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]

Re: Calvin Johnson play

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]

Re: Calvin Johnson play

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.

[RashanGary]

Re: Calvin Johnson play

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.