as the video was concerned. We would not run it any longer

What is the "process of the catch" and when does it end? He was coming off the ground when he put his right hand down, so the roll was complete. Or does he have to be standing for the roll to be complete? Where is that in the rulebook? And, technically speaking, was it a roll or a pivot, and does a pivot constitute a "second act"? And are second acts even considered in the case of the roll/dodge/parry/thrust/spin *thwap!*?There is no rule that addresses this play. Difficult for the black and whiters amongst us, but I find it refreshing to have the debate. What would you wager there is a rule change (or clarification) coming over this episode? And if so, which I think is likely, will they screw it up and make it worse? I think this is likely as well. The rules are fine as written, they just need to understand the difference between a roll and running out of the end zone in celebration. Overly officious interpretations are the real problem. No different than with politicos, but that is another forum.

I would think the process of the catch ends when any motion involved before, during or after the catch has ended and the player is performing another "act" or "action". So no, his roll/dodge/parry/thrust/spin *thwap!* wasn't a new act, it was the continuation of his catch. I believe they interpreted his right arm swinging and hitting the ground as the ending of the process of his catch, which I agree with. He was coming to a stop and using that right hand to stop himself, THEN get up. But unfortunately for CJ his last process of the catch included dropping the ball, before getting up. If he had held onto the ball for another split second, it would have counted becuase he would then have been starting to get up, his new "act" or "action.

I said earlier in the thread that I think the rule stinks, but IMO it was interpreted correctly by the refs.

So there is a "process of the catch", though you can't point to it specifically. There is a term "going to the ground", but we can't say when it ends. Yet it is safe to say that the "process of getting up" is not sufficient to signal the ending of the "process of the catch" or the fairly straightforward (once upon a time in the NFL) act of falling down. I think the "process of the act of starting to get up" off of the grass is getting a bum wrap! Imagine if they told Rocky Balboa that he was not completed with the process of getting up off the canvas before the 10 count. Yo Adrian my Calvin's ###!You also mention Calvin was coming to a stop. I missed this in the video; in fact it has been my main point of contention in this thread that the speed with which he pivoted, got off his backside and started to celebrate by running through the end zone towards his teammates is what is confusing the issue. Had CJ stopped, slowly gotten off the ground and put the ball down in doing so we would not be having this conversation. Conversely, if the second ref hadn't overruled the one near the play in the end zone and the touchdown stood, no one would be complaining about it being an incompletion today, and rightfully so.

But as long as you think you have a case here, perhaps we could get it written down in the rule book. The refs could have used this yesterday. Well, truth be told, they didn't need any of it to make a clear determination. The rule book is actually fine. Misunderstood, misquoted and misapplied, but totally copasetic.

 

[davearm]

What is the "process of the catch" and when does it end? He was coming off the ground when he put his right hand down, so the roll was complete. Or does he have to be standing for the roll to be complete? Where is that in the rulebook? And, technically speaking, was it a roll or a pivot, and does a pivot constitute a "second act"? And are second acts even considered in the case of the roll/dodge/parry/thrust/spin *thwap!*?

There is no rule that addresses this play. Difficult for the black and whiters amongst us, but I find it refreshing to have the debate. What would you wager there is a rule change (or clarification) coming over this episode? And if so, which I think is likely, will they screw it up and make it worse? I think this is likely as well. The rules are fine as written, they just need to understand the difference between a roll and running out of the end zone in celebration. Overly officious interpretations are the real problem. No different than with politicos, but that is another forum.

Where you jump the tracks is by assuming the "process of the catch" had ended before he put his right hand down.I get that you think he was coming off the ground at that point. However that wasn't the ruling.

 

[Billy Bats]

It's a problem I've had since I was wee lad. I want to understand, truly I do.

Now about that rulebook...

From the ref on the field...

"The ruling on the field is that the runner did not complete the catch during the process of the catch".

I'll ask you again, what don't you understand about that explanation?

ETA: From the same ref, after the game...

Q: What is the rule used on the near Detroit touchdown at the end of the game?

Steratore: The ruling is that in order for the catch to be completed he has got to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch.

Q: He was on his behind before he rolled over. If he stayed on his behind would it have been a touchdown?

Steratore: No. We don’t play with the two feet or one knee or anything of that scenario. We’re talking now about the process of the catch. He’s catching the football, as he goes to the ground, he must maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process. So as he continues to fall if he fell with two feet and his elbow hit the ground and came out it would be incomplete.

Q: It looked like he had the ball up in one hand while on his rear end, but there was continuation?

Steratore: Well, the process was not finished until he finished that roll and the entire process of that catch.

Q: How long did it take to determine that?

Steratore: We had the normal time [one minute] as far as the video was concerned. We would not run it any longer

What is the "process of the catch" and when does it end? He was coming off the ground when he put his right hand down, so the roll was complete. Or does he have to be standing for the roll to be complete? Where is that in the rulebook? And, technically speaking, was it a roll or a pivot, and does a pivot constitute a "second act"? And are second acts even considered in the case of the roll/dodge/parry/thrust/spin *thwap!*?There is no rule that addresses this play. Difficult for the black and whiters amongst us, but I find it refreshing to have the debate. What would you wager there is a rule change (or clarification) coming over this episode? And if so, which I think is likely, will they screw it up and make it worse? I think this is likely as well. The rules are fine as written, they just need to understand the difference between a roll and running out of the end zone in celebration. Overly officious interpretations are the real problem. No different than with politicos, but that is another forum.

I would think the process of the catch ends when any motion involved before, during or after the catch has ended and the player is performing another "act" or "action". So no, his roll/dodge/parry/thrust/spin *thwap!* wasn't a new act, it was the continuation of his catch. I believe they interpreted his right arm swinging and hitting the ground as the ending of the process of his catch, which I agree with. He was coming to a stop and using that right hand to stop himself, THEN get up. But unfortunately for CJ his last process of the catch included dropping the ball, before getting up. If he had held onto the ball for another split second, it would have counted becuase he would then have been starting to get up, his new "act" or "action.

I said earlier in the thread that I think the rule stinks, but IMO it was interpreted correctly by the refs.

So there is a "process of the catch", though you can't point to it specifically. There is a term "going to the ground", but we can't say when it ends. Yet it is safe to say that the "process of getting up" is not sufficient to signal the ending of the "process of the catch" or the fairly straightforward (once upon a time in the NFL) act of falling down. I think the "process of the act of starting to get up" off of the grass is getting a bum wrap! Imagine if they told Rocky Balboa that he was not completed with the process of getting up off the canvas before the 10 count. Yo Adrian my Calvin's ###!You also mention Calvin was coming to a stop. I missed this in the video; in fact it has been my main point of contention in this thread that the speed with which he pivoted, got off his backside and started to celebrate by running through the end zone towards his teammates is what is confusing the issue. Had CJ stopped, slowly gotten off the ground and put the ball down in doing so we would not be having this conversation. Conversely, if the second ref hadn't overruled the one near the play in the end zone and the touchdown stood, no one would be complaining about it being an incompletion today, and rightfully so.

But as long as you think you have a case here, perhaps we could get it written down in the rule book. The refs could have used this yesterday. Well, truth be told, they didn't need any of it to make a clear determination. The rule book is actually fine. Misunderstood, misquoted and misapplied, but totally copasetic.

My last post. I wish you would stop completely ignoring the phrase "performing a new action". Him falling, hitting the ground, and swinging his arm was a part of the process of the catch, therefore all one act and he dind't finish that act with the ball. You continuously ignore this basic point and choose a few words and go off on a tangent. I honestly don't care that much about it, enjoy. Talk to Mike Pereiera about it, I'm pretty sure he knows more about it than we do.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/feed/2010-...nates-gray-area

 

[davearm]

The replay rules state that undisputable evidence is required for an overturn. Indisputable evidence does not exist to support either completion or incompletion. Therefore whichever call was made on the field must stand, which apparently is what happened, since the near-side official that signaled touchdown was overruled on the field before the replay process was initiated.

wrong. there was sufficient evidence to call whatever the refs wanted to. they want an incompletion? well, there's the ball on the ground. lets call it incomplete. they want to call it a TD? well, he did have 2 feet down, could argue he made a 2nd move, can clearly see he had possession when his butt, knee, and hand all were on the ground. if you went frame by frame, you could probably see that his butt was now coming up off the ground so that catch process was done arguably.plenty of video evidence for these buffoons. don't let them off the hook with this lousy excuse.

Where does the notion of the refs wanting one thing or another come from?All they wanted was to apply the rule correctly. They couldn't care less about anything else.

 

[Peiz]

I'd just like to apologize to neoflight for having to fight this thread by just him and jomar. Look, I think my biggest argument against a lot of you in here is that you keep talking about a "process" that is not in the rulebook. There is no way to interpret this rule without a subjective opinion. I posted enough in the other thread, but it is simple to me.

1. This rule does not apply here.

2. If the rule did apply, people are accepting the official word of all this "process" crap.

3. The call came down to a subjective opinion, rule or not, that was void of common sense that it was a catch.

A lot of you keep talking about the process like it's fact. "It's a bad rule, great call." What is the rule? The fact is there is no explanation for how long he would have to stay on his ### before it counted as a completion.

As for the "2nd motion" you are either going to think it was or it wasn't. That's an opinion that nobody will change mine, and I won't change yours.

 

[Insein]

I'd just like to apologize to neoflight for having to fight this thread by just him and jomar. Look, I think my biggest argument against a lot of you in here is that you keep talking about a "process" that is not in the rulebook. There is no way to interpret this rule without a subjective opinion. I posted enough in the other thread, but it is simple to me.1. This rule does not apply here.2. If the rule did apply, people are accepting the official word of all this "process" crap.3. The call came down to a subjective opinion, rule or not, that was void of common sense that it was a catch.A lot of you keep talking about the process like it's fact. "It's a bad rule, great call." What is the rule? The fact is there is no explanation for how long he would have to stay on his ### before it counted as a completion.As for the "2nd motion" you are either going to think it was or it wasn't. That's an opinion that nobody will change mine, and I won't change yours.

I just don't get how the ref in the video can rule TD when he's staring right at it and someone can run in and overrule him BEFORE the review. That to me is the tragedy. The guy with the best view on the field got overruled by someone else who didn't have as good a view. Of course in instant replay where its shown in slow motion its going to be scrutinized to death and can go either way.

 

[Peiz]

I'd just like to apologize to neoflight for having to fight this thread by just him and jomar. Look, I think my biggest argument against a lot of you in here is that you keep talking about a "process" that is not in the rulebook. There is no way to interpret this rule without a subjective opinion. I posted enough in the other thread, but it is simple to me.1. This rule does not apply here.2. If the rule did apply, people are accepting the official word of all this "process" crap.3. The call came down to a subjective opinion, rule or not, that was void of common sense that it was a catch.A lot of you keep talking about the process like it's fact. "It's a bad rule, great call." What is the rule? The fact is there is no explanation for how long he would have to stay on his ### before it counted as a completion.As for the "2nd motion" you are either going to think it was or it wasn't. That's an opinion that nobody will change mine, and I won't change yours.

I just don't get how the ref in the video can rule TD when he's staring right at it and someone can run in and overrule him BEFORE the review. That to me is the tragedy. The guy with the best view on the field got overruled by someone else who didn't have as good a view. Of course in instant replay where its shown in slow motion its going to be scrutinized to death and can go either way.

I agree, it's really weird to me. I'm surprised why the one ref calls TD and ref 2 says no, and ref 1 just says, "yeah incomplete good call, I don't know what I was thinking". There must have been a reason why the guy with the good view called it a TD! In the end, does this really matter though? The way the NFL is portraying this call, it would have been incomplete after the review anyway, right or wrong.

 

[Neofight]

My last post. I wish you would stop completely ignoring the phrase "performing a new action". Him falling, hitting the ground, and swinging his arm was a part of the process of the catch, therefore all one act and he dind't finish that act with the ball. You continuously ignore this basic point and choose a few words and go off on a tangent. I honestly don't care that much about it, enjoy.

Talk to Mike Pereiera about it, I'm pretty sure he knows more about it than we do.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/feed/2010-...nates-gray-area

I think it's pretty clear what I would consider a new action based on all my posts about this play. Not that any of that changes what is and is not in the rulebook. Interesting read by Pereira, but he really doesn't say much at all about the play specifically. I respected his work as head of officials and liked his bits on NFL network; especially like that he has been known to do the mea culpa in that role. It is a little cringe worthy to hear his talk about black and white and eliminating gray areas. This was clearly a gray area, that much is widely admitted on both sides. He is engaging in PR by saying this, and that is odd because he was more candid in his previous role.

The problem with trying to over-legislate simple things like this is that when everything is black and white people are less apt to make a sound judgments. It is much easier to bend a rule to make it work and thereby create a piss poor precedent than to just say the rules don't cover this so let's figure it out and here's the deal. I'd rather have thinkers (and athletic ones at that) as opposed to interpreters.

It sounds like the competition committee is likely going to make an adjustment or add a rule at the end of the season to possibly muck it up further. I wonder if he will address this more in the coming weeks or just drop it. I'd love to hear him answer some of the specific questions that have been asked in these threads...

NFL fans and pundits continue to discuss Calvin Johnson's potential game-winning play at the end of Sunday's Lions-Bears game that was ruled an incomplete pass, despite Johnson clearly possessing the ball in the end zone. Mike Pereira, the former head of NFL referees who this season is working as an analyst on Fox's NFL coverage, joined WSCR in Chicago with Mully and Hanley in an interview aggregated by Sports Radio Interviews, to address the call.

Pereira agreed with the ruling on the field, saying the rule that a receiver must maintain possession of the ball after hitting the ground minimizes the 'gray area' in such calls.

"It's really black and white and eliminates the gray," Pereira said. "That's one of the things I like about some of the rules we have. The less gray, the better. It just basically says, after a while now, if you're going to the ground, the onus is on you, you have to hold onto the ball, and when the play is over you have to practically hand the ball to the official.

"The ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion," he added. "Ball is dead in possession of a runner when it breaks the plane, but the receiver is not a runner. He's not a runner until he establishes possession by completing the catch."

 

[Neofight]

What is the "process of the catch" and when does it end? He was coming off the ground when he put his right hand down, so the roll was complete. Or does he have to be standing for the roll to be complete? Where is that in the rulebook? And, technically speaking, was it a roll or a pivot, and does a pivot constitute a "second act"? And are second acts even considered in the case of the roll/dodge/parry/thrust/spin *thwap!*?

There is no rule that addresses this play. Difficult for the black and whiters amongst us, but I find it refreshing to have the debate. What would you wager there is a rule change (or clarification) coming over this episode? And if so, which I think is likely, will they screw it up and make it worse? I think this is likely as well. The rules are fine as written, they just need to understand the difference between a roll and running out of the end zone in celebration. Overly officious interpretations are the real problem. No different than with politicos, but that is another forum.

Where you jump the tracks is by assuming the "process of the catch" had ended before he put his right hand down.I get that you think he was coming off the ground at that point. However that wasn't the ruling.

There is no "process of the catch" to be found, that is why I ask the question. How then can I jump the tracks assuming something about a process which does not exist? I don't care about the ruling, per se, I care that the officials get it right. They didn't do that. You have yet to show, per the rules, that they did. He meets some items, some do not apply.Do you "think" he was not coming off the ground? Levitation Holmes is a much better nickname than Megatron, I agree.

 

[mad sweeney]

This reasoning beats fallacies. Marginally so.

So you are right and those who write, interpret and apply these rules are wrong?

I know what getting up looks like. If the rule is a matter of done moving downward, then clearly it was a misinterpretation of the rule. I'll wait to hear Pereira follow up on this later in the week (and I was not able to hear him live), but he has admitted fault before. It wouldn't surprise me if they make a clarification here. If a guy is going to the ground and does not complete a catch when he hits the ground - completing his fall without controlling the ball - that is one thing. That is not what happened today. Getting up fast or using your arm in a downward motion to do so should not be confused with the act of going to the ground. Nowhere have I seen this described in the rules put forward as part of the "process". Nor have I seen a mention of the balls downward (or upward) motion, as you mentioned.Take mad sweeney's statement, for example, that had he used two hands to go to the ground with the ball that we wouldn't be having this debate. Well, why not? Say he falls on his bum with both hands on the ball, turns (obviously more slowly due to having both hands on the ball) and puts it down as he pivots to get up. Say he just leaves it there nicely for the ref to pick up. Is that a TD? How is it different other than the amount of time taken and one hand vs. two? If this is about falling vs. getting up it seems like study of human movement might help a bit. The mechanics are pretty clear even if the rule isn't.

You're putting up a fight, but it ain't a good one. Pereria basically said during the broadcast that it wouldn't be a TD and the official explained it just as Pereria did. All of your ridiculous hypotheticals ignore the second move aspect. He needed to take the ball all the way down before he can let it go and he didn't. The ball comes out instantaneously as it hits the ground, there's no definitive second move to counter that. It's the absolute textbook right call for a stupid rule. Make up as many silly situations as you want, but no matter what you say the result for this play is the same and is right. No TD.

 

[Neofight]

This reasoning beats fallacies. Marginally so.

So you are right and those who write, interpret and apply these rules are wrong?

I know what getting up looks like. If the rule is a matter of done moving downward, then clearly it was a misinterpretation of the rule. I'll wait to hear Pereira follow up on this later in the week (and I was not able to hear him live), but he has admitted fault before. It wouldn't surprise me if they make a clarification here. If a guy is going to the ground and does not complete a catch when he hits the ground - completing his fall without controlling the ball - that is one thing. That is not what happened today. Getting up fast or using your arm in a downward motion to do so should not be confused with the act of going to the ground. Nowhere have I seen this described in the rules put forward as part of the "process". Nor have I seen a mention of the balls downward (or upward) motion, as you mentioned.

Take mad sweeney's statement, for example, that had he used two hands to go to the ground with the ball that we wouldn't be having this debate. Well, why not? Say he falls on his bum with both hands on the ball, turns (obviously more slowly due to having both hands on the ball) and puts it down as he pivots to get up. Say he just leaves it there nicely for the ref to pick up. Is that a TD? How is it different other than the amount of time taken and one hand vs. two? If this is about falling vs. getting up it seems like study of human movement might help a bit. The mechanics are pretty clear even if the rule isn't.

You're putting up a fight, but it ain't a good one. Pereria basically said during the broadcast that it wouldn't be a TD and the official explained it just as Pereria did. All of your ridiculous hypotheticals ignore the second move aspect. He needed to take the ball all the way down before he can let it go and he didn't. The ball comes out instantaneously as it hits the ground, there's no definitive second move to counter that. It's the absolute textbook right call for a stupid rule. Make up as many silly situations as you want, but no matter what you say the result for this play is the same and is right. No TD.

Hi mad sweeney, glad you stopped in. He did, and the rules don't back up any of this "process of the catch" nonsense. If we're talking second move, which some have said isn't a factor in this instance (including one of the game officials) that has been debated here and in the other thread. Have a peek. Pretty much a majority is forming that this whole "process of the catch" bit is shenanigans and that the individual items in 8.1.3 were either met or do not apply. There really is no rule for or against putting down the ball as one gets up from the ground to run out of the end zone, which curiously sounds like a second move if you think about it- unless you are of the mindset that Johnson somehow magically lifted his rather large buttocks off the ground through sheer will. Levitation Holmes!But seriously, Pereria also said:

It just basically says, after a while now, if you're going to the ground, the onus is on you, you have to hold onto the ball, and when the play is over you have to practically hand the ball to the official.

I know this is some serious hemming and hawing he's doing here, but do you really believe the part in bold too? Lot of words but not a lot of substance in what he is saying, which as I stated before is interesting since he was often candid in his previous analyst role. And you think there is a fan uproar now, imagine if the stuff he is peddling here was true? Perhaps he didn't want to rock the boat for the new guy, knowing that the original call had been overruled on the field by someone who was not near the end zone sideline. Who knows? I looked at some of the questions in an interview transcript and he doesn't really analyze this play. He talks about Murphy's drop last year (clearly a different situation), he talked about Bert Emanuel (ditto) and discussed a little bit about the difference between being a runner crossing the plane and being a receiver (mildly interesting, but hardly relevant). Nothing that establishes that the rules address this particular play.

If any good follow-up questions were asked, I have yet to see those. Post 'em if you got 'em.