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

[Neofight]

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

Your posts in this thread have been as informative as they have been eloquent. Please post some analysis, a link, anything. Just not this.

 

[Neofight]

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.

Please explain.

 

[davearm]

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.

Please explain.

For jon_mx's interpretation to hold up, you'd have to separate the act of catching the pass from the act of going to the ground. That is, the former would have to be complete before the latter began. Obviously that's a completely unreasonable interpretation.

 

[davearm]

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.

Look I get that you think Johnson was no longer in the act of going to the ground when the ball came out. That is coming through loud and clear.What you have yet to to accept or even acknowledge is that both the on-field and replay officials disagree with you on this critical point. As do most of the folks that we have seen interviewed in the aftermath... former officials, former players, the Lions own head coach, and on and on.No need to say more. You see things one way, and the I and others see it another way. Under our interpretation, the correct call was made.

 

[Neofight]

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.

Look I get that you think Johnson was no longer in the act of going to the ground when the ball came out. That is coming through loud and clear.What you have yet to to accept or even acknowledge is that both the on-field and replay officials disagree with you on this critical point. As do most of the folks that we have seen interviewed in the aftermath... former officials, former players, the Lions own head coach, and on and on.No need to say more. You see things one way, and the I and others see it another way. Under our interpretation, the correct call was made.

Who cares what they said? That is precisely why we are having this discussion. Plenty of people say ridiculous things like up is down, or going up is going down. Refs blow calls all the time. The point is that you can't say that a criticism of a position doesn't hold water because, hey, that's what they ruled. Ok, I get that is what they ruled. And what they ruled is exactly why everyone is having a conversation about whether it was the right call or not. And I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what that type of reasoning is (as a hint it starts with a fal...)Since no one is commenting on the video, but seems to think jon has no point when he says that the play should have been ruled a TD because he had two feet down in the end zone let me just throw it out there as another hypothetical. Say that the "going to the ground rule" has a stipulation that if a player gets two feet down prior to being hit the rule does not apply (this would be one of those unwritten, back door descriptions you've told us about). Would that change your mind about whether this was a catch or not? I'm curious to know how attached you are to the idea of being right.

 

[Neofight]

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.

Please explain.

For jon_mx's interpretation to hold up, you'd have to separate the act of catching the pass from the act of going to the ground. That is, the former would have to be complete before the latter began. Obviously that's a completely unreasonable interpretation.

How so? It is actually easily done. As a matter of fact, it is right there in the rule book. You seem to have a complicated view of when one thing stops and another begins. I don't think it is that complicated, even by the convoluted NFL Rulebook.

 

[davearm]

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.

Please explain.

For jon_mx's interpretation to hold up, you'd have to separate the act of catching the pass from the act of going to the ground. That is, the former would have to be complete before the latter began. Obviously that's a completely unreasonable interpretation.

How so? It is actually easily done. As a matter of fact, it is right there in the rule book. You seem to have a complicated view of when one thing stops and another begins. I don't think it is that complicated, even by the convoluted NFL Rulebook.

We're talking specifically of the Johnson play. No reasonable person would divorce the catch from the fall in the immediate instance.

 

[davearm]

Look I get that you think Johnson was no longer in the act of going to the ground when the ball came out. That is coming through loud and clear.

What you have yet to to accept or even acknowledge is that both the on-field and replay officials disagree with you on this critical point. As do most of the folks that we have seen interviewed in the aftermath... former officials, former players, the Lions own head coach, and on and on.

No need to say more. You see things one way, and the I and others see it another way. Under our interpretation, the correct call was made.

Who cares what they said? That is precisely why we are having this discussion. Plenty of people say ridiculous things like up is down, or going up is going down. Refs blow calls all the time. The point is that you can't say that a criticism of a position doesn't hold water because, hey, that's what they ruled. Ok, I get that is what they ruled. And what they ruled is exactly why everyone is having a conversation about whether it was the right call or not. And I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what that type of reasoning is (as a hint it starts with a fal...)Since no one is commenting on the video, but seems to think jon has no point when he says that the play should have been ruled a TD because he had two feet down in the end zone let me just throw it out there as another hypothetical. Say that the "going to the ground rule" has a stipulation that if a player gets two feet down prior to being hit the rule does not apply (this would be one of those unwritten, back door descriptions you've told us about). Would that change your mind about whether this was a catch or not? I'm curious to know how attached you are to the idea of being right.

Your position, as I understand it, is that the rules were not applied correctly in the Johnson case, expressly on the basis that Johnson was finished with the process of going to the ground when he lost the ball.Is that much accurate? Yes/No

 

[Cassius]

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.

Please explain.

For jon_mx's interpretation to hold up, you'd have to separate the act of catching the pass from the act of going to the ground. That is, the former would have to be complete before the latter began. Obviously that's a completely unreasonable interpretation.

How so? It is actually easily done. As a matter of fact, it is right there in the rule book. You seem to have a complicated view of when one thing stops and another begins. I don't think it is that complicated, even by the convoluted NFL Rulebook.

I think we're starting to see the root of your problem if you consider the NFL rulebook convoluted.That said, feel free to link your findings that support your made up definitions and conclusions.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

The NFL does not like at all the fact that its rules technically allow for disallowing Calvin Johnson's catch.

This very issue was discussed this past off-season by the Comp Committee and they opted to leave it alone. The fact that it was discussed again this past off-season is evidence that there are factions within the NFL that even pre-Calvingate felt uncomfortable with the rule as is. Now we have this high profile "catch" by any reasonable man's standard that is not a catch by the convoluted rule that the NFL feels it must apply under all circumstances whence a receiver hits the ground in the end zone. The NFL and Roger Goodell do not like the NFL being made to look silly and subject to this type of publicity. This rule or interpretation of it will be changed this off-season to allow for some reasonable judgement to apply in these situations.

 

[Da Guru]

The NFL does not like at all the fact that its rules technically allow for disallowing Calvin Johnson's catch.This very issue was discussed this past off-season by the Comp Committee and they opted to leave it alone. The fact that it was discussed again this past off-season is evidence that there are factions within the NFL that even pre-Calvingate felt uncomfortable with the rule as is. Now we have this high profile "catch" by any reasonable man's standard that is not a catch by the convoluted rule that the NFL feels it must apply under all circumstances whence a receiver hits the ground in the end zone. The NFL and Roger Goodell do not like the NFL being made to look silly and subject to this type of publicity. This rule or interpretation of it will be changed this off-season to allow for some reasonable judgement to apply in these situations.

I heard on the NFL Network yesterday that the rule may be ammended right away. Goodell is not happy with all the bad press.Calvin Johnson also has a special "rule " celebration planned for his next TD catch.

 

[Christo]

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.)

It's called the going to the ground rule not the on the ground rule.

 

[jon_mx]

I think we're starting to see the root of your problem if you consider the NFL rulebook convoluted.

That said, feel free to link your findings that support your made up definitions and conclusions.

It is not our problem, it is the rule. What establishes possession? If you stumble and catch the ball, but take 6 steps as you are stumbling, then fall and fumble, is that still incomplete. The rule suggests two feet and control is possession. That is what the rule states. The note that is causing the controversy only applies if "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball". According to the rule which the note applies, he already had secured possession before going to the ground.

 

[Cassius]

I think we're starting to see the root of your problem if you consider the NFL rulebook convoluted.

That said, feel free to link your findings that support your made up definitions and conclusions.

It is not our problem, it is the rule. What establishes possession? If you stumble and catch the ball, but take 6 steps as you are stumbling, then fall and fumble, is that still incomplete. The rule suggests two feet and control is possession. That is what the rule states. The note that is causing the controversy only applies if "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball". According to the rule which the note applies, he already had secured possession before going to the ground.

Again, you don't know the rules. You have to maintain possession of the ball through going to the ground. If you catch the ball with two feet in, but the ball comes out when you hit the ground, it's not a catch. So the bolded is wrong. Try again.

 

[Cassius]

I think we're starting to see the root of your problem if you consider the NFL rulebook convoluted.

That said, feel free to link your findings that support your made up definitions and conclusions.

It is not our problem, it is the rule. What establishes possession? If you stumble and catch the ball, but take 6 steps as you are stumbling, then fall and fumble, is that still incomplete. The rule suggests two feet and control is possession. That is what the rule states. The note that is causing the controversy only applies if "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball". According to the rule which the note applies, he already had secured possession before going to the ground.

Again, you don't know the rules. You have to maintain possession of the ball through going to the ground. If you catch the ball with two feet in, but the ball comes out when you hit the ground, it's not a catch. So the bolded is wrong. Try again.

He was no longer "GOING TO THE GROUND". He lost it when he was getting his body up off the ground.At no point while going to the ground, did he ever lose the ball or even jostle it.

I wasn't talking about Calvin's catch there, I was talking about jon mx's made up hypothetical. You can't have possession before you go to the ground if you go to the ground. Try to keep up.

 

[jon_mx]

I think we're starting to see the root of your problem if you consider the NFL rulebook convoluted.

That said, feel free to link your findings that support your made up definitions and conclusions.

It is not our problem, it is the rule. What establishes possession? If you stumble and catch the ball, but take 6 steps as you are stumbling, then fall and fumble, is that still incomplete. The rule suggests two feet and control is possession. That is what the rule states. The note that is causing the controversy only applies if "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball". According to the rule which the note applies, he already had secured possession before going to the ground.

Again, you don't know the rules. You have to maintain possession of the ball through going to the ground. If you catch the ball with two feet in, but the ball comes out when you hit the ground, it's not a catch. So the bolded is wrong. Try again.

The whole rule was posted, i know exactly what it says. To me he was no longer attempting to secure possession. Calvin had met the all the qualifications of possession according to the rule prior to the fall. Now the note clearly states if he is still attempting to secure possession. I am not sure what you are missing. The rule seems fairly clear, but the interpretation does not seem to follow what the rule actually says.

 

[Cassius]

I think we're starting to see the root of your problem if you consider the NFL rulebook convoluted.

That said, feel free to link your findings that support your made up definitions and conclusions.

It is not our problem, it is the rule. What establishes possession? If you stumble and catch the ball, but take 6 steps as you are stumbling, then fall and fumble, is that still incomplete. The rule suggests two feet and control is possession. That is what the rule states. The note that is causing the controversy only applies if "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball". According to the rule which the note applies, he already had secured possession before going to the ground.

Again, you don't know the rules. You have to maintain possession of the ball through going to the ground. If you catch the ball with two feet in, but the ball comes out when you hit the ground, it's not a catch. So the bolded is wrong. Try again.

The whole rule was posted, i know exactly what it says. To me he was no longer attempting to secure possession. Calvin had met the all the qualifications of possession according to the rule prior to the fall. Now the note clearly states if he is still attempting to secure possession. I am not sure what you are missing. The rule seems fairly clear, but the interpretation does not seem to follow what the rule actually says.

I was responding to what you wrote, the bolded, which is 100% wrong. You haven't been watching football very long if you've never seen the ground cause an incomplete pass that otherwise was a catch. It is impossible for Calvin to establish possession before he hits the ground - if he has possession, hits the ground (in or out of bounds) and loses it, it's incomplete. Football 101, guy. I don't blame you for not knowing it, but Calvin Johnson should.

 

[jon_mx]

I think we're starting to see the root of your problem if you consider the NFL rulebook convoluted.

That said, feel free to link your findings that support your made up definitions and conclusions.

It is not our problem, it is the rule. What establishes possession? If you stumble and catch the ball, but take 6 steps as you are stumbling, then fall and fumble, is that still incomplete. The rule suggests two feet and control is possession. That is what the rule states. The note that is causing the controversy only applies if "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball". According to the rule which the note applies, he already had secured possession before going to the ground.

Again, you don't know the rules. You have to maintain possession of the ball through going to the ground. If you catch the ball with two feet in, but the ball comes out when you hit the ground, it's not a catch. So the bolded is wrong. Try again.

The whole rule was posted, i know exactly what it says. To me he was no longer attempting to secure possession. Calvin had met the all the qualifications of possession according to the rule prior to the fall. Now the note clearly states if he is still attempting to secure possession. I am not sure what you are missing. The rule seems fairly clear, but the interpretation does not seem to follow what the rule actually says.

I was responding to what you wrote, the bolded, which is 100% wrong. You haven't been watching football very long if you've never seen the ground cause an incomplete pass that otherwise was a catch. It is impossible for Calvin to establish possession before he hits the ground - if he has possession, hits the ground (in or out of bounds) and loses it, it's incomplete. Football 101, guy. I don't blame you for not knowing it, but Calvin Johnson should.

I know how they rule, but it is not clear why they rule that way as it is written. Besides, according to the rule he just has to "maintain control of theball after he touches the ground". Calvin did that too. His butt hit the ground and he maintained control. It does not say he has to touch the ground 5 times and still maintain control for a certain period of time afterwards. Lots of people are putting words in this rule that simply are not there.

 

[mad sweeney]

It is not our problem, it is the rule. What establishes possession? If you stumble and catch the ball, but take 6 steps as you are stumbling, then fall and fumble, is that still incomplete. The rule suggests two feet and control is possession. That is what the rule states. The note that is causing the controversy only applies if "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball". According to the rule which the note applies, he already had secured possession before going to the ground.

Again, you don't know the rules. You have to maintain possession of the ball through going to the ground. If you catch the ball with two feet in, but the ball comes out when you hit the ground, it's not a catch. So the bolded is wrong. Try again.

The whole rule was posted, i know exactly what it says. To me he was no longer attempting to secure possession. Calvin had met the all the qualifications of possession according to the rule prior to the fall. Now the note clearly states if he is still attempting to secure possession. I am not sure what you are missing. The rule seems fairly clear, but the interpretation does not seem to follow what the rule actually says.

I was responding to what you wrote, the bolded, which is 100% wrong. You haven't been watching football very long if you've never seen the ground cause an incomplete pass that otherwise was a catch. It is impossible for Calvin to establish possession before he hits the ground - if he has possession, hits the ground (in or out of bounds) and loses it, it's incomplete. Football 101, guy. I don't blame you for not knowing it, but Calvin Johnson should.

I know how they rule, but it is not clear why they rule that way as it is written. Besides, according to the rule he just has to "maintain control of theball after he touches the ground". Calvin did that too. His butt hit the ground and he maintained control. It does not say he has to touch the ground 5 times and still maintain control for a certain period of time afterwards. Lots of people are putting words in this rule that simply are not there.

And those are the guys, like you, that are wrong. His downward momentum took his whole body down. He may have been trying to get up after his ### hit, but there were still body parts with the downward momentum, including the hand with the ball. IMMEDIATELY on contact with the ground, the ball comes out. No catch. The fact that Goodell and the competition committee are considering changing the rule immediately is a glaring, easy, obvious, disproportionately huge example of the fact that based on the rules, the correct call was made but the rule sucks.You guys can bicker and try to point out what you think the rule means based on your interpretations but you fail to account how the officials and the CC go over everything in the offseason and interpret how the rules actually affect the game. And they don't keep it a secret, teams know what and how they're going to enforce the rules. They didn't decide after the play, they didn't make it up on the field before the coin flip, no they made their decisions and visited every team to go over the rules in the offseason. CJ should have known that if there's even a question of him going down while making a catch that he should've held on for dear life until there's no doubt, because in this case it looks like his getting up with the parts of his body that had already hit (even though it seems that any other catch rule or common sense would qualify it as a catch already) while his momentum was still swinging some parts, in particular his right arm, downwards so that his motion wasn't distinguishable from his fall, along with an unsecured ball in one hand (which proved to be not enough to control it when it hit the ground) cost them a TD and most likely a dramatic win.

 

[mad sweeney]

It is not our problem, it is the rule. What establishes possession? If you stumble and catch the ball, but take 6 steps as you are stumbling, then fall and fumble, is that still incomplete. The rule suggests two feet and control is possession. That is what the rule states. The note that is causing the controversy only applies if "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball". According to the rule which the note applies, he already had secured possession before going to the ground.

Again, you don't know the rules. You have to maintain possession of the ball through going to the ground. If you catch the ball with two feet in, but the ball comes out when you hit the ground, it's not a catch. So the bolded is wrong. Try again.

The whole rule was posted, i know exactly what it says. To me he was no longer attempting to secure possession. Calvin had met the all the qualifications of possession according to the rule prior to the fall. Now the note clearly states if he is still attempting to secure possession. I am not sure what you are missing. The rule seems fairly clear, but the interpretation does not seem to follow what the rule actually says.

I was responding to what you wrote, the bolded, which is 100% wrong. You haven't been watching football very long if you've never seen the ground cause an incomplete pass that otherwise was a catch. It is impossible for Calvin to establish possession before he hits the ground - if he has possession, hits the ground (in or out of bounds) and loses it, it's incomplete. Football 101, guy. I don't blame you for not knowing it, but Calvin Johnson should.

I know how they rule, but it is not clear why they rule that way as it is written. Besides, according to the rule he just has to "maintain control of theball after he touches the ground". Calvin did that too. His butt hit the ground and he maintained control. It does not say he has to touch the ground 5 times and still maintain control for a certain period of time afterwards. Lots of people are putting words in this rule that simply are not there.

Yes,, it does. It's ridiculous, but it does say that since 5 body parts are all in fact body parts. If he's going down, everything going down has to touch first and he has to maintain possession. You have to forget what you know about what constitutes a catch for these circumstances because the rule circumvents that knowledge. Very dumb, but true.

 

[Neofight]

This isn't remotely close to right.

Please explain.

For jon_mx's interpretation to hold up, you'd have to separate the act of catching the pass from the act of going to the ground. That is, the former would have to be complete before the latter began. Obviously that's a completely unreasonable interpretation.

How so? It is actually easily done. As a matter of fact, it is right there in the rule book. You seem to have a complicated view of when one thing stops and another begins. I don't think it is that complicated, even by the convoluted NFL Rulebook.

We're talking specifically of the Johnson play. No reasonable person would divorce the catch from the fall in the immediate instance.

Aren't you the guy that said reasonable minds can disagree? Reasonable minds can also look at the rulebook.

 

[jon_mx]

Yes,, it does. It's ridiculous, but it does say that since 5 body parts are all in fact body parts. If he's going down, everything going down has to touch first and he has to maintain possession. You have to forget what you know about what constitutes a catch for these circumstances because the rule circumvents that knowledge. Very dumb, but true.

Great, then quote me the f-ing rule and stop giving me a bunch of words that are made up. All the rule says is maintain control after you hit the ground. A lot of people are adding a lot of interpretation. Just show me in the rule which states all this crap. The complete rule is quoted in 382. Show me the words that back up all this. The rule just says "must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". It does not say anything about completing the fall. Once he hits the ground and maintains control, according to the rule, it is a catch. Butt hits the ground, still has control, the rule says it is a catch. If they meant to maintain control throughout the entire fall they should have clearly stated that. Maybe that is not how they instructed the refs on the rule, but the rule says what the rule says and it does not say what people are saying it says.

 

[Neofight]

Look I get that you think Johnson was no longer in the act of going to the ground when the ball came out. That is coming through loud and clear.

What you have yet to to accept or even acknowledge is that both the on-field and replay officials disagree with you on this critical point. As do most of the folks that we have seen interviewed in the aftermath... former officials, former players, the Lions own head coach, and on and on.

No need to say more. You see things one way, and the I and others see it another way. Under our interpretation, the correct call was made.

Who cares what they said? That is precisely why we are having this discussion. Plenty of people say ridiculous things like up is down, or going up is going down. Refs blow calls all the time. The point is that you can't say that a criticism of a position doesn't hold water because, hey, that's what they ruled. Ok, I get that is what they ruled. And what they ruled is exactly why everyone is having a conversation about whether it was the right call or not. And I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what that type of reasoning is (as a hint it starts with a fal...)Since no one is commenting on the video, but seems to think jon has no point when he says that the play should have been ruled a TD because he had two feet down in the end zone let me just throw it out there as another hypothetical. Say that the "going to the ground rule" has a stipulation that if a player gets two feet down prior to being hit the rule does not apply (this would be one of those unwritten, back door descriptions you've told us about). Would that change your mind about whether this was a catch or not? I'm curious to know how attached you are to the idea of being right.

Your position, as I understand it, is that the rules were not applied correctly in the Johnson case, expressly on the basis that Johnson was finished with the process of going to the ground when he lost the ball.Is that much accurate? Yes/No

No, there are additional reasons which I have pointed out repeatedly; that was only the last in a series.

 

[Neofight]

This isn't remotely close to right.

Please explain.

For jon_mx's interpretation to hold up, you'd have to separate the act of catching the pass from the act of going to the ground. That is, the former would have to be complete before the latter began. Obviously that's a completely unreasonable interpretation.

How so? It is actually easily done. As a matter of fact, it is right there in the rule book. You seem to have a complicated view of when one thing stops and another begins. I don't think it is that complicated, even by the convoluted NFL Rulebook.

I think we're starting to see the root of your problem if you consider the NFL rulebook convoluted.That said, feel free to link your findings that support your made up definitions and conclusions.

Please post something with insight. I'm certainly not the only one saying that; just about every analysis you see points this out. And try reading the entire thread, brother. It's all in there.

 

[Neofight]

I think we're starting to see the root of your problem if you consider the NFL rulebook convoluted.

That said, feel free to link your findings that support your made up definitions and conclusions.

It is not our problem, it is the rule. What establishes possession? If you stumble and catch the ball, but take 6 steps as you are stumbling, then fall and fumble, is that still incomplete. The rule suggests two feet and control is possession. That is what the rule states. The note that is causing the controversy only applies if "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball". According to the rule which the note applies, he already had secured possession before going to the ground.

Again, you don't know the rules. You have to maintain possession of the ball through going to the ground. If you catch the ball with two feet in, but the ball comes out when you hit the ground, it's not a catch. So the bolded is wrong. Try again.

He was no longer "GOING TO THE GROUND". He lost it when he was getting his body up off the ground.At no point while going to the ground, did he ever lose the ball or even jostle it.

I wasn't talking about Calvin's catch there, I was talking about jon mx's made up hypothetical. You can't have possession before you go to the ground if you go to the ground. Try to keep up.

You keep saying others don't know the rule book while simultaneously not acknowledging the rule which says you can have possession with two feet down in the end zone. Curious.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

I really don't see how it is incomplete by rule. It is only incomplete if you add some of the phrases that are being thrown around that don't exist in the actual rule.

 

[Neofight]

Again, you don't know the rules. You have to maintain possession of the ball through going to the ground. If you catch the ball with two feet in, but the ball comes out when you hit the ground, it's not a catch. So the bolded is wrong. Try again.

The whole rule was posted, i know exactly what it says. To me he was no longer attempting to secure possession. Calvin had met the all the qualifications of possession according to the rule prior to the fall. Now the note clearly states if he is still attempting to secure possession. I am not sure what you are missing. The rule seems fairly clear, but the interpretation does not seem to follow what the rule actually says.

I was responding to what you wrote, the bolded, which is 100% wrong. You haven't been watching football very long if you've never seen the ground cause an incomplete pass that otherwise was a catch. It is impossible for Calvin to establish possession before he hits the ground - if he has possession, hits the ground (in or out of bounds) and loses it, it's incomplete. Football 101, guy. I don't blame you for not knowing it, but Calvin Johnson should.

I know how they rule, but it is not clear why they rule that way as it is written. Besides, according to the rule he just has to "maintain control of theball after he touches the ground". Calvin did that too. His butt hit the ground and he maintained control. It does not say he has to touch the ground 5 times and still maintain control for a certain period of time afterwards. Lots of people are putting words in this rule that simply are not there.

And those are the guys, like you, that are wrong. His downward momentum took his whole body down. He may have been trying to get up after his ### hit, but there were still body parts with the downward momentum, including the hand with the ball. IMMEDIATELY on contact with the ground, the ball comes out. No catch. The fact that Goodell and the competition committee are considering changing the rule immediately is a glaring, easy, obvious, disproportionately huge example of the fact that based on the rules, the correct call was made but the rule sucks.

You guys can bicker and try to point out what you think the rule means based on your interpretations but you fail to account how the officials and the CC go over everything in the offseason and interpret how the rules actually affect the game. And they don't keep it a secret, teams know what and how they're going to enforce the rules. They didn't decide after the play, they didn't make it up on the field before the coin flip, no they made their decisions and visited every team to go over the rules in the offseason. CJ should have known that if there's even a question of him going down while making a catch that he should've held on for dear life until there's no doubt, because in this case it looks like his getting up with the parts of his body that had already hit (even though it seems that any other catch rule or common sense would qualify it as a catch already) while his momentum was still swinging some parts, in particular his right arm, downwards so that his motion wasn't distinguishable from his fall, along with an unsecured ball in one hand (which proved to be not enough to control it when it hit the ground) cost them a TD and most likely a dramatic win.

Actually this is not necessarily so. It could just as easily be because they blew a call based on a false premise that these types of plays are black and white. Clearly this one was not, and that makes them a bit nervous. I've already mentioned a few times that them adding to the rule book would likely just muck it up, when all they need to do is use what they've got correctly. They could even pare it down a bit, let common sense be a guide and still make a more accurate call.

 

[davearm]

We're talking specifically of the Johnson play. No reasonable person would divorce the catch from the fall in the immediate instance.

Aren't you the guy that said reasonable minds can disagree? Reasonable minds can also look at the rulebook.

Yes reasonable minds can disagree on some elements of the play. But not this one. It's preposterous, frankly.

 

[jon_mx]

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 only way it is not a catch is if the officials would have ruled he lost the ball while simultaneously touching both feet to the ground. He clearly had the ball way past that point. I am really not sure what rule book the NFL is using, because it can't be the NFL rule book.

 

[davearm]

Look I get that you think Johnson was no longer in the act of going to the ground when the ball came out. That is coming through loud and clear.

What you have yet to to accept or even acknowledge is that both the on-field and replay officials disagree with you on this critical point. As do most of the folks that we have seen interviewed in the aftermath... former officials, former players, the Lions own head coach, and on and on.

No need to say more. You see things one way, and the I and others see it another way. Under our interpretation, the correct call was made.

Who cares what they said? That is precisely why we are having this discussion. Plenty of people say ridiculous things like up is down, or going up is going down. Refs blow calls all the time. The point is that you can't say that a criticism of a position doesn't hold water because, hey, that's what they ruled. Ok, I get that is what they ruled. And what they ruled is exactly why everyone is having a conversation about whether it was the right call or not. And I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what that type of reasoning is (as a hint it starts with a fal...)Since no one is commenting on the video, but seems to think jon has no point when he says that the play should have been ruled a TD because he had two feet down in the end zone let me just throw it out there as another hypothetical. Say that the "going to the ground rule" has a stipulation that if a player gets two feet down prior to being hit the rule does not apply (this would be one of those unwritten, back door descriptions you've told us about). Would that change your mind about whether this was a catch or not? I'm curious to know how attached you are to the idea of being right.

Your position, as I understand it, is that the rules were not applied correctly in the Johnson case, expressly on the basis that Johnson was finished with the process of going to the ground when he lost the ball.Is that much accurate? Yes/No

No, there are additional reasons which I have pointed out repeatedly; that was only the last in a series.

I think it's more than fair to say that this is the premise that forms the basis for your argument.And that premise is quite simply wrong, at least in the eyes of the NFL.

By the NFL's definition, Johnson's right hand contacting the ground happened *during* the process of going to the ground *not* after.

 

[davearm]

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 only way it is not a catch is if the officials would have ruled he lost the ball while simultaneously touching both feet to the ground. He clearly had the ball way past that point. I am really not sure what rule book the NFL is using, because it can't be the NFL rule book.

The Article 7 you quoted does not apply to the Johnson situation.

 

[jon_mx]

I think it's more than fair to say that this is the premise that forms the basis for your argument.And that premise is quite simply wrong, at least in the eyes of the NFL.By the NFL's definition, Johnson's right hand contacting the ground happened *during* the process of going to the ground *not* after.

The fallacy of this whole argument is there is nothing in the rulebook about the process of going to the ground. The whole rule is quoted above. Once he touches the ground and maintains control it is a catch. There is nothing more the player has to do.

 

[jon_mx]

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 only way it is not a catch is if the officials would have ruled he lost the ball while simultaneously touching both feet to the ground. He clearly had the ball way past that point. I am really not sure what rule book the NFL is using, because it can't be the NFL rule book.

The Article 7 you quoted does not apply to the Johnson situation.

OK, why?

 

[davearm]

You keep saying others don't know the rule book while simultaneously not acknowledging the rule which says you can have possession with two feet down in the end zone. Curious.

The "going to the ground" provisions supercede the "two feet down" provisions in instances when the player goes to the ground in the process of making the catch.More specifically, if the receiver remains on his feet, then two feet down with possession is sufficient to complete the catch. However if the receiver goes to the ground, then possession must be demonstrated after the process of going to the ground is complete. This is true regardless of how many feet, knees, elbows, butts, helmets, kidneys and gall bladders contact the ground, and in what order, and for how long.See if you can figure out which applies in the Johnson case.

 

[davearm]

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 only way it is not a catch is if the officials would have ruled he lost the ball while simultaneously touching both feet to the ground. He clearly had the ball way past that point. I am really not sure what rule book the NFL is using, because it can't be the NFL rule book.

The Article 7 you quoted does not apply to the Johnson situation.

OK, why?

Because Johnson was not attempting to gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that had been caught, intercepted, or recovered.He was trying to catch a pass.

 

[jon_mx]

You keep saying others don't know the rule book while simultaneously not acknowledging the rule which says you can have possession with two feet down in the end zone. Curious.

The "going to the ground" provisions supercede the "two feet down" provisions in instances when the player goes to the ground in the process of making the catch.More specifically, if the receiver remains on his feet, then two feet down with possession is sufficient to complete the catch. However if the receiver goes to the ground, then possession must be demonstrated after the process of going to the ground is complete. This is true regardless of how many feet, knees, elbows, butts, helmets, kidneys and gall bladders contact the ground, and in what order, and for how long.See if you can figure out which applies in the Johnson case.

where is this 'process of going to the ground is complete' stuff you bring up? All the rule book says about that is touch the ground. Much different than completing the process.

 

[davearm]

I think it's more than fair to say that this is the premise that forms the basis for your argument.And that premise is quite simply wrong, at least in the eyes of the NFL.By the NFL's definition, Johnson's right hand contacting the ground happened *during* the process of going to the ground *not* after.

The fallacy of this whole argument is there is nothing in the rulebook about the process of going to the ground. The whole rule is quoted above. Once he touches the ground and maintains control it is a catch. There is nothing more the player has to do.

The rule as written is ambiguous. Officials study video and attend workshops to clarify these (and many other) ambiguities.In this case, the clarification is as follows: in order to complete the catch, the player must maintain possession throughout the process of going to the ground.

 

[Neofight]

Look I get that you think Johnson was no longer in the act of going to the ground when the ball came out. That is coming through loud and clear.

What you have yet to to accept or even acknowledge is that both the on-field and replay officials disagree with you on this critical point. As do most of the folks that we have seen interviewed in the aftermath... former officials, former players, the Lions own head coach, and on and on.

No need to say more. You see things one way, and the I and others see it another way. Under our interpretation, the correct call was made.

Who cares what they said? That is precisely why we are having this discussion. Plenty of people say ridiculous things like up is down, or going up is going down. Refs blow calls all the time. The point is that you can't say that a criticism of a position doesn't hold water because, hey, that's what they ruled. Ok, I get that is what they ruled. And what they ruled is exactly why everyone is having a conversation about whether it was the right call or not. And I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what that type of reasoning is (as a hint it starts with a fal...)Since no one is commenting on the video, but seems to think jon has no point when he says that the play should have been ruled a TD because he had two feet down in the end zone let me just throw it out there as another hypothetical. Say that the "going to the ground rule" has a stipulation that if a player gets two feet down prior to being hit the rule does not apply (this would be one of those unwritten, back door descriptions you've told us about). Would that change your mind about whether this was a catch or not? I'm curious to know how attached you are to the idea of being right.

Your position, as I understand it, is that the rules were not applied correctly in the Johnson case, expressly on the basis that Johnson was finished with the process of going to the ground when he lost the ball.Is that much accurate? Yes/No

No, there are additional reasons which I have pointed out repeatedly; that was only the last in a series.

I think it's more than fair to say that this is the premise that forms the basis for your argument.And that premise is quite simply wrong, at least in the eyes of the NFL.

By the NFL's definition, Johnson's right hand contacting the ground happened *during* the process of going to the ground *not* after.

No, it's not. You're ignoring some other points I've alluded to in questioning the correctness of the call earlier in the play. That one was just the most obvious from a physically verifiable point of view (if you wanted to use the imprecise and non-codified "second act"). That interpretation is not only a bad one, it was unnecessary.

 

[Neofight]

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 only way it is not a catch is if the officials would have ruled he lost the ball while simultaneously touching both feet to the ground. He clearly had the ball way past that point. I am really not sure what rule book the NFL is using, because it can't be the NFL rule book.

The Article 7 you quoted does not apply to the Johnson situation.

OK, why?

Because Johnson was not attempting to gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that had been caught, intercepted, or recovered.He was trying to catch a pass.

Technically they are one and the same, though I agree that the debate is about 8.1.3 and which item is applicable.

 

[davearm]

I think it's more than fair to say that this is the premise that forms the basis for your argument.And that premise is quite simply wrong, at least in the eyes of the NFL.By the NFL's definition, Johnson's right hand contacting the ground happened *during* the process of going to the ground *not* after.

No, it's not. You're ignoring some other points I've alluded to in questioning the correctness of the call earlier in the play. That one was just the most obvious from a physically verifiable point of view (if you wanted to use the imprecise and non-codified "second act"). That interpretation is not only a bad one, it was unnecessary.

If I am ignoring anything, it's because your premise is flawed, as I illustrated.

 

[Neofight]

We're talking specifically of the Johnson play. No reasonable person would divorce the catch from the fall in the immediate instance.

Aren't you the guy that said reasonable minds can disagree? Reasonable minds can also look at the rulebook.

Yes reasonable minds can disagree on some elements of the play. But not this one. It's preposterous, frankly.

How so? What if there was a simple way to do such a thing?

 

[davearm]

The Article 7 you quoted does not apply to the Johnson situation.

OK, why?

Because Johnson was not attempting to gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that had been caught, intercepted, or recovered.He was trying to catch a pass.

Technically they are one and the same, though I agree that the debate is about 8.1.3 and which item is applicable.

There are special provisions for pass completions in the endzone, that apply here. So no they are not one and the same, even though similar or even identical language appears in other portions of 8.1.3

 

[Neofight]

The Article 7 you quoted does not apply to the Johnson situation.

OK, why?

Because Johnson was not attempting to gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that had been caught, intercepted, or recovered.He was trying to catch a pass.

Technically they are one and the same, though I agree that the debate is about 8.1.3 and which item is applicable.

There are special provisions for pass completions in the endzone, that apply here. So no they are not one and the same, even though similar or even identical language appears in other portions of 8.1.3

Per the rulebook, catching a pass is indeed securing a loose ball. But I am agreeing with you, so don't get too invested in the point.ETA: are you referring to 8.1.3 item 3?

 

[Neofight]

I think it's more than fair to say that this is the premise that forms the basis for your argument.And that premise is quite simply wrong, at least in the eyes of the NFL.By the NFL's definition, Johnson's right hand contacting the ground happened *during* the process of going to the ground *not* after.

No, it's not. You're ignoring some other points I've alluded to in questioning the correctness of the call earlier in the play. That one was just the most obvious from a physically verifiable point of view (if you wanted to use the imprecise and non-codified "second act"). That interpretation is not only a bad one, it was unnecessary.

If I am ignoring anything, it's because your premise is flawed, as I illustrated.

You haven't illustrated that the premise is flawed, all you have done is continually point out that my opinion is at odds with the officials. Which is quite obvious else we would not be having this discussion. If you had a beef with a call and my argument was "yeah, but that's like, what they ruled, man. And they're the officials, so if they say it it must be so, regardless of what is in the rule book or on the video." you'd probably throw out one of these: or maybe even this guy... Moreover you're just ignoring some pertinent points. Have you watched that video?

 

[Neofight]

You keep saying others don't know the rule book while simultaneously not acknowledging the rule which says you can have possession with two feet down in the end zone. Curious.

The "going to the ground" provisions supercede the "two feet down" provisions in instances when the player goes to the ground in the process of making the catch.More specifically, if the receiver remains on his feet, then two feet down with possession is sufficient to complete the catch. However if the receiver goes to the ground, then possession must be demonstrated after the process of going to the ground is complete. This is true regardless of how many feet, knees, elbows, butts, helmets, kidneys and gall bladders contact the ground, and in what order, and for how long.See if you can figure out which applies in the Johnson case.

Where/how did you determine that the "going to the ground" rule supersedes the "end zone catches" rule? If you have two feet down in the end zone it is a catch, per the rulebook. Where does it say it is not a catch, because he went to the ground?

 

[Neofight]

I think it's more than fair to say that this is the premise that forms the basis for your argument.And that premise is quite simply wrong, at least in the eyes of the NFL.By the NFL's definition, Johnson's right hand contacting the ground happened *during* the process of going to the ground *not* after.

The fallacy of this whole argument is there is nothing in the rulebook about the process of going to the ground. The whole rule is quoted above. Once he touches the ground and maintains control it is a catch. There is nothing more the player has to do.

The rule as written is ambiguous. Officials study video and attend workshops to clarify these (and many other) ambiguities.In this case, the clarification is as follows: in order to complete the catch, the player must maintain possession throughout the process of going to the ground.

I think you are missing something. It is likely also in the training the officials receive that you allude to, and has been pointed to in previous cases of when to correctly use the "going to the ground" rule. And it might help clear up some questions which have lead you to assume jon's stance was unreasonable.For an objective, black and white situation to be ambiguous is not what the NFL had in mind, I am guessing.

 

[jomar]

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.

Please explain.

For jon_mx's interpretation to hold up, you'd have to separate the act of catching the pass from the act of going to the ground. That is, the former would have to be complete before the latter began. Obviously that's a completely unreasonable interpretation.

this has been one of my questions for about 5-6 pages now. there has to be a way to separate the two obviously, as it has been done many times. however, what is the defining move that separates these two?I am under the belief that it is 2 feet and possession before going to the ground, but I'll admit I'm not sure. anybody have any clue?

 

[Neofight]

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.

Please explain.

For jon_mx's interpretation to hold up, you'd have to separate the act of catching the pass from the act of going to the ground. That is, the former would have to be complete before the latter began. Obviously that's a completely unreasonable interpretation.

this has been one of my questions for about 5-6 pages now. there has to be a way to separate the two obviously, as it has been done many times. however, what is the defining move that separates these two?I am under the belief that it is 2 feet and possession before going to the ground, but I'll admit I'm not sure. anybody have any clue?

How about two feet down in the end zone? In the field of play it has been interpreted as two feet down prior to contact. This was from a play in 2008, the video (see Collinsworth commentary @ about 3:35) of which I have previously linked to. If all you need to do is have two feet down in the field of play, prior to contact, to avoid the stipulations set forth in the "going to the ground" rule, it seems to follow that you would only need two feet down in the end zone if you fall from your own momentum. Especially given the clear language of 8.1.3 item 3: End Zone Catches.I was hoping more people would look at the link and chime in, but it seems we are all so locked into our own view of things we are not budging. One side certainly seems to be asking the pertinent questions, however.

 

[shnikies]

Was he bracing himself by using the football or using the football to get up? There is no way to know either way and anyone who thinks they know is BSing. The call could have gone either way. There's no way anyone can be correct unless the first question can be answered and it clearly can't be. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass and since that question can't be answered the ruling on the field stands. If it had been ruled a touchdown initially, I'm sure it would have been upheld also. It sucks but it's the truth.

 

[Neofight]

Was he bracing himself by using the football or using the football to get up? There is no way to know either way and anyone who thinks they know is BSing. The call could have gone either way. There's no way anyone can be correct unless the first question can be answered and it clearly can't be. The ruling on the field was an incomplete pass and since that question can't be answered the ruling on the field stands. If it had been ruled a touchdown initially, I'm sure it would have been upheld also. It sucks but it's the truth.

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."It was ruled a TD initially.