This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Actually, not at all. Go back to the SB when the Saints player - laying on his back - grasped the ball for just a moment before it was knocked free. That was ruled a TD.They're gotten extremely picky over the interpretation of a rule and lost sight of the intent of the rule as well as common sense.
Periera and all of the other folks that would be considered NFL experts disagree with you. The officials did get it right. The "process" is indeed a concept the officials recognize and apply. Whether you want to as well is your choice. Just don't pretend it doesn't exist. That just makes you look bad.Neofight said:
After someone makes a catch in the endzone, shouldn't a defender plow the guy into the ground and see if the guy completes the process of making the catch?
Until the NFL wakes up and fixes this rule.....absolutely a defender should do that......IMO if a wr jumps for a ball in the endzone and shows he has possetion of it once he gets 2 feet down the play should end right there
Well the potential reward is obvious. The risk is a personal foul or even an ejection.
Why would there be the risk of a personal foul if, as you've so adamantly claimed, the process is not complete?
bottom line is there is something seriously wrong with the rule if the Lance Moore 2 point conversion is considered a catch:L. Moore catch
Exactly, until the play is dead, why can't you hit the guy? Obviously, two-feet and control is not a catch until after you drill him to the ground and he completes the process. There is no definition of when the process is complete, it has to be more than 5 steps according to the Calvin Johnson rule.
It's the same as any other aggressive contact initiated by the defender at the conclusion of a play. You're at the mercy of the official to determine whether you unloaded on the receiver before or after the play was over (or process was complete if you prefer).
Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean the definition doesn't exist.
No, it makes me inquisitive. I ask questions which you repeatedly fail to answer, and really simple ones at that. That you claim that there is a rule which backs up your perception of this process makes you....? Periera, as he has repeatedly been quoted, basically said nothing about the play in question; he just said that they got it right and brought up other plays that had no bearing on this one as precedent. What he is doing is basically PR. He has hundreds of thousands of reasons to do this, and I'm fairly certain that there will be a change in the offseason that he alluded to. This is basically the NFL's way of fixing bad interpretations of rules; make more rules to be poorly interpreted. I'm sure when the time comes and they screw up one of those you will be right there carrying the water for them. I'll be there with bells on.
Too bad he did it without the ball, which came out before he completed the catch.
The problem is that you can't show us this in the rules. Other than that, I don't agree.
Not only do you not only not understand the rule, you don't understand what I've said. It's understandable that you're upset, but you continue to be dead, flat and becoming embarrassingly wrong.
Sad. His arm, with the ball, was still going downward. The ball came out instantaneously with it hitting the ground. Simple and correct interpretation of a dumb, dumb rule that takes away catches and TDs every year that should count according to every football instinct we've learned over years of watching football.eta: Holmes
Momentum is not opinion, it's physics.
No you are not being inquisitive. You are being obtuse. I bolded some sections above as illustration.I'll say again: the "process" you're alluding to is indeed a concept the officials recognize and apply. Whether you want to as well is your choice.
So his arm with the ball was going downwards. What does that mean, per the rules? Per the rules we have already argued each item in 8.1.3 is ether met by his actions and indicates a completed pass, or it does not apply. If you can articulate a case where one of these items applies then please do so; his arm (or the ball) isn't it. If you are just going to allude to things that are not covered by the rules or are vague and undocumented memes then I will continue to simply point out that these mean nothing. Follow me down below....|
Just show us where this is written down, assuming it must be something more than the article, section and items we have already examined. It's fine if you say it is a subjective thing that the officials are left to use of their own device; just realize that does not jibe with what Pereira claims is a black and white issue. He doesn't mention how this is, and neither have you. But if it is indeed black and white then it must be delineated somewhere. Where is that? Sorry if I am being obtuse. But, at the risk of sounding cliché as well, rules are rules. And I suppose I just fancy myself a bit of an empiricist.davearm said:
You're really, really bad at this. However, to answer your asinine (that word just flows off the keyboard when you're involved) hypothetical, no. Since going to the ground in the process of making a catch certainly doesn't and can't include taking eight steps after catching the ball, does it?
Where did you see this definition? And technically, wasn't the ball stopped the moment he put it on the ground? Not that I agree with your interpretation, but I am curious where you are getting it from.Stay with me, madman. I've got more questions for you.
Come on, sweeney. You can't just continually criticize and condescend without actually trying to provide some concrete answers to these questions. You're not even trying here.
Why isn't 2 steps enough? Calvin Johnson was not in the process of making the catch. He had done made the catch by the rulebook, which is a point you can't get through your head. The note 1 being talked so much about applies only if you have not made the catch prior to falling to the ground. Two steps with control of the ball is a catch. period. There is no difference between taking 8 steps and 2 steps according to the rule book.
Madman, you are on fire. I've got a question for you, so you are going to have to bear with me here for a bit because you're likely going to scratch your head here...How tall are you?That's right, how tall are you? And how heavy, for that matter?Let's say, for the sake of argument, you are not 6'5" and 240. Allow me to assume for a moment that you don't run a 4.33 forty and have a 40" vertical. Is it safe to say you don't have the best hands in the world either, when it comes to catching footballs? I ask these questions for a reason, though your head may be hurting right now.The reason is that, out of all the nonsense we've heard talked about the catch/non-catch/overturned TD/review/mythical media-hyped memes about "process of" this or "completion of" that, there is one assumption that really has me laughing in these threads, and that is this:That grown men and women who are fans of this sport and who watch Calvin Johnson with any regularity believe that there is not a chance that he was actually in control of his body when he went up for that pass, or when he came down with it, or when he pivoted and braced himself with his left hand, or when he brought his right hand around, ball clearly secured, and slammed it to the down after raising off of the turf. It strikes me as odd that a man who possesses these skills and physical attributes and who routinely scales up to heights of over 11 feet to snatch a pass out of the air would somehow be out of control of his actions while doing so in this instance.Because see, here is the thing that doesn't make a lick of sense, and why I asked about your height and weight. If you are running and you jump up to grab a ball as CJ did, and you come down on your ### there is nothing that says your right arm is going to swing across your body with any great amount of momentum. I mean, just try it; momentum won't get you into that position. You'll run and jump up (pretty much straight up with any luck) and momentum will carry you a yard or two, but that's it. No twisting around, no popping up on your feet and certainly no arms shot out of a cannon toward the ground due to your leap. You may not get to 11 feet high to begin with, but you can try from a table or a chair. If the wife asks what the hell you are doing just tell her Pilates and she'll be impressed. But then when you do attempt this and realize that there is no reason for your right arm to swing across your body with any great momentum or any faster than your lead hand (especially considering your ### just absorbed most of the impact) you'll begin to see what is causing his arm to move across his body. Get a good running start and take a leap and try to repeat what CJ did and you'll see it ain't easy. Your arm isn't going to just swing across your body after you've impacted the ground. Unless you want it to. And if you're doing it by design you are indeed committing to a second act (and third, fourth...)It is about physics and biokinetics and one hell of a great athlete. It occurs because he is slamming the ball down by choice (think of it as a spike from three feet), as he gets to his feet and runs out of the back of the end zone. If you think this is momentum you clearly don't have the experience of doing exactly what he did on the play, and doing it all in about 1.5 seconds to get out of the back of the end zone. His "process" was not what you may do, it may not be what I would do and it's fairly certain he didn't do what the refs were accustomed to, but that second act happened before he put the ball on the ground. If you don't think so go bust your ### giving it a try. He did so many things in those 1.5 seconds that it is actually frightening when you slow it down; from landing the first foot and immediately pivoting to bracing himself and exploding upward as he turned and ran out the back of the end zone. The fact that he did it so quickly confuses people, no doubt, but it's not something he should be penalized for. The rules as written don't even take what he did into account.Just be careful.Holmesmad sweeney said:
what many fans of the NFL would like is for someone to come out and tell us what the rule is. does he have to hold onto the ball until it stops? does he have to hold it until his momentum stops? what if his momentum takes him 3-4 steps before he falls down, does that still count if he then drops the ball? so far, all this Peirera guy has said is that he 'practically has to hand the ball to the ref'. seriously, thats the best he can do? I'd think a rule would be a little more specific than practically.for you people arguing a rule is a rule, the NFL hasn't actually come out and shown us what the exact rule is. so for about the 20th time in the last day and a half, I will ask 'how long does a WR have to hold onto the ball before he can drop it or set it on the ground?' please use the NFL rulebook for the answer and don't use phrases like 'I think...', 'he has to practically.....', '...must finish with the ball' (what constitues the finish?), and complete the process (unless you can explain exactly what completes this mystical process).we are genuinely asking a question that nobody has answered to this point. calling people who are looking for an answer obtuse, without providing the supposedly obvious answer, is useless.
Have you stopped beating your wife?Look, I get there are some people that either don't understand the rule, don't like it or simply refuse to acknowledge that the referee's (not once, but twice) made the correct call in regards to the interpretation of said rule - but asking unfair or leading questions (i.e. by definition, starting with "if he caught the ball..." assumes he caught it) doesn't change the fact that in the judgement of the referee, it was incomplete based on the following:
And that is the whole point. By rule if he goes to the ground in the process of making the catch, he has to demonstrate posession after hitting the ground. This also holds true if the ball comes into contact with the ground in that process (which is also the case in the Johnson situation). The ground can't force a fumble, but it can force an incompletion...and it did.
I agree. Alot is left to referees interpretation. That said, the decision in the Johnson case is within the gray areas of the rules (granted it seems to be right on the fringe). In other words, as called, it was a "ticky-tack" interpretation, in my opinion (just as there are varying levels of pass interference or roughing the passer or holding - some of which you'd have to watch in super slow mo to even notice) - but a valid interpretation of the rule nontheless.I think that is where many in this thread and others are having a problem - many are trying to claim that the ref was "wrong" - when in actuality his judgement and interpretation is valid, albiet at the farrest end of the spectrum (i.e. most strict interpretation)allowed by the rule.
I've said this repeatedly and you haven't paid attention. This rule has been called this way for at least five years. You gonna make up new ridiculous hypotheticals or are you going to ask questions that have already been answered repeatedly?
I don't why it isn't enough, I didn't make the rule and can't fathom why they don't change it since there are catches like this taken away every year. And no he hadn't made the catch, not according to the stupid rule that's been called this way for years. It makes no sense that catching it and getting a variety of body parts down in the EZ doesn't signify a catch, but it just doesn't. And you can't get that through your head (which is no surprise). Two steps with control of the ball should be a catch. Period. BUT IT ISN'T. PERIOD. That's the rule. Period.
You're getting even more embarrassing. It doesn't matter if Calvin had complete control of his arm, it was going downward with the rest of his body and when it finally hit the ground, last of all downward moving body parts, the ball came out immediately. Whether he was in control or not doesn't matter. What matters is that the last downward moving part of his body didn't end up with him still holding the ball. You can analyze his body motions all you want and fantasize about his physique and abilities all you want. The fact is, that to all appearances and in conjunction with how they've cinsistently ruled on this throughout the years, he didn't complete the process, and he seemed not to know about the rule either from his post game quotes. If he's so freakishly gifted, and possesses enough skill to do everything you so lovingly detail, then he should have had no problem whatsoever tucking the ball in with one arm instead of held out in his palm. Or covering the ball with both knowing that if the ball pops out when he hits, there's a chance this momentous TD won't count. His physical skills in this instance dwarfed his football smarts and the result was a correct no TD call. Nice scenario, but CJ isn't the first athlete to make a freakish catch in the end zone, or anywhere on the field for that matter. The refs have seen plenty of amazing catches. CJ is great, but he's nothing they haven't seen before, Holmes.Keep them coming, it'll just keep getting sadder for you, especially now that perpetually challenged Jonnay is on your side.
The supposedly obvious answer is precedent. It's been called this way for years, the evidence is in the film study, some of which has been shown by shows as examples in their broadcasts.
I don't think a defender can nail a guy while he's on the ground. And if the WR makes a clear "second move" that demonstrates control of the ball then the play is dead. That last point seems to be ignored by the hypothetical situation crew (mainly because it ruins their wailing and gnashing of teeth apparent in their hypotheticals).
Kudos to DoubleG for bringing the voice of reason into this thread (as usual
).Like probably most of us, when I watched the play I thought to myself "what a stupid rule. That should have been a catch.". And certainly, the Bears should have lost. I've since come around to thinking that the Bears should have lost, but not because of the rule. Calvin Johnson was the one at fault, and the rule should stand as written.
I made this point pages ago. You make it sound like Johnson intentionally flipped the ball away after he landed on his ###. If that's the case, then he had completed the "football move." In other words, it was a catch. You can't BOTH blame Johnson for not handing the ball to the referree and at the same time maintain he didn't catch the ball. He either caught the ball and then flipped it away as he began to celebrate, or the ball was dislodged by the ground and he had no control over it.Can't have it both ways.Kudos to DoubleG for bringing the voice of reason into this thread (as usual
The reason I say that is not because I particularly like the rule. It's clumsy and every year it leads to multiple "ticky tack" calls like this one. But here's the thing: they're not subjective calls. To a man, every professional I've heard discuss this call has said that the rule was properly interpreted and applied. So it's an objective rule - and that's why I like it.
As I understand it, this rule is an offshoot of the change that happened in the '99 season, when the NFL decided to allow catches even when the ball touches the ground. The problem isn't so much this rule, but how some other rule could be written that would provide an objective standard for establishing a catch when the ball touches the ground.
And here's the key, for me. If Calvin Johnson, a PROFESSIONAL who has every reason to understand every rule and nuance involved in calls related to his position, had simply stood up and handed the ball to the ref, no call would have been necessary. This professional, who is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per 60 minute contest to DO HIS JOB had it entirely within his power to render the official utterly impotent in this situation. The fact is, the rule written this way ALWAYS leaves that power in the hands of the receiver.
As they say in UFC, don't ever leave the decision in the hands of the judges.
If the rule could be rewritten to still allow for objectively verifiable criteria to determine a catch in a way that seems more sensical, I'm all for it. But I haven't heard anyone make any suggestions that lead me to believe there's any better way of allowing receptions where the ball touches the ground and still keep the loopholes for subjective interpretation closed.
It's a good rule and it was a poor play on Johnson's part.
On a side note, this exact rule was reviewed in the offseason and the competition committee decided to keep it in force. Louis Murphy had the exact same thing happen to him in game 1 last year. The same call was made. And shame on Johnson and his coaches for not knowing all about it and prepping all of their receivers for this situation.
Because it's not. The refs did it right, it's the rulemakers who refuse to change this stupid rule that are the horrible ones here.
I heard on the NFL Network that this rule can`t be changed now but will be looked at after the season. It will probably be adjusted to a more simple and logical ruling.
According to the ex head of officiating there is no gray area; this is a black and white case. A lot of people seem to be holding his opinion on this up as evidence of something when he has yet to point to the rulebook (article, section and item) which covers Johnson's particular actions.Somebody better get their story straight. It would have been much easier, and more accurate, to say that the rulebook is silent on this matter. If instead the league wants some sort of "one size fits all" option they are doomed to fail by it. After listening to Pereira it sounds as though they will be going back to the drawing board in the offseason. Can't wait to see what they come up with in response.
So you are saying they are simply using poor precedent for the interpretation. That's all I wanted to know. It's not in the rulebook though, and that's one hell of a rub.
It's quite obvious the film study didn't include what Johnson did. Why, if that's the case, did they not go to the rulebook? To say they used a poorly constructed precedent is not the same thing as getting the call right. To use bad precedent is to use bad precedent.
This is some delicious rationalization from a 20%er. Love the UFC comparison!Kudos to DoubleG for bringing the voice of reason into this thread (as usual
The reason I say that is not because I particularly like the rule. It's clumsy and every year it leads to multiple "ticky tack" calls like this one. But here's the thing: they're not subjective calls. To a man, every professional I've heard discuss this call has said that the rule was properly interpreted and applied. So it's an objective rule - and that's why I like it.
As I understand it, this rule is an offshoot of the change that happened in the '99 season, when the NFL decided to allow catches even when the ball touches the ground. The problem isn't so much this rule, but how some other rule could be written that would provide an objective standard for establishing a catch when the ball touches the ground.
And here's the key, for me. If Calvin Johnson, a PROFESSIONAL who has every reason to understand every rule and nuance involved in calls related to his position, had simply stood up and handed the ball to the ref, no call would have been necessary. This professional, who is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per 60 minute contest to DO HIS JOB had it entirely within his power to render the official utterly impotent in this situation. The fact is, the rule written this way ALWAYS leaves that power in the hands of the receiver.
As they say in UFC, don't ever leave the decision in the hands of the judges.
If the rule could be rewritten to still allow for objectively verifiable criteria to determine a catch in a way that seems more sensical, I'm all for it. But I haven't heard anyone make any suggestions that lead me to believe there's any better way of allowing receptions where the ball touches the ground and still keep the loopholes for subjective interpretation closed.
It's a good rule and it was a poor play on Johnson's part.
On a side note, this exact rule was reviewed in the offseason and the competition committee decided to keep it in force. Louis Murphy had the exact same thing happen to him in game 1 last year. The same call was made. And shame on Johnson and his coaches for not knowing all about it and prepping all of their receivers for this situation.
That's not in the rules and you just completely contradicted yourself. What happened to momentum from his still falling arm (it's funny even typing that)? And yes, of course control matters. Seeing as he clearly had control and made a second act, what in the world are you even arguing? That he should have the decency to tuck the ball under his arm? You want manners legislated into the rulebook; a whole new take on the tuck rule.Bravo! Solid work here.
