Calvin Johnson play

[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...

[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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

Re: Calvin Johnson play

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.

[HarveyWallbangers]

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

[sharpe1027]

Re: Calvin Johnson play

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]

Re: Calvin Johnson play

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.

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.