Calvin Johnson play

[HarveyWallbangers]

Am I the only one who thinks the right call was made, and the rules don't need to change? The rules are specific here. The receiver must maintain control. Johnson didn't. For those that say if Johnson's play wasn't a catch then Lance Moore's play in the Super Bowl shouldn't have been a catch, you are correct. And Mike Perreira confirmed that it was a bad call.

I blame Johnson. He could have easily tucked that ball away. Instead he stuck it out with one hand and made it possible that the ball could squirt out when he hit the ground.

[Patler]

Am I the only one who thinks the right call was made, and the rules don't need to change? The rules are specific here. The receiver must maintain control. Johnson didn't. For those that say if Johnson's play wasn't a catch then Lance Moore's play in the Super Bowl shouldn't have been a catch, you are correct. And Mike Perreira confirmed that it was a bad call.

I blame Johnson. He could have easily tucked that ball away. Instead he stuck it out with one hand and made it possible that the ball could squirt out when he hit the ground.

I agree completely, and as I mentioned in another thread, it really is an easy rule to comply with if you really do have control of the ball. Simply postpone your celebrating until the play ends and everything stops. Handing the ball to an official instead of dropping it to celebrate would ensure compliance with the rule.

[vince]

Unless there's a reason for it that I haven't seen, I think it's a bad rule.

He clearly established control of the football and got both feet down inbounds.

In the field of play, the ground can't cause a fumble. The player who has control of the ball is down.

Why is there more than that needed because it's the endzone?

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Unless there's a reason for it that I haven't seen, I think it's a bad rule.

He clearly established control of the football and got both feet down inbounds.

In the field of play, the ground can't cause a fumble. The player who has control of the ball is down.

Why is there more than that needed because it's the endzone?

I agree with Vince. He got both feet in and had position of the ball. Then he turned around still with ball and then let it go. That should always be a touchdown.

[sharpe1027]

Johnson was to blame for even making it an issue. Still, he lost the ball while he was in the act of getting up from the ground. Since when is getting up part of going to the ground? Reaching your hand as part of your motion to stand up seems unrelated to going to the ground. I don't think it was as clear as the officials want us to believe.

[MadScientist]

Unless there's a reason for it that I haven't seen, I think it's a bad rule.

He clearly established control of the football and got both feet down inbounds.

In the field of play, the ground can't cause a fumble. The player who has control of the ball is down.

Why is there more than that needed because it's the endzone?

Two points:
1) The ground can cause a fumble if the carrier is not touched.
2) The ground can cause an incompletion, which is what happened here.

The call was correct, and the rule is there for good reason. The question here revolves around when going to the ground ends and when making a second move begins. This was a borderline case because he landed on his butt while maintaining control, but lost it when he rolled over. Because it was so fast, and there was no pause, the ref had to make the call that he lost it going to the ground.

[Smidgeon]

Or about the TD Jennings made last year where he caught the ball, ran three steps in the endzone, got pushed down by a defender going out the back of the endzone, lost the ball, and had it ruled incomplete--despite being upright and running three steps with the ball in clear possession.

That one goads me.

[sharpe1027]

Two points:
1) The ground can cause a fumble if the carrier is not touched.
2) The ground can cause an incompletion, which is what happened here.

The call was correct, and the rule is there for good reason. The question here revolves around when going to the ground ends and when making a second move begins. This was a borderline case because he landed on his butt while maintaining control, but lost it when he rolled over. Because it was so fast, and there was no pause, the ref had to make the call that he lost it going to the ground.

That's what I keep hearing as the reason for the call. To me, though, it is simply not the right call even with the new rule. He landed with two feet down and then went to the ground on his backside and maintained possession. He didn't roll over as part of going to the ground, you could see him twisting his upper body to intentionally roll over as part of trying to stand up. As he was rolling over to stand up, he extended his hand with the ball to push off as part of standing up.

There has to be a line somewhere and if it isn't crossed here, I don't know where it is. Here the WR made a concerted effort to stand up after landing with two feet, going down on his backside, turning over on his own power, transferring the ball to one hand, reaching out as part of standing up and then releasing the ball as he started his celebration.

[sharpe1027]

Or about the TD Jennings made last year where he caught the ball, ran three steps in the endzone, got pushed down by a defender going out the back of the endzone, lost the ball, and had it ruled incomplete--despite being upright and running three steps with the ball in clear possession.

That one goads me.

Damn you for bringing that up again! Now I'll be pissed all day. :lol:

[RashanGary]

Am I the only one who thinks the right call was made, and the rules don't need to change? The rules are specific here. The receiver must maintain control. Johnson didn't. For those that say if Johnson's play wasn't a catch then Lance Moore's play in the Super Bowl shouldn't have been a catch, you are correct. And Mike Perreira confirmed that it was a bad call.

I blame Johnson. He could have easily tucked that ball away. Instead he stuck it out with one hand and made it possible that the ball could squirt out when he hit the ground.

Agree. Nuff said.

[TravisWilliams23]

Or about the TD Jennings made last year where he caught the ball, ran three steps in the endzone, got pushed down by a defender going out the back of the endzone, lost the ball, and had it ruled incomplete--despite being upright and running three steps with the ball in clear possession.

That one goads me.

That play was when I first became aware of the rule. Thought is sucked then and also in this instance.

I can understand the rule if the play is outside the endzone but why do the rules allow a ball carrier to just cross the plane of the goal line for a touchdown? The runner at times loses the ball but because of that fraction of a second when the plane was crossed, it's counted as 6.

I could see how this rule might cause injury to the receiver because it gives the defense incentive to take an extra shot after a catch to "jar" the ball lose.

[HarveyWallbangers]

That's what I keep hearing as the reason for the call. To me, though, it is simply not the right call even with the new rule. He landed with two feet down and then went to the ground on his backside and maintained possession. He didn't roll over as part of going to the ground, you could see him twisting his upper body to intentionally roll over as part of trying to stand up. As he was rolling over to stand up, he extended his hand with the ball to push off as part of standing up.

I don't agree . He didn't maintain possession. It's not like he sat on the ground and then was getting up. The ball came out as his hand hit the ground as he was falling down. He has to hang onto it. Instead of one handing it, he should have put two hands on the ball and made sure he had it wrapped up. Rule is cut and dry. How are you going to change the rule--without making it a judgement call by the ref whether it was a secondary move or not? I think changing the rule would be worse. Then, you are putting it more on the refs to interpret the call. This was a pretty easy ruling to me, and I knew it as soon as I saw it.

And this is coming from a guy who has Megatron on his fantasy football team.

[ND72]

I just think it is a stupid rule.

Here is the simple reason in my mind why. If you're a running back. If you break the plain of the endzone, and then fumble it....it's still a touchdown because the ball crossed the plain, yet you can't tell me he has "established possession" while in the endzone.

It's a stupid rule that has to be changed. That ball was caught, Lions got robbed. Any other level of football, that is a completed pass. Why must the NFL micromanage everything?

[HarveyWallbangers]

That play was when I first became aware of the rule. Thought is sucked then and also in this instance.

I can understand the rule if the play is outside the endzone but why do the rules allow a ball carrier to just cross the plane of the goal line for a touchdown? The runner at times loses the ball but because of that fraction of a second when the plane was crossed, it's counted as 6.

I could see how this rule might cause injury to the receiver because it gives the defense incentive to take an extra shot after a catch to "jar" the ball lose.

I don't remember the play, but if that's the way it truly went down, then it was a bad call--not a bad rule. If Jennings had it for 3 steps, then the defender should have been called for a late hit.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I just think it is a stupid rule.

Here is the simple reason in my mind why. If you're a running back. If you break the plain of the endzone, and then fumble it....it's still a touchdown because the ball crossed the plain, yet you can't tell me he has "established possession" while in the endzone.

It's a stupid rule that has to be changed. That ball was caught, Lions got robbed. Any other level of football, that is a completed pass. Why must the NFL micromanage everything?

He didn't establish possession. Not until he maintains control of the ball through hitting the ground.

[Patler]

I can understand the rule if the play is outside the endzone but why do the rules allow a ball carrier to just cross the plane of the goal line for a touchdown? The runner at times loses the ball but because of that fraction of a second when the plane was crossed, it's counted as 6.

I could see how this rule might cause injury to the receiver because it gives the defense incentive to take an extra shot after a catch to "jar" the ball lose.

The difference is that a ball carrier going into the endzone has position as he crosses the goal line. When he crosses the goal line, the play ends. The receiver does not have possession until he completes the act of catching the ball, which now requires maintaining possession while going to the ground.

With a pass, the question is if the receiver fully establishes possession, and the rule now requires that he must maintain possession through the act. I don't believe it matters if it is in the endzone or outside of it. If Johnson had done the same thing at the 10 yard line, it would have been an incomplete pass. It used to be that "instantaneous" possession in the end zone ended the play. Now that is not enough.

[Patler]

I just think it is a stupid rule.

Here is the simple reason in my mind why. If you're a running back. If you break the plain of the endzone, and then fumble it....it's still a touchdown because the ball crossed the plain, yet you can't tell me he has "established possession" while in the endzone.

It's a stupid rule that has to be changed. That ball was caught, Lions got robbed. Any other level of football, that is a completed pass. Why must the NFL micromanage everything?

But the runner HAD possession previously, as he crossed the goal line. The receiver does not have possession until he completes the act of catching the ball, which the rules have now tightened up.

[sharpe1027]

I don't agree . He didn't maintain possession. It's not like he sat on the ground and then was getting up. The ball came out as his hand hit the ground as he was falling down. He has to hang onto it. Instead of one handing it, he should have put two hands on the ball and made sure he had it wrapped up. Rule is cut and dry. How are you going to change the rule--without making it a judgement call by the ref whether it was a secondary move or not? I think changing the rule would be worse. Then, you are putting it more on the refs to interpret the call. This was a pretty easy ruling to me, and I knew it as soon as I saw it.

And this is coming from a guy who has Megatron on his fantasy football team.

There has to be a line somewhere, otherwise a defender can hold the guy down and strip the ball ten seconds later. What if Calvin Johnson had stayed on the ground and his teammates celebrated by jumping on him and the ball then came out? Sooner or later it is no longer "going to the ground." So the question is where is the line? I think this was beyond the line. There is no need to change the rule or to put more on the ref, they have to make a judgement call regardless.

[vince]

Unless there's a reason for it that I haven't seen, I think it's a bad rule.

He clearly established control of the football and got both feet down inbounds.

In the field of play, the ground can't cause a fumble. The player who has control of the ball is down.

Why is there more than that needed because it's the endzone?

Two points:
1) The ground can cause a fumble if the carrier is not touched.
2) The ground can cause an incompletion, which is what happened here.

The call was correct, and the rule is there for good reason. The question here revolves around when going to the ground ends and when making a second move begins. This was a borderline case because he landed on his butt while maintaining control, but lost it when he rolled over. Because it was so fast, and there was no pause, the ref had to make the call that he lost it going to the ground.Right. I should have expounded more. I understand the ground can cause a fumble if the player isn't touched. Your second point is the rule I disagree with. I think it's clear as day to any observer taht CJ established possession before he "fumbled" the ball. That's my, and others', point. Hell, the official had already signaled touchdown. He clearly thought he established possession too. - not that I'm going to lose any sleep over it.

It was the right call of a dumb rule that is on the level of the tuck rule. Any observer knows he caught the ball, just as Brady wasn't throwing the ball.

[mraynrand]

The call was correct to the letter of the rule. However, it is a judgement call - the official has to determine whether the receiver completed the process of going to the ground. I suppose an official who was either afraid of being killed by Chicago fans or one that has already had the joy of life sucked from his marrow could rule the catch wasn't made, so in that regard, I guess the call was 'correct.' However, anyone watching the play could tell the receiver made the catch and released the ball as he was getting up. Perhaps in some twisted, ultratechnical way, officiating accuracy and integrity was maintained, but the spirit of the game was corrupted.


(I see that there are those that blame Johnson for not hanging on. Perhaps he shares some blame for getting too excited about catching a TD pass to win the game that he didn't maintain possession until he was standing again and perhaps all the way to the team bus. I'm guessing he doesn't make that 'mistake' again).

[HarveyWallbangers]

(I see that there are those that blame Johnson for not hanging on. Perhaps he shares some blame for getting too excited about catching a TD pass to win the game that he didn't maintain possession until he was standing again and perhaps all the way to the team bus. I'm guessing he doesn't make that 'mistake' again).

I understand people wanted the Bears to lose, but he didn't have to "maintain possession until he was standing again and perhaps all the way to the team bus." He just needed to maintain possession while going to the ground. He didn't. Rewatch the play. It's pretty obvious to me that he was still going to the ground when his hand hit the ground--while falling from making the catch. It's not like his upper body had hit the ground yet. He used his hand to brace his fall, but that's all a part of "going to the ground".

[mraynrand]

(I see that there are those that blame Johnson for not hanging on. Perhaps he shares some blame for getting too excited about catching a TD pass to win the game that he didn't maintain possession until he was standing again and perhaps all the way to the team bus. I'm guessing he doesn't make that 'mistake' again).

I understand people wanted the Bears to lose, but he didn't have to "maintain possession until he was standing again and perhaps all the way to the team bus." He just needed to maintain possession while going to the ground. He didn't. Rewatch the play. It's pretty obvious to me that he was still going to the ground when his hand hit the ground--while falling from making the catch. It's not like his upper body had hit the ground yet. He used his hand to brace his fall, but that's all a part of "going to the ground".

Like I said, it's a judgement call. My view was that he released the ball as he was getting up.

I didn't make my evaluation based on wanting the Bears to lose. As I've stated before, the game couldn't have turned out any better: Divisional game where both teams look awful and the home team wins.

[Fritz]

I can understand the rule if the play is outside the endzone but why do the rules allow a ball carrier to just cross the plane of the goal line for a touchdown? The runner at times loses the ball but because of that fraction of a second when the plane was crossed, it's counted as 6.

I could see how this rule might cause injury to the receiver because it gives the defense incentive to take an extra shot after a catch to "jar" the ball lose.

The difference is that a ball carrier going into the endzone has position as he crosses the goal line. When he crosses the goal line, the play ends. The receiver does not have possession until he completes the act of catching the ball, which now requires maintaining possession while going to the ground.
With a pass, the question is if the receiver fully establishes possession, and the rule now requires that he must maintain possession through the act. I don't believe it matters if it is in the endzone or outside of it. If Johnson had done the same thing at the 10 yard line, it would have been an incomplete pass. It used to be that "instantaneous" possession in the end zone ended the play. Now that is not enough.

Johnson clearly has possession "while going to the ground." Clearly.

I think it's a bad call.

[sharpe1027]

I understand people wanted the Bears to lose, but he didn't have to "maintain possession until he was standing again and perhaps all the way to the team bus." He just needed to maintain possession while going to the ground. He didn't. Rewatch the play. It's pretty obvious to me that he was still going to the ground when his hand hit the ground--while falling from making the catch. It's not like his upper body had hit the ground yet. He used his hand to brace his fall, but that's all a part of "going to the ground".

His upper body never hit the ground. So when did his act of going to the ground end? Is he still going to the ground right now?

[mraynrand]

I understand people wanted the Bears to lose, but he didn't have to "maintain possession until he was standing again and perhaps all the way to the team bus." He just needed to maintain possession while going to the ground. He didn't. Rewatch the play. It's pretty obvious to me that he was still going to the ground when his hand hit the ground--while falling from making the catch. It's not like his upper body had hit the ground yet. He used his hand to brace his fall, but that's all a part of "going to the ground".

His upper body never hit the ground. So when did his act of going to the ground end? Is he still going to the ground right now?

Yes. Under a pile of angry teammates.

[3irty1]

Harv said it best: How else can you make it not a judgment call? The rule is cut and dry and thus better. In this particular case Johnson did have control in the hand/eye/motorskills sense of the word but didn't have control in the football sense relating to a catch. He could have easily held on with both or probably even one hand and showed that he had the ball. In this instance the refs basically said, "Don't ask us to apply common sense because we won't" and that's the way I want it--with as few subjective elements as possible.

[sharpe1027]

Harv said it best: How else can you make it not a judgment call? The rule is cut and dry and thus better.

You can't. There is always judgment involved, the rule just changed what the judgment is about. The new judgment is when does the process of going to the ground end? After a few seconds of lying motionless hoping a defender doesn't come by and kick the ball out in the meantime? Only after the player stands up? After hell freezes over?

[3irty1]

Harv said it best: How else can you make it not a judgment call? The rule is cut and dry and thus better.

You can't. There is always judgment involved, the rule just changed what the judgment is about. The new judgment is when does the process of going to the ground end? After a few seconds of lying motionless hoping a defender doesn't come by and kick the ball out in the meantime? Only after the player stands up? After hell freezes over?

You're done going to the ground when you stop falling. CJ's hand with the ball was moving towards the ground the entire time until he let go. He can't fall and let go of the ball all in one motion if he wants credit for the catch.

[sharpe1027]

You're done going to the ground when you stop falling. CJ's hand with the ball was moving towards the ground the entire time until he let go. He can't fall and let go of the ball all in one motion if he wants credit for the catch.

I can live with that explanation for this call, but 1) that's not the only way to define going to the ground, it is your interpretation and 2) it's still going to be a judgement call. When does "all in one motion" begin and end? When is movement enough to be "two" motions? What happens if a player bounces or slides along the ground. He's stopped falling, but it would still seem reasonable to argue that is part of going to the ground.

All they did was create a completely new set of problems that haven't yet been addressed. Stupid rule that accomplishes nothing.

[ThunderDan]

Am I the only one who thinks the right call was made, and the rules don't need to change? The rules are specific here. The receiver must maintain control. Johnson didn't. For those that say if Johnson's play wasn't a catch then Lance Moore's play in the Super Bowl shouldn't have been a catch, you are correct. And Mike Perreira confirmed that it was a bad call.

I blame Johnson. He could have easily tucked that ball away. Instead he stuck it out with one hand and made it possible that the ball could squirt out when he hit the ground.

I disagree for this reason. Johnson put his left hand down to brace for the contact with the ground. To me that is making a football move after catching the ball. If Calvin had flopped to the ground and the ball came loose I would have no problem. Instead he got two feet, a butt, made a football move by bracing for impact. After all of that then the ball came loose. TD!

[retailguy]

I'm not sure what you really base an argument that the rule was violated on. Could it be an unfair rule? Sure. Did they call it correctly based on the rule as written? I think so.

Sucks for Detroit, but the rules are the rules. Who wants to make a bet with me that CJ never does that again? He'll always be sure he has possession next time, and any other receiver paying attention will also.

[CaptainKickass]

So how does this rule apply say if the receiver was already on the ground and made a 1 handed catch? Assume that the rest of the motion is identical - he then rolls with ball in hand and places it on the ground to get up.

[sharpe1027]

I'm not sure what you really base an argument that the rule was violated on. Could it be an unfair rule? Sure. Did they call it correctly based on the rule as written? I think so.

Sucks for Detroit, but the rules are the rules. Who wants to make a bet with me that CJ never does that again? He'll always be sure he has possession next time, and any other receiver paying attention will also.

I would base it on the following: CJ did not lose the ball while in the process of going to the ground, he lost it in the process of getting back up.

Obviously, the NFL doesn't agree with me, and that's reasonable. However, I don't recall every having heard them try to explain what the "process of going to the ground" is or is not. This was a case that they could have defined the rule a different way and apply it in a manner consistent with 90% of us think (it was a catch). Instead they interpreted in manner that almost guarantees the rule will be changed or clarified next year. Great job... :roll:

[MichiganPackerFan]

I could see how this rule might cause injury to the receiver because it gives the defense incentive to take an extra shot after a catch to "jar" the ball lose.

Actually, i think that reinforces the need to keep the rule. A defender should be able to jar it loose and it not just count when the fingertips make contact.

[Jimx29]

I just think it is a stupid rule.

Here is the simple reason in my mind why. If you're a running back. If you break the plain of the endzone, and then fumble it....it's still a touchdown because the ball crossed the plain, yet you can't tell me he has "established possession" while in the endzone.

It's a stupid rule that has to be changed. That ball was caught, Lions got robbed. Any other level of football, that is a completed pass. Why must the NFL micromanage everything?X's 1000

[OS PA]

I really hope that in weeks to come Johnson holds the ball for an exorbitant amount of time just to show up the refs and rule makers. The play was a catch in all senses of the word. Johnson went up, secured the ball with two hands, came down, took a step, fell to his butt, rolled over to a knee, and then pressed the ball to the ground before losing control of it. He certainly could have held onto the ball while standing up, but I'm sure it wasn't on his mind. If anything, the ball was fumbled in the endzone, which wouldn't have mattered, because he possessed it for the touchdown. In his mind, he had secured the catch, scored the game winning touchdown, and was off to celebrate with his teammates. Johnson should have been called down when he landed with both feet in bounds, he should have been called down when he landed on his butt, and he should have been called down when he rolled over to his knee.

[RashanGary]

That's one of those, however the official calls it on the field, it can't be overturned. If they called it a catch, I don't think it would have been overturned. Since they called it a drop, I don't think there was evidence to overturn.

Honestly, I think it's a good lesson for players. There is just no excuse for that stupidity.

[swede]

I really hope that in weeks to come Johnson holds the ball for an exorbitant amount of time just to show up the refs and rule makers. The play was a catch in all senses of the word. Johnson went up, secured the ball with two hands, came down, took a step, fell to his butt, rolled over to a knee, and then pressed the ball to the ground before losing control of it. He certainly could have held onto the ball while standing up, but I'm sure it wasn't on his mind. If anything, the ball was fumbled in the endzone, which wouldn't have mattered, because he possessed it for the touchdown. In his mind, he had secured the catch, scored the game winning touchdown, and was off to celebrate with his teammates. Johnson should have been called down when he landed with both feet in bounds, he should have been called down when he landed on his butt, and he should have been called down when he rolled over to his knee.

What you write all makes sense, but the NFL does have a bizarre sub-rule regarding a receiver going to the ground. Once the receiver goes to the ground a new protocol is employed, one which referees do not find difficult to use in disallowing receptions that seem clear to you and me. The results are Jenning's non-touchdown vs. the Bears and the situation at hand with the Lions.

[bobblehead]

Johnson was to blame for even making it an issue. Still, he lost the ball while he was in the act of getting up from the ground. Since when is getting up part of going to the ground? Reaching your hand as part of your motion to stand up seems unrelated to going to the ground. I don't think it was as clear as the officials want us to believe.

100 % agree. As I said many times, He was down with the ball. How long do you want him to hold it. If he makes that catch on the 50 he is down by contact. I also agree with vince.

[bobblehead]

Am I the only one who thinks the right call was made, and the rules don't need to change? The rules are specific here. The receiver must maintain control. Johnson didn't. For those that say if Johnson's play wasn't a catch then Lance Moore's play in the Super Bowl shouldn't have been a catch, you are correct. And Mike Perreira confirmed that it was a bad call.

I blame Johnson. He could have easily tucked that ball away. Instead he stuck it out with one hand and made it possible that the ball could squirt out when he hit the ground.

Agree. Nuff said.

Disagree...he maintained control to the ground and all the way until he tried to get back up. We differ as to what happened. The fact is either he lost it getting up, or he lost it going down. I say he had as clear as control as you can ask all the way to being on the ground.

[Patler]

Johnson was to blame for even making it an issue. Still, he lost the ball while he was in the act of getting up from the ground. Since when is getting up part of going to the ground? Reaching your hand as part of your motion to stand up seems unrelated to going to the ground. I don't think it was as clear as the officials want us to believe.

100 % agree. As I said many times, He was down with the ball. How long do you want him to hold it. If he makes that catch on the 50 he is down by contact. I also agree with vince.

I think under the present interpretation, at the 50 yard line it would also be ruled incomplete.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Disagree...he maintained control to the ground and all the way until he tried to get back up.

Rewatch the tape on nfl.com with a clear mind. Imagine it's not the Bears on the other side.
:D

[HarveyWallbangers]

On the plus side, the Bear trolls didn't even bother coming around after a win like that.
:D

[sharpe1027]

I think under the present interpretation, at the 50 yard line it would also be ruled incomplete.

But it would be so much less fun to talk about!

[vince]

Disagree...he maintained control to the ground and all the way until he tried to get back up.

Rewatch the tape on nfl.com with a clear mind. Imagine it's not the Bears on the other side.
:D
When you rewatch the tape, watch the referee signal touchdown when it was clear that Johnson possessed the ball in the end zone. The call was right according to the rules. The rule negates good catches.

Sometimes common sense has to apply.

[sharpe1027]

Rewatch the tape on nfl.com with a clear mind. Imagine it's not the Bears on the other side.
:D

You can come to that conclusion, but I still say that they are making it up as they go along. What the hell is the rule for when "going to the ground" stops? It is not in the rule book. All they did with this rule is shift the problem/determination/judgement to a new point in time. The result is that what 90% of us think should be a catch (including at least one official) is now an incomplete pass.

[Brandon494]

Even Stevie Wonder could see that was a catch.

He just made the game winning catch and used the ball to brace himself while getting up to celebrate. Has nothing to do with the Bears, if CJ made that catch against the Packers I would still have the same view.

[ThunderDan]

Johnson was to blame for even making it an issue. Still, he lost the ball while he was in the act of getting up from the ground. Since when is getting up part of going to the ground? Reaching your hand as part of your motion to stand up seems unrelated to going to the ground. I don't think it was as clear as the officials want us to believe.

100 % agree. As I said many times, He was down with the ball. How long do you want him to hold it. If he makes that catch on the 50 he is down by contact. I also agree with vince.

I think under the present interpretation, at the 50 yard line it would also be ruled incomplete.

I am sure the refs could somehow make it a fumble.

I bitched when it happened to GJ and it was the exact same thing for CJ. When a 3rd and then a 4th part of your body hits the ground and you have maintained control the play should be over.

[bobblehead]

Disagree...he maintained control to the ground and all the way until he tried to get back up.

Rewatch the tape on nfl.com with a clear mind. Imagine it's not the Bears on the other side.
:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s_EPK9MtJE

Nothing to do with the opponent. If the part where he falls on his ass holding the ball to the official showing him that he is in complete control isn't a catch, I don't know what the hell is.

Lets take it in slow motion. Jumps and catches with two hands as he sheds the defender. Sets down one foot....two feet. Switches to one hand so he can show complete control. Falls on his ass as he holds the ball out to the official. Rolls over and bounces up off the ground as he puts the ball to the turf. Finally after catching with two hands.....switching to one....putting both feet down and bouncing his ass off the turn and starting to get up the ball pops out as he slams it to the ground.

If that is not a catch, I don't know what is.

[bobblehead]

That's one of those, however the official calls it on the field, it can't be overturned. If they called it a catch, I don't think it would have been overturned. Since they called it a drop, I don't think there was evidence to overturn.

Honestly, I think it's a good lesson for players. There is just no excuse for that stupidity.

Except the official standing there looking at him hold out the ball signals a TD immediately. Watch my link.

[Guiness]

The difference is that a ball carrier going into the endzone has position as he crosses the goal line. When he crosses the goal line, the play ends. The receiver does not have possession until he completes the act of catching the ball, which now requires maintaining possession while going to the ground.

With a pass, the question is if the receiver fully establishes possession, and the rule now requires that he must maintain possession through the act. I don't believe it matters if it is in the endzone or outside of it. If Johnson had done the same thing at the 10 yard line, it would have been an incomplete pass. It used to be that "instantaneous" possession in the end zone ended the play. Now that is not enough.

Would it have been incomplete if it happened on the 10yd line though?

I get the feeling that if a guy caught the ball on the ten, had both hands on it, got two feet down, then the ball popped out when he fell to the ground (as opposed to being tackled) it would likely be ruled a completion and a fumble.

edit: I see above you say it would be incomplete with today's rules.

Two hands on the ball and two feet on the ground (which happened), I don't see how that's not establishing possession.

[Rastak]

That's one of those, however the official calls it on the field, it can't be overturned. If they called it a catch, I don't think it would have been overturned. Since they called it a drop, I don't think there was evidence to overturn.

Honestly, I think it's a good lesson for players. There is just no excuse for that stupidity.

Except the official standing there looking at him hold out the ball signals a TD immediately. Watch my link.

The rule is the rule....period.

It was NOT a catch period. Stupid rule but it is what it is.

[sharpe1027]

The rule is the rule....period.

It was NOT a catch period. Stupid rule but it is what it is.

If only it were that easy. The rule only says something about the act of going to the ground. It doesn't define "going to the ground." There's never been any definition of "going to the ground," by the NFL.

The officials had to decide whether or not he was still going to the ground since to many people CJ looked like he maintained control went he went to the ground and lost it after he went to the ground. To me, he didn't lose the ball as part of hitting the ground, he lost it as he was starting his process of getting up.

If it was "NOT a catch period," why was it changed on the field once AND then booth reviewed? The booth doesn't review a play unless there is a possible mistake.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The rule is the rule....period.

It was NOT a catch period. Stupid rule but it is what it is.

Hello Rastak! Glad to see you.

[bobblehead]

That's one of those, however the official calls it on the field, it can't be overturned. If they called it a catch, I don't think it would have been overturned. Since they called it a drop, I don't think there was evidence to overturn.

Honestly, I think it's a good lesson for players. There is just no excuse for that stupidity.

Except the official standing there looking at him hold out the ball signals a TD immediately. Watch my link.

The rule is the rule....period.

It was NOT a catch period. Stupid rule but it is what it is.

we can agree to disagree. The rule is in place for a purpose. The purpose is not so the receiver holds the ball for an eternity on the ground. My view of it is that he loses the ball getting up, not going to the ground. He was on his ass, holding the ball and down by contact. He lost it getting up. Thats the way I see it.