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

[benm3218]

can we change the title? Every time i look at this I swear it says something besides "tuck" in the title...

 

[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?

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?

How so? He clearly demonstrated possession per all the items that apply to this particular play. Now that we know which rule you are talking about, please make the case of how it should apply to this play. You haven't done that yet, and you have been unclear about which rule you were referencing until now. How does 8.1.3 item 1: Player Going to the Ground apply? It hasn't been called this way for many years, and we've gone over that. As a matter of fact it was just this year they began talking about the "process" nonsense. Your argument still seems to be that bad calls will always be made, so why bother looking at the actual rulebook.

 

[Peiz]

I think this is the exact argument a lot of the people who think it was called correctly use. Let's stop looking at how it has been ruled (incorrectly) in the past and look at this specific case. According to what rule is this not a catch. 8.1.3 item 1 is not applicable and every time me or him or someone else says that we never get an answer as to why it is. That's the main issue. To the rule that is applicable, let's stop using language like process that isn't in the rules.

 

[Ilov80s]

Calvin is world class athlete and that was a a light fall that he braced his hand. I don't think there was so much momentum that his arm was flung forward with that much force. If there was that much momentum, he would have landed much harder. I see a clear difference in the speed his right arm comes down compared to the rest of his body and it certainly seems to me he is intentionally moving his arm towards the ground and attempting to either use the ball to get up and celebrate or to spike the ball (however he was close to the ground there was no room to spike it) as he turned his body to get up.

My other question here is this: how long after possessing the ball in the endzone and being clearly standing up on your feet must a WR be before the play ends? After watching it, I think Calvin's dive is after the catch, after two feet are in and is 100% intentional by him. Seems like a second and separate act from him catching the ball.

 

[jomar]

My other question here is this: how long after possessing the ball in the endzone and being clearly standing up on your feet must a WR be before the play ends? After watching it, I think Calvin's dive is after the catch, after two feet are in and is 100% intentional by him. Seems like a second and separate act from him catching the ball.

I don't think you will get an answer to your question. its extrememly frustrating to hear all of the talking heads on the radio/tv talk about it but nobody will address the questions I and others have asked.all of the people in this thread arguing that it is a bad rule but the call was correct have completely ignored all of the questons being asked. and for good reason, because there are no answers. madsweeney admitted that he didn't know what the answers were and thats the best answer I've gotten so far. the referees applied a rule that should not have been applied in this case and then the talking heads started with this 'process' crap, of which there is no written definition of when the process ends or what you need to do to avoid having to complete this 'process'. so now we just have to wait for another travesty to happen and hope that people will realize then that this should have been addressed before. its a shame. a victory was taken away from a team and just because the referees and some guys on tv said it was the right call and maybe a bad rule, all of a sudden it just is. when you ask for clarification as to what exactly the rule is and why it was applied here, you are ignored. I'll wait patiently until this happens to a team that matters before action is taken. what a joke the NFL has become. I'm thoroughly disgusted that its been over 2 days and I still don't know what a receiver has to do to catch a pass in the end zone and have it called a TD. I'm a little shocked at the people who follow this game and just blindly follow what these people have said to this point, which is not much. I realize its just the Lions and that has to play a factor here. I have to believe that if this was the Colts or Patriots, there would be a huge uproar. yes, Calvin lost control of the ball. but at what point is it ok to set the ball down or let go of it? and what could he have done before he lost control that would have made it irrelevant? we'll never know until someone tells us, and as of right now no one has.

 

[davearm]

My goodness this thread is irritating.

How do the folks that keep asking "how many seconds does he have to hold the ball? 1? 2? 3?" not realize that the obvious answer is, "for however long the act of going to the ground lasts"? Nobody's out there with a flippin stopwatch for heaven's sake. The officials are simply looking for the guy to demonstrate possession of the ball after he's done falling to the ground. THAT'S IT. It doesn't matter if it takes a second or an hour.

And don't even get me started on "how long does he have to be standing on his two feet?" Just an asinine comment. Completely different situation, and set of rules.

 

[davearm]

My other question here is this: how long after possessing the ball in the endzone and being clearly standing up on your feet must a WR be before the play ends? After watching it, I think Calvin's dive is after the catch, after two feet are in and is 100% intentional by him. Seems like a second and separate act from him catching the ball.

I don't think you will get an answer to your question. its extrememly frustrating to hear all of the talking heads on the radio/tv talk about it but nobody will address the questions I and others have asked.all of the people in this thread arguing that it is a bad rule but the call was correct have completely ignored all of the questons being asked. and for good reason, because there are no answers. madsweeney admitted that he didn't know what the answers were and thats the best answer I've gotten so far. the referees applied a rule that should not have been applied in this case and then the talking heads started with this 'process' crap, of which there is no written definition of when the process ends or what you need to do to avoid having to complete this 'process'. so now we just have to wait for another travesty to happen and hope that people will realize then that this should have been addressed before. its a shame. a victory was taken away from a team and just because the referees and some guys on tv said it was the right call and maybe a bad rule, all of a sudden it just is. when you ask for clarification as to what exactly the rule is and why it was applied here, you are ignored. I'll wait patiently until this happens to a team that matters before action is taken. what a joke the NFL has become. I'm thoroughly disgusted that its been over 2 days and I still don't know what a receiver has to do to catch a pass in the end zone and have it called a TD. I'm a little shocked at the people who follow this game and just blindly follow what these people have said to this point, which is not much. I realize its just the Lions and that has to play a factor here. I have to believe that if this was the Colts or Patriots, there would be a huge uproar. yes, Calvin lost control of the ball. but at what point is it ok to set the ball down or let go of it? and what could he have done before he lost control that would have made it irrelevant? we'll never know until someone tells us, and as of right now no one has.

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

 

[Ilov80s]

My goodness this thread is irritating.How do the folks that keep asking "how many seconds does he have to hold the ball? 1? 2? 3?" not realize that the obvious answer is, "for however long the act of going to the ground lasts"? Nobody's out there with a flippin stopwatch for heaven's sake. The officials are simply looking for the guy to demonstrate possession of the ball after he's done falling to the ground. THAT'S IT. It doesn't matter if it takes a second or an hour.And don't even get me started on "how long does he have to be standing on his two feet?" Just an asinine comment. Completely different situation, and set of rules.

Not a different situation. Calvin caught the ball, came down on two feet, and then fell over. He left his feet to make the catch, came down and then he left his feet again after already possessing the ball inbounds. Also, the rules say a player going to the ground must maintain possession after he touches the ground. It does not say after all his momentum from catching the ball is gone. Calvin had possession after touching the ground.

 

[Ilov80s]

My other question here is this: how long after possessing the ball in the endzone and being clearly standing up on your feet must a WR be before the play ends? After watching it, I think Calvin's dive is after the catch, after two feet are in and is 100% intentional by him. Seems like a second and separate act from him catching the ball.

I don't think you will get an answer to your question. its extrememly frustrating to hear all of the talking heads on the radio/tv talk about it but nobody will address the questions I and others have asked.all of the people in this thread arguing that it is a bad rule but the call was correct have completely ignored all of the questons being asked. and for good reason, because there are no answers. madsweeney admitted that he didn't know what the answers were and thats the best answer I've gotten so far. the referees applied a rule that should not have been applied in this case and then the talking heads started with this 'process' crap, of which there is no written definition of when the process ends or what you need to do to avoid having to complete this 'process'. so now we just have to wait for another travesty to happen and hope that people will realize then that this should have been addressed before. its a shame. a victory was taken away from a team and just because the referees and some guys on tv said it was the right call and maybe a bad rule, all of a sudden it just is. when you ask for clarification as to what exactly the rule is and why it was applied here, you are ignored. I'll wait patiently until this happens to a team that matters before action is taken. what a joke the NFL has become. I'm thoroughly disgusted that its been over 2 days and I still don't know what a receiver has to do to catch a pass in the end zone and have it called a TD. I'm a little shocked at the people who follow this game and just blindly follow what these people have said to this point, which is not much. I realize its just the Lions and that has to play a factor here. I have to believe that if this was the Colts or Patriots, there would be a huge uproar. yes, Calvin lost control of the ball. but at what point is it ok to set the ball down or let go of it? and what could he have done before he lost control that would have made it irrelevant? we'll never know until someone tells us, and as of right now no one has.

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

I know that is what the guy on tv said, but where is that in the rules? Why does that not coincide with that the rules say?

 

[jomar]

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

first of all, forget Calvin Johnson. quit talking about this play because, quite frankly, you people talk about it but don't say anything meaningful. so just forget it. we obviously know what the refs called but why did they call it and what can a player do to get the call in their favor?I want to know for future games, HOW DO YOU DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION? if holding the ball away from your body with one hand and both feet on the ground isn't enough? from your answer, how is a 2nd move initiated? is not turning your body, switching the ball between hands, and falling away from the defender not a 2nd move? and if you need to demonstrate possession after you hit the ground, HOW LONG AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND CAN YOU FEEL FREE TO LET GO OF THE BALL? again, all of this is assuming a player is going to the ground while making a catch, which is not what happened here. but for the sake of all future games, I'll assume thats what happened.

 

[jomar]

at what point is it ok to set the ball down or let go of it? and what could he have done before he lost control that would have made it irrelevant?

The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.

Dave, for clarity's sake, I've only included my questions and your 'answer' which you say has been provided repeatedly. Can you see how that does not answer my questions? seriously, what does it take to demonstrate possession? and what does it take for something to constitute a 2nd move? don't just throw those words out there and then leave them like the league and media has done to this point.

 

[mad sweeney]

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

first of all, forget Calvin Johnson. quit talking about this play because, quite frankly, you people talk about it but don't say anything meaningful. so just forget it. we obviously know what the refs called but why did they call it and what can a player do to get the call in their favor?I want to know for future games, HOW DO YOU DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION? if holding the ball away from your body with one hand and both feet on the ground isn't enough? from your answer, how is a 2nd move initiated? is not turning your body, switching the ball between hands, and falling away from the defender not a 2nd move? and if you need to demonstrate possession after you hit the ground, HOW LONG AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND CAN YOU FEEL FREE TO LET GO OF THE BALL? again, all of this is assuming a player is going to the ground while making a catch, which is not what happened here. but for the sake of all future games, I'll assume thats what happened.

AFTER YOU'VE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU KEPT POSSESSION OF THE BALL AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND. YOU STOP GOING DOWN, ALL BODY PARTS, AND THEN MAKE ANOTHER MOVE.And no, switching the ball between hands does no count as possession if you are still going to ground. If that showed possession, according to the rule, then so would just getting two feet down.

 

[jomar]

AFTER YOU'VE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU KEPT POSSESSION OF THE BALL AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND. YOU STOP GOING DOWN, ALL BODY PARTS, AND THEN MAKE ANOTHER MOVE.And no, switching the ball between hands does no count as possession if you are still going to ground. If that showed possession, according to the rule, then so would just getting two feet down.

so you're telling me the rule is that you must stop going down, all body parts, and then make another move? if that is the rule, why can't they put it in the rulebook? and if that is the rule, how is the Brandon Lloyd grab (linked earlier) a reception? and how is Lance Moore's 2 pt conversion in the SB a reception? he clearly had not stopped going down, all body parts......its a good attempt to clarify the rule, but it does not hold water with what we've seen called in the past.and since all of the other pro-process people can't answer, I'll assume that no one knows and there is this huge gray area, while the league continues to tell us this is a black and white issue.

 

[Peiz]

AFTER YOU'VE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU KEPT POSSESSION OF THE BALL AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND. YOU STOP GOING DOWN, ALL BODY PARTS, AND THEN MAKE ANOTHER MOVE.And no, switching the ball between hands does no count as possession if you are still going to ground. If that showed possession, according to the rule, then so would just getting two feet down.

so you're telling me the rule is that you must stop going down, all body parts, and then make another move? if that is the rule, why can't they put it in the rulebook? and if that is the rule, how is the Brandon Lloyd grab (linked earlier) a reception? and how is Lance Moore's 2 pt conversion in the SB a reception? he clearly had not stopped going down, all body parts......its a good attempt to clarify the rule, but it does not hold water with what we've seen called in the past.and since all of the other pro-process people can't answer, I'll assume that no one knows and there is this huge gray area, while the league continues to tell us this is a black and white issue.

I came back this morning thinking people would have given up on this thread! After three days, I'm like Jomar in being over the fact that it happened to my team, and sincerly wondering how people are arguing the same thing. I swear nobody would be talking "second act" "process" if the NFL hadn't used these made up words to cover their butts. It is a simple question that nobody from us to the NFL can answer, when does he have possession? It is infuriating to listen to NFL officials stumble over words about this rule being so clear-cut because they don't even know, they just repeat this "second act" stuff. Sweeney you say "AFTER YOU'VE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU KEPT POSSESSION OF THE BALL AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND. YOU STOP GOING DOWN, ALL BODY PARTS, AND THEN MAKE ANOTHER MOVE." When is this a black and white issue? At this point it is totally up to someone's opinion. A lot of people say Calvin did make it clear and him making another move was rolling and getting up. Others say that it was all one motion. No matter which side you are on, why do people think this is such an obvious good call, bad rule? I think that's why I'm so upset, the NFL is simply lying to cover their butts.(This whole post is ignoring the fact that the rule about going to the ground holds no weight here anyway, and even if it did, according to the letter of the rule he did demonstrate possession.)

 

[DoubleG]

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.

The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.

In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

first of all, forget Calvin Johnson. quit talking about this play because, quite frankly, you people talk about it but don't say anything meaningful. so just forget it. we obviously know what the refs called but why did they call it and what can a player do to get the call in their favor?I want to know for future games, HOW DO YOU DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION? if holding the ball away from your body with one hand and both feet on the ground isn't enough? from your answer, how is a 2nd move initiated? is not turning your body, switching the ball between hands, and falling away from the defender not a 2nd move? and if you need to demonstrate possession after you hit the ground, HOW LONG AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND CAN YOU FEEL FREE TO LET GO OF THE BALL?

again, all of this is assuming a player is going to the ground while making a catch, which is not what happened here. but for the sake of all future games, I'll assume thats what happened.

Again, this has been addressed several times in this thread. The short answer is "as soon as you have demonstrated posession". The problem is, DURING THE PROCESS OF GOING TO THE GROUND THE BALL COMES IN CONTACT WITH THE GROUND - by rule then, you have to demonstrate possession after that point (i.e. the point where the ball came in contact with the ground)...which Johnson did not do. After the ball touched the ground, he lost control. No posession demonstrated = no catch.

I understand how you can have issue with the rule. I am really failing to see how you can have issue with the facts.

 

[Peiz]

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.

The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.

In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

first of all, forget Calvin Johnson. quit talking about this play because, quite frankly, you people talk about it but don't say anything meaningful. so just forget it. we obviously know what the refs called but why did they call it and what can a player do to get the call in their favor?I want to know for future games, HOW DO YOU DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION? if holding the ball away from your body with one hand and both feet on the ground isn't enough? from your answer, how is a 2nd move initiated? is not turning your body, switching the ball between hands, and falling away from the defender not a 2nd move? and if you need to demonstrate possession after you hit the ground, HOW LONG AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND CAN YOU FEEL FREE TO LET GO OF THE BALL?

again, all of this is assuming a player is going to the ground while making a catch, which is not what happened here. but for the sake of all future games, I'll assume thats what happened.

Again, this has been addressed several times in this thread. The short answer is "as soon as you have demonstrated posession". The problem is, DURING THE PROCESS OF GOING TO THE GROUND THE BALL COMES IN CONTACT WITH THE GROUND - by rule then, you have to demonstrate possession after that point (i.e. the point where the ball came in contact with the ground)...which Johnson did not do. After the ball touched the ground, he lost control. No posession demonstrated = no catch.

I understand how you can have issue with the rule. I am really failing to see how you can have issue with the facts.

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

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

ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other

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

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

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

distinguished from touching or muffing).

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

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

ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses

control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no

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

interception, or recovery.

How is this applicable to this situation? The first bolded part demonstrates that he has possession since he did all of that. The second bold is what you are referring to, but he never loses control of the ball. The whol note 1 is mute at this point because he isn't attempting to secure possession. He has possession the entire time. As I've said before, this rule is for when the player is bobbling the ball and the ball then hits the ground before he regains control.

 

[Peiz]

Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of

catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control

of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If

he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control,

the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground,

the pass is complete.

The other rule I forgot is right here. He must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground (he does this), if he loses control of the ball and the ball touches the ground before he regains contorl (this point is again not applicable because he didn't lose control of the ball before the ball touched the ground.)

 

[davearm]

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.

The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.

In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

first of all, forget Calvin Johnson. quit talking about this play because, quite frankly, you people talk about it but don't say anything meaningful. so just forget it. we obviously know what the refs called but why did they call it and what can a player do to get the call in their favor?I want to know for future games, HOW DO YOU DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION? if holding the ball away from your body with one hand and both feet on the ground isn't enough? from your answer, how is a 2nd move initiated? is not turning your body, switching the ball between hands, and falling away from the defender not a 2nd move? and if you need to demonstrate possession after you hit the ground, HOW LONG AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND CAN YOU FEEL FREE TO LET GO OF THE BALL?

again, all of this is assuming a player is going to the ground while making a catch, which is not what happened here. but for the sake of all future games, I'll assume thats what happened.

We have absolutely no hope of communicating effectively here if you don't agree that Calvin Johnson was going to the ground while making this catch.Having said that, the answer to your question is, possession must be demonstrated after the process of going to the ground is complete. You demonstrate possession by having clear control of the ball in your hands, and/or secured against your body.

 

[Peiz]

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.

The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.

In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

first of all, forget Calvin Johnson. quit talking about this play because, quite frankly, you people talk about it but don't say anything meaningful. so just forget it. we obviously know what the refs called but why did they call it and what can a player do to get the call in their favor?I want to know for future games, HOW DO YOU DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION? if holding the ball away from your body with one hand and both feet on the ground isn't enough? from your answer, how is a 2nd move initiated? is not turning your body, switching the ball between hands, and falling away from the defender not a 2nd move? and if you need to demonstrate possession after you hit the ground, HOW LONG AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND CAN YOU FEEL FREE TO LET GO OF THE BALL?

again, all of this is assuming a player is going to the ground while making a catch, which is not what happened here. but for the sake of all future games, I'll assume thats what happened.

We have absolutely no hope of communicating effectively here if you don't agree that Calvin Johnson was going to the ground while making this catch.Having said that, the answer to your question is, possession must be demonstrated after the process of going to the ground is complete. You demonstrate possession by having clear control of the ball in your hands, and/or secured against your body.

Says who? That's the whole point of jomar's point. What process of going to the ground? There is nothing that says what that means. He had clear possession when his butt hit the ground. That doesn't count? What does? Again, I'm more concerned about people thinking this is the right application of the rule than the Lions. I'm over the Lions, we'll go 3-13 instead of 4-12 or something. People are defending something that isn't there.

 

[davearm]

My goodness this thread is irritating.

How do the folks that keep asking "how many seconds does he have to hold the ball? 1? 2? 3?" not realize that the obvious answer is, "for however long the act of going to the ground lasts"? Nobody's out there with a flippin stopwatch for heaven's sake. The officials are simply looking for the guy to demonstrate possession of the ball after he's done falling to the ground. THAT'S IT. It doesn't matter if it takes a second or an hour.

And don't even get me started on "how long does he have to be standing on his two feet?" Just an asinine comment. Completely different situation, and set of rules.

Not a different situation. Calvin caught the ball, came down on two feet, and then fell over. He left his feet to make the catch, came down and then he left his feet again after already possessing the ball inbounds. Also, the rules say a player going to the ground must maintain possession after he touches the ground. It does not say after all his momentum from catching the ball is gone. Calvin had possession after touching the ground.

What you're arguing is that Johnson came down on his feet, and then for some unknown reason, voluntarily decided to fall over onto the ground.You can't really believe that.

 

[Peiz]

My goodness this thread is irritating.

How do the folks that keep asking "how many seconds does he have to hold the ball? 1? 2? 3?" not realize that the obvious answer is, "for however long the act of going to the ground lasts"? Nobody's out there with a flippin stopwatch for heaven's sake. The officials are simply looking for the guy to demonstrate possession of the ball after he's done falling to the ground. THAT'S IT. It doesn't matter if it takes a second or an hour.

And don't even get me started on "how long does he have to be standing on his two feet?" Just an asinine comment. Completely different situation, and set of rules.

Not a different situation. Calvin caught the ball, came down on two feet, and then fell over. He left his feet to make the catch, came down and then he left his feet again after already possessing the ball inbounds. Also, the rules say a player going to the ground must maintain possession after he touches the ground. It does not say after all his momentum from catching the ball is gone. Calvin had possession after touching the ground.

What you're arguing is that Johnson came down on his feet, and then for some unknown reason, voluntarily decided to fall over onto the ground.You can't really believe that.

That's a difference of opinion, fine. Do you really believe that Calvin didn't have possession after touching the ground?

 

[Steeler]

Seven pages -- really?

 

[davearm]

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.

The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.

In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

first of all, forget Calvin Johnson. quit talking about this play because, quite frankly, you people talk about it but don't say anything meaningful. so just forget it. we obviously know what the refs called but why did they call it and what can a player do to get the call in their favor?I want to know for future games, HOW DO YOU DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION? if holding the ball away from your body with one hand and both feet on the ground isn't enough? from your answer, how is a 2nd move initiated? is not turning your body, switching the ball between hands, and falling away from the defender not a 2nd move? and if you need to demonstrate possession after you hit the ground, HOW LONG AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND CAN YOU FEEL FREE TO LET GO OF THE BALL?

again, all of this is assuming a player is going to the ground while making a catch, which is not what happened here. but for the sake of all future games, I'll assume thats what happened.

We have absolutely no hope of communicating effectively here if you don't agree that Calvin Johnson was going to the ground while making this catch.Having said that, the answer to your question is, possession must be demonstrated after the process of going to the ground is complete. You demonstrate possession by having clear control of the ball in your hands, and/or secured against your body.

Says who? That's the whole point of jomar's point. What process of going to the ground? There is nothing that says what that means. He had clear possession when his butt hit the ground. That doesn't count? What does? Again, I'm more concerned about people thinking this is the right application of the rule than the Lions. I'm over the Lions, we'll go 3-13 instead of 4-12 or something. People are defending something that isn't there.

The answer to your question is one you won't like or be satisfied with.To the extent that there are ambiguities in the rules, as written, the league clarifies them with the officials in offseason clinics, video sessions, situations manuals, etc. This is an ongoing and thorough process.

So they list the written rule, say it's rule 1.2.3, and then explicitly define:

We want rule 1.2.3 interpreted this way if X Y and Z are the circumstances.

We want rule 1.2.3 interpreted this other way if A B and C are the circumstances.

And we don't want rule 1.2.3 applied at all if D E and F are the circumstances, apply rule 4.5.6 instead.

It's in these training sessions that it's clarified what is meant by "second move" and "process of going to the ground" and so on. Many of these little nuances and wrinkles are unknown to fans and even media types. But they exist, and the officials are clear on what's going on.

 

[davearm]

My goodness this thread is irritating.

How do the folks that keep asking "how many seconds does he have to hold the ball? 1? 2? 3?" not realize that the obvious answer is, "for however long the act of going to the ground lasts"? Nobody's out there with a flippin stopwatch for heaven's sake. The officials are simply looking for the guy to demonstrate possession of the ball after he's done falling to the ground. THAT'S IT. It doesn't matter if it takes a second or an hour.

And don't even get me started on "how long does he have to be standing on his two feet?" Just an asinine comment. Completely different situation, and set of rules.

Not a different situation. Calvin caught the ball, came down on two feet, and then fell over. He left his feet to make the catch, came down and then he left his feet again after already possessing the ball inbounds. Also, the rules say a player going to the ground must maintain possession after he touches the ground. It does not say after all his momentum from catching the ball is gone. Calvin had possession after touching the ground.

What you're arguing is that Johnson came down on his feet, and then for some unknown reason, voluntarily decided to fall over onto the ground.You can't really believe that.

That's a difference of opinion, fine. Do you really believe that Calvin didn't have possession after touching the ground?

Of course he had possession when he first touched the ground with his feet.The rules require that possession be maintained until after he's done going to the ground, though, and that's what he failed to do.

 

[Peiz]

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.

The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.

In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

first of all, forget Calvin Johnson. quit talking about this play because, quite frankly, you people talk about it but don't say anything meaningful. so just forget it. we obviously know what the refs called but why did they call it and what can a player do to get the call in their favor?I want to know for future games, HOW DO YOU DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION? if holding the ball away from your body with one hand and both feet on the ground isn't enough? from your answer, how is a 2nd move initiated? is not turning your body, switching the ball between hands, and falling away from the defender not a 2nd move? and if you need to demonstrate possession after you hit the ground, HOW LONG AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND CAN YOU FEEL FREE TO LET GO OF THE BALL?

again, all of this is assuming a player is going to the ground while making a catch, which is not what happened here. but for the sake of all future games, I'll assume thats what happened.

We have absolutely no hope of communicating effectively here if you don't agree that Calvin Johnson was going to the ground while making this catch.Having said that, the answer to your question is, possession must be demonstrated after the process of going to the ground is complete. You demonstrate possession by having clear control of the ball in your hands, and/or secured against your body.

Says who? That's the whole point of jomar's point. What process of going to the ground? There is nothing that says what that means. He had clear possession when his butt hit the ground. That doesn't count? What does? Again, I'm more concerned about people thinking this is the right application of the rule than the Lions. I'm over the Lions, we'll go 3-13 instead of 4-12 or something. People are defending something that isn't there.

The answer to your question is one you won't like or be satisfied with.To the extent that there are ambiguities in the rules, as written, the league clarifies them with the officials in offseason clinics, video sessions, situations manuals, etc. This is an ongoing and thorough process.

So they list the written rule, say it's rule 1.2.3, and then explicitly define:

We want rule 1.2.3 interpreted this way if X Y and Z are the circumstances.

We want rule 1.2.3 interpreted this other way if A B and C are the circumstances.

And we don't want rule 1.2.3 applied at all if D E and F are the circumstances, apply rule 4.5.6 instead.

It's in these training sessions that it's clarified what is meant by "second move" and "process of going to the ground" and so on. Many of these little nuances and wrinkles are unknown to fans and even media types. But they exist, and the officials are clear on what's going on.

That's exactly what's going on. And I think a lot of people who are angry about this would be a lot more satisfied if the NFL simply said that it's a rule of interpretation and it's a based of the refs opinion of that specific play. At that point it is an argument of whether he made the right decision. I can think it's wrong, but at least they aren't lying by going to the rule book and saying how black and white this play was. Perriera is going on talk shows and on fox two seconds after the play defending how obviously objective this call is. Refs make subjective calls all the time, and this is another one.

 

[Peiz]

My goodness this thread is irritating.

How do the folks that keep asking "how many seconds does he have to hold the ball? 1? 2? 3?" not realize that the obvious answer is, "for however long the act of going to the ground lasts"? Nobody's out there with a flippin stopwatch for heaven's sake. The officials are simply looking for the guy to demonstrate possession of the ball after he's done falling to the ground. THAT'S IT. It doesn't matter if it takes a second or an hour.

And don't even get me started on "how long does he have to be standing on his two feet?" Just an asinine comment. Completely different situation, and set of rules.

Not a different situation. Calvin caught the ball, came down on two feet, and then fell over. He left his feet to make the catch, came down and then he left his feet again after already possessing the ball inbounds. Also, the rules say a player going to the ground must maintain possession after he touches the ground. It does not say after all his momentum from catching the ball is gone. Calvin had possession after touching the ground.

What you're arguing is that Johnson came down on his feet, and then for some unknown reason, voluntarily decided to fall over onto the ground.You can't really believe that.

That's a difference of opinion, fine. Do you really believe that Calvin didn't have possession after touching the ground?

Of course he had possession when he first touched the ground with his feet.The rules require that possession be maintained until after he's done going to the ground, though, and that's what he failed to do.

That's where I think you're wrong, but that's not the point of this thread, since I think we have overindulged on one call enough. Personally, in any reading of the rule, I think he had possession when he went to the ground, and he lost possession on his way up. Again, a subjective call that isn't black and white.

 

[jomar]

the answer to your question is, possession must be demonstrated after the process of going to the ground is complete. You demonstrate possession by having clear control of the ball in your hands, and/or secured against your body.

When is the process of going to the ground complete? I'm not sure how many times this has to be asked..... what completes the process? is it when you stop moving? when you start to rise up off the ground? when you hand the ball to the ref? or is it subjective? you see the problem here. the league, and by extension the media and fans, use these phrases but what do they mean?

and again I will ask, what does a receiver need to do to nullify the going to the ground act so that it is irrelevant? two feet down? 3 steps before he falls? 4 steps? the league, and again by the media and fans, references this going to the ground rule but at what point does this rule come into play and when it is not applicable? guy catches the ball, takes two steps at full speed and then falls to the ground and loses the ball. is that a catch? does he need 3 steps? or is it again subjective? this whole 'making the catch while going to the ground' is ridiculous. how do you determine whether somebody caught the ball BEFORE going to the ground or WHILE going to the ground?

I don't mind the league telling us it is all subjective but I have a problem with them saying this is a black and white rule with no judgment involved and it was the obvious correct call. it clearly does involve some opinion on the part of the referee which may or may not be correct.

 

[jomar]

this whole discussion is like a Who's on First routine........

NFL: he didn't complete the process

ME: how do you complete the process?

NFL: you demonstrate possession after you hit the ground

ME: how do you demonstrate possession?

NFL: by completing the process

ME: how do you complete the process?

NFL: by demonstrating possession after hitting the ground

repeat over and over until eventually people just stop asking

and it could have all kinds of tangents

NFL: he didn't complete the process

ME: why does he have to complete the process?

NFL: because he went to the ground

ME: but he got two feet down. how many steps does he have to take to avoid this rule being applied and thereby not have to complete a process?

NFL: enough steps to demonstrate possession

ME: how do you demonstrate possession?

NFL: by completing the process

ME: how do you complete the process?.........

 

[davearm]

The answer to your question is one you won't like or be satisfied with.To the extent that there are ambiguities in the rules, as written, the league clarifies them with the officials in offseason clinics, video sessions, situations manuals, etc. This is an ongoing and thorough process.So they list the written rule, say it's rule 1.2.3, and then explicitly define:We want rule 1.2.3 interpreted this way if X Y and Z are the circumstances.We want rule 1.2.3 interpreted this other way if A B and C are the circumstances.And we don't want rule 1.2.3 applied at all if D E and F are the circumstances, apply rule 4.5.6 instead.It's in these training sessions that it's clarified what is meant by "second move" and "process of going to the ground" and so on. Many of these little nuances and wrinkles are unknown to fans and even media types. But they exist, and the officials are clear on what's going on.

That's exactly what's going on. And I think a lot of people who are angry about this would be a lot more satisfied if the NFL simply said that it's a rule of interpretation and it's a based of the refs opinion of that specific play. At that point it is an argument of whether he made the right decision. I can think it's wrong, but at least they aren't lying by going to the rule book and saying how black and white this play was. Perriera is going on talk shows and on fox two seconds after the play defending how obviously objective this call is. Refs make subjective calls all the time, and this is another one.

It's not subjective though, and that's the whole point. You have to have possession when the act of going to the ground is complete. Period, end of story.

 

[Peiz]

The answer to your question is one you won't like or be satisfied with.To the extent that there are ambiguities in the rules, as written, the league clarifies them with the officials in offseason clinics, video sessions, situations manuals, etc. This is an ongoing and thorough process.So they list the written rule, say it's rule 1.2.3, and then explicitly define:We want rule 1.2.3 interpreted this way if X Y and Z are the circumstances.We want rule 1.2.3 interpreted this other way if A B and C are the circumstances.And we don't want rule 1.2.3 applied at all if D E and F are the circumstances, apply rule 4.5.6 instead.It's in these training sessions that it's clarified what is meant by "second move" and "process of going to the ground" and so on. Many of these little nuances and wrinkles are unknown to fans and even media types. But they exist, and the officials are clear on what's going on.

That's exactly what's going on. And I think a lot of people who are angry about this would be a lot more satisfied if the NFL simply said that it's a rule of interpretation and it's a based of the refs opinion of that specific play. At that point it is an argument of whether he made the right decision. I can think it's wrong, but at least they aren't lying by going to the rule book and saying how black and white this play was. Perriera is going on talk shows and on fox two seconds after the play defending how obviously objective this call is. Refs make subjective calls all the time, and this is another one.

It's not subjective though, and that's the whole point. You have to have possession when the act of going to the ground is complete. Period, end of story.

Seriously? How is that not subjective. I think that it is pretty clearly subjective because a lot of people think that his act of going to the ground was complete, a bunch of people have argued that. On the other hand, a bunch of people say the act wasn't complete. Isn't that proof that the rule isn't objective? We could go back and forth for weeks about when his act was complete and neither of us would change our opinion, the point is we have an opinion at all.

 

[jomar]

It's not subjective though, and that's the whole point. You have to have possession when the act of going to the ground is complete. Period, end of story.

either you are not reading what we are typing or you are just ignoring it. seriously? I have to type this again? when is the act of going to the ground complete? if you can't tell us the answer to that question, then how can you tell us it is not subjective? unreal how many times I have had to ask that question with still no concrete answer. yet you're gonna sit here and tell us this rule isn't subjective? good god, read what you typed, my man.

 

[Neofight]

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.

The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.

In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

first of all, forget Calvin Johnson. quit talking about this play because, quite frankly, you people talk about it but don't say anything meaningful. so just forget it. we obviously know what the refs called but why did they call it and what can a player do to get the call in their favor?I want to know for future games, HOW DO YOU DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION? if holding the ball away from your body with one hand and both feet on the ground isn't enough? from your answer, how is a 2nd move initiated? is not turning your body, switching the ball between hands, and falling away from the defender not a 2nd move? and if you need to demonstrate possession after you hit the ground, HOW LONG AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND CAN YOU FEEL FREE TO LET GO OF THE BALL?

again, all of this is assuming a player is going to the ground while making a catch, which is not what happened here. but for the sake of all future games, I'll assume thats what happened.

AFTER YOU'VE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU KEPT POSSESSION OF THE BALL AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND. YOU STOP GOING DOWN, ALL BODY PARTS, AND THEN MAKE ANOTHER MOVE.And no, switching the ball between hands does no count as possession if you are still going to ground. If that showed possession, according to the rule, then so would just getting two feet down.

The rule says nothing about stopping, whether going down or your arm movement or anything else. Pereira is already changing his tune and saying this doesn't pass the smell test. Translation- the rule was misinterpreted. As has been stated before (which you and davearm seem to ignore, or not bother to actually look at the rule in question) the going to the ground rule does not even apply here. Pereira admitted as much when he attempted to draw a truly poor analogy between the Johnson catch and the Murphy drop; that rule was implemented to deal with plays where the player ends up on the ground. Hence Pereira's embellishment of the rule in an attempt to explain why the call was overuled on the field. He is already backing off of that because he understands that it is not an apples to apples comparison, nor was Johnson on the ground (i.e., he had made a second move, not that it matters in this case) at the time he let the ball go. Had Johnson ended up on the ground, coming to a complete stop, and not had possession of the ball then (and only then) should 8.1.3 item 1 been applicable. Don't take my word for it; listen to Pereira

The rest is academic. The rules as written clearly indicate that he caught the ball and it was a touchdown. Now we can wait for the change in the rule during the offseason, or if we are lucky (or unlucky, depending on what they do), an in season clarification so they don't botch this type of play again.

 

[Neofight]

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.

The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.

In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

first of all, forget Calvin Johnson. quit talking about this play because, quite frankly, you people talk about it but don't say anything meaningful. so just forget it. we obviously know what the refs called but why did they call it and what can a player do to get the call in their favor?I want to know for future games, HOW DO YOU DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION? if holding the ball away from your body with one hand and both feet on the ground isn't enough? from your answer, how is a 2nd move initiated? is not turning your body, switching the ball between hands, and falling away from the defender not a 2nd move? and if you need to demonstrate possession after you hit the ground, HOW LONG AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND CAN YOU FEEL FREE TO LET GO OF THE BALL?

again, all of this is assuming a player is going to the ground while making a catch, which is not what happened here. but for the sake of all future games, I'll assume thats what happened.

We have absolutely no hope of communicating effectively here if you don't agree that Calvin Johnson was going to the ground while making this catch.Having said that, the answer to your question is, possession must be demonstrated after the process of going to the ground is complete. You demonstrate possession by having clear control of the ball in your hands, and/or secured against your body.

Says who? That's the whole point of jomar's point. What process of going to the ground? There is nothing that says what that means. He had clear possession when his butt hit the ground. That doesn't count? What does? Again, I'm more concerned about people thinking this is the right application of the rule than the Lions. I'm over the Lions, we'll go 3-13 instead of 4-12 or something. People are defending something that isn't there.

The answer to your question is one you won't like or be satisfied with.To the extent that there are ambiguities in the rules, as written, the league clarifies them with the officials in offseason clinics, video sessions, situations manuals, etc. This is an ongoing and thorough process.

So they list the written rule, say it's rule 1.2.3, and then explicitly define:

We want rule 1.2.3 interpreted this way if X Y and Z are the circumstances.

We want rule 1.2.3 interpreted this other way if A B and C are the circumstances.

And we don't want rule 1.2.3 applied at all if D E and F are the circumstances, apply rule 4.5.6 instead.

It's in these training sessions that it's clarified what is meant by "second move" and "process of going to the ground" and so on. Many of these little nuances and wrinkles are unknown to fans and even media types. But they exist, and the officials are clear on what's going on.

Per Mike Pereira, the going to the ground rule applies to plays where a player comes to a stop on the ground. This would be applicable when a player dives, comes down on his back, rolls and comes to a stop on the ground or, as in the case of Louis Murphy, hits the ground and comes to a complete stop on his knees. You can continue to belabor the point of the unknown, behind the scenes machinations of the officiating crew but what is the point? Johnson clearly never came to a stop on the ground and was already clearly off of the ground (a second act) by the time he put the ball on it. The rule simply doesn't apply.

 

[Christo]

We have absolutely no hope of communicating effectively here if you don't agree that Calvin Johnson was going to the ground while making this catch.

I thought it was established 5 pages ago that there are a lot of people who do not agree that he was going to the ground when the ball came loose.He was getting up. TD!

 

[DoubleG]

Per Mike Pereira, the going to the ground rule applies to plays where a player comes to a stop on the ground. This would be applicable when a player dives, comes down on his back, rolls and comes to a stop on the ground or, as in the case of Louis Murphy, hits the ground and comes to a complete stop on his knees. You can continue to belabor the point of the unknown, behind the scenes machinations of the officiating crew but what is the point? Johnson clearly never came to a stop on the ground and was already clearly off of the ground (a second act) by the time he put the ball on it. The rule simply doesn't apply.

So you agree with Pereira when his point vaguely supports yours, but not when it contradicts? I see. It's been fun. Almost like playing a board game with a 5 year old who changes the rules when he doesn't like the way the game is going (or simply refuses to acknowledge them, as it suits him). Your use of the word "clearly" repeatedly does make the fallacy of your argument any more correct - if it was clear it would have been called as such.Besides, I'm tired of arguing with the same three Lions fans. Better luck this week with Eagles. Have a great season.

 

[jomar]

I guess its always a good idea to find an excuse to leave the discussion when you cannot provide answers to the questions being asked. I don't blame anyone, because the fact is that there are no concrete answers, only speculation at this point. I won't retype my questions again as I'm probably done it 30 times already.

I grow a little more incredulous each day that the NFL does not come out and clarify this rule as to the questions I and others have asked. why is that so hard for them?

 

[DoubleG]

I guess its always a good idea to find an excuse to leave the discussion when you cannot provide answers to the questions being asked. I don't blame anyone, because the fact is that there are no concrete answers, only speculation at this point. I won't retype my questions again as I'm probably done it 30 times already.I grow a little more incredulous each day that the NFL does not come out and clarify this rule as to the questions I and others have asked. why is that so hard for them?

They have. Many have restated. Some refuse to beleive/accept/acknowledge their calrification. That's not the same as them not answering or addressing the question. Just let the thread die already.

 

[Neofight]

Per Mike Pereira, the going to the ground rule applies to plays where a player comes to a stop on the ground. This would be applicable when a player dives, comes down on his back, rolls and comes to a stop on the ground or, as in the case of Louis Murphy, hits the ground and comes to a complete stop on his knees. You can continue to belabor the point of the unknown, behind the scenes machinations of the officiating crew but what is the point? Johnson clearly never came to a stop on the ground and was already clearly off of the ground (a second act) by the time he put the ball on it. The rule simply doesn't apply.

So you agree with Pereira when his point vaguely supports yours, but not when it contradicts? I see. It's been fun. Almost like playing a board game with a 5 year old who changes the rules when he doesn't like the way the game is going (or simply refuses to acknowledge them, as it suits him). Your use of the word "clearly" repeatedly does make the fallacy of your argument any more correct - if it was clear it would have been called as such.Besides, I'm tired of arguing with the same three Lions fans. Better luck this week with Eagles. Have a great season.

No, I agree with him when he is stating the facts as per the rulebook. When he embellishes them or misstates the obvious, I take issue. I'm sorry this does not work for you, but I am not a Lions fan. And learn what a fallacy is; the statement "if it was clear it would have been called as such" is a fallacy. And that is a bit ironic.

 

[Ilov80s]

This is starting to remind me of Don/Dawn.

 

[Runningman]

I think they have written ruleslike this to take the human judgement out of the penalty calling as much as possible and then enforce it on the referees mercilessly. Once you have the rules they have to be enforced.

 

[jomar]

I guess its always a good idea to find an excuse to leave the discussion when you cannot provide answers to the questions being asked. I don't blame anyone, because the fact is that there are no concrete answers, only speculation at this point. I won't retype my questions again as I'm probably done it 30 times already.I grow a little more incredulous each day that the NFL does not come out and clarify this rule as to the questions I and others have asked. why is that so hard for them?

They have. Many have restated. Some refuse to beleive/accept/acknowledge their calrification. That's not the same as them not answering or addressing the question. Just let the thread die already.

they have not answered the questions I/we have asked. you might think they did, but that doesn't make it true. all they've done is trotted out some language. when you ask for specifics on the rule, you get no answer. re-read this thread, its a joke. the only answers provided have been 'I think...', 'you need to practically....', 'need to complete the process.....', 'demonstrate possession', etc......when you ask what those phrases mean, you get no response. don't sit here and tell me the questions have been answered. if they had, you could easily provide them to me. I will gladly let the thread die when someone can either admit they don't know the answers or provide me the answers I am looking for or just stop responding altogether. I am not going to re-type my questions for the 31st time. its apparent that nobody has the answers or they would have been answered days ago. as it stands now, none of us know what it takes to complete a TD pass in the endzone if a player happens to end up on the ground other than the guy standing up with the ball still in his hands. like I said, this should lead to some pretty interesting tactics by defenders. I can't wait to see it.

 

[DoubleG]

I guess its always a good idea to find an excuse to leave the discussion when you cannot provide answers to the questions being asked. I don't blame anyone, because the fact is that there are no concrete answers, only speculation at this point. I won't retype my questions again as I'm probably done it 30 times already.

I grow a little more incredulous each day that the NFL does not come out and clarify this rule as to the questions I and others have asked. why is that so hard for them?

They have. Many have restated. Some refuse to beleive/accept/acknowledge their calrification. That's not the same as them not answering or addressing the question. Just let the thread die already.

they have not answered the questions I/we have asked. you might think they did, but that doesn't make it true. all they've done is trotted out some language. when you ask for specifics on the rule, you get no answer. re-read this thread, its a joke. the only answers provided have been 'I think...', 'you need to practically....', 'need to complete the process.....', 'demonstrate possession', etc......when you ask what those phrases mean, you get no response. don't sit here and tell me the questions have been answered. if they had, you could easily provide them to me.

I will gladly let the thread die when someone can either admit they don't know the answers or provide me the answers I am looking for or just stop responding altogether. I am not going to re-type my questions for the 31st time. its apparent that nobody has the answers or they would have been answered days ago. as it stands now, none of us know what it takes to complete a TD pass in the endzone if a player happens to end up on the ground other than the guy standing up with the ball still in his hands. like I said, this should lead to some pretty interesting tactics by defenders. I can't wait to see it.

That bolded aint going to happen - the answer you want is "The officials were wrong - it was a TD". By rule, it wasn't. Are the rules as written awkward? Yep. Should they changed? Yep. Does that change the outcome of the play now? Nope.

The red part is fairly simple under the current rule - if you go to the ground, dont lose the ball until you have shown posession.

While they wont change the rule until the offseason, there will likely be some sort of official communication to the refs regarding how they are to "interpret" this rule the rest of the season. I don't think you'll see defending DBs change their tactice too much. It wasn't the defender in the play in question that caused the situation in the first place, apart from incidental contact.

I knew you could let it go

 

[jomar]

if you go to the ground, dont lose the ball until you have shown posession.

you can't be this thick.....how about a guy who runs/stumbles 3 steps in the end zone, finally losing his balance and falls to the ground, losing the ball. Catch? why or why not?same situation as above, only the guy doesn't lose the ball when he hits the ground but in the process of rolling over (a continuation of the fall?) to get up, he drops the ball. catch? these 2 questions highlight the questions about this 'going to the ground' rule that no one has ever answered:1. How many steps does a wr have to take with the ball in his possession in the end zone so that it doesn't matter what happens when he hits the ground? asked another way, how do you demonstrate possession prior to falling down so that you can lose the ball upon hitting the ground?2. How long does he have to hold on to the ball once he hits the ground?now go ahead and ignore these questions or say that they have already been answered. OR you can quote me and put the answers behind them. I won't hold my breath for that because nobody has told us what the rules are. its totally subjective, yet the league continues to say its black and white

 

[Neofight]

I guess its always a good idea to find an excuse to leave the discussion when you cannot provide answers to the questions being asked. I don't blame anyone, because the fact is that there are no concrete answers, only speculation at this point. I won't retype my questions again as I'm probably done it 30 times already.

I grow a little more incredulous each day that the NFL does not come out and clarify this rule as to the questions I and others have asked. why is that so hard for them?

They have. Many have restated. Some refuse to beleive/accept/acknowledge their calrification. That's not the same as them not answering or addressing the question. Just let the thread die already.

they have not answered the questions I/we have asked. you might think they did, but that doesn't make it true. all they've done is trotted out some language. when you ask for specifics on the rule, you get no answer. re-read this thread, its a joke. the only answers provided have been 'I think...', 'you need to practically....', 'need to complete the process.....', 'demonstrate possession', etc......when you ask what those phrases mean, you get no response. don't sit here and tell me the questions have been answered. if they had, you could easily provide them to me.

I will gladly let the thread die when someone can either admit they don't know the answers or provide me the answers I am looking for or just stop responding altogether. I am not going to re-type my questions for the 31st time. its apparent that nobody has the answers or they would have been answered days ago. as it stands now, none of us know what it takes to complete a TD pass in the endzone if a player happens to end up on the ground other than the guy standing up with the ball still in his hands. like I said, this should lead to some pretty interesting tactics by defenders. I can't wait to see it.

That bolded aint going to happen - the answer you want is "The officials were wrong - it was a TD". By rule, it wasn't. Are the rules as written awkward? Yep. Should they changed? Yep. Does that change the outcome of the play now? Nope.

The red part is fairly simple under the current rule - if you go to the ground, dont lose the ball until you have shown posession.

While they wont change the rule until the offseason, there will likely be some sort of official communication to the refs regarding how they are to "interpret" this rule the rest of the season. I don't think you'll see defending DBs change their tactice too much. It wasn't the defender in the play in question that caused the situation in the first place, apart from incidental contact.

I knew you could let it go

You must be fishing considering you're basically throwing your own argument under the bus here, but what is the purpose? Your team got a freebie, be happy and move on; no need to continue arguing a lost cause. Unless you get enjoyment out of using emos to prove that your argument is wrong.

 

[Psychopav]

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.

The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.

In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

first of all, forget Calvin Johnson. quit talking about this play because, quite frankly, you people talk about it but don't say anything meaningful. so just forget it. we obviously know what the refs called but why did they call it and what can a player do to get the call in their favor?I want to know for future games, HOW DO YOU DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION? if holding the ball away from your body with one hand and both feet on the ground isn't enough? from your answer, how is a 2nd move initiated? is not turning your body, switching the ball between hands, and falling away from the defender not a 2nd move? and if you need to demonstrate possession after you hit the ground, HOW LONG AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND CAN YOU FEEL FREE TO LET GO OF THE BALL?

again, all of this is assuming a player is going to the ground while making a catch, which is not what happened here. but for the sake of all future games, I'll assume thats what happened.

We have absolutely no hope of communicating effectively here if you don't agree that Calvin Johnson was going to the ground while making this catch.Having said that, the answer to your question is, possession must be demonstrated after the process of going to the ground is complete. You demonstrate possession by having clear control of the ball in your hands, and/or secured against your body.

Says who? That's the whole point of jomar's point. What process of going to the ground? There is nothing that says what that means. He had clear possession when his butt hit the ground. That doesn't count? What does? Again, I'm more concerned about people thinking this is the right application of the rule than the Lions. I'm over the Lions, we'll go 3-13 instead of 4-12 or something. People are defending something that isn't there.

Wouldn't the process end at the earlier of (1) getting up and (2) the whistle blows signaling the play's end?

 

[davearm]

The red part is fairly simple under the current rule - if you go to the ground, dont lose the ball until you have shown posession.

Show me in the rulebook where "ground" is defined. Show me where "ball" is defined. It's totally subjective and up to the ref to decide these things. Why o why won't anyone answer my questions o that's right nobody knows the answers.

 

[jon_mx]

I saw several 'catches' over the weekend that did not stand up to the Johnson rule, but went on without question. I clearly saw a TB player "catch" a ball and then fumble it as he fell to the ground. Much less possession time and control than Johnson showed, but no one questioned the call of a catch and a fumble. In fact, a catch and a fumble is an impossibility now.

 

[Neofight]

The answers to your questions have been provided in this thread, repeatedly.

The short answer is, a receiver going to the ground while making a catch must demonstrate possession of the ball after the process of falling to the ground has ended, and/or a "second move" is initiated.

In this instance, the officials considered Johnson's right hand, with the ball, contacting the ground to be part of his process of falling to the ground. Obviously, he did not demonstrate possession of the ball beyond that point. Thus, incomplete pass, per the rules.

first of all, forget Calvin Johnson. quit talking about this play because, quite frankly, you people talk about it but don't say anything meaningful. so just forget it. we obviously know what the refs called but why did they call it and what can a player do to get the call in their favor?I want to know for future games, HOW DO YOU DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION? if holding the ball away from your body with one hand and both feet on the ground isn't enough? from your answer, how is a 2nd move initiated? is not turning your body, switching the ball between hands, and falling away from the defender not a 2nd move? and if you need to demonstrate possession after you hit the ground, HOW LONG AFTER YOU HIT THE GROUND CAN YOU FEEL FREE TO LET GO OF THE BALL?

again, all of this is assuming a player is going to the ground while making a catch, which is not what happened here. but for the sake of all future games, I'll assume thats what happened.

We have absolutely no hope of communicating effectively here if you don't agree that Calvin Johnson was going to the ground while making this catch.Having said that, the answer to your question is, possession must be demonstrated after the process of going to the ground is complete. You demonstrate possession by having clear control of the ball in your hands, and/or secured against your body.

Says who? That's the whole point of jomar's point. What process of going to the ground? There is nothing that says what that means. He had clear possession when his butt hit the ground. That doesn't count? What does? Again, I'm more concerned about people thinking this is the right application of the rule than the Lions. I'm over the Lions, we'll go 3-13 instead of 4-12 or something. People are defending something that isn't there.

Wouldn't the process end at the earlier of (1) getting up and (2) the whistle blows signaling the play's end?

The point that he was up has been made repeatedly. The point that the official on the scene clearly signaled a TD has also been made. Based on what you are saying here, it was a TD.

 

[Cassius]

Pretty long thread for what should be as simple as "Calvin Johnson is not terribly bright."

 

[Neofight]

The red part is fairly simple under the current rule - if you go to the ground, dont lose the ball until you have shown posession.

Show me in the rulebook where "ground" is defined. Show me where "ball" is defined. It's totally subjective and up to the ref to decide these things. Why o why won't anyone answer my questions o that's right nobody knows the answers.

Why does ground need to be defined? Or ball for that matter? "Going to the ground" was defined as coming to a stop by the ex head of officiating. The rest is just connecting the dots.