Calvin Johnson play

[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]

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 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!