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

[Psychopav]

another question I'd like answered is at what point does this 'complete the process' rule become inapplicable? is two feet and possession no longer enough? can a defender lambast a wr holding the ball over his head with 2 feet down in the end zone just to see if he can complete the process? what if he has his 2 feet down then fell on his ###? can the defender still hit him to see if he can complete the process? what if the guy goes down for a pass and is now rolling over in the end zone? can the DB hit him when he is down?

it seems to me that this rule has created a whole lot of gray area when the leagues talking heads are telling everyone how this is in place to eliminate gray areas. and I'm amazed at the amount of people that just accept what they are saying without question. its 2 days and is anyone clearer on what it takes to complete this process?

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.

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.

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.

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.

There's no "both ways". Because the ball flipped away, objectively by rule it was not a catch. He either had control (and inexcusably imo flipped the ball away when he should not have) or he didn't. Either way, no catch. If it "should have" been a catch, that's only because he "should have" held on to the ball to prove it. Stupid play on his part, no excuse in a professional setting. He's not some high school kid trying to learn the game here.

 

[Psychopav]

For the Love of God, let's just add this play to the Brady Tuck Rule play and to the Steal Play (Drew Pearson pushing off on Vikings CB on last play of 1975 NFC Championship game) and to all the other horrible calls by NFL refs. It's done. If the Bear's squeak into the playoffs we can talk about it again then and how lame it was.

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.

The ruling should be that any WR making a catch in the endzone that has control of the ball after a knee, elbow, ###, whatever hits the groud it is a TD...plain and simple. The continuation process has to be done away with.

My only concern with that is that "having control" is a subjective call and puts the game in the hands of the refs. I'd rather keep the rule as is - if the receiver has control, they can easily prove it by handing the ball to the ref when the play is ruled dead (listen for the whistle...).

 

[Psychopav]

another question I'd like answered is at what point does this 'complete the process' rule become inapplicable? is two feet and possession no longer enough? can a defender lambast a wr holding the ball over his head with 2 feet down in the end zone just to see if he can complete the process? what if he has his 2 feet down then fell on his ###? can the defender still hit him to see if he can complete the process? what if the guy goes down for a pass and is now rolling over in the end zone? can the DB hit him when he is down?

it seems to me that this rule has created a whole lot of gray area when the leagues talking heads are telling everyone how this is in place to eliminate gray areas. and I'm amazed at the amount of people that just accept what they are saying without question. its 2 days and is anyone clearer on what it takes to complete this process?

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.

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.

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.

This is some delicious rationalization from a 20%er. Love the UFC comparison!

20%er?

 

[Psychopav]

This whole thread will end up being academic ... this rule will be totally revamped in time for the next NFL season.

Has the NFL ever made a public re-interpretation of a rule during a season the way the NBA and MLB do? I can't recall that the NFL ever had.

Personally, I'd like to see them make catch rulings really loose -- for instance, would love to see bobbling a ball while going out-of-bounds count as a catch. Would also like to see them go with the college one-foot-inbounds rule.

And in the end zone, make it like so: either (a) two hands on the ball or (b) one hand trapping the ball to the body PLUS (c) one foot/knee/bodypart down = TD. Even if the ball is in control only for a one-count.

You might be right but the same thing was discussed this past off season, for the same reason, and nothing changed.

 

[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.

Momentum is not opinion, it's physics.

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.

Holmes

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.

madman, you're contradicting yourself in more than one place here, or at least misspeaking. You say the "refs consistently rule" it one way when you mean they consistently call it one way. Only they haven't consistently called it one way as evidenced by a bunch of calls that have been linked to. If you would like me to I can link them again. You then say Calvin knew the "rule"; yes, he quoted a rule that is actually in the rulebook and by which he did indeed score a TD. By every item that applies to this particular play he scored a TD and you haven't managed to surmount this point yet.If poor precedent based on misinterpreted calls is what you have been arguing all along, you should have said so in the beginning. But no, the refs hadn't been confronted with this play previously or the may have gotten the call right.

 

[Neofight]

another question I'd like answered is at what point does this 'complete the process' rule become inapplicable? is two feet and possession no longer enough? can a defender lambast a wr holding the ball over his head with 2 feet down in the end zone just to see if he can complete the process? what if he has his 2 feet down then fell on his ###? can the defender still hit him to see if he can complete the process? what if the guy goes down for a pass and is now rolling over in the end zone? can the DB hit him when he is down?

it seems to me that this rule has created a whole lot of gray area when the leagues talking heads are telling everyone how this is in place to eliminate gray areas. and I'm amazed at the amount of people that just accept what they are saying without question. its 2 days and is anyone clearer on what it takes to complete this process?

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.

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.

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.

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.

There's no "both ways". Because the ball flipped away, objectively by rule it was not a catch. He either had control (and inexcusably imo flipped the ball away when he should not have) or he didn't. Either way, no catch. If it "should have" been a catch, that's only because he "should have" held on to the ball to prove it. Stupid play on his part, no excuse in a professional setting. He's not some high school kid trying to learn the game here.

What are you trying to say here? That the actual rules as itemized in the book don't apply because he flipped the ball away? How does this make sense?

 

[DoubleG]

Neo, as long as we're all posting questions, I have a few:

1) How long have you been a Lions fan?

2) What % of your fantasy teams is Calvin Johnson on?

3) How much money did you lose on this game/play?

TIA.

ETA: Since jomar is in the thread (color me shocked) - jo, feel free to answer the 3 above as well.

 

[Doug B]

You might be right but the same thing was discussed this past off season, for the same reason, and nothing changed.

Eh ... another high-profile "bad rule" call + one or two turnovers in the 8-man Competition Commitee and that rule could easily be re-written.

 

[Neofight]

another question I'd like answered is at what point does this 'complete the process' rule become inapplicable? is two feet and possession no longer enough? can a defender lambast a wr holding the ball over his head with 2 feet down in the end zone just to see if he can complete the process? what if he has his 2 feet down then fell on his ###? can the defender still hit him to see if he can complete the process? what if the guy goes down for a pass and is now rolling over in the end zone? can the DB hit him when he is down?

it seems to me that this rule has created a whole lot of gray area when the leagues talking heads are telling everyone how this is in place to eliminate gray areas. and I'm amazed at the amount of people that just accept what they are saying without question. its 2 days and is anyone clearer on what it takes to complete this process?

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.

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.

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.

This is some delicious rationalization from a 20%er. Love the UFC comparison!

20%er?

Just having fun. Take the pole.

 

[jomar]

probably 20 posts since this morning and yet no one has shed any light on the actual rule itself. what does it take to complete the process? and whatever it takes, I assume that defensive players can hit, grab, or pull body parts of the wr until whatever has to happen has happened?

secondly, I don't see how anyone can't see that Calvin clearly had possession of the ball with 2 feet down BEFORE he made a motion (2nd act?) to go to the ground. if that happened, this 'rule' that no one can completely define shouldn't even come into play. he WAS NOT going to the ground in the act of catching the ball. this is where I believe the referees made a bad call. then there is the whole business of alot of body parts being on the ground, Calvin getting up, etc, but I believe the first mistake was that they didn't recognize he had possession before he went to the ground and brought this ridiculous rule into play.

interesting link of the Brandon Lloyd catch. one could certainly argue that he did not complete the process.

 

[jomar]

Neo, as long as we're all posting questions, I have a few:1) How long have you been a Lions fan?2) What % of your fantasy teams is Calvin Johnson on?3) How much money did you lose on this game/play?TIA. ETA: Since jomar is in the thread (color me shocked) - jo, feel free to answer the 3 above as well.

1. all my life, so I'm used to getting screwed by calls like these2. Calvin is on 2 teams out of 6, this play affected neither outcome3. $0, I had Detroit +7 (bought the half)

 

[Da Guru]

You might be right but the same thing was discussed this past off season, for the same reason, and nothing changed.

Eh ... another high-profile "bad rule" call + one or two turnovers in the 8-man Competition Commitee and that rule could easily be re-written.

It should not even be a rule but a ref judgment call. Make it plain and simple....does the WR have control of the football in the endzone when a body part touches the ground, whatever happens after that is moot, just as it is moot whatever happens after a RB crosses the planeThey are making the game more difficult to ref than it should be.

 

[jomar]

as far as the tuck rule, that was equally ridiculous. however, at least we were all told about the forward motion and the qb bringing the ball back in still counted as his arm going forward. in this instance, we've been told about the 'process' but we still have no idea what it takes to complete the process or how long a wr must demonstrate possession for this rule to not apply.

 

[Neofight]

Neo, as long as we're all posting questions, I have a few:1) How long have you been a Lions fan?2) What % of your fantasy teams is Calvin Johnson on?3) How much money did you lose on this game/play?TIA. ETA: Since jomar is in the thread (color me shocked) - jo, feel free to answer the 3 above as well.

I, unlike others, love the give and take of questions.1) I'm a Seahawk fan living in Seattle. The midwest is much too cold for this southwest born boy's blood. I also think Emmitt Smith was a better running back than Barry Sanders (The Horror!... but let's not derail this conversation)2) I have Calvin in one non money league which I won regardless and one money league which I won only because Ray Rice and Flacco had such miserable nights. That's it. In the big money league I don't have him and would have crushed the owner who did as he had an off week for a quality team (on paper)3) I don't gamble outside of fantasy sports. I burnt out on casinos in the mid 90's and have never been a sportsbook type of guy. Not my thing.I will admit to wanting to see Detroit succeed after decades of being in the basement. This team can't buy a break though and that call must be like adding insult to injury for Detroiters. Why do you ask?

 

[Doug B]

It should not even be a rule but a ref judgment call. Make it plain and simple....does the WR have control of the football in the endzone when a body part touches the ground, whatever happens after that is moot, just as it is moot whatever happens after a RB crosses the planeThey are making the game more difficult to ref than it should be.

 

[Da Guru]

It should not even be a rule but a ref judgment call. Make it plain and simple....does the WR have control of the football in the endzone when a body part touches the ground, whatever happens after that is moot, just as it is moot whatever happens after a RB crosses the plane

They are making the game more difficult to ref than it should be.

It truly is amazing they have a rule like this. Watch CJ make the catch then one foot down, two feet down, body down while still in control.

After the second foot is down it should be TD and play is over.

Brian Billick was on the NFL Network yesterday and said his 88 year old mother said it the best when called him after the game and said "That is just wrong"

 

[Psychopav]

Just having fun. Take the pole.

Ah.Actually, until I heard Perriera on the local radio show yesterday, I was an 80%er. Now I'm a 20%er but like I said if they want to re-write the rule I'd be fine with that. I just like having the decision in the hands of the receiver (if he actually does have control) rather than subjectively in the mind of a ref.

 

[Psychopav]

What are you trying to say here? That the actual rules as itemized in the book don't apply because he flipped the ball away? How does this make sense?

The point of the rule is to remove the subjective component of "flipping the ball away". Was it flipped away, or did he lose it because it hit the ground? Did he lose it and then try to make it look like a flip? It doesn't matter. By rule, it wasn't a catch.If he had control, he should have proven it by holding onto the ball.Did he have control? By rule, he did not. Whether that was by choice (flipping it away) or not is incidental.GO BEARS! FIRST PLACE BEEYOTCHES!I'm going back to the FFA...see ya.

 

[Peiz]

As neo and jomar have said countless times, and some of you choose to ignore this, there is nowhere in the rulebook that explains why this isn't a catch. Every single word in the rules make this a catch. Every time one of these guys brings this up, all of the naysayer's responses are, "well they made the right call, it's a bad rule." What rule? Nobody answers that question.

 

[Psychopav]

As neo and jomar have said countless times, and some of you choose to ignore this, there is nowhere in the rulebook that explains why this isn't a catch. Every single word in the rules make this a catch. Every time one of these guys brings this up, all of the naysayer's responses are, "well they made the right call, it's a bad rule." What rule? Nobody answers that question.

Then why are the former head officials, NFL players, and current Lions head coach all fine with the call, just not the rule?(sorry, NOW I'll head back to the FFA. )

 

[Neofight]

As neo and jomar have said countless times, and some of you choose to ignore this, there is nowhere in the rulebook that explains why this isn't a catch. Every single word in the rules make this a catch. Every time one of these guys brings this up, all of the naysayer's responses are, "well they made the right call, it's a bad rule." What rule? Nobody answers that question.

Then why are the former head officials, NFL players, and current Lions head coach all fine with the call, just not the rule?(sorry, NOW I'll head back to the FFA. )

He also says it's black and white issue, when just about everyone agrees it is not. He has yet to analyze this particular play and state why it is not a touchdown, per the rules. And, as has been stated before, he has plenty of reasons why he won't talk honestly about it at this time. I like Pereira, honestly. Loved his insights on the NFL network. But I like him more when he is coming clean on a subject, less so when he is acting as a mouthpiece.

The rest of them are toeing the company line or being diplomatic. Schwartz was particularly diplomatic in his press conference I thought. He seems like a classy guy; one that knows he just got jobbed.

 

[Neofight]

Just having fun. Take the pole.

Ah.Actually, until I heard Perriera on the local radio show yesterday, I was an 80%er. Now I'm a 20%er but like I said if they want to re-write the rule I'd be fine with that. I just like having the decision in the hands of the receiver (if he actually does have control) rather than subjectively in the mind of a ref.

What did he say that changed your mind?

 

[Psychopav]

Just having fun. Take the pole.

Ah.Actually, until I heard Perriera on the local radio show yesterday, I was an 80%er. Now I'm a 20%er but like I said if they want to re-write the rule I'd be fine with that. I just like having the decision in the hands of the receiver (if he actually does have control) rather than subjectively in the mind of a ref.

What did he say that changed your mind?

Here's what he said:-Exact same play happened last year opening day - Louis Murphy. Same call.

-Lance Moore catch in super bowl was entirely different rule. Apples & oranges

-this rule has been on the books for > 10 years, refined over time but brought in for the '99 season when they decided balls could hit the ground and still be a catch (which was decided in reaction to instant replay allowing much more subtle rules)

-this has evolved into one of the more difficult rules to understand

-every year will have 10-15 of these

-due in part to the Murphy play last year, the competition committee reviewed this very rule is offseason. Mixed opinions on the committee but decision was made to keep the rule in place

-it's possible that the rule will change after this year but he thought the same thing last year after the Murphy play

-in it's current form, the rule is 100% objective, and entirely in the hands of the receiver. If the receiver maintains control & possession until he stops moving, it will be a catch. Hard to define the rule differently w/o adding in subjectivity.

He didn't say which way he comes down on whether it's a good rule or not, but he didn't come across like a mouthpiece whatsoever. He was open and sincere in his delivery. It's that last one that changed my mind.

Again, highly compensated professionals should be held accountable for this well before officials or fans. The game is about the athletes executing on an individual and team level. Whenever the sole determination of the outcome of a play can rest in their hands, the rules shouldn't get in the way imo. It's not so much that it's the best defined rule out there, but if it's the best definition that will keep subjectivity out of the mix, then hold the receiver accountable for doing his job.

 

[mad sweeney]

It means he has to hold onto the ball until it stops, not drop the ball instantaneously as the last part of his descending body hits the ground. His ### might be on it's way up, but the arm continued the motion of going down and it's not a catch if he doesn't hold onto it until that motion is complete. You're never going to get it, so just stop and move on. You're wrong.

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.

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?

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.

If that's all you wanted to know, you would've said that four pages ago as that has been said repeatedly for a long time.

 

[jomar]

Just having fun. Take the pole.

Ah.Actually, until I heard Perriera on the local radio show yesterday, I was an 80%er. Now I'm a 20%er but like I said if they want to re-write the rule I'd be fine with that. I just like having the decision in the hands of the receiver (if he actually does have control) rather than subjectively in the mind of a ref.

What did he say that changed your mind?

Here's what he said:-Exact same play happened last year opening day - Louis Murphy. Same call.

-Lance Moore catch in super bowl was entirely different rule. Apples & oranges

-this rule has been on the books for > 10 years, refined over time but brought in for the '99 season when they decided balls could hit the ground and still be a catch (which was decided in reaction to instant replay allowing much more subtle rules)

-this has evolved into one of the more difficult rules to understand

-every year will have 10-15 of these

-due in part to the Murphy play last year, the competition committee reviewed this very rule is offseason. Mixed opinions on the committee but decision was made to keep the rule in place

-it's possible that the rule will change after this year but he thought the same thing last year after the Murphy play

-in it's current form, the rule is 100% objective, and entirely in the hands of the receiver. If the receiver maintains control & possession until he stops moving, it will be a catch. Hard to define the rule differently w/o adding in subjectivity.

He didn't say which way he comes down on whether it's a good rule or not, but he didn't come across like a mouthpiece whatsoever. He was open and sincere in his delivery. It's that last one that changed my mind.

Again, highly compensated professionals should be held accountable for this well before officials or fans. The game is about the athletes executing on an individual and team level. Whenever the sole determination of the outcome of a play can rest in their hands, the rules shouldn't get in the way imo. It's not so much that it's the best defined rule out there, but if it's the best definition that will keep subjectivity out of the mix, then hold the receiver accountable for doing his job.

sorry pav, but this is a bunch of bologna. why can't someone just say what the rule is? and why can't someone answer follow up questions to whatever they answered to question #1? how many steps can a player take before going to the ground to eliminate the need to possess it after he hits the ground? how long does a player need to be on the ground before possession is judged sufficient? does he need to stand up with the ball? stop his momentum? in a nutshell, WHAT IS THE RULE?

the fact that this guy has been on multiple tv and radio shows and said nothing on this subject should tell everyone something.

as far as what he actually said and how it pertains to the Calvin catch:

-no it wasn't the EXACT same as Murphy

-what were the apples and oranges when compared to Moore?

-all of the rest is just to fill airspace it seems

 

[jomar]

not sure if this has been brought up.

fast forward to 2:10..... week 1 brandon lloyd Den vs Jax....catch or not catch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j9-DFpu0Sg

I didn't want this to get lost in here. strange that I was the only one to comment on it.for all of you complete the process people, is this a catch?

 

[Neofight]

Just having fun. Take the pole.

Ah.Actually, until I heard Perriera on the local radio show yesterday, I was an 80%er. Now I'm a 20%er but like I said if they want to re-write the rule I'd be fine with that. I just like having the decision in the hands of the receiver (if he actually does have control) rather than subjectively in the mind of a ref.

What did he say that changed your mind?

Here's what he said:-Exact same play happened last year opening day - Louis Murphy. Same call.

-Lance Moore catch in super bowl was entirely different rule. Apples & oranges

-this rule has been on the books for > 10 years, refined over time but brought in for the '99 season when they decided balls could hit the ground and still be a catch (which was decided in reaction to instant replay allowing much more subtle rules)

-this has evolved into one of the more difficult rules to understand

-every year will have 10-15 of these

-due in part to the Murphy play last year, the competition committee reviewed this very rule is offseason. Mixed opinions on the committee but decision was made to keep the rule in place

-it's possible that the rule will change after this year but he thought the same thing last year after the Murphy play

-in it's current form, the rule is 100% objective, and entirely in the hands of the receiver. If the receiver maintains control & possession until he stops moving, it will be a catch. Hard to define the rule differently w/o adding in subjectivity.

He didn't say which way he comes down on whether it's a good rule or not, but he didn't come across like a mouthpiece whatsoever. He was open and sincere in his delivery. It's that last one that changed my mind.

Again, highly compensated professionals should be held accountable for this well before officials or fans. The game is about the athletes executing on an individual and team level. Whenever the sole determination of the outcome of a play can rest in their hands, the rules shouldn't get in the way imo. It's not so much that it's the best defined rule out there, but if it's the best definition that will keep subjectivity out of the mix, then hold the receiver accountable for doing his job.

First point is not remotely close to being accurate and he loses the argument right off the bat. He is straight up BSing there; no objectivity whatsoever. All you need to do is look at the film. What he is trying to advocate for here is a one size fits all approach (i.e., black and white). It has already failed; miserably. Now he is in PR mode trying to make the best of a clearly bad situation. The last point about the rule being objective is not only false, it is hysterically so. I quoted him saying something to the effect that you have to practically hand it to the officials now. Not only is this nowhere in the rulebook, if it was and players started doing this there would be an incredibly loud revolt on the part of fans. On top of that, if it were the case then they would have to eliminate many of the TD's already scored this season, especially in light of this nonsense about "control & possession until he stops moving". This is likewise absolutely nowhere in the rulebook and it only helps to illustrate how different this play is from the Louis Murphy play a year ago. The ground clearly stopped Murphy and he didn't hold on- a fair call in my opinion. CJ was in celebration mode on the other side of the end zone before anyone, including the announcers, realized it was overruled on the field (a truly bad bit of legislation, IMO) and under review. The outright embellishment of "control & possession until he stops moving", if he did indeed say this, proves that the Item 1: Player Going to the Ground rule that many have quoted here doesn't even apply. It was written for scenarios where people are actually forced to stop moving (i.e., diving, rolling on the ground, falling on ones back, etc.).

According to him, Johnson would've had to have stayed on the ground for the play he mentions to be a proper analogy and this rule to take effect. Pereira basically slits his throat here comparing it to the Murphy no catch. It's apples and oranges as well. There is nothing in the rulebook that says this was not a catch and touchdown. I only wonder if he would take this approach if he was still head of officiating. Speaking of which, anyone heard from the current head?

Love to hear your thoughts on this, mad sweeney...

 

[Neofight]

It means he has to hold onto the ball until it stops, not drop the ball instantaneously as the last part of his descending body hits the ground. His ### might be on it's way up, but the arm continued the motion of going down and it's not a catch if he doesn't hold onto it until that motion is complete. You're never going to get it, so just stop and move on. You're wrong.

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.

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?

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.

If that's all you wanted to know, you would've said that four pages ago as that has been said repeatedly for a long time.

You've had a lot of other contentions as well, some of which have changed. But at least we whittled this down.

 

[mad sweeney]

For the Love of God, let's just add this play to the Brady Tuck Rule play and to the Steal Play (Drew Pearson pushing off on Vikings CB on last play of 1975 NFC Championship game) and to all the other horrible calls by NFL refs. It's done. If the Bear's squeak into the playoffs we can talk about it again then and how lame it was.

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.

The ruling should be that any WR making a catch in the endzone that has control of the ball after a knee, elbow, ###, whatever hits the groud it is a TD...plain and simple. The continuation process has to be done away with.

My only concern with that is that "having control" is a subjective call and puts the game in the hands of the refs. I'd rather keep the rule as is - if the receiver has control, they can easily prove it by handing the ball to the ref when the play is ruled dead (listen for the whistle...).

Because many times, like this one, a full catch is made long before the receiver hits the ground. There's no doubt about that, and any rule that takes a catch like this away is a very bad rule.

 

[mad sweeney]

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.

Momentum is not opinion, it's physics.

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.

Holmes

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.

madman, you're contradicting yourself in more than one place here, or at least misspeaking. You say the "refs consistently rule" it one way when you mean they consistently call it one way. Only they haven't consistently called it one way as evidenced by a bunch of calls that have been linked to. If you would like me to I can link them again. You then say Calvin knew the "rule"; yes, he quoted a rule that is actually in the rulebook and by which he did indeed score a TD. By every item that applies to this particular play he scored a TD and you haven't managed to surmount this point yet.If poor precedent based on misinterpreted calls is what you have been arguing all along, you should have said so in the beginning. But no, the refs hadn't been confronted with this play previously or the may have gotten the call right.

Weird how the refs aren't making rulings when they say the ruling stands. Guess they don't know their own vocabulary as well as you do. I've also said that CH did NOT know the rule, which shows how little you're understanding what you are reading. This isn't a new problem. It isn't poor precedent based on misinterpreted calls. It's been reviewed year after year and still called consistently. Sure, not 100% consistently, they can't do that with any call (or ruling) because they're human. But CJ needed to hold onto the ball longer than he did. He said he thought hr was down when his ### hit, showing that he didn't know the rules. U can't believe how much you can be wrong in one post...

As for manners... What are you talking about? You tuck the ball into your body because it's safer there than in an outstretched hand. Football is a game of inches and that doesn't just mean literal inches. All the little things count and if he'd done fundamental work like tucking the ball in, he probably holds onto the ball all the way through and scores.

 

[mad sweeney]

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.

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?

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.

If that's all you wanted to know, you would've said that four pages ago as that has been said repeatedly for a long time.

You've had a lot of other contentions as well, some of which have changed. But at least we whittled this down.

I'm afraid it's you that's been all over the spectrum, desperately trying to get one fanciful, inane argument to stick. I've said the same thing all along.

 

[jomar]

CJ needed to hold onto the ball longer than he did.

I'm beginning to think that the people who are in the 'its just a bad rule' camp are ignoring me......how long must someone hold the ball on the ground before he is allowed to drop it or set it down? how many steps could he have taken to eliminate the need to maintain possession after he hit the ground? also, see the Brandon Lloyd link above. is that a catch by this rule?

 

[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.

Momentum is not opinion, it's physics.

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.

Holmes

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.

madman, you're contradicting yourself in more than one place here, or at least misspeaking. You say the "refs consistently rule" it one way when you mean they consistently call it one way. Only they haven't consistently called it one way as evidenced by a bunch of calls that have been linked to. If you would like me to I can link them again. You then say Calvin knew the "rule"; yes, he quoted a rule that is actually in the rulebook and by which he did indeed score a TD. By every item that applies to this particular play he scored a TD and you haven't managed to surmount this point yet.If poor precedent based on misinterpreted calls is what you have been arguing all along, you should have said so in the beginning. But no, the refs hadn't been confronted with this play previously or the may have gotten the call right.

Weird how the refs aren't making rulings when they say the ruling stands. Guess they don't know their own vocabulary as well as you do. I've also said that CH did NOT know the rule, which shows how little you're understanding what you are reading. This isn't a new problem. It isn't poor precedent based on misinterpreted calls. It's been reviewed year after year and still called consistently. Sure, not 100% consistently, they can't do that with any call (or ruling) because they're human. But CJ needed to hold onto the ball longer than he did. He said he thought hr was down when his ### hit, showing that he didn't know the rules. U can't believe how much you can be wrong in one post...

As for manners... What are you talking about? You tuck the ball into your body because it's safer there than in an outstretched hand. Football is a game of inches and that doesn't just mean literal inches. All the little things count and if he'd done fundamental work like tucking the ball in, he probably holds onto the ball all the way through and scores.

You keep referring to a rule(s): what rule did he not know about? Is it a rule, or a subjective (and incorrect, IMO) interpretation based on a bad call at some point in the past? You've stated both. You say that it has been called consistently this way for years, but it clearly hasn't. Clearly the going to the ground rule is not the one you refer to. Just seeking a little clarity on what you are saying here. The rule CJ referenced actually applied in this instance; rule 8.1.4 Item 1 clearly does not. Why would you tuck a ball in your arms after you scored and are going to spike it? Seems odd.

 

[Peiz]

CJ needed to hold onto the ball longer than he did.

I'm beginning to think that the people who are in the 'its just a bad rule' camp are ignoring me......how long must someone hold the ball on the ground before he is allowed to drop it or set it down? how many steps could he have taken to eliminate the need to maintain possession after he hit the ground? also, see the Brandon Lloyd link above. is that a catch by this rule?

I feel for you. Response to two issues:1. A lot of what you guys are saying is that what Perriera says is fact because he obviously understands the rules better than us. That doesn't explain anything other than we should blindly follow people who are in charge of situations because they "know better." I've said it before, as has neo I think, they are in full PR mode at this point and the NFL is as big of a joke as the NHL is with this stuff. Never admit mistakes and simply tell everyone they're right without explaining why.2. Like jomar constantly asks, where in the rules does it say this isn't a catch. People who say it isn't keep going to the process and one motion and all of this. It's bigger than that because you, me, the NFL can't objectively answer this question like they say they can. What do you have to do to create possession? Anybody? Bueller? I have yet to see an answer because there is none according to the rules, and people just listen the NFL officials and decide that they know what they're talking about.Oh, and I guess Lloyd went onto this mysterious second act? At least that's what Perriera would say. That's a great example though because I don't see that as being any more of a catch. In the end, the rule is not objective it's subjective. Because of that how is this not a catch.

 

[mad sweeney]

Just having fun. Take the pole.

Ah.Actually, until I heard Perriera on the local radio show yesterday, I was an 80%er. Now I'm a 20%er but like I said if they want to re-write the rule I'd be fine with that. I just like having the decision in the hands of the receiver (if he actually does have control) rather than subjectively in the mind of a ref.

What did he say that changed your mind?

Here's what he said:-Exact same play happened last year opening day - Louis Murphy. Same call.

-Lance Moore catch in super bowl was entirely different rule. Apples & oranges

-this rule has been on the books for > 10 years, refined over time but brought in for the '99 season when they decided balls could hit the ground and still be a catch (which was decided in reaction to instant replay allowing much more subtle rules)

-this has evolved into one of the more difficult rules to understand

-every year will have 10-15 of these

-due in part to the Murphy play last year, the competition committee reviewed this very rule is offseason. Mixed opinions on the committee but decision was made to keep the rule in place

-it's possible that the rule will change after this year but he thought the same thing last year after the Murphy play

-in it's current form, the rule is 100% objective, and entirely in the hands of the receiver. If the receiver maintains control & possession until he stops moving, it will be a catch. Hard to define the rule differently w/o adding in subjectivity.

He didn't say which way he comes down on whether it's a good rule or not, but he didn't come across like a mouthpiece whatsoever. He was open and sincere in his delivery. It's that last one that changed my mind.

Again, highly compensated professionals should be held accountable for this well before officials or fans. The game is about the athletes executing on an individual and team level. Whenever the sole determination of the outcome of a play can rest in their hands, the rules shouldn't get in the way imo. It's not so much that it's the best defined rule out there, but if it's the best definition that will keep subjectivity out of the mix, then hold the receiver accountable for doing his job.

First point is not remotely close to being accurate and he loses the argument right off the bat. He is straight up BSing there; no objectivity whatsoever. All you need to do is look at the film. What he is trying to advocate for here is a one size fits all approach (i.e., black and white). It has already failed; miserably. Now he is in PR mode trying to make the best of a clearly bad situation. The last point about the rule being objective is not only false, it is hysterically so. I quoted him saying something to the effect that you have to practically hand it to the officials now. Not only is this nowhere in the rulebook, if it was and players started doing this there would be an incredibly loud revolt on the part of fans. On top of that, if it were the case then they would have to eliminate many of the TD's already scored this season, especially in light of this nonsense about "control & possession until he stops moving". This is likewise absolutely nowhere in the rulebook and it only helps to illustrate how different this play is from the Louis Murphy play a year ago. The ground clearly stopped Murphy and he didn't hold on- a fair call in my opinion. CJ was in celebration mode on the other side of the end zone before anyone, including the announcers, realized it was overruled on the field (a truly bad bit of legislation, IMO) and under review. The outright embellishment of "control & possession until he stops moving", if he did indeed say this, proves that the Item 1: Player Going to the Ground rule that many have quoted here doesn't even apply. It was written for scenarios where people are actually forced to stop moving (i.e., diving, rolling on the ground, falling on ones back, etc.).

According to him, Johnson would've had to have stayed on the ground for the play he mentions to be a proper analogy and this rule to take effect. Pereira basically slits his throat here comparing it to the Murphy no catch. It's apples and oranges as well. There is nothing in the rulebook that says this was not a catch and touchdown. I only wonder if he would take this approach if he was still head of officiating. Speaking of which, anyone heard from the current head?

Love to hear your thoughts on this, mad sweeney...

MP has no reason to go into PR mode. He's retired, he has no input or influence on officials anymore. He just comments on it. He's saying exactly what he said on the broadcast pretty much. I believe handing the ball to the red wasn't intended to be literal. All CJ had to do was not lose the ball, on purpose or accident, instantaneously when it hit the ground. Dunno how many more times you need to hear the same thing almost everyone us saying.

 

[Neofight]

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.

If that's all you wanted to know, you would've said that four pages ago as that has been said repeatedly for a long time.

You've had a lot of other contentions as well, some of which have changed. But at least we whittled this down.

I'm afraid it's you that's been all over the spectrum, desperately trying to get one fanciful, inane argument to stick. I've said the same thing all along.

OK, what about momentum vs. control? Or whether control matters? Or rule versus interpretation based on a incorrect precedent? Or the idea that he has to hold onto the ball until it stops (which it did, not that it matters)?

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.

What did you mean by this?I'm still just trying to find out what rule overturns this catch. Been looking for that all along.

 

[Peiz]

MP has no reason to go into PR mode. He's retired, he has no input or influence on officials anymore. He just comments on it. He's saying exactly what he said on the broadcast pretty much. I believe handing the ball to the red wasn't intended to be literal. All CJ had to do was not lose the ball, on purpose or accident, instantaneously when it hit the ground. Dunno how many more times you need to hear the same thing almost everyone us saying.

The bolded part is the issue, this wasn't instantaneaous. He hit the ground with full possession, rolled and then put the ball on the ground. Rule or not, does he not have possession when he hits the ground?

EDIT: Sorry, I see what you're saying about the ball coming out instantaneaous. I still stand by the question asking how he doesn't have possession when he hits the ground based on the rulebook they keep referring to.

 

[Neofight]

Ah.

Actually, until I heard Perriera on the local radio show yesterday, I was an 80%er. Now I'm a 20%er but like I said if they want to re-write the rule I'd be fine with that. I just like having the decision in the hands of the receiver (if he actually does have control) rather than subjectively in the mind of a ref.

What did he say that changed your mind?

Here's what he said:-Exact same play happened last year opening day - Louis Murphy. Same call.

-Lance Moore catch in super bowl was entirely different rule. Apples & oranges

-this rule has been on the books for > 10 years, refined over time but brought in for the '99 season when they decided balls could hit the ground and still be a catch (which was decided in reaction to instant replay allowing much more subtle rules)

-this has evolved into one of the more difficult rules to understand

-every year will have 10-15 of these

-due in part to the Murphy play last year, the competition committee reviewed this very rule is offseason. Mixed opinions on the committee but decision was made to keep the rule in place

-it's possible that the rule will change after this year but he thought the same thing last year after the Murphy play

-in it's current form, the rule is 100% objective, and entirely in the hands of the receiver. If the receiver maintains control & possession until he stops moving, it will be a catch. Hard to define the rule differently w/o adding in subjectivity.

He didn't say which way he comes down on whether it's a good rule or not, but he didn't come across like a mouthpiece whatsoever. He was open and sincere in his delivery. It's that last one that changed my mind.

Again, highly compensated professionals should be held accountable for this well before officials or fans. The game is about the athletes executing on an individual and team level. Whenever the sole determination of the outcome of a play can rest in their hands, the rules shouldn't get in the way imo. It's not so much that it's the best defined rule out there, but if it's the best definition that will keep subjectivity out of the mix, then hold the receiver accountable for doing his job.

First point is not remotely close to being accurate and he loses the argument right off the bat. He is straight up BSing there; no objectivity whatsoever. All you need to do is look at the film. What he is trying to advocate for here is a one size fits all approach (i.e., black and white). It has already failed; miserably. Now he is in PR mode trying to make the best of a clearly bad situation. The last point about the rule being objective is not only false, it is hysterically so. I quoted him saying something to the effect that you have to practically hand it to the officials now. Not only is this nowhere in the rulebook, if it was and players started doing this there would be an incredibly loud revolt on the part of fans. On top of that, if it were the case then they would have to eliminate many of the TD's already scored this season, especially in light of this nonsense about "control & possession until he stops moving". This is likewise absolutely nowhere in the rulebook and it only helps to illustrate how different this play is from the Louis Murphy play a year ago. The ground clearly stopped Murphy and he didn't hold on- a fair call in my opinion. CJ was in celebration mode on the other side of the end zone before anyone, including the announcers, realized it was overruled on the field (a truly bad bit of legislation, IMO) and under review. The outright embellishment of "control & possession until he stops moving", if he did indeed say this, proves that the Item 1: Player Going to the Ground rule that many have quoted here doesn't even apply. It was written for scenarios where people are actually forced to stop moving (i.e., diving, rolling on the ground, falling on ones back, etc.).

According to him, Johnson would've had to have stayed on the ground for the play he mentions to be a proper analogy and this rule to take effect. Pereira basically slits his throat here comparing it to the Murphy no catch. It's apples and oranges as well. There is nothing in the rulebook that says this was not a catch and touchdown. I only wonder if he would take this approach if he was still head of officiating. Speaking of which, anyone heard from the current head?

Love to hear your thoughts on this, mad sweeney...

MP has no reason to go into PR mode. He's retired, he has no input or influence on officials anymore. He just comments on it. He's saying exactly what he said on the broadcast pretty much. I believe handing the ball to the red wasn't intended to be literal. All CJ had to do was not lose the ball, on purpose or accident, instantaneously when it hit the ground. Dunno how many more times you need to hear the same thing almost everyone us saying.

Care to address the facts? Sure, the statement about handing the ball to the refs was likely tongue in cheek, but what about "control & possession until he stops moving"? That is an embellishment. Not sure why he would make that up, much less compare this play to the Murphy drop.

And don't be coy, of course he has reasons.

 

[jomar]

MP has no reason to go into PR mode. He's retired, he has no input or influence on officials anymore. He just comments on it. He's saying exactly what he said on the broadcast pretty much. I believe handing the ball to the red wasn't intended to be literal. All CJ had to do was not lose the ball, on purpose or accident, instantaneously when it hit the ground. Dunno how many more times you need to hear the same thing almost everyone us saying.

can you answer these questions? forget about Calvin Johnson for one minute.....how long must someone hold the ball on the ground before he is allowed to drop it or set it down? how many steps could he have taken to eliminate the need to maintain possession after he hit the ground?also, see the Brandon Lloyd link above. is that a catch by this rule?

 

[mad sweeney]

CJ said that after his ### hit he thought it was a TD and therefore by implication stopped protected the ball. However, by this sad rule (which HAPPENS EVERY YEAR AND IS NOT MISINTERPRETED) he wasn't down yet and he shouldn't known better.

I've based what I said by how it's been called over the years. I've never said the things you said I did above. I've said repeatedly it's a bad rule ( which is different than a ruling) but has been called this way consistently, minus normal human error, for a long time. The rule is bad, our beef is with the rule makers, nit the refs in this game who called it exactly as they had to.

I'm rely concerned about how little you seem to understand what you are reading because you get stuff wrong and make stuff up almost every post. Perhaps that is why you can't understand what happened.

 

[Neofight]

CJ said that after his ### hit he thought it was a TD and therefore by implication stopped protected the ball. However, by this sad rule (which HAPPENS EVERY YEAR AND IS NOT MISINTERPRETED) he wasn't down yet and he shouldn't known better. I've based what I said by how it's been called over the years. I've never said the things you said I did above. I've said repeatedly it's a bad rule ( which is different than a ruling) but has been called this way consistently, minus normal human error, for a long time. The rule is bad, our beef is with the rule makers, nit the refs in this game who called it exactly as they had to. I'm rely concerned about how little you seem to understand what you are reading because you get stuff wrong and make stuff up almost every post. Perhaps that is why you can't understand what happened.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Peiz]

CJ said that after his ### hit he thought it was a TD and therefore by implication stopped protected the ball. However, by this sad rule (which HAPPENS EVERY YEAR AND IS NOT MISINTERPRETED) he wasn't down yet and he shouldn't known better. I've based what I said by how it's been called over the years. I've never said the things you said I did above. I've said repeatedly it's a bad rule ( which is different than a ruling) but has been called this way consistently, minus normal human error, for a long time. The rule is bad, our beef is with the rule makers, nit the refs in this game who called it exactly as they had to. I'm rely concerned about how little you seem to understand what you are reading because you get stuff wrong and make stuff up almost every post. Perhaps that is why you can't understand what happened.

This is a unique case though because he had possession by definition the ENTIRE catch. Never juggled never did anything. Other instances often are people juggling the ball or diving in the air, which is what this rule is for. It sure is a bad rule, it is also a bad application.Again, jomar is never going to get an answer because there is no answer. The question is what makes possession. We can say CJ should have held the ball longer, but how much longer? When does he have possession?

 

[Da Guru]

It should not even be a rule but a ref judgment call. Make it plain and simple....does the WR have control of the football in the endzone when a body part touches the ground, whatever happens after that is moot, just as it is moot whatever happens after a RB crosses the plane

They are making the game more difficult to ref than it should be.

It truly is amazing they have a rule like this. Watch CJ make the catch then one foot down, two feet down, body down while still in control.

After the second foot is down it should be TD and play is over.

Brian Billick was on the NFL Network yesterday and said his 88 year old mother said it the best when called him after the game and said "That is just wrong"

What would have happened if CJ kept the ball in the grip of his hand the whole time and pushed up off the ground with the ball still in his grip? Would touching the ground while in his grip make it incomplete as well?? Watch the very end of the video.

 

[Peiz]

It should not even be a rule but a ref judgment call. Make it plain and simple....does the WR have control of the football in the endzone when a body part touches the ground, whatever happens after that is moot, just as it is moot whatever happens after a RB crosses the plane

They are making the game more difficult to ref than it should be.

It truly is amazing they have a rule like this. Watch CJ make the catch then one foot down, two feet down, body down while still in control.

After the second foot is down it should be TD and play is over.

Brian Billick was on the NFL Network yesterday and said his 88 year old mother said it the best when called him after the game and said "That is just wrong"

What would have happened if CJ kept the ball in the grip of his hand the whole time and pushed up off the ground with the ball still in his grip? Would touching the ground while in his grip make it incomplete as well?? Watch the very end of the video.

I'm pretty sure that according the rule they are referencing, which really has no bearing here, it would have been complete because he maintained possession. But I really shouldn't talk since I have no idea what a catch is anymore.

 

[mad sweeney]

MP has no reason to go into PR mode. He's retired, he has no input or influence on officials anymore. He just comments on it. He's saying exactly what he said on the broadcast pretty much. I believe handing the ball to the red wasn't intended to be literal. All CJ had to do was not lose the ball, on purpose or accident, instantaneously when it hit the ground. Dunno how many more times you need to hear the same thing almost everyone us saying.

can you answer these questions? forget about Calvin Johnson for one minute.....how long must someone hold the ball on the ground before he is allowed to drop it or set it down? how many steps could he have taken to eliminate the need to maintain possession after he hit the ground?also, see the Brandon Lloyd link above. is that a catch by this rule?

I don't know what definitive time limit there is, nor steps rule. All I know, from watching it for years, is that there needs to be proof of possession after he hits the ground. If he's able to take five steps with a defender hanging on him and he's considered falling the whole time then he may fall victim to this rule. If he hits the ground and makes a very clear motion to spike the ball after all his body has stopped going downward then I would think it would count, though it would depend on the actual instance. Whatever situation r happens in, the receiver has to clearly show possession on the ground if he's going to the ground while making the catch. To bring CJ back into it, if he'd lifted the ball off the ground an inch or two and then let go it would count. If the ball just stayed right where it was with his hand on top if it, it would count. But it squished out immediately be side he didn't follow fundamentals and keep the ball protected and he shouldve known in situations like that that he needed to do everything in his power to make sure it was hauled in. Realize I am of the belief that it should be a TD before his ### even hit the ground.

 

[mad sweeney]

CJ said that after his ### hit he thought it was a TD and therefore by implication stopped protected the ball. However, by this sad rule (which HAPPENS EVERY YEAR AND IS NOT MISINTERPRETED) he wasn't down yet and he shouldn't known better. I've based what I said by how it's been called over the years. I've never said the things you said I did above. I've said repeatedly it's a bad rule ( which is different than a ruling) but has been called this way consistently, minus normal human error, for a long time. The rule is bad, our beef is with the rule makers, nit the refs in this game who called it exactly as they had to. I'm rely concerned about how little you seem to understand what you are reading because you get stuff wrong and make stuff up almost every post. Perhaps that is why you can't understand what happened.

This is a unique case though because he had possession by definition the ENTIRE catch. Never juggled never did anything. Other instances often are people juggling the ball or diving in the air, which is what this rule is for. It sure is a bad rule, it is also a bad application.Again, jomar is never going to get an answer because there is no answer. The question is what makes possession. We can say CJ should have held the ball longer, but how much longer? When does he have possession?

It's not a unique case though, other than maybe the drama if the timing. Every year someone will make a catch with full control while dragging the toes with no bobbling and the ball comes out when he hits the ground. Incomplete. That's the rule. Hopefully this is the last straw to modify it because that was a catch by every standard other than this rule.

 

[mad sweeney]

CJ said that after his ### hit he thought it was a TD and therefore by implication stopped protected the ball. However, by this sad rule (which HAPPENS EVERY YEAR AND IS NOT MISINTERPRETED) he wasn't down yet and he shouldn't known better. I've based what I said by how it's been called over the years. I've never said the things you said I did above. I've said repeatedly it's a bad rule ( which is different than a ruling) but has been called this way consistently, minus normal human error, for a long time. The rule is bad, our beef is with the rule makers, nit the refs in this game who called it exactly as they had to. I'm rely concerned about how little you seem to understand what you are reading because you get stuff wrong and make stuff up almost every post. Perhaps that is why you can't understand what happened.

Who are you talking to?

You, but the quoting limit and iPhone don't mesh well. That's also why there are a few typos

 

[Neofight]

MP has no reason to go into PR mode. He's retired, he has no input or influence on officials anymore. He just comments on it. He's saying exactly what he said on the broadcast pretty much. I believe handing the ball to the red wasn't intended to be literal. All CJ had to do was not lose the ball, on purpose or accident, instantaneously when it hit the ground. Dunno how many more times you need to hear the same thing almost everyone us saying.

can you answer these questions? forget about Calvin Johnson for one minute.....how long must someone hold the ball on the ground before he is allowed to drop it or set it down? how many steps could he have taken to eliminate the need to maintain possession after he hit the ground?

also, see the Brandon Lloyd link above. is that a catch by this rule?

I don't know what definitive time limit there is, nor steps rule. All I know, from watching it for years, is that there needs to be proof of possession after he hits the ground. If he's able to take five steps with a defender hanging on him and he's considered falling the whole time then he may fall victim to this rule. If he hits the ground and makes a very clear motion to spike the ball after all his body has stopped going downward then I would think it would count, though it would depend on the actual instance. Whatever situation r happens in, the receiver has to clearly show possession on the ground if he's going to the ground while making the catch. To bring CJ back into it, if he'd lifted the ball off the ground an inch or two and then let go it would count. If the ball just stayed right where it was with his hand on top if it, it would count. But it squished out immediately be side he didn't follow fundamentals and keep the ball protected and he shouldve known in situations like that that he needed to do everything in his power to make sure it was hauled in.

Realize I am of the belief that it should be a TD before his ### even hit the ground.

It was. The going to the ground rule doesn't apply as it is written, but other items do. That is why I can't understand what you are arguing here. It seems like your just going with the fact that there have been bad calls in the past, so there will be bad calls now, and more in the future. Without referencing what rule you think might apply, none of the rest really matters. I think most of us are looking for some context here.What make you think that him lifting the ball only an inch it would have counted?

 

[Neofight]

CJ said that after his ### hit he thought it was a TD and therefore by implication stopped protected the ball. However, by this sad rule (which HAPPENS EVERY YEAR AND IS NOT MISINTERPRETED) he wasn't down yet and he shouldn't known better. I've based what I said by how it's been called over the years. I've never said the things you said I did above. I've said repeatedly it's a bad rule ( which is different than a ruling) but has been called this way consistently, minus normal human error, for a long time. The rule is bad, our beef is with the rule makers, nit the refs in this game who called it exactly as they had to. I'm rely concerned about how little you seem to understand what you are reading because you get stuff wrong and make stuff up almost every post. Perhaps that is why you can't understand what happened.

This is a unique case though because he had possession by definition the ENTIRE catch. Never juggled never did anything. Other instances often are people juggling the ball or diving in the air, which is what this rule is for. It sure is a bad rule, it is also a bad application.Again, jomar is never going to get an answer because there is no answer. The question is what makes possession. We can say CJ should have held the ball longer, but how much longer? When does he have possession?

It's not a unique case though, other than maybe the drama if the timing. Every year someone will make a catch with full control while dragging the toes with no bobbling and the ball comes out when he hits the ground. Incomplete. That's the rule. Hopefully this is the last straw to modify it because that was a catch by every standard other than this rule.

If it's not unique, can you show us a video or some reference to a play where a player controls the ball in the air, when he hits the ground with his feet, on his butt and then let's go of it after he is on his way up and it is not called a TD? I haven't seen that before, but I am willing to admit it may have happened in the NFL previously. If you are talking about the rule 8.1.3 item 1, it doesn't even apply. If not, please let us know which rule you are referencing.

 

[mad sweeney]

MP has no reason to go into PR mode. He's retired, he has no input or influence on officials anymore. He just comments on it. He's saying exactly what he said on the broadcast pretty much. I believe handing the ball to the red wasn't intended to be literal. All CJ had to do was not lose the ball, on purpose or accident, instantaneously when it hit the ground. Dunno how many more times you need to hear the same thing almost everyone us saying.

can you answer these questions? forget about Calvin Johnson for one minute.....how long must someone hold the ball on the ground before he is allowed to drop it or set it down? how many steps could he have taken to eliminate the need to maintain possession after he hit the ground?

also, see the Brandon Lloyd link above. is that a catch by this rule?

I don't know what definitive time limit there is, nor steps rule. All I know, from watching it for years, is that there needs to be proof of possession after he hits the ground. If he's able to take five steps with a defender hanging on him and he's considered falling the whole time then he may fall victim to this rule. If he hits the ground and makes a very clear motion to spike the ball after all his body has stopped going downward then I would think it would count, though it would depend on the actual instance. Whatever situation r happens in, the receiver has to clearly show possession on the ground if he's going to the ground while making the catch. To bring CJ back into it, if he'd lifted the ball off the ground an inch or two and then let go it would count. If the ball just stayed right where it was with his hand on top if it, it would count. But it squished out immediately be side he didn't follow fundamentals and keep the ball protected and he shouldve known in situations like that that he needed to do everything in his power to make sure it was hauled in.

Realize I am of the belief that it should be a TD before his ### even hit the ground.

It was. The going to the ground rule doesn't apply as it is written, but other items do. That is why I can't understand what you are arguing here. It seems like your just going with the fact that there have been bad calls in the past, so there will be bad calls now, and more in the future. Without referencing what rule you think might apply, none of the rest really matters. I think most of us are looking for some context here.What make you think that him lifting the ball only an inch it would have counted?

Your second sentence invalidates the rest of your post. It's exactly the rule that's being talked about exactly as it's been called for years. It isn't bad calls I'm basing my arguments on, it's correct calls of a bad rule. If he lifted it an inch it would show that he had possession when his last downward body part hit. It would be an undeniable second move.

As for context, it's been called this way for years. How much more context do you need?