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

[Neofight]

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

The officials had instant replay to see that he was off the ground and still blew the call. Who is not terribly bright in that scenario?

 

[Psychopav]

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

The officials had instant replay to see that he was off the ground and still blew the call. Who is not terribly bright in that scenario?

He was only off the ground until his fall brought him to the ground, the ball hit the ground, and the ball went rolling off into the sunset. For no catch.

 

[Cassius]

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

The officials had instant replay to see that he was off the ground and still blew the call. Who is not terribly bright in that scenario?

I see you haven't brushed up on the rules. Fair enough. When you do, you'll see that basically Calvin Johnson isn't terribly bright.

 

[Neofight]

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

The officials had instant replay to see that he was off the ground and still blew the call. Who is not terribly bright in that scenario?

He was only off the ground until his fall brought him to the ground, the ball hit the ground, and the ball went rolling off into the sunset. For no catch.

You are not even addressing the facts. Let me put it to you another way, since you are not paying attention to the interpretation of the rule as Pereira himself explained it.Do you come to a stop at a yield sign if there is no traffic? No, there is no need to bay law. What the refs did was give Johnson a ticket for not stopping at a yield sign with no traffic in sight. He is not required to stop; his body control and actions (i.e., getting off the ground before placing the ball on it) was such that he was free of the restrictions of the rule in question; the ground did not force him to stop. Yield sign=no stop. 8.1.3 item one "player going to the ground" is not the correct item/rule/law to apply. By the other items, which are applicable, he scored the TD. This is why Pereira is backing off his stance of comparing the Murphy catch to this one and saying it doesn't really pass the smell test. He realizes it is not an apples to apples comparison. It's not even close if you simply watch the film.

 

[Neofight]

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

The officials had instant replay to see that he was off the ground and still blew the call. Who is not terribly bright in that scenario?

I see you haven't brushed up on the rules. Fair enough. When you do, you'll see that basically Calvin Johnson isn't terribly bright.

Point to the rule and show how it was interpreted correctly. No one has been able to do that yet. Invalid precedent and the fallacy of appeal to tradition is all we have seen.

 

[jon_mx]

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

Neither are the 90% of the fans who have watched football their whole life who think it was a catch. It is not about being bright, it is about what a catch is, and if this rule stands it will have a change on the game. Really, it is even possible to catch the ball and fumble it now without taking 4 or 5 steps?

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

If you have a problem write the NFL to have the rule changed or an official removed....until then discuss something that will help out your football knowledge or FF team.

I would also argue that if the TD was granted to the Lions, that Chicago would've still won the game.

-30 second still left in the game

-Bears had all 3 TO's left

-Only needed a FG to win, with one of the best %FG kickers in the game

-372 yards through the air for Cutler(averaging 10.3 yards per ATTEMPT)

-one of the best ST units in the NFL would've had a solid return

 

[davearm]

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

The officials had instant replay to see that he was off the ground and still blew the call. Who is not terribly bright in that scenario?

He was only off the ground until his fall brought him to the ground, the ball hit the ground, and the ball went rolling off into the sunset. For no catch.

You are not even addressing the facts. Let me put it to you another way, since you are not paying attention to the interpretation of the rule as Pereira himself explained it.Do you come to a stop at a yield sign if there is no traffic? No, there is no need to bay law. What the refs did was give Johnson a ticket for not stopping at a yield sign with no traffic in sight. He is not required to stop; his body control and actions (i.e., getting off the ground before placing the ball on it) was such that he was free of the restrictions of the rule in question; the ground did not force him to stop. Yield sign=no stop. 8.1.3 item one "player going to the ground" is not the correct item/rule/law to apply. By the other items, which are applicable, he scored the TD.

This is why Pereira is backing off his stance of comparing the Murphy catch to this one and saying it doesn't really pass the smell test. He realizes it is not an apples to apples comparison. It's not even close if you simply watch the film.

You have this out of order. It's really as simple as that.Johnson lost the ball, or let go of it or whatever BEFORE getting off the ground. In fact the ball left his grasp before he completed the act of going to the ground.

This is not my opinion (although I agree), but rather what the officials ruled. No amount of physics lecturing or discussion of where his butt was and when will change this fundamental truth.

If you could grasp that simple but critical sequence of events, then all the rest would fall into place for you.

 

[jon_mx]

If you have a problem write the NFL to have the rule changed or an official removed....until then discuss something that will help out your football knowledge or FF team.I would also argue that if the TD was granted to the Lions, that Chicago would've still won the game.-30 second still left in the game-Bears had all 3 TO's left-Only needed a FG to win, with one of the best %FG kickers in the game-372 yards through the air for Cutler(averaging 10.3 yards per ATTEMPT)-one of the best ST units in the NFL would've had a solid return

By the time an extra point was kicked and a kickoff, the Bears would have been lucky to have 20 seconds. Not much time even with three timeouts. Three plays at most and a FG attempt. I would only give them about 10-20% chance of pulling that off. Actually the Lions would have gone for 2 points. They could either have made it to make it a 3 point game, or even smarter, just run the ball the other way and see how long it takes a bunch of defensive linemen to catch Best in the open field.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

If you have a problem write the NFL to have the rule changed or an official removed....until then discuss something that will help out your football knowledge or FF team.I would also argue that if the TD was granted to the Lions, that Chicago would've still won the game.-30 second still left in the game-Bears had all 3 TO's left-Only needed a FG to win, with one of the best %FG kickers in the game-372 yards through the air for Cutler(averaging 10.3 yards per ATTEMPT)-one of the best ST units in the NFL would've had a solid return

By the time an extra point was kicked and a kickoff, the Bears would have been lucky to have 20 seconds. Not much time even with three timeouts. Three plays at most and a FG attempt. I would only give them about 10-20% chance of pulling that off. Actually the Lions would have gone for 2 points. They could either have made it to make it a 3 point game, or even smarter, just run the ball the other way and see how long it takes a bunch of defensive linemen to catch Best in the open field.

2 point conversions, extra points and kickoffs don't take time off of the clock. The kickoff doesn't start until the ball is caught.Matt Ryan pulled off the same comeback versus the Bears his rookie season, with no timeouts.

 

[jon_mx]

If you have a problem write the NFL to have the rule changed or an official removed....until then discuss something that will help out your football knowledge or FF team.I would also argue that if the TD was granted to the Lions, that Chicago would've still won the game.-30 second still left in the game-Bears had all 3 TO's left-Only needed a FG to win, with one of the best %FG kickers in the game-372 yards through the air for Cutler(averaging 10.3 yards per ATTEMPT)-one of the best ST units in the NFL would've had a solid return

By the time an extra point was kicked and a kickoff, the Bears would have been lucky to have 20 seconds. Not much time even with three timeouts. Three plays at most and a FG attempt. I would only give them about 10-20% chance of pulling that off. Actually the Lions would have gone for 2 points. They could either have made it to make it a 3 point game, or even smarter, just run the ball the other way and see how long it takes a bunch of defensive linemen to catch Best in the open field.

2 point conversions, extra points and kickoffs don't take time off of the clock. The kickoff doesn't start until the ball is caught.Matt Ryan pulled off the same comeback versus the Bears his rookie season, with no timeouts.

Sure it happens, but what percentage? A team down by 1-3 points getting the ball with 30 seconds. I would rather be the team up. One sack or even one incompletion makes it nearly impossible to pull off. No margin for error. Need three quick passes for about 15-20 yards each, then a FG. That is a less than 20% success rate even with a good QB, and Chicago does not have the best WR's in the game to say the least.

 

[SWC]

IF they are going to change rules, they should change the rules the prohibit trickier direct snaps, and throwing smaller players to block kicks or to get over a pile or to make a tackle.

 

[Neofight]

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

The officials had instant replay to see that he was off the ground and still blew the call. Who is not terribly bright in that scenario?

He was only off the ground until his fall brought him to the ground, the ball hit the ground, and the ball went rolling off into the sunset. For no catch.

You are not even addressing the facts. Let me put it to you another way, since you are not paying attention to the interpretation of the rule as Pereira himself explained it.Do you come to a stop at a yield sign if there is no traffic? No, there is no need to bay law. What the refs did was give Johnson a ticket for not stopping at a yield sign with no traffic in sight. He is not required to stop; his body control and actions (i.e., getting off the ground before placing the ball on it) was such that he was free of the restrictions of the rule in question; the ground did not force him to stop. Yield sign=no stop. 8.1.3 item one "player going to the ground" is not the correct item/rule/law to apply. By the other items, which are applicable, he scored the TD.

This is why Pereira is backing off his stance of comparing the Murphy catch to this one and saying it doesn't really pass the smell test. He realizes it is not an apples to apples comparison. It's not even close if you simply watch the film.

You have this out of order. It's really as simple as that.Johnson lost the ball, or let go of it or whatever BEFORE getting off the ground. In fact the ball left his grasp before he completed the act of going to the ground.

This is not my opinion (although I agree), but rather what the officials ruled. No amount of physics lecturing or discussion of where his butt was and when will change this fundamental truth.

If you could grasp that simple but critical sequence of events, then all the rest would fall into place for you.

Johnson had possession before he hit the ground, and kept it until he was clearly off the ground, at which time his right hand slammed it on the ground. That is not what the officials ruled; this is reality and the actual sequence in which things happened.To sit here and say that because the officials ruled it as x means that it must be true is quite simply another fallacy. This thread has been littered with them by those attempting to explain how the call was the correct one according to the rulebook. This one is more common than most and is called argumentum ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority. It basically goes as follows:

1. Person A is (or is claimed to be) an authority on subject S.

2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.

3. Therefore, C is true.

mad sweeney has been taking it a step further by insisting that "this is the way it's been called for 5 years" as his only proof of the call being the correct one. A few problems with this: 1) he can neither provide an example where the player possessed the ball when two feet hit the ground, when he impacted the ground with his body, and when he was on his feet (body off of the ground) and then put the ball down; and 2) if it was called this way since time immemorial it would hardly matter if the wrong rule was being used or it was misapplied, misinterpreted, etc. This is a case of appeal to tradition and, quite frankly, is lazy. Refs get calls wrong all the time, sometimes using it as precedent for getting another call (on a dissimilar play) incorrect. We just saw this happen.

You keep saying Johnson was "going to the ground" but we have a video that shows he is on his left foot, ### off the ground and moving up and out of the end zone. We are left to assume that you must mean he was "on the ground" according to some interpretation of the rules. Only Mike Pereira let the cat out of the bag when he stated that a player must show possession until he comes to a stop. Subsequently he has stated that the ruling doesn't pass the smell test. Draw your own conclusions, but you really don't have incredibly small lines to read between there. Even the NFL rulebook is not as completely void of sense as you are attempting to make it out to be.

If you think that the act of "going to the ground" invalidates the catch in this case then they are going to have to start taking away a lot more touchdowns, because the ex head of officials basically said this type of play is not what they had in mind when they instituted that rule.

I get where you are coming from; but your frustration is misplaced and the facts don't agree with you. I would add that adding another rule to deal with this issue will likely only make things worse. The have all they need in Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3... and then some.

 

[Neofight]

If you have a problem write the NFL to have the rule changed or an official removed....until then discuss something that will help out your football knowledge or FF team.I would also argue that if the TD was granted to the Lions, that Chicago would've still won the game.-30 second still left in the game-Bears had all 3 TO's left-Only needed a FG to win, with one of the best %FG kickers in the game-372 yards through the air for Cutler(averaging 10.3 yards per ATTEMPT)-one of the best ST units in the NFL would've had a solid return

How is discussion of the correct interpretation and application of the rules any more or less valid than posting hypotheticals about what may have happened? Does that help your football knowledge more or less than discussing what actually happened? Why would the rule need to be changed?

 

[jomar]

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.

I realize you're a Bears fan but this is no longer about the CJ catch. you can't answer the questions I asked or you would have. I'll let the silence to my questions stand as evidence that nobody has a clue about anything surrounding this rule. a bunch of sheep in here who apparently don't have the ability to question what they are being told by the league. all they do is throw out a couple of phrases that make very little sense and you people keep repeating them as if they became clearer the more you say them. 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?do you think these are ridiculous questions to ask?

 

[davearm]

You have this out of order. It's really as simple as that.

Johnson lost the ball, or let go of it or whatever BEFORE getting off the ground. In fact the ball left his grasp before he completed the act of going to the ground.

This is not my opinion (although I agree), but rather what the officials ruled. No amount of physics lecturing or discussion of where his butt was and when will change this fundamental truth.

If you could grasp that simple but critical sequence of events, then all the rest would fall into place for you.

Johnson had possession before he hit the ground, and kept it until he was clearly off the ground, at which time his right hand slammed it on the ground. That is not what the officials ruled; this is reality and the actual sequence in which things happened.

I stopped reading at the bolded sentence. The officials ruled the exact opposite. Therefore the entire premise of your argument is faulty.

 

[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.

I realize you're a Bears fan but this is no longer about the CJ catch. you can't answer the questions I asked or you would have. I'll let the silence to my questions stand as evidence that nobody has a clue about anything surrounding this rule. a bunch of sheep in here who apparently don't have the ability to question what they are being told by the league. all they do is throw out a couple of phrases that make very little sense and you people keep repeating them as if they became clearer the more you say them. 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?do you think these are ridiculous questions to ask?

Not a Bears fan, at least not an avid one.Your Q1 is not relevant to this discussion because although CJ obviously got two feet down, he was never "taking steps". He was going to the ground throughout the play. Therefore there was no opportunity to "demonstrate possession prior to falling down".Answer to Q2 is, until he comes to a stop or initiates a "second move". He did neither, in the officials' judgement.These are not ridiculous questions to ask. They are ridiculous questions to ask over and over, pretending they have not already been answered, repeatedly, in this thread. They have.

 

[billymays]

Saw this posted somewhere and thought it was a good question.

OK lets say this happened:

1. CJ jumps and catches ball at 32 yard line.

2. He takes 33 steps backwards and switches ball from right hand to left hand 26 times as he is falling to ground.

3. ### lands on ground in endzone.

4. Elbow/Left hand touch ground in endzone.

5. CJ has now had the ball for 16 seconds

6. Ball comes out as he stands up to celebrate.

Would this have been a drop too?

 

[jomar]

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?

do you think these are ridiculous questions to ask?

Not a Bears fan, at least not an avid one.Your Q1 is not relevant to this discussion because although CJ obviously got two feet down, he was never "taking steps". He was going to the ground throughout the play. Therefore there was no opportunity to "demonstrate possession prior to falling down".

Answer to Q2 is, until he comes to a stop or initiates a "second move". He did neither, in the officials' judgement.

These are not ridiculous questions to ask. They are ridiculous questions to ask over and over, pretending they have not already been answered, repeatedly, in this thread. They have.

how is question 1 not relevant to a discussion on the Going to the Ground rule? like I said, forget about this particular catch by CJ. I'm trying to figure out the rules here going forward.as far as the answer to question 2, do you have a link for that or is that just what you think the rule is? I'm genuinely asking. it sounds like as long as a player is rolling around on the ground (ie, hasn't stopped moving), he is fair game to any defender that want to take a shot at him. Also, from what I've read, this whole 2nd move thing is not anywhere in the rules but they can use it to justify some rulings while not using it in other instances where they could. see the Brandon Lloyd and Lance Moore 'catches'. the Lloyd one is almost exactly like Calvin, only not in the end zone.

lastly, I bolded the part about 'officials judgment' because the league has said that this is a black and white rule on the part of the officials, there is no gray area for judgment to come into play. of course, this is laughable. the majority of people could point out not only a 2nd move, but possibly a 3rd by Calvin before he hit the ground. the entire rule is based on the judgment of the ref, from did he go to the ground WHILE catching the pass to did he make a 2nd move to was the process complete......

 

[jomar]

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?

Your Q1 is not relevant to this discussion because although CJ obviously got two feet down, he was never "taking steps". He was going to the ground throughout the play. Therefore there was no opportunity to "demonstrate possession prior to falling down".These are not ridiculous questions to ask. They are ridiculous questions to ask over and over, pretending they have not already been answered, repeatedly, in this thread. They have.

also, if you could kindly link me to someone answering Q1, I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

[Neofight]

You have this out of order. It's really as simple as that.

Johnson lost the ball, or let go of it or whatever BEFORE getting off the ground. In fact the ball left his grasp before he completed the act of going to the ground.

This is not my opinion (although I agree), but rather what the officials ruled. No amount of physics lecturing or discussion of where his butt was and when will change this fundamental truth.

If you could grasp that simple but critical sequence of events, then all the rest would fall into place for you.

Johnson had possession before he hit the ground, and kept it until he was clearly off the ground, at which time his right hand slammed it on the ground. That is not what the officials ruled; this is reality and the actual sequence in which things happened.

I stopped reading at the bolded sentence. The officials ruled the exact opposite. Therefore the entire premise of your argument is faulty.

Link

To sit here and say that because the officials ruled it as x means that it must be true is quite simply another fallacy. This thread has been littered with them by those attempting to explain how the call was the correct one according to the rulebook. This one is more common than most and is called argumentum ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority. It basically goes as follows:

1. Person A is (or is claimed to be) an authority on subject S.

2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.

3. Therefore, C is true.

Do you believe everything the officials do is correct? By your estimation have the officials ever blown a call? Did you watch the play in question?

 

[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.

I realize you're a Bears fan but this is no longer about the CJ catch. you can't answer the questions I asked or you would have. I'll let the silence to my questions stand as evidence that nobody has a clue about anything surrounding this rule. a bunch of sheep in here who apparently don't have the ability to question what they are being told by the league. all they do is throw out a couple of phrases that make very little sense and you people keep repeating them as if they became clearer the more you say them. 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?do you think these are ridiculous questions to ask?

Not a Bears fan, at least not an avid one.Your Q1 is not relevant to this discussion because although CJ obviously got two feet down, he was never "taking steps". He was going to the ground throughout the play. Therefore there was no opportunity to "demonstrate possession prior to falling down".Answer to Q2 is, until he comes to a stop or initiates a "second move". He did neither, in the officials' judgement.These are not ridiculous questions to ask. They are ridiculous questions to ask over and over, pretending they have not already been answered, repeatedly, in this thread. They have.

You're mentioning coming to a stop and/or initiating a second move. Since he is not required to come to a stop but did bounce up off of the ground (after displaying control), how could he not have initiated a second move? I know we've gone over this, but it makes no sense; either he initiates a second move or he is lying on the ground on his back or sitting on his ###, or somehow stopped. Which actually happened? You argue this as if you did not watch the play or do not understand the difference between it and, say, the Murphy play, or the Mike Sims-Walker play. You do see how they are different, right? ETA: Not that it matters per the rulebook, but Johnson's feet touch the ground five time before putting the ball on the carpet.

 

[davearm]

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?

Your Q1 is not relevant to this discussion because although CJ obviously got two feet down, he was never "taking steps". He was going to the ground throughout the play. Therefore there was no opportunity to "demonstrate possession prior to falling down".These are not ridiculous questions to ask. They are ridiculous questions to ask over and over, pretending they have not already been answered, repeatedly, in this thread. They have.

also, if you could kindly link me to someone answering Q1, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I answered it for you. The answer is, it doesn't apply to this situation. That said, a player *not* going to the ground has to have two feet in bounds, with possession, to have a completion. I didn't think this was unclear to anyone.

 

[davearm]

Saw this posted somewhere and thought it was a good question.OK lets say this happened:1. CJ jumps and catches ball at 32 yard line.2. He takes 33 steps backwards and switches ball from right hand to left hand 26 times as he is falling to ground.3. ### lands on ground in endzone.4. Elbow/Left hand touch ground in endzone.5. CJ has now had the ball for 16 seconds6. Ball comes out as he stands up to celebrate.Would this have been a drop too?

The officials would first have to determine if the player was going to the ground in the process of making the catch. From your description it sounds like the answer is no. It sounds like he established possession without going to the ground.However if it was determined that the player did go to the ground in the process of making the catch, the next determination would be whether that process had ended when the ball came out. In other words, was possession established before he stands up to celebrate.

 

[jomar]

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?

Your Q1 is not relevant to this discussion because although CJ obviously got two feet down, he was never "taking steps". He was going to the ground throughout the play. Therefore there was no opportunity to "demonstrate possession prior to falling down".These are not ridiculous questions to ask. They are ridiculous questions to ask over and over, pretending they have not already been answered, repeatedly, in this thread. They have.

also, if you could kindly link me to someone answering Q1, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I answered it for you. The answer is, it doesn't apply to this situation. That said, a player *not* going to the ground has to have two feet in bounds, with possession, to have a completion. I didn't think this was unclear to anyone.

why is this so hard? what do you mean it doesn't apply to 'this situation'? what situation? I hope you are still not dwelling on the Calvin Johnson catch. I want to know what the rule is for future situations that will come up. as far as Calvin is concerned, I see this is a circular argument for you. you keep talking in circles like the Who's On First debate. first, what defines a player 'going to the ground' versus a player who just plain falls to the ground (ie, this is the same as Q1)? there has to be a defining act or number of steps that makes the two different. it can't be 2 feet down with possession as Calvin had both and this is undisputable. he caught the ball, came down with two feet, then lunged away from the defender and went to the ground. he got the 2 feet down with possession but it was still ruled he needed to 'complete the process' because he went to the ground. so my question still stands, how many feet down (or steps) does a player need to get down to nullify the going to the ground an complete the process rule?

 

[jomar]

Saw this posted somewhere and thought it was a good question.

OK lets say this happened:

1. CJ jumps and catches ball at 32 yard line.

2. He takes 33 steps backwards and switches ball from right hand to left hand 26 times as he is falling to ground.

3. ### lands on ground in endzone.

4. Elbow/Left hand touch ground in endzone.

5. CJ has now had the ball for 16 seconds

6. Ball comes out as he stands up to celebrate.

Would this have been a drop too?

The officials would first have to determine if the player was going to the ground in the process of making the catch. From your description it sounds like the answer is no. It sounds like he established possession without going to the ground.However if it was determined that the player did go to the ground in the process of making the catch, the next determination would be whether that process had ended when the ball came out. In other words, was possession established before he stands up to celebrate.

this is a better answer than you gave to my question. so here are my follow up questions:How did the receiver establish possession before he went to the ground? I assume its because he got at least 2 feet down and the ball was never bobbled. you can tell me if I'm assuming wrong here.

How do you determine whether the player went to the ground in the process of making the catch?

how do you establish possession after you hit the ground?

can a defender hit a player on the ground who has not yet been deemed to have possession or completed the process?

 

[Statcruncher]

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?

Your Q1 is not relevant to this discussion because although CJ obviously got two feet down, he was never "taking steps". He was going to the ground throughout the play. Therefore there was no opportunity to "demonstrate possession prior to falling down".These are not ridiculous questions to ask. They are ridiculous questions to ask over and over, pretending they have not already been answered, repeatedly, in this thread. They have.

also, if you could kindly link me to someone answering Q1, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I answered it for you. The answer is, it doesn't apply to this situation. That said, a player *not* going to the ground has to have two feet in bounds, with possession, to have a completion. I didn't think this was unclear to anyone.

why is this so hard? what do you mean it doesn't apply to 'this situation'? what situation? I hope you are still not dwelling on the Calvin Johnson catch. I want to know what the rule is for future situations that will come up.

as far as Calvin is concerned, I see this is a circular argument for you. you keep talking in circles like the Who's On First debate.

first, what defines a player 'going to the ground' versus a player who just plain falls to the ground (ie, this is the same as Q1)? there has to be a defining act or number of steps that makes the two different. it can't be 2 feet down with possession as Calvin had both and this is undisputable. he caught the ball, came down with two feet, then lunged away from the defender and went to the ground. he got the 2 feet down with possession but it was still ruled he needed to 'complete the process' because he went to the ground. so my question still stands, how many feet down (or steps) does a player need to get down to nullify the going to the ground an complete the process rule?

 

[mad sweeney]

Neo, how exactly am I supposed to call up examples if previously called plays? Watch some football, you'll see examples of this call every week. You talk of invalid precedent like you know what it means. Just junk words from a whimsy fan that doesn't know how to be wrong witha semblance of grace. For the years this rule has been in place, they've reviewed it in the off season and kept it. Therefore the precedent is exceptionally valid since that's pretty much the definition. Your claim of people just parroting what they hear in tv is getting sadder and sadder because at least those people have a grasp of reality and are right. "Because the NFL said so" is actually a valid argument because it's their precedent on how catches like this are ruled on is exactly that, the operating precedent. You dint think the written rule jibes with how it's called in field? Fine, but the competition committee has covered this numerous times and this is how they ruled on it.

Even though reality isn't an issue for you, I've never claimed to be an expert, I've just seen this rule a dozen times a season and paid attention to it because I think it sucks. I don't have to be an expert like you claim to be on the rulesbecause you think you know them better than all the NFL people combined. And even if an expert explained it to you you still wouldn't listen because you're like s child trying to hold your breath or keep asking why until adults give up. You're wrong by precedent and practice. CJ shouldve known better and avoided this issue. Having Jon mx "helping" you is pretty sure sign that you're as far as can be from right anyways. All of your asinine hypotheticals prove nothing other than to show your disconnect from reality.

In short, move on.

 

[Neofight]

Neo, how exactly am I supposed to call up examples if previously called plays? Watch some football, you'll see examples of this call every week. You talk of invalid precedent like you know what it means. Just junk words from a whimsy fan that doesn't know how to be wrong witha semblance of grace. For the years this rule has been in place, they've reviewed it in the off season and kept it. Therefore the precedent is exceptionally valid since that's pretty much the definition. Your claim of people just parroting what they hear in tv is getting sadder and sadder because at least those people have a grasp of reality and are right. "Because the NFL said so" is actually a valid argument because it's their precedent on how catches like this are ruled on is exactly that, the operating precedent. You dint think the written rule jibes with how it's called in field? Fine, but the competition committee has covered this numerous times and this is how they ruled on it. Even though reality isn't an issue for you, I've never claimed to be an expert, I've just seen this rule a dozen times a season and paid attention to it because I think it sucks. I don't have to be an expert like you claim to be on the rulesbecause you think you know them better than all the NFL people combined. And even if an expert explained it to you you still wouldn't listen because you're like s child trying to hold your breath or keep asking why until adults give up. You're wrong by precedent and practice. CJ shouldve known better and avoided this issue. Having Jon mx "helping" you is pretty sure sign that you're as far as can be from right anyways. All of your asinine hypotheticals prove nothing other than to show your disconnect from reality. In short, move on.

So you're leaning on the fallacy(ies)?

 

[Statcruncher]

The NFL Rulebook says:

Article 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds

(See 3-2-3).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

distinguished from touching or muffing).

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

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

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

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

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

interception, or recovery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

been a loss of possession.

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

flight (See 8-1-3).

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

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

ball has touched the ground.

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

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

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

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

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

Johnson went to the ground in the act of making the catch. He maintained control until he hit the ground and the momentum of the fall swung his body around and he slammed the ball into the ground. 44-45 sec mark here. That contact of the ball with the ground was not a dealbreaker, but when he lost his grasp on the ball that sealed the call. Some say he simply dropped the ball, but to me it looks like his fingers snapped together showing he didn't mean to lose the ball. Had he simply dropped it the fingers would be relaxed or splayed open, but they clearly snap closed. Some are saying he was in the act of getting up before the fumble. Look at the video again. The ball is about to hit the ground at 27 seconds and he does not have either foot flat on the ground. If you are saying he is on his way up, then you are saying he initiated standing up with his left cheek, the outside of his left knee, and his outstretched left palm. In reality he just fully elevated and on the way down hit the ground so hard that the fact that he's coming off the ground is due to bouncing from the momentum of the fall. He fluidly then uses that bounce to get to his feet, but it's not like he hit the ground, lost all momentum from the fall, and then simply stood up.

He made a great play, maintained great control, but lost control of the ball after slamming it into the ground before completing the fall. According to the rules it is incomplete.

And while I'm here, on a side note why did he lunge toward the back of the endzone instead of just falling straight down? I would guess to avoid a defender knocking the ball away. But then I can't figure out why he used a 1 handed grip and thrust the ball behind him, closer to the defender. I like CJ and am very high on him this season, but once he got both hands on the ball I think he was all about ESPN highlights rather than finishing the play. Had he simply fallen and pulled the ball to his chest with both arms this is a non-issue and the Bears are 0-1.

 

[Neofight]

The NFL Rulebook says:

Article 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds

(See 3-2-3).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

distinguished from touching or muffing).

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

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

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

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

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

interception, or recovery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

been a loss of possession.

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

flight (See 8-1-3).

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

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

ball has touched the ground.

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

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

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

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

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

Johnson went to the ground in the act of making the catch. He maintained control until he hit the ground and the momentum of the fall swung his body around and he slammed the ball into the ground. 44-45 sec mark here. That contact of the ball with the ground was not a dealbreaker, but when he lost his grasp on the ball that sealed the call. Some say he simply dropped the ball, but to me it looks like his fingers snapped together showing he didn\'t mean to lose the ball.Some are saying he was in the act of getting up before the fumble. Look at the video again. The ball is about to hit the ground at 27 seconds and he does not have either foot flat on the ground. If you are saying he is on his way up, then you are saying he initiated standing up with his left cheek, the outside of his left knee, and his outstretched left palm. In reality he just fully elevated and on the way down hit the ground so hard that the fact that he's coming off the ground is due to bouncing from the momentum of the fall. He fluidly then uses that bounce to get to his feet, but it's not like he hit the ground, lost all momentum from the fall, and then simply stood up.

He made a great play, maintained great control, but lost control of the ball after slamming it into the ground before completing the fall. According to the rules it is incomplete.

Just a point of clarification, but this is not the rule that was referenced by the NFL or that we have been discussing. He was not attempting to secure possession of a loose ball.And yes, he was off of the ground and pushing off with his left hand and foot. It wasn't a fumble, and no one is claiming it is; he'd pretty much have to have possession before he could fumble the ball, in which case it was a TD.

 

[Statcruncher]

The NFL Rulebook says:

Article 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds

(See 3-2-3).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

distinguished from touching or muffing).

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

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

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

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

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

interception, or recovery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

been a loss of possession.

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

flight (See 8-1-3).

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

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

ball has touched the ground.

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

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

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

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

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

Johnson went to the ground in the act of making the catch. He maintained control until he hit the ground and the momentum of the fall swung his body around and he slammed the ball into the ground. 44-45 sec mark here. That contact of the ball with the ground was not a dealbreaker, but when he lost his grasp on the ball that sealed the call. Some say he simply dropped the ball, but to me it looks like his fingers snapped together showing he didn\'t mean to lose the ball.Some are saying he was in the act of getting up before the fumble. Look at the video again. The ball is about to hit the ground at 27 seconds and he does not have either foot flat on the ground. If you are saying he is on his way up, then you are saying he initiated standing up with his left cheek, the outside of his left knee, and his outstretched left palm. In reality he just fully elevated and on the way down hit the ground so hard that the fact that he's coming off the ground is due to bouncing from the momentum of the fall. He fluidly then uses that bounce to get to his feet, but it's not like he hit the ground, lost all momentum from the fall, and then simply stood up.

He made a great play, maintained great control, but lost control of the ball after slamming it into the ground before completing the fall. According to the rules it is incomplete.

Just a point of clarification, but this is not the rule that was referenced by the NFL or that we have been discussing. He was not attempting to secure possession of a loose ball.And yes, he was off of the ground and pushing off with his left hand and foot. It wasn't a fumble, and no one is claiming it is; he'd pretty much have to have possession before he could fumble the ball, in which case it was a TD.

According to the NFL rulebook:

Article 3 A Loose Ball is a live ball that is not in player possession, i.e., any kick, pass,

or fumble. A loose ball that has not yet struck the ground is In Flight. A loose ball (either

during or after flight) is considered in possession of team (offense) whose player

kicked, passed, or fumbled. It ends when a player secures possession or when the

down ends if that is before such possession. (For exception, see 9-5-1-Exc. 3).

Sorry, I used the word fumble incorrectly. It's not a true fumble because he never establish possession clearly enough to complete the pass. I meant he dropped the ball/it came loose and should have said that instead of using fumble which is the incorrect terminology. My bad.

 

[Neofight]

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?

Your Q1 is not relevant to this discussion because although CJ obviously got two feet down, he was never "taking steps". He was going to the ground throughout the play. Therefore there was no opportunity to "demonstrate possession prior to falling down".These are not ridiculous questions to ask. They are ridiculous questions to ask over and over, pretending they have not already been answered, repeatedly, in this thread. They have.

also, if you could kindly link me to someone answering Q1, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I answered it for you. The answer is, it doesn't apply to this situation. That said, a player *not* going to the ground has to have two feet in bounds, with possession, to have a completion. I didn't think this was unclear to anyone.

What is unclear, as has been mentioned, is why you think the going to the ground rule even applies here. It's pretty clear that this is the one point you seem to not want to discuss in detail.

 

[Neofight]

The NFL Rulebook says:

Article 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds

(See 3-2-3).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

distinguished from touching or muffing).

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

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

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

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

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

interception, or recovery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

been a loss of possession.

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

flight (See 8-1-3).

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

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

ball has touched the ground.

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

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

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

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

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

Johnson went to the ground in the act of making the catch. He maintained control until he hit the ground and the momentum of the fall swung his body around and he slammed the ball into the ground. 44-45 sec mark here. That contact of the ball with the ground was not a dealbreaker, but when he lost his grasp on the ball that sealed the call. Some say he simply dropped the ball, but to me it looks like his fingers snapped together showing he didn\'t mean to lose the ball.Some are saying he was in the act of getting up before the fumble. Look at the video again. The ball is about to hit the ground at 27 seconds and he does not have either foot flat on the ground. If you are saying he is on his way up, then you are saying he initiated standing up with his left cheek, the outside of his left knee, and his outstretched left palm. In reality he just fully elevated and on the way down hit the ground so hard that the fact that he's coming off the ground is due to bouncing from the momentum of the fall. He fluidly then uses that bounce to get to his feet, but it's not like he hit the ground, lost all momentum from the fall, and then simply stood up.

He made a great play, maintained great control, but lost control of the ball after slamming it into the ground before completing the fall. According to the rules it is incomplete.

Just a point of clarification, but this is not the rule that was referenced by the NFL or that we have been discussing. He was not attempting to secure possession of a loose ball.And yes, he was off of the ground and pushing off with his left hand and foot. It wasn't a fumble, and no one is claiming it is; he'd pretty much have to have possession before he could fumble the ball, in which case it was a TD.

According to the NFL rulebook:

Article 3 A Loose Ball is a live ball that is not in player possession, i.e., any kick, pass,

or fumble. A loose ball that has not yet struck the ground is In Flight. A loose ball (either

during or after flight) is considered in possession of team (offense) whose player

kicked, passed, or fumbled. It ends when a player secures possession or when the

down ends if that is before such possession. (For exception, see 9-5-1-Exc. 3).

Sorry, I used the word fumble incorrectly. It's not a true fumble because he never establish possession clearly enough to complete the pass. I meant he dropped the ball. My bad.

Yes, this is true, but the rule you quoted is still not the one the officials used or that is being discussed. Look up Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 and those items.Per the item applicable to this specific play (3 End Zone Catches), he did have possession.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

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

flight (See 8-1-3).

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

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

ball has touched the ground.

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

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

contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive.

Can someone explain why Johnson's catch was not a catch by the definition in the rule book. He clearly secured the ball while inbounds and has two feet down. He was not attempting to secure control of the ball during the fall. It was secured prior to Johnson getting both feet on the ground.

 

[The Ref]

This was all just a ploy to motivate the shark pool.

 

[cheese]

Another hypothetical....

Miles Austin (to try to remove the CHI/DET bias in here) grabs a pass in the endzone and falls to the ground in the endzone. He lays there holding the ball for several seconds without moving before his teammates arrive to mob him knocking the ball out of his hands.

Incomplete?

He went to the ground making the catch and didn't make another move after it to demonstrate he still had possession.

 

[Neofight]

For all the Chicago fans that seem to be harboring some sense of guilt, and others who feel the refs made the right call per the rule book; here is local Larry Mayer offering his explanation:

Don’t get me wrong, I’m very happy that the Bears won their opener. But how could that Calvin Johnson catch not be ruled a touchdown? Didn’t he get both of his feet down with possession of the ball? It seems to me that the Lions got robbed.

Kevin B.

Rockton, Illinois

Lions receiver Calvin Johnson did get both feet down in the end zone with possession of the ball, but the rule requires the receiver to maintain possession of the ball “throughout the process of the catch.” If the receiver goes to the ground, that process is not considered complete until he finishes rolling on the ground. Some may question whether the rule is a good one, but there’s no doubt that referee Gene Steratore made the correct call on the play late in Sunday’s game. It’s actually a rule that has cost the Bears on two previous occasions I can think of. In a 2004 loss at Detroit, Bernard Berrian would have given the Bears the lead late in the game with a 43-yard touchdown reception from Chad Hutchinson. In that scenario, the official ruled that the pass was incomplete because the ball moved. I watched the replay of that catch several times today and I still haven’t seen the ball move. Early in the fourth quarter of a 2008 game against the Saints, Brad Maynard threw a pass over the middle to Adrian Peterson on a fake punt. Peterson caught the ball with both feet on the ground and was tackled. It wasn’t until after he hit the ground that the ball popped loose. The play was ruled an incomplete pass. The Bears challenged the call, but it was upheld after a replay review.

You can watch all three plays right here.

I've enumerated reasons why I don't believe this rule should apply (8.1.3 Item 1 Goin to the Ground), and how I feel the refs misinterpreted the call based on what happened on the field. I won't bother to state those reasons again as those posts can be found throughout this thread and one other. What I would appreciate is for you to look at the video he posts here and, objectively, observe the plays to determine A), if they are similar to the Johnson play and B), if they should or should not have been ruled a catch and why.In my opinion, Mr. Mayer offers up some pretty thin evidence in attempting to make these comparisons, likely in an effort to say "hey, it's happened to us too!" and placate some of the uproar. He pretty much fails by making an apples to oranges comparison; he should have found better examples.

*Of particular note is the Chris Collinsworth commentary starting at about 3:35, which makes the issue even more clear to me. See if you agree.

 

[Statcruncher]

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.

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

flight (See 8-1-3).

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

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

ball has touched the ground.

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

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

contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive.

Can someone explain why Johnson's catch was not a catch by the definition in the rule book. He clearly secured the ball while inbounds and has two feet down. He was not attempting to secure control of the ball during the fall. It was secured prior to Johnson getting both feet on the ground.

Because he was going to ground in the act of trying to make the catch. It is not a catch the instant a receiver touches the ground, the receiver must withstand the process of going to the ground. Johnson chose not to maintain control of the ball and the obviously dropped/let go of it before the officials deemed his process of going to the ground to be complete.

The NFL Rulebook says:

Article 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds

(See 3-2-3).

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

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

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

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

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

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

The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as distinguished from touching or muffing).

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

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

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

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

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

interception, or recovery.

 

[mad sweeney]

Neo, how exactly am I supposed to call up examples if previously called plays? Watch some football, you'll see examples of this call every week. You talk of invalid precedent like you know what it means. Just junk words from a whimsy fan that doesn't know how to be wrong witha semblance of grace. For the years this rule has been in place, they've reviewed it in the off season and kept it. Therefore the precedent is exceptionally valid since that's pretty much the definition. Your claim of people just parroting what they hear in tv is getting sadder and sadder because at least those people have a grasp of reality and are right. "Because the NFL said so" is actually a valid argument because it's their precedent on how catches like this are ruled on is exactly that, the operating precedent. You dint think the written rule jibes with how it's called in field? Fine, but the competition committee has covered this numerous times and this is how they ruled on it. Even though reality isn't an issue for you, I've never claimed to be an expert, I've just seen this rule a dozen times a season and paid attention to it because I think it sucks. I don't have to be an expert like you claim to be on the rulesbecause you think you know them better than all the NFL people combined. And even if an expert explained it to you you still wouldn't listen because you're like s child trying to hold your breath or keep asking why until adults give up. You're wrong by precedent and practice. CJ shouldve known better and avoided this issue. Having Jon mx "helping" you is pretty sure sign that you're as far as can be from right anyways. All of your asinine hypotheticals prove nothing other than to show your disconnect from reality. In short, move on.

So you're leaning on the fallacy(ies)?

There us no fallacy in precedent. That's how the rule has been enforced, that becomes precedent. It's simple. The purveyors of fallacy here are the ones ignoring the expert opinions, precedent and practice, and confirmation by officials spiced up with ridiculous hypotheticals and ignorance of physics and momentum. Regardless of how you interpret the rules,the NFL has stated by precedent how it will be called and by practice by reviewing it yearly and making no tweaks to it and continuing to enforce it. I'm not leaning on anything, I'm stating what is fact. You think you know more than the combined officials and competition committee yet still strike out at people you think are calling themselves experts. As I've said many times, there should be no rule that makes a catch with two feet down to be ruled incomplete. But there is and CJ should have known that and doing everything (all the fundamentals) to ensure that he caught the ball by the rules. He didn't and you're bent, delusional, irrational and silly about it. Just because you think it's wrong despite all the NFLers that have continuously approved (not approved of the rule though) the way it's been ruled doesn't make it incorrect or bad precedent or fallacious. It just makes you wrong.

 

[Statcruncher]

Another hypothetical....Miles Austin (to try to remove the CHI/DET bias in here) grabs a pass in the endzone and falls to the ground in the endzone. He lays there holding the ball for several seconds without moving before his teammates arrive to mob him knocking the ball out of his hands.Incomplete?He went to the ground making the catch and didn't make another move after it to demonstrate he still had possession.

Seriously? You don't understand the difference between a receiver catching a ball and laying still while holding it versus a receiver who loses control of the ball during the process of the fall? Of course in your scenario it would be a TD.

 

[Neofight]

Neo, how exactly am I supposed to call up examples if previously called plays? Watch some football, you'll see examples of this call every week. You talk of invalid precedent like you know what it means. Just junk words from a whimsy fan that doesn't know how to be wrong witha semblance of grace. For the years this rule has been in place, they've reviewed it in the off season and kept it. Therefore the precedent is exceptionally valid since that's pretty much the definition. Your claim of people just parroting what they hear in tv is getting sadder and sadder because at least those people have a grasp of reality and are right. "Because the NFL said so" is actually a valid argument because it's their precedent on how catches like this are ruled on is exactly that, the operating precedent. You dint think the written rule jibes with how it's called in field? Fine, but the competition committee has covered this numerous times and this is how they ruled on it. Even though reality isn't an issue for you, I've never claimed to be an expert, I've just seen this rule a dozen times a season and paid attention to it because I think it sucks. I don't have to be an expert like you claim to be on the rulesbecause you think you know them better than all the NFL people combined. And even if an expert explained it to you you still wouldn't listen because you're like s child trying to hold your breath or keep asking why until adults give up. You're wrong by precedent and practice. CJ shouldve known better and avoided this issue. Having Jon mx "helping" you is pretty sure sign that you're as far as can be from right anyways. All of your asinine hypotheticals prove nothing other than to show your disconnect from reality. In short, move on.

So you're leaning on the fallacy(ies)?

There us no fallacy in precedent. That's how the rule has been enforced, that becomes precedent. It's simple. The purveyors of fallacy here are the ones ignoring the expert opinions, precedent and practice, and confirmation by officials spiced up with ridiculous hypotheticals and ignorance of physics and momentum. Regardless of how you interpret the rules,the NFL has stated by precedent how it will be called and by practice by reviewing it yearly and making no tweaks to it and continuing to enforce it. I'm not leaning on anything, I'm stating what is fact. You think you know more than the combined officials and competition committee yet still strike out at people you think are calling themselves experts. As I've said many times, there should be no rule that makes a catch with two feet down to be ruled incomplete. But there is and CJ should have known that and doing everything (all the fundamentals) to ensure that he caught the ball by the rules. He didn't and you're bent, delusional, irrational and silly about it. Just because you think it's wrong despite all the NFLers that have continuously approved (not approved of the rule though) the way it's been ruled doesn't make it incorrect or bad precedent or fallacious. It just makes you wrong.

Mad, you've not only gone the appeal to tradition route, but in that last post you threw in a straw man and you've largely gone after me instead of addressing the questions I've asked or my arguments.It's nice to have a conversation, but not when you are continually being talked at (or YELLED AT!). You should just relax and enjoy the back and forth rather than get bent.And check out that video and let me know what you think.

 

[captain_amazing]

Another hypothetical....Miles Austin (to try to remove the CHI/DET bias in here) grabs a pass in the endzone and falls to the ground in the endzone. He lays there holding the ball for several seconds without moving before his teammates arrive to mob him knocking the ball out of his hands.Incomplete?He went to the ground making the catch and didn't make another move after it to demonstrate he still had possession.

Seriously? You don't understand the difference between a receiver catching a ball and laying still while holding it versus a receiver who loses control of the ball during the process of the fall? Of course in your scenario it would be a TD.

That is an entirely different scenario. But props for trying to remove bias

 

[Neofight]

Another hypothetical....Miles Austin (to try to remove the CHI/DET bias in here) grabs a pass in the endzone and falls to the ground in the endzone. He lays there holding the ball for several seconds without moving before his teammates arrive to mob him knocking the ball out of his hands.Incomplete?He went to the ground making the catch and didn't make another move after it to demonstrate he still had possession.

Seriously? You don't understand the difference between a receiver catching a ball and laying still while holding it versus a receiver who loses control of the ball during the process of the fall? Of course in your scenario it would be a TD.

Who was in the process of a fall?

 

[davearm]

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?

Your Q1 is not relevant to this discussion because although CJ obviously got two feet down, he was never "taking steps". He was going to the ground throughout the play. Therefore there was no opportunity to "demonstrate possession prior to falling down".These are not ridiculous questions to ask. They are ridiculous questions to ask over and over, pretending they have not already been answered, repeatedly, in this thread. They have.

also, if you could kindly link me to someone answering Q1, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I answered it for you. The answer is, it doesn't apply to this situation. That said, a player *not* going to the ground has to have two feet in bounds, with possession, to have a completion. I didn't think this was unclear to anyone.

What is unclear, as has been mentioned, is why you think the going to the ground rule even applies here. It's pretty clear that this is the one point you seem to not want to discuss in detail.

The going to the ground rule applies here because the receiver was going to the ground. Notice the receiver on the ground for evidence. (Assuming you're talking again about the Johnson play.)If you are talking about the hypothetical in Q1 above, you will notice that I explicitly stated that the going to the ground rule does not apply.

 

[Cassius]

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

The officials had instant replay to see that he was off the ground and still blew the call. Who is not terribly bright in that scenario?

I see you haven't brushed up on the rules. Fair enough. When you do, you'll see that basically Calvin Johnson isn't terribly bright.

Point to the rule and show how it was interpreted correctly. No one has been able to do that yet. Invalid precedent and the fallacy of appeal to tradition is all we have seen.

Uhh try reading some of the 8 page thread guy.

 

[Cassius]

Calvin Johnson = not terribly bright. Move along to a Brandon Jackson thread or something.

 

[jon_mx]

If you are talking about the hypothetical in Q1 above, you will notice that I explicitly stated that the going to the ground rule does not apply.

The issue is did he make the catch prior to going to the ground. I contend he met the definition of a catch prior to going to the ground.

 

[Cassius]

If you are talking about the hypothetical in Q1 above, you will notice that I explicitly stated that the going to the ground rule does not apply.

The issue is did he make the catch prior to going to the ground. I contend he met the definition of a catch prior to going to the ground.

This isn't remotely close to right.

 

[Neofight]

Your Q1 is not relevant to this discussion because although CJ obviously got two feet down, he was never "taking steps". He was going to the ground throughout the play. Therefore there was no opportunity to "demonstrate possession prior to falling down".These are not ridiculous questions to ask. They are ridiculous questions to ask over and over, pretending they have not already been answered, repeatedly, in this thread. They have.

also, if you could kindly link me to someone answering Q1, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I answered it for you. The answer is, it doesn't apply to this situation. That said, a player *not* going to the ground has to have two feet in bounds, with possession, to have a completion. I didn't think this was unclear to anyone.

What is unclear, as has been mentioned, is why you think the going to the ground rule even applies here. It's pretty clear that this is the one point you seem to not want to discuss in detail.

The going to the ground rule applies here because the receiver was going to the ground. Notice the receiver on the ground for evidence. (Assuming you're talking again about the Johnson play.)If you are talking about the hypothetical in Q1 above, you will notice that I explicitly stated that the going to the ground rule does not apply.

He also had control prior to hitting the ground, and was off of the ground before he put the ball on it. If you want to focus on the sequence as you mention above I am more than happy to, just realize that he satisfied the requirement of possession with two feet, he was not touched, and he came up, initiating a second movement. The problem here is that none of the stuff you are resorting to is codified, and I am looking at the film and what is in the rule book. And if you want to take the ex head of officiating at his word, well then it gets even more interesting.Did you watch the video I linked and listen to the commentary by Collinsworth? If what he is saying is how the refs are supposed to interpret the calls, the play was unquestionably a TD. Watch it and tell me what you think.