Calvin Johnson play

[sharpe1027]

Re: Calvin Johnson play

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.