PDA

View Full Version : Football WORST CALL IN NFL HISTORY


Pages : [1] 2

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 07:15 PM
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:AgPRPlahves5dM:http://theredzonereport.com

Brock
09-12-2010, 07:15 PM
That was brutal.

baitism
09-12-2010, 07:16 PM
Please elaborate...

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 07:16 PM
is it bad to wish a referee crew dead cause i would laugh

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 07:17 PM
elaborate cheated out of a win enough said

Reaper16
09-12-2010, 07:17 PM
I finally saw video of that play. I cannot believe how that isn't a touchdown. It defies all logic and all integrity. Motherfuck Baby Lee for taking the side of the refs on that play.

petegz28
09-12-2010, 07:17 PM
I agree. After finally seeing the play it was a totally horseshit call. Complete fuck up on the Refs that cost Detroit a win. Literally.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 07:17 PM
i just need to get into college football i guess i can next year during the lock out

gblowfish
09-12-2010, 07:18 PM
Lets see...
Chicago is the number three TV market....

Detroit Sucks.....

INCOMPLETE!

Brock
09-12-2010, 07:18 PM
Poor quality video.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LSYDYI4F4xs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LSYDYI4F4xs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Bump
09-12-2010, 07:18 PM
1997 Chiefs vs Broncos playoff game had the worst call in NFL history, try again.

Pasta Giant Meatball
09-12-2010, 07:18 PM
Detroit got hosed.

-King-
09-12-2010, 07:18 PM
I was threading the game thread and was thinking people were over reacting.... but DAMN, thats one of the worst calls I've ever seen. He clearly had possession of the ball. TD any way you see it.





But I guess a sorry letter from the NFL will make up for it....

Reaper16
09-12-2010, 07:19 PM
1997 Chiefs vs Broncos playoff game had the worst call in NFL history, try again.
Good answer.

RustShack
09-12-2010, 07:19 PM
They NFL should just fucking change it and give the Lions the win. There is no way that wasn't a catch.. he had total control of it.

Pablo
09-12-2010, 07:20 PM
That call was fucking horseshit and a half.

I really wanted Megatron to get that TD.

Shag
09-12-2010, 07:20 PM
I wouldn't call it the worst, but it's up there. How anyone could legitimately call that incomplete is mind boggling...

Sucks to be a Detroit sports fan lately - been robbed of a perfect game and an opening day victory in the past few months, not to mention the general suckitude of their teams...

petegz28
09-12-2010, 07:21 PM
I wouldn't call it the worst, but it's up there. How anyone could legitimately call that incomplete is mind boggling...

Sucks to be a Detroit sports fan lately - been robbed of a perfect game and an opening day victory in the past few months, not to mention the general suckitude of their teams...

Yeah but at least the blown call against the Tigers didn't cost them the game. Just a place in the record books.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 07:22 PM
[QUOTE=gblowfish;6996733]Lets see...
Chicago is the number three TV market....

Detroit Sucks.....

INCOMPLETE![/QUOTE

ohh ya i forgot chiefs destoyed last year

Bump
09-12-2010, 07:22 PM
I personally believe that vegas has a hand in a lot of games, that was a vegas call.

Tylerthigpen!1!
09-12-2010, 07:23 PM
It's a process

Bump
09-12-2010, 07:23 PM
What's even worse is that the Lions head coach is going to have to kiss the refs ass in the post-game interview.

notorious
09-12-2010, 07:24 PM
The NFL better be careful. They better just say it was a horrific call instead of sugar coating this obvious piece of shit.

Gonzo
09-12-2010, 07:24 PM
I'm wondering if he was show-boating when he put that ball on the ground, (not that it matters, still a b.s. call).

Speaking of which:
I don't know why players feel the need to drop the ball as soon as they cross the end-zone. Has anyone else noticed this? I know they're excited but eventually it's going to bite someone in the ass.
Posted via Mobile Device

Bump
09-12-2010, 07:25 PM
I'm wondering if he was show-boating when he put that ball on the ground, (not that it matters, still a b.s. call).

Speaking of which:
I don't know why players feel the need to drop the ball as soon as they cross the end-zone. Has anyone else noticed this? I know they're excited but eventually it's going to bite someone in the ass.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yes, that bothers me as well.

DaneMcCloud
09-12-2010, 07:27 PM
Awful call.

I could not believe that they overturned the official's call that was standing RIGHT THERE.

The NFL needs to change this shit, immediately. Apparently, if an official makes a call but that's overruled by another official, the SECOND call stands.

Detroit got fucking boned.

Gonzo
09-12-2010, 07:28 PM
Yes, that bothers me as well.

THANK YOU.
I think something happened in a cfb game yesterday that damn near cost someone a TD, (after seeing the replay, it probably should have).
I don't recall what game it was but it was sheer stupidity.
Posted via Mobile Device

Hydrae
09-12-2010, 07:28 PM
That call cost me a lot of points in fantasy. :D

yhf
09-12-2010, 07:28 PM
While it was clearly an extremely questionable call, all of the hubbub would be a mute (JFC it's MOOT look it up people) point had Johnson not been so concerned with celebrating. Had DBOwe had made the same play I would have been very disappointed in him.

DaneMcCloud
09-12-2010, 07:28 PM
And why didn't the Chiefs sign Shaun Hill as a backup?

Saul Good
09-12-2010, 07:28 PM
Calls like this are the reason that I like the NFL less each year. This was a fix, plain as day. It reminds me of the Troy Polamalu interception in the playoffs against the Colts the year they won the Superbowl as a Wild Card. It's honestly hard for me to get fired up about these games anymore.

keg in kc
09-12-2010, 07:28 PM
Speaking of which:
I don't know why players feel the need to drop the ball as soon as they cross the end-zone. Has anyone else noticed this? I know they're excited but eventually it's going to bite someone in the ass.
Posted via Mobile DeviceThere was a play in the Marshall game Friday night against West Virginia that was questionable, and another one in the Notre Dame game against Michigan yesterday where the Notre Dame receiver clearly dropped the ball a yard short of the end zone.

Eventually it's going to cost somebody a game.

Fruit Ninja
09-12-2010, 07:30 PM
I was threading the game thread and was thinking people were over reacting.... but DAMN, thats one of the worst calls I've ever seen. He clearly had possession of the ball. TD any way you see it.





But I guess a sorry letter from the NFL will make up for it....

But thats not going to happen since it was the correct call. I agree with everyone, they need to make stuff like that a touch down, but going by the rules. No dice, it sucks, but the Ref's didnt blow it.

Saul Good
09-12-2010, 07:30 PM
THANK YOU.
I think something happened in a cfb game yesterday that damn near cost someone a TD, (after seeing the replay, it probably should have).
I don't recall what game it was but it was sheer stupidity.
Posted via Mobile Device

Notre Dame against Michigan. He was a full yard short of the endzone, but they gave him the TD anyway. Again, interesting that it was Notre Dame that got the benefit of the ridiculous call. Why even have instant replay if you can't get something that obvious correct? Hell, why even have officials?

eazyb81
09-12-2010, 07:32 PM
I could give a fuck less what the rule supposedly says. That is 100% a TD.

Fuck Mike Periero or whatever the fuck his name is on Fox for actually arguing in favor of that call.

Absolute horseshit and the Lions got bent over and fucked on television.

Gonzo
09-12-2010, 07:35 PM
Notre Dame against Michigan. He was a full yard short of the endzone, but they gave him the TD anyway. Again, interesting that it was Notre Dame that got the benefit of the ridiculous call. Why even have instant replay if you can't get something that obvious correct? Hell, why even have officials?
That was it, thanks...

So let me get this straight. The guy was show-boating and he obviously dropped the ball short. The refs reviewed the play and gave it to him anyway?
If this is true, it's fucking ridiculous.
Posted via Mobile Device

Mecca
09-12-2010, 07:35 PM
Mike Pewhatever is hilarious, I think I've seen him say 1 or 2 calls have been wrong in the 5 years he's been on TV.

petegz28
09-12-2010, 07:37 PM
Notre Dame against Michigan. He was a full yard short of the endzone, but they gave him the TD anyway. Again, interesting that it was Notre Dame that got the benefit of the ridiculous call. Why even have instant replay if you can't get something that obvious correct? Hell, why even have officials?

That made me think of when the NFL first tried instant replay and even with that somehow, despite the video showing Elway clearly 3 yards passed the LoS when he threw the pass the Refs still couldn't see it.

Dayze
09-12-2010, 07:38 PM
even more awesome than a player show-boating early etc, is a lame ass player getting up and doing some rehearsed WWF-type dance/routine after an ordinary play.

Drives me
up
the
fucking
wall.

Mecca
09-12-2010, 07:40 PM
Yes celebrating is very bad, I think everyone should have no emotion like a robot.

rocks
09-12-2010, 07:41 PM
1997 Chiefs vs Broncos playoff game had the worst call in NFL history, try again.

Agree!

Dayze
09-12-2010, 07:43 PM
Yes celebrating is very bad, I think everyone should have no emotion like a robot.

when a defender tackles a guy after he rushed for 8 on 1st down; then gets up doing a ghey dance like he just won the fuckin' super bowl...

that's retarded.

nothing wrong with emotion, but c'mon.

KCBOSS1
09-12-2010, 07:44 PM
that's the biggest rip that I've seen. That was so bad.

Mecca
09-12-2010, 07:44 PM
Well that's a little stupid, usually the guys who do that are the guys who make special teams tackles since they never do anything else.

Saul Good
09-12-2010, 07:46 PM
even more awesome than a player show-boating early etc, is a lame ass player getting up and doing some rehearsed WWF-type dance/routine after an ordinary play.

Drives me
up
the
****ing
wall.

He wasn't showboating. He was getting up off the ground.

Dayze
09-12-2010, 07:46 PM
Well that's a little stupid, usually the guys who do that are the guys who make special teams tackles since they never do anything else.

yeah,ST's aside is where i'm coming from. ST's have to get completely jacked up in order to do what they do etc.

my gripe is with the primary guys, making very ordinary and routine plays.

petegz28
09-12-2010, 07:47 PM
yeah,ST's aside is where i'm coming from. ST's have to get completely jacked up in order to do what they do etc.

my gripe is with the primary guys, making very ordinary and routine plays.

"When you score a TD, act like you've been there before"...Marcus Allen

DaFace
09-12-2010, 07:47 PM
By the letter of the rule, it was the correct call. Pretty lame though.
Posted via Mobile Device

KC kid
09-12-2010, 07:48 PM
i think it was the right call as the rules defines it

Saul Good
09-12-2010, 07:49 PM
By the letter of the rule, it was the correct call. Pretty lame though.
Posted via Mobile Device

I think the rule says that you have to stand up, pull a Sharpie out of your sock, autograph the football, get fined, and pay the fine. Once the check clears, you can let go of the football. Boom, 6 points.

Brock
09-12-2010, 07:49 PM
He caught the ball and put two feet on the ground in the end zone. It's a touchdown.

|Zach|
09-12-2010, 07:50 PM
when a defender tackles a guy after he rushed for 8 on 1st down; then gets up doing a ghey dance like he just won the ****in' super bowl...

that's retarded.

nothing wrong with emotion, but c'mon.

I think you are over stating what happened. Either that or you are not giving enough credit to people who win the Superbowl.

Mecca
09-12-2010, 07:50 PM
If that is really the rule now, that is a horrendous rule, do you have to superglue the ball to yourself to get credit for a catch?

|Zach|
09-12-2010, 07:52 PM
I have a bigger problem with the rule then the call that happened today. If that is indeed the new wording then it was called right...but its still bad.

|Zach|
09-12-2010, 07:53 PM
If that is really the rule now, that is a horrendous rule, do you have to superglue the ball to yourself to get credit for a catch?

Hey, those 49ers that you were trying to convince everyone the Chiefs should be shitting themselves over looked like total ass.

Dayze
09-12-2010, 07:53 PM
I think you are over stating what happened. Either that or you are not giving enough credit to people who win the Superbowl.

:harumph:
perhaps a bit of an exaggeration.
:evil:

Mecca
09-12-2010, 07:55 PM
I'm a bit more concerned that Seattle looked good since I thought the Chiefs would win that game..

Saul Good
09-12-2010, 07:55 PM
Hey, those 49ers that you were trying to convince everyone the Chiefs should be shitting themselves over looked like total ass.

Still don't get the infatuation with the 49ers.

alanm
09-12-2010, 07:56 PM
[quote=gblowfish;6996733]Lets see...
Chicago is the number three TV market....

Detroit Sucks.....

INCOMPLETE![/QUOTE

ohh ya i forgot chiefs destoyed last yearTechnically the Lions were worse since they picked 2nd in the draft. :p

Archie F. Swin
09-12-2010, 07:58 PM
a gar-in-fuc-king-tee that if he had put a second paw on the ball before he put the ball on the ground it would have counted.

Lions got straight-up violated

Jerm
09-12-2010, 07:58 PM
Tuck Rule v2.0

Both are beyond fucking stupid.

That was a catch...plain and simple.

Rain Man
09-12-2010, 07:58 PM
I don't know about the letter of the rule, but it totally stank. That was a touchdown, no doubt about it.

milkman
09-12-2010, 08:00 PM
I'm a bit more concerned that Seattle looked good since I thought the Chiefs would win that game..

I've been saying for a while that Seattle is going to be a lot better than people think they are.

|Zach|
09-12-2010, 08:00 PM
I'm a bit more concerned that Seattle looked good since I thought the Chiefs would win that game..

lol.

gblowfish
09-12-2010, 08:00 PM
[quote=barry_smilez20;6996747]Technically the Lions were worse since they picked 2nd in the draft. :p

Hey man, the Lions got screwed. All I'm saying is, traditionally bad teams get bad calls. That's just the way it is.

You don't think Denver with Elway didn't get away with all kinds of crap (at our expense)???

Follow the dollars.

DaneMcCloud
09-12-2010, 08:05 PM
I've been saying for a while that Seattle is going to be a lot better than people think they are.

Their defense looked much improved and they finally have a legit backup QB that can actually win some games for them if Hasselbeck is injured.

The 49ers, OTOH, were extremely disappointing. They were flat and could get nothing going. I expected the 49ers to keep this game close and win.

Not so much.

milkman
09-12-2010, 08:07 PM
Their defense looked much improved and they finally have a legit backup QB that can actually win some games for them if Hasselbeck is injured.

The 49ers, OTOH, were extremely disappointing. They were flat and could get nothing going. I expected the 49ers to keep this game close and win.

Not so much.

I still haven't bought into Alex Smith.

You can't win if you don't have a QB, and I still believe the 9ers don't have one.

vailpass
09-12-2010, 08:09 PM
Upon further review, the play stands.


Mike Pereira was the NFL's Vice President of Officiating from 2004-09, having spent the five seasons previous to that as the league's Director of Officiating. He also served as an NFL game official when he acted as side judge for two seasons (1997-98).

With the Lions trailing the Bears 19-14, Detroit wide receiver Calvin Johnson leaped up to grab what he thought was a touchdown pass from Shaun Hill that would have given the Lions a 20-19 lead with 24 seconds left.

But even after he came down with both feet in bounds, as he hit the ground, the ball popped loose and the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass, which was the correct call.


The booth review by the replay assistant confirmed the ruling and the play stood as called on the field.

Here's why: Rule 8, Section 1, Article 4.

A play from start to finish is a process. When you go to the ground, even after you've caught the ball, you have to maintain possession.

The rule states: If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

So the play stood as called and the Bears held on to win, 19-14.

The onus is on the receiver to hold onto the ball even after he hits the ground.

And unfortunately for Johnson and the Lions found that out the hard way.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Pereira-explains-big-call-in-Detroit-Lions-Chicago-Bears-game-091210?gt1=39002

TRR
09-12-2010, 08:09 PM
Calls like this are the reason that I like the NFL less each year. This was a fix, plain as day. It reminds me of the Troy Polamalu interception in the playoffs against the Colts the year they won the Superbowl as a Wild Card. It's honestly hard for me to get fired up about these games anymore.

I agree wholeheartedly. The NFL is beginning to ruin the game for fans. I was completely upset about that play. You spend 3 hours watching a game, and see a player make a tremendous play that he gets paid $$$$$ to do, and the refs decide to do away with it.
Posted via Mobile Device

BigMeatballDave
09-12-2010, 08:10 PM
Correct call, lousy rule.

pkane
09-12-2010, 08:11 PM
And why didn't the Chiefs sign Shaun Hill as a backup?

I think he was traded to the Lions from the 49ers.

BigMeatballDave
09-12-2010, 08:11 PM
Come on guys, we've been thru this several times. Its the "Continuation" rule. Horrible, horrible rule.

morphius
09-12-2010, 08:13 PM
The catching the ball rules are insane, the sad thing is I see how it is the right call because of the fact that if the contact starts in the air you have to maintain possession all the way through, just like on the sideline. Doesn't matter that he got two feet in, one knee (aka another 2 feet) and his hand touched. Terrible rule.

DaneMcCloud
09-12-2010, 08:13 PM
I think he was traded to the Lions from the 49ers.

Yep.

He was traded for a 2011 7th rounder this past March.

There's a joke in there somewhere but I too sad to make it.

:(

Brainiac
09-12-2010, 08:16 PM
I hate to rain on everybody's pity parade, but when I saw the play for the very first time, I thought, "Uh oh, he didn't hang on to the ball".

The fact is that he let the ground knock the ball out of his hands when he went down as part of the play. It's a sad way for the Lions to lose the game, but when you read the rule and watch the play, it's obvious that the referees got it right. The guys on the field got it right (the second time), and the replay official agreed.

And I don't see why everybody thinks the continuation rule is a horrible rule. If you can't hang on to the ball, you didn't catch it.

Mr. Laz
09-12-2010, 08:17 PM
Detroit got screwed but if Calvin Johnson hadn't been so worried about celebrating then the Lions win.

Brock
09-12-2010, 08:18 PM
And I don't see why everybody thinks the continuation rule is a horrible rule. If you can't hang on to the ball, you didn't catch it.

It's horrible because he caught the ball, put two feet down in the end zone, which should have ended the play. And if it didn't end the play, when he landed on the ground with the ball in his complete possession, the play should have ended there. At no time did he not have full possession of the ball.

BigMeatballDave
09-12-2010, 08:19 PM
If that is really the rule now, that is a horrendous rule, do you have to superglue the ball to yourself to get credit for a catch?
This rule has been in place a few seasons now.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 08:19 PM
anyone who says they agree the call on the field are only doing so because it didnt happen to their team, if it had theyd be flippin sh@t to

Dayze
09-12-2010, 08:19 PM
how is that call different from the 2pt conversion i the SB?

the Saints player caught the ball, ,broke the plane, then had the ball kicked out of his hands.

shouldnt' he have held on to it?

vailpass
09-12-2010, 08:22 PM
The call was correct. No fix, no bias, no error.
The fairness of the rule that led to the call is certainly debatable but the correctness of the call is not.

Coogs
09-12-2010, 08:22 PM
24 seconds left. Plenty of time for Cunther to pull the game out for the Bears.

Mecca
09-12-2010, 08:23 PM
Mike Perreira is one of my favorite people, dude will defend the indefensible.

Shag
09-12-2010, 08:25 PM
Upon further review, the play stands.


Mike Pereira was the NFL's Vice President of Officiating from 2004-09, having spent the five seasons previous to that as the league's Director of Officiating. He also served as an NFL game official when he acted as side judge for two seasons (1997-98).

With the Lions trailing the Bears 19-14, Detroit wide receiver Calvin Johnson leaped up to grab what he thought was a touchdown pass from Shaun Hill that would have given the Lions a 20-19 lead with 24 seconds left.

But even after he came down with both feet in bounds, as he hit the ground, the ball popped loose and the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass, which was the correct call.


The booth review by the replay assistant confirmed the ruling and the play stood as called on the field.

Here's why: Rule 8, Section 1, Article 4.

A play from start to finish is a process. When you go to the ground, even after you've caught the ball, you have to maintain possession.

The rule states: If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

So the play stood as called and the Bears held on to win, 19-14.

The onus is on the receiver to hold onto the ball even after he hits the ground.

And unfortunately for Johnson and the Lions found that out the hard way.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Pereira-explains-big-call-in-Detroit-Lions-Chicago-Bears-game-091210?gt1=39002

I don't think it's that clear cut. At what point does it transition from "going to the ground" to "getting off the ground"? The way I saw it, the catch was completed when he landed on his ass, then he turned, and pushed off with the ball to get off the ground, dislodging the ball from his hand in the process. Granted, it was very quick, and he would have been better off being more deliberate, but that's what I saw.

What if he lands on his ass, sits there for a second, then turns and pushes off with the ball, dropping the ball in the process? Is that a catch?

There's a certain amount of interpretation that has to go into these things, especially in determining when the catch is completed, and I think this case was interpreted incorrectly.

Brainiac
09-12-2010, 08:25 PM
It's horrible because he caught the ball, put two feet down in the end zone, which should have ended the play. And if it didn't end the play, when he landed on the ground with the ball in his complete possession, the play should have ended there. At no time did he not have full possession of the ball.
The play ends when it ends, not when the receiver gets both feet down. The rule is pretty clear. Maybe it's a bad rule and maybe it's not, but it's just as much a part of the game as the requirement to get two feet down.

I can understand saying "Let's change the rule, it sucks". But nobody can say the refs blew the call or that it's the worst call in NFL history. The refs got it right.

Short Leash Hootie
09-12-2010, 08:26 PM
I personally believe that vegas has a hand in a lot of games, that was a vegas call.

ROFL

Detroit covered the spread...with or without the TD.

notorious
09-12-2010, 08:26 PM
Tuck rule was worse, but this is pretty bad.



At least the tuck rule game fucked the Raiders. Screwing Detroit is like slitting the tires on a down syndrome kid's bike.

Ugly Duck
09-12-2010, 08:27 PM
when he landed on the ground with the ball in his complete possession, the play should have ended there. At no time did he not have full possession of the ball.

I'm with Brock. The Rule sez "If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

He never "lost control of the ball" until he let go of it as he was getting up.

dj56dt58
09-12-2010, 08:28 PM
they said when you fall to the ground you have to control it the whole way and it would have been the same at midfield, but if your midfield and that happens its not a fumble because the ground can't cause a fumble, it would have been a fucking completion

Brainiac
09-12-2010, 08:28 PM
When you think about it, it's just like the rule in baseball: If a fielder catches a ball cleanly but then drops it while transferring it to his throwing hand, it's a catch. But if he makes a diving catch, catches the ball cleanly, but then the ball pops out of his glove when he hits the ground, it's not a catch.

Mecca
09-12-2010, 08:29 PM
The rule is intended to be if someone hits the ground and the ball comes out, where if it happened in the field of play it would be incomplete. When the ball is in a guys single hand and doesn't come out till he's starting to get up it's quite clearly a catch. To me this is officials not interpreting a rule properly.

Brock
09-12-2010, 08:29 PM
The play ends when it ends, not when the receiver gets both feet down.

When you catch the ball in the end zone and put two feet down, it's a touchdown.

Brainiac
09-12-2010, 08:29 PM
they said when you fall to the ground you have to control it the whole way and it would have been the same at midfield, but if your midfield and that happens its not a fumble because the ground can't cause a fumble, it would have been a ****ing completion
No, it would have been a fucking incompletion.

chief52
09-12-2010, 08:29 PM
Tough call for the Lions, but the officials got it right on the field and correctly on the replay. Seems like the rule should be looked at to me. But being pissed at the officials is like being pissed at a judge for making a ruling based on the law.

If they would have called it any other way they would have been wrong and the wrong team would have won the game.

notorious
09-12-2010, 08:30 PM
When you think about it, it's just like the rule in baseball: If a fielder catches a ball cleanly but then drops it while transferring it to his throwing hand, it's a catch. But if he makes a diving catch, catches the ball cleanly, but then the ball pops out of his glove when he hits the ground, it's not a catch.

Just stop. :facepalm:

Brainiac
09-12-2010, 08:30 PM
When you catch the ball in the end zone and put two feet down, it's a touchdown.
Not according to the continuation rule. It's in the rule book. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel about it. It's not a touchdown.

Mecca
09-12-2010, 08:30 PM
No, it would have been a fucking incompletion.

I have a hard time believing that in the middle of the field that's not called a completion, they'd have come running in motioning down by contact.

BigMeatballDave
09-12-2010, 08:31 PM
When you catch the ball in the end zone and put two feet down, it's a touchdown.I agree. So does everyone else. Correct call, Stupid rule.

Brainiac
09-12-2010, 08:31 PM
Just stop. :facepalm:
You're right. The referees and the replay officials don't know the rules nearly as well as the posters on Chiefsplanet.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 08:31 PM
When you think about it, it's just like the rule in baseball: If a fielder catches a ball cleanly but then drops it while transferring it to his throwing hand, it's a catch. But if he makes a diving catch, catches the ball cleanly, but then the ball pops out of his glove when he hits the ground, it's not a catch.

i guess him moon walking then rolling on his ass was part of the dive right?

Shag
09-12-2010, 08:31 PM
When you think about it, it's just like the rule in baseball: If a fielder catches a ball cleanly but then drops it while transferring it to his throwing hand, it's a catch. But if he makes a diving catch, catches the ball cleanly, but then the ball pops out of his glove when he hits the ground, it's not a catch.

That's a terrible analogy. The ball did not dislodge as a result of Johnson hitting the ground. It came out because he tried to push off of it while getting up. The ball never bobbled, he never lost control.

To make your analogy more apropos, it would be a fielder making a diving catch, then dropping it while trying to stand up to make a throw.

Brock
09-12-2010, 08:31 PM
Not according to the continuation rule. It's in the rule book. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel about it. It's not a touchdown.

Even with the continuation rule, his play was a touchdown. I sure hope I never see you complaining about a bad call.

Mecca
09-12-2010, 08:32 PM
You're right. The referees and the replay officials don't know the rules nearly as well as the posters on Chiefsplanet.

After the horrendous calls that are witnessed every single week, not a good argument to go to here.

notorious
09-12-2010, 08:32 PM
Wide receiver catches the ball on a post route, gets hit after taking 3-4 steps, goes to the ground and the ball comes out....




INCOMPLETE!!!!!!!!


Same play, Mr. Brainiac. Tell me I am wrong.

Brock
09-12-2010, 08:32 PM
When you think about it, it's just like the rule in baseball: If a fielder catches a ball cleanly but then drops it while transferring it to his throwing hand, it's a catch. But if he makes a diving catch, catches the ball cleanly, but then the ball pops out of his glove when he hits the ground, it's not a catch.

That's the dumbest fucking analogy I've ever seen.

Shag
09-12-2010, 08:32 PM
You're right. The referees and the replay officials don't know the rules nearly as well as the posters on Chiefsplanet.

ROFL Because referees never get calls wrong, even after review? ROFL

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 08:33 PM
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:Even with the continuation rule, his play was a touchdown. I sure hope I never see you complaining about a bad call.

Brock
09-12-2010, 08:33 PM
ROFL Because referees never get calls wrong, even after review? ROFL

YEAH MAN THEY'RE PROFESSIONALS, THEY NEVER FUCK UP.

milkman
09-12-2010, 08:35 PM
It was pretty clear to me that he had the catch when he was on his ass in the end zone, and turned, put the ball on the ground to go into celebration.

The turn after he was on his ass was not a continuation of the play.

jettio
09-12-2010, 08:35 PM
That was a good call.

No doubt about it.

Every WR knows that rule, one that gets paid top of the entire draft money ought to know that you have to hold onto the ball if you go to the ground making a catch.

Mecca
09-12-2010, 08:36 PM
That was a good call.

No doubt about it.

Every WR knows that rule, one that gets paid top of the entire draft money ought to know that you have to hold onto the ball if you go to the ground making a catch.

:facepalm:

Ugly Duck
09-12-2010, 08:36 PM
you have to hold onto the ball if you go to the ground making a catch.

He did.

notorious
09-12-2010, 08:37 PM
No doubt about it.

.


I think that 90% of the posters here doubt it. ROFL

Short Leash Hootie
09-12-2010, 08:37 PM
that was a TD...

I laughed pretty hard at the bar when it was overturned (was at a Bears fan bar)...

even the Bears fans were like wtf??

not ONE SINGLE BEARS FAN thought it was the right call..

If I was a Lions fan...

oh my

Mecca
09-12-2010, 08:37 PM
You know the plays where guys cross the goal line and lose the ball and they are called TD's because they broke the line? Fuck that the continuation was a fumble, if this isn't a TD then those are fumbles.

Brock
09-12-2010, 08:37 PM
That was a good call.

No doubt about it.

Every WR knows that rule, one that gets paid top of the entire draft money ought to know that you have to hold onto the ball if you go to the ground making a catch.

Go back to DC.

threebag02
09-12-2010, 08:38 PM
Pathetic call. What a way to loose.

Hydrae
09-12-2010, 08:38 PM
He caught the ball, got both feet down, fell onto his ass. The ball did not come out until he put his hand on the ground to get back up. Sorry but if that is incomplete due to a rule, the rule is wrong and should not be part of this game.

Brock
09-12-2010, 08:38 PM
You know the plays where guys cross the goal line and lose the ball and they are called TD's because they broke the line? Fuck that the continuation was a fumble, if this isn't a TD then those are fumbles.

Exactly right, the ball crosses the plane in possession of a player, it's a TD, even if he drops if right afterward. This is fucking stupid.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 08:39 PM
That was a good call.

No doubt about it.

Every WR knows that rule, one that gets paid top of the entire draft money ought to know that you have to hold onto the ball if you go to the ground making a catch.

yea bowe makes same catch against the broncos same result after review great call

teedubya
09-12-2010, 08:39 PM
That call cost me a lot of points in fantasy. :D

My team as well.

I scored 155+ though... this would have been worth another 10 or so.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 08:40 PM
that was a TD...

I laughed pretty hard at the bar when it was overturned (was at a Bears fan bar)...

even the Bears fans were like wtf??

not ONE SINGLE BEARS FAN thought it was the right call..

If I was a Lions fan...

oh my

yea your telling me

Mecca
09-12-2010, 08:40 PM
All of these rules need to have a common sense factor, that seems to be lost in numerous rules in the NFL today.

Shag
09-12-2010, 08:40 PM
Exactly right, the ball crosses the plane in possession of a player, it's a TD, even if he drops if right afterward. This is fucking stupid.

The difference is that a runner has already established possession of the ball prior to crossing the goal line, while a WR that catches a ball in the endzone has not. The whole point of the continuation rule is defining "possession" for a receiver. In this case, that rule was incorrectly applied...

Sully
09-12-2010, 08:41 PM
the ground can't cause a fumble

One of the most overused, and incorrect, cliches in football.

chiefzilla1501
09-12-2010, 08:44 PM
I've been saying for a while that Seattle is going to be a lot better than people think they are.

I don't think they will be. I don't think the 49ers are as good as advertised, Pete Carroll has the advantage right now of being pretty tough to scheme against, and you can't depend on Hasselbeck to stay healthy the entire season.

The 49ers largely lost because of costly offensive turnovers. And I am not sold at all on Seattle's ability to do that consistently. They have shitty defensive linemen who look like pro bowlers because they were lining up against Joe Staley and two rookies. I can guarantee SF's o-line won't look that bad halfway through the season, and I'm pretty sure Seattle's line won't look nearly this good either.

Short Leash Hootie
09-12-2010, 08:46 PM
no catch!

HE DIDN'T MAINTAIN POSSESSION FOR THIRTY SECONDS AND DO 15 FOOTBALL MOVES!

14...almost 15...but not quite

Amnorix
09-12-2010, 08:47 PM
It's too bad that Johnson let go of the ball too early and turned his TD into an incomplete pass.

Because that, unfortunately, is what happened. The rule is clear. We may hate it at times, love it at other times, but it's unfortunately pretty clear. And that's what the rule is DESIGNED to be -- clear. He didn't complete the catch, so he didn't have posssession in the end zone.

I like the Lions and their coach -- Schwartz, and think they're heading in the right direction. You can bet every NFL coach will be queueing this up for video review this week regarding what NOT to do. Bottom line is you can argue the rule sucks, but the refs got it right.

cdcox
09-12-2010, 08:48 PM
So by interpretation of the rule, defenders should still be able to wack a receiver after his knee hits the ground, because if the ball comes free, it's not a catch.

When a player is down is different for a running back than it is for a pass receiver. Tell me how that makes sense.

Shag
09-12-2010, 08:49 PM
It's too bad that Johnson let go of the ball too early and turned his TD into an incomplete pass.

Because that, unfortunately, is what happened. The rule is clear. We may hate it at times, love it at other times, but it's unfortunately pretty clear. And that's what the rule is DESIGNED to be -- clear. He didn't complete the catch, so he didn't have posssession in the end zone.

I like the Lions and their coach -- Schwartz, and think they're heading in the right direction. You can bet every NFL coach will be queueing this up for video review this week regarding what NOT to do. Bottom line is you can argue the rule sucks, but the refs got it right.

If the rule is so clear, tell me exactly when a catch is "complete" when a receiver goes to the ground. What exact thing signifies that the action of making the catch is complete, and the receiver is safe to let go of the ball?

Amnorix
09-12-2010, 08:51 PM
Even with the continuation rule, his play was a touchdown. I sure hope I never see you complaining about a bad call.

Hard to see it being a completion with the continuation rule. He went striaght to the ground and didn't maintain possession all the way through. I think he intentionally let go of the ball to begin celebrating, or lost control becuase he was using it to to push off of to get up, but that doesn't (for good or bad) change the analysis.

notorious
09-12-2010, 08:51 PM
Hard to see it being a completion with the continuation rule. He went striaght to the ground and didn't maintain possession all the way through. I think he intentionally let go of the ball to begin celebrating, or lost control becuase he was using it to to push off of to get up, but that doesn't (for good or bad) change the analysis.

Straight to the ground? ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

stevieray
09-12-2010, 08:52 PM
ball breaks plane. TD.

nothing more. nothing less.

Amnorix
09-12-2010, 08:53 PM
You know the plays where guys cross the goal line and lose the ball and they are called TD's because they broke the line? Fuck that the continuation was a fumble, if this isn't a TD then those are fumbles.

The issue there is that the players have established possession before they break the plane of the goal.

If you catch the ball (or are a RB, whatever) and you break the plane and a nanosecond later the ball gets slapped out of your hand, that's a TD becuase there's no need to establish possession on a catch by completing the act of the catch all the way to the ground, etc., which was the problem here for the Lions.

I'm with you, the play LOOKS like a TD to me too. By 30 years of NFL-viewing. But the rule, which isn't new, isn't that tough, and he didn't maintain possession all the way through.

chief52
09-12-2010, 08:54 PM
When you listen to it explained it is hard for me to believe anyone would think it is a completion. Clearly incomplete by rule.

Does the rule seem like it is screwed up? Yes.

Was it called correctly in this game? Yes.

Amnorix
09-12-2010, 08:55 PM
ball breaks plane. TD.

nothing more. nothing less.

If the guy "catches" the ball in the end zone for a 1/10th of a second and both feet hit the ground and the ball gets knocked out of his hand, that isn't a TD either, just FYI.

And if the ball is "caught" by a guy a foot inside the sidelines in the end zone, but he jumped to catch it and he gets pushed out of the end zone before he can get his two feet down, that also isn't a TD.

There is more to it than ball breaks plane.

Amnorix
09-12-2010, 08:56 PM
Exactly right, the ball crosses the plane in possession of a player, it's a TD, even if he drops if right afterward. This is fucking stupid.

Possession includes holding onto the ball through the landing, which he didn't do (seemingly by choice, which is what makes it all the suckier).

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 08:57 PM
Possession includes holding onto the ball through the landing, which he didn't do (seemingly by choice, which is what makes it all the suckier).

so to be clear moon walking and ass sliding and picking urself up with the ball is an incompletion right

Amnorix
09-12-2010, 08:58 PM
One of the most overused, and incorrect, cliches in football.

True. It absolutely can cause a fumble.

cdcox
09-12-2010, 08:58 PM
I'm with you, the play LOOKS like a TD to me too. By 30 years of NFL-viewing.

And that is how you know it is a bad rule. If what was a TD for years and years no longer is a TD because of some rule designed to clarify what a reception is, you better go back the drawing board.

Brock
09-12-2010, 08:59 PM
Possession includes holding onto the ball through the landing, which he didn't do (seemingly by choice, which is what makes it all the suckier).

Yeah, he did hold onto it through the landing. He was ON THE GROUND WITH THE BALL IN HIS HAND. Play over. It's a stupid fucking rule and an incorrect interpretation of a stupid fucking rule in this instance.

Mecca
09-12-2010, 09:01 PM
If they would you know, apply common sense to these rules we wouldn't have this problem.

Shag
09-12-2010, 09:02 PM
Possession includes holding onto the ball through the landing, which he didn't do (seemingly by choice, which is what makes it all the suckier).

Again, tell me exactly what signifies that the "landing" is complete, and thus the catch is complete. What specific thing indicates it's okay for the receiver to let go of the ball?

notorious
09-12-2010, 09:02 PM
Next time CJ catches a TD pass he needs to go to the official and ask,"Is it a completion yet? Is it a completion yet? Is it a completion yet? Is it a completion yet? Is it a completion yet?" to drive home a point.

cdcox
09-12-2010, 09:02 PM
Costas got it right.

BigMeatballDave
09-12-2010, 09:03 PM
Next time CJ catches a TD pass he needs to go to the official and ask,"Is it a completion yet? Is it a completion yet? Is it a completion yet? Is it a completion yet? Is it a completion yet?" to drive home a point.You know, the officials don't make the rules.

notorious
09-12-2010, 09:03 PM
Costas got it right.

What did he say?

notorious
09-12-2010, 09:04 PM
You know, the officials don't make the rules.

He needs to make sure "the process" of catching the ball has been completed before handing it over.


They could call it incomplete if he hands it over too soon.

chief52
09-12-2010, 09:05 PM
And if the ball is "caught" by a guy a foot inside the sidelines in the end zone, but he jumped to catch it and he gets pushed out of the end zone before he can get his two feet down, that also isn't a TD.
.

Actually if a receiver is forced out by a defender I believe it is a catch.

The NCAA rule is better and clearer. You need to get one foot down and it does not matter if you are forced out or not. The NFL says if you are forced out it is still a catch.

Pretty sure I am right on that.

Mecca
09-12-2010, 09:06 PM
Actually if a receiver is forced out by a defender I believe it is a catch.

The NCAA rule is better and clearer. You need to get one foot down and it does not matter if you are forced out or not. The NFL says if you are forced out it is still a catch.

Pretty sure I am right on that.

The force out isn't a rule anymore you have to get your feet in or it's not a catch.

cdcox
09-12-2010, 09:06 PM
What did he say?

Same thing that I said the second I saw it:

If it looks like a TD but the rule says it isn't, maybe it's time to take another look at the rule. The rules should serve the game, not have the game serve the rules.

BigMeatballDave
09-12-2010, 09:07 PM
What did he say?Matt Cassel sucks.

notorious
09-12-2010, 09:08 PM
Matt Cassel sucks.

That's why he gets paid the big bucks. LMAO

chief52
09-12-2010, 09:08 PM
The force out isn't a rule anymore you have to get your feet in or it's not a catch.

Thanks...did not know that had been changed. Good rule change.

If the defender drives the receiver out of bounds...good play.

Sully
09-12-2010, 09:08 PM
Actually if a receiver is forced out by a defender I believe it is a catch.

The NCAA rule is better and clearer. You need to get one foot down and it does not matter if you are forced out or not. The NFL says if you are forced out it is still a catch.

Pretty sure I am right on that.

Changed that before last season.

BigMeatballDave
09-12-2010, 09:09 PM
Actually if a receiver is forced out by a defender I believe it is a catch.

The NCAA rule is better and clearer. You need to get one foot down and it does not matter if you are forced out or not. The NFL says if you are forced out it is still a catch.

Pretty sure I am right on that.No. The NFL threw that rule out a few yrs ago.

EyePod
09-12-2010, 09:09 PM
Upon further review, the play stands.


Mike Pereira was the NFL's Vice President of Officiating from 2004-09, having spent the five seasons previous to that as the league's Director of Officiating. He also served as an NFL game official when he acted as side judge for two seasons (1997-98).

With the Lions trailing the Bears 19-14, Detroit wide receiver Calvin Johnson leaped up to grab what he thought was a touchdown pass from Shaun Hill that would have given the Lions a 20-19 lead with 24 seconds left.

But even after he came down with both feet in bounds, as he hit the ground, the ball popped loose and the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass, which was the correct call.


The booth review by the replay assistant confirmed the ruling and the play stood as called on the field.

Here's why: Rule 8, Section 1, Article 4.

A play from start to finish is a process. When you go to the ground, even after you've caught the ball, you have to maintain possession.

The rule states: If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

So the play stood as called and the Bears held on to win, 19-14.

The onus is on the receiver to hold onto the ball even after he hits the ground.

And unfortunately for Johnson and the Lions found that out the hard way.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Pereira-explains-big-call-in-Detroit-Lions-Chicago-Bears-game-091210?gt1=39002

This is not what happened. He only lost control WHEN the ball hit the ground, not before as stated in this rule.

If Calvin had lost control, and then the ball hit the ground, it's an easy call. He had control and then the ball hit the ground after he was already down (hit by a player then his ass hit the ground). I do not believe that this call was made correctly.

BigMeatballDave
09-12-2010, 09:11 PM
Changed that before last season.Was it last yr? I'm not sure.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 09:13 PM
if this had been a patriots, cowboys, steelers, receiver same exact circumstances it would have been a heroic catch fu@k the NFL it just sucks that the lions havent been winning and dont have a fan base anymore

Sully
09-12-2010, 09:13 PM
Was it last yr? I'm not sure.

Might have been the year before.
But it's been no longer than that. I hate it.
I understand they are trying to get rid of judgment calls, but that rule is stupid.

leviw
09-12-2010, 09:13 PM
Costas did not get it right.

He brought up freaking Dustin Johnson, another idiot who didn't know the rules ... or at least didn't take a second to realize he was about to violate them. I'm seriously tired of people defending that dude already.

The rule might be flawed, but, flawed or not, Calvin Johnson should know what it is. It would have taken no effort at all to complete the touchdown. Just keep a second hand on the ball -- not MOVE IT to the ball, just KEEP IT on the ball -- and it's a touchdown. This is on him.

And, IMO, the rule is fine. "If it looks like a touchdown," is way too subjective.

EyePod
09-12-2010, 09:14 PM
I have a hard time believing that in the middle of the field that's not called a completion, they'd have come running in motioning down by contact.

Don't you have to make a 2nd act first before you can fumble it? Like an extra step? I would have still thought he's down because a part below his waist hit the ground (when he was sitting on it). I do not agree with the interpretation of this rule at all.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 09:15 PM
i was at a table me my girlfriend and one other lions fan 10 bears fans next to us they were basically apologizing for the way they falsely won

EyePod
09-12-2010, 09:16 PM
You know the plays where guys cross the goal line and lose the ball and they are called TD's because they broke the line? **** that the continuation was a fumble, if this isn't a TD then those are fumbles.

The thing is that they have possession before crossing the line.... They're trying to say that he didn't establish possession.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2010, 09:18 PM
Again, tell me exactly what signifies that the "landing" is complete, and thus the catch is complete. What specific thing indicates it's okay for the receiver to let go of the ball?

I would like an answer to the above question.

EyePod
09-12-2010, 09:19 PM
One of the most overused, and incorrect, cliches in football.

Ground caused a fumble on the play that Bernard Pollard exploded Brady's knee. Moss hadn't been hit and his grip was linked to Brady's knee. When it popped, boom, ground caused the fumble!

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 09:19 PM
Costas did not get it right.

He brought up freaking Dustin Johnson, another idiot who didn't know the rules ... or at least didn't take a second to realize he was about to violate them. I'm seriously tired of people defending that dude already.

The rule might be flawed, but, flawed or not, Calvin Johnson should know what it is. It would have taken no effort at all to complete the touchdown. Just keep a second hand on the ball -- not MOVE IT to the ball, just KEEP IT on the ball -- and it's a touchdown. This is on him.

And, IMO, the rule is fine. "If it looks like a touchdown," is way too subjective.

i guess all receivers should know not to get off the ground or move for 6 minutes after the catch or dare place the ground on the ball same qusetion for all who defend this ruling if it was your team youd be irate

Zaiko
09-12-2010, 09:20 PM
Okay. He had possession and hit the ground. Touchdown.

I understand you have to maintain control of the ball throughout the process of completing the catch.. The catch was complete though. The "confirming" of it was the NFL covering their ass to make it look like less of a joke than it was.

Vegas call? Really bad, and I feel pretty bad for the Lions.

EyePod
09-12-2010, 09:23 PM
Possession includes holding onto the ball through the landing, which he didn't do (seemingly by choice, which is what makes it all the suckier).

When does the landing end? If someone catches it and his shin touches the ground he's down. Part of his body below his waist touched the ground before the ball popped out. He would have been down in the middle of the field....

Sully
09-12-2010, 09:24 PM
Okay. He had possession and hit the ground. Touchdown.

I understand you have to maintain control of the ball throughout the process of completing the catch.. The catch was complete though. The "confirming" of it was the NFL covering their ass to make it look like less of a joke than it was.

Vegas call? Really bad, and I feel pretty bad for the Lions.

IT"S NOT A VEGAS CALL!!!!!

The TD or non-TD had no effect on the point spread.

leviw
09-12-2010, 09:24 PM
i guess all receivers should know not to get off the ground or move for 6 minutes after the catch or dare place the ground on the ball same qusetion for all who defend this ruling if it was your team youd be irate

My only point is this was all preventable.

I'm not defending the rule because it's a good rule ... I'm defending the rule because it is the rule, flawed or not. And yes, I'd be irate if it was my team, because my receiver had a chance to win the game and he couldn't hold onto the ball with two hands.

jettio
09-12-2010, 09:24 PM
It's too bad that Johnson let go of the ball too early and turned his TD into an incomplete pass.

Because that, unfortunately, is what happened. The rule is clear. We may hate it at times, love it at other times, but it's unfortunately pretty clear. And that's what the rule is DESIGNED to be -- clear. He didn't complete the catch, so he didn't have posssession in the end zone.

I like the Lions and their coach -- Schwartz, and think they're heading in the right direction. You can bet every NFL coach will be queueing this up for video review this week regarding what NOT to do. Bottom line is you can argue the rule sucks, but the refs got it right.


I don't see him letting the ball go, I see the ball squirting out of his hand and his fingers go into his palm after the ball goes off in a direction that he did not send it. The reason why his fingers went into his palm is because he was still trying to control the ball with his right hand, but he lost control of the ball.

This is a play where a receiver was more worried about breaking his fall than making a legal catch.

This play is a good example of a player thinking that he is so gifted that he can put his hand out to break his fall because he thinks his hands are so good that he can control the ball with the other hand.

Most football players catch the ball with two hands and keep both hands on the ball when going to the ground.

Johnson put breaking his fall ahead of using both hands to make a legal catch and help his team win a game.

He is a talented player, but he should be less worried about breaking his fall and more worried about making the play.

It is kind of interesting to see the public reaction. A top flight player cost his team the game because he was worried about breaking his fall, and instead of teaching kids the lesson of don't be a pussy that puts breaking your fall ahead of finishing the play, we get a chorus of crybabies arguing against a correct call enforcing the established rule.

Zaiko
09-12-2010, 09:24 PM
When does the landing end? If someone catches it and his shin touches the ground he's down. Part of his body below his waist touched the ground before the ball popped out. He would have been down in the middle of the field....

Yeah that's what I'm saying.. He was already down. He caught it and hit the ground, didn't lose it at that time, then set it down and got up.

I mean we can obviously say he should've just held on, but to take away a game winning touchdown called by the Ref who was literally 3-5 yards from the play just seems ridiculous.

Valiant
09-12-2010, 09:26 PM
I personally believe that vegas has a hand in a lot of games, that was a vegas call.

Real life version of the BWW commercial??

Sully
09-12-2010, 09:26 PM
Ground caused a fumble on the play that Bernard Pollard exploded Brady's knee. Moss hadn't been hit and his grip was linked to Brady's knee. When it popped, boom, ground caused the fumble!

I've gotta be honest.
I have no idea what this post means.

I feel drunk when I read it.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2010, 09:26 PM
I don't see him letting the ball go, I see the ball squirting out of his hand and his fingers go into his palm after the ball goes off in a direction that he did not send it. The reason why his fingers went into his palm is because he was still trying to control the ball with his right hand, but he lost control of the ball.

This is a play where a receiver was more worried about breaking his fall than making a legal catch.

This play is a good example of a player thinking that he is so gifted that he can put his hand out to break his fall because he thinks his hands are so good that he can control the ball with the other hand.

Most football players catch the ball with two hands and keep both hands on the ball when going to the ground.

Johnson put breaking his fall ahead of using both hands to make a legal catch and help his team win a game.

He is a talented player, but he should be less worried about breaking his fall and more worried about making the play.

It is kind of interesting to see the public reaction. A top flight player cost his team the game because he was worried about breaking his fall, and instead of teaching kids the lesson of don't be a pussy that puts breaking your fall ahead of finishing the play, we get a chorus of crybabies arguing against a correct call enforcing the established rule.

It's almost like we watched different catches. I see his entire butt hit the ground he spins over and puts his arm on the ground and immediately propels upwards. He was down when his ass hit. Just like knees, just like elbows, etc etc.

GloryDayz
09-12-2010, 09:27 PM
This is further proof that officials need to be put in a position where there is some sort of recourse against them. Some say that their own internal grading system and peer review "works", but I'd say this is proof that it doesn't. So a player ought to, maybe, be able to coldcock one after a call like that, and not be screwed over by the league. Had it not been the last play, perhaps setting up one for a nice collision would be the more PC call. But I'll bet, for some reason, that crew doesn't see another Detroit game for a long while. If the players want to show solidarity, I'd say whereever this crew is next week, both QBs find a way to setup the offending official for an unfortunate collision.. What other option do they have, the officials are too well protected?!

jettio
09-12-2010, 09:30 PM
Costas did not get it right.

He brought up freaking Dustin Johnson, another idiot who didn't know the rules ... or at least didn't take a second to realize he was about to violate them. I'm seriously tired of people defending that dude already.

The rule might be flawed, but, flawed or not, Calvin Johnson should know what it is. It would have taken no effort at all to complete the touchdown. Just keep a second hand on the ball -- not MOVE IT to the ball, just KEEP IT on the ball -- and it's a touchdown. This is on him.

And, IMO, the rule is fine. "If it looks like a touchdown," is way too subjective.

The rule is not flawed. the rule is what it is so that players know what they have to do to make a legal catch, and the officials have a clear defnition of a legal catch.

The rule is great because players know that they have to hold onto the ball all the way through.

Johnson knows the rule, he just decided that he wanted to break his fall, and that cost his team a TD that likely wins the game.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 09:31 PM
My only point is this was all preventable.

I'm not defending the rule because it's a good rule ... I'm defending the rule because it is the rule, flawed or not. And yes, I'd be irate if it was my team, because my receiver had a chance to win the game and he couldn't hold onto the ball with two hands.

yea right that wouldnt be why you would be irate your saying it now because this wont ever happen again sucks the lions will have to be the reason that refs will never make a stupid ass call lke this again

EyePod
09-12-2010, 09:31 PM
I don't see him letting the ball go, I see the ball squirting out of his hand and his fingers go into his palm after the ball goes off in a direction that he did not send it. The reason why his fingers went into his palm is because he was still trying to control the ball with his right hand, but he lost control of the ball.

This is a play where a receiver was more worried about breaking his fall than making a legal catch.

This play is a good example of a player thinking that he is so gifted that he can put his hand out to break his fall because he thinks his hands are so good that he can control the ball with the other hand.

Most football players catch the ball with two hands and keep both hands on the ball when going to the ground.

Johnson put breaking his fall ahead of using both hands to make a legal catch and help his team win a game.

He is a talented player, but he should be less worried about breaking his fall and more worried about making the play.

It is kind of interesting to see the public reaction. A top flight player cost his team the game because he was worried about breaking his fall, and instead of teaching kids the lesson of don't be a pussy that puts breaking your fall ahead of finishing the play, we get a chorus of crybabies arguing against a correct call enforcing the established rule.

Wow, you must be amazing at making split second decisions. You're the type of person who's definitely never played a sport.

For example, I had someone who never played a sport tell me that Bernard Pollard should have realized what he was doing before tackling Brady. This is not even enough time to make a decision, you just react.

I want you to go out there and try some sport that looks nice and easy on TV.

I've played volleyball since high school. My father would critique me after games saying I should have hit this direction, should have made this decision, never having played the game. Finally, about 6 years later, he actually tries it. After that first day, he called and apologized to me, saying "It just looks so much easier when you're not out there doing it."

Sports fans have to realize that it's just not as easy as it looks when you're watching it on TV.

DJ's left nut
09-12-2010, 09:33 PM
That's the exact kind of play they created the make-up call for.

There was a bunch of contact on the very next play and the officials could've easily evened it up by flipping the PI flag there. It wouldn't have been nearly as weak a penalty call as that 'incompletion' call was.

The Lions got hosed. I chuckle at the makeup call, but I've always recognized its utility. Detroit should've gotten one there.

EyePod
09-12-2010, 09:33 PM
I've gotta be honest.
I have no idea what this post means.

I feel drunk when I read it.

LOL. I was just saying that the ground caused a fumble for Randy Moss on the same play when Bernard Pollard injured Brady because Moss hadn't been contacted by a Chief yet.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 09:34 PM
That's the exact kind of play they created the make-up call for.

There was a bunch of contact on the very next play and the officials could've easily evened it up by flipping the PI flag there. It wouldn't have been nearly as weak a penalty call as that 'incompletion' call was.

The Lions got hosed. I chuckle at the makeup call, but I've always recognized its utility. Detroit should've gotten one there.

thank you i was screaming that in the bar

EyePod
09-12-2010, 09:35 PM
Didn't this same thing happen to TG two season's ago? I'm going to try and find the video of it...

Sully
09-12-2010, 09:36 PM
LOL. I was just saying that the ground caused a fumble for Randy Moss on the same play when Bernard Pollard injured Brady because Moss hadn't been contacted by a Chief yet.

Thanks.
I recognized all the words as English, but I felt like I was trying to look at one of those 3d posters.

"You dumb bastard! It's not a schooner, it's a sailboat!"

|Zach|
09-12-2010, 09:37 PM
Thanks.
I recognized all the words as English, but I felt like I was trying to look at one of those 3d posters.

"You dumb bastard! It's not a schooner, it's a sailboat!"

:LOL:

Shag
09-12-2010, 09:38 PM
The rule is not flawed. the rule is what it is so that players know what they have to do to make a legal catch, and the officials have a clear defnition of a legal catch.

The rule is great because players know that they have to hold onto the ball all the way through.

Johnson knows the rule, he just decided that he wanted to break his fall, and that cost his team a TD that likely wins the game.

If the rule is so clear, please answer:

I don't think it's that clear cut. At what point does it transition from "going to the ground" to "getting off the ground"? The way I saw it, the catch was completed when he landed on his ass, then he turned, and pushed off with the ball to get off the ground, dislodging the ball from his hand in the process. Granted, it was very quick, and he would have been better off being more deliberate, but that's what I saw.

What if he lands on his ass, sits there for a second, then turns and pushes off with the ball, dropping the ball in the process? Is that a catch?

There's a certain amount of interpretation that has to go into these things, especially in determining when the catch is completed, and I think this case was interpreted incorrectly.

If the rule is so clear, tell me exactly when a catch is "complete" when a receiver goes to the ground. What exact thing signifies that the action of making the catch is complete, and the receiver is safe to let go of the ball?

Again, tell me exactly what signifies that the "landing" is complete, and thus the catch is complete. What specific thing indicates it's okay for the receiver to let go of the ball?

leviw
09-12-2010, 09:39 PM
yea right that wouldnt be why you would be irate your saying it now because this wont ever happen again sucks the lions will have to be the reason that refs will never make a stupid ass call lke this again

You do realize the refs made the right call, right?

This guy even knows it:

Lions coach Jim Schwartz said the officials got it right.
"The rule is if you're going to the ground in the process of making the catch you need to finish with the football," he said. "He didn't finish with the football.

EyePod
09-12-2010, 09:39 PM
Thanks.
I recognized all the words as English, but I felt like I was trying to look at one of those 3d posters.

"You dumb bastard! It's not a schooner, it's a sailboat!"

Just wait until the gamethread tomorrow and I've been drinking since 3pm... I took off Monday/Tuesday just for this MNF game....

EyePod
09-12-2010, 09:41 PM
You do realize the refs made the right call, right?

This guy even knows it:

Lions coach Jim Schwartz said the officials got it right.
"The rule is if you're going to the ground in the process of making the catch you need to finish with the football," he said. "He didn't finish with the football.

Doesn't apply. He went to the ground completely first, then the ball popped out. If he had fallen face first and the ball hit the ground first, then of course. But nope, he hit the ground with part's below his waist and THEN the ball came out.

leviw
09-12-2010, 09:42 PM
Wow, you must be amazing at making split second decisions. You're the type of person who's definitely never played a sport.

....

I've played volleyball since high school.

So neither have you?

Buehler445
09-12-2010, 09:43 PM
All of these rules need to have a common sense factor, that seems to be lost in numerous rules in the NFL today. Life in general

Fixed !

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 09:43 PM
You do realize the refs made the right call, right?

This guy even knows it:

Lions coach Jim Schwartz said the officials got it right.
"The rule is if you're going to the ground in the process of making the catch you need to finish with the football," he said. "He didn't finish with the football.

you do realize that this call was the wrong call right and you do realize he was probably just trying to save himself from being fined for showing emotion in a press conference ..he would have gotten fined for going off on the stupid ass refs like he should have ..Johnson should have beat the shit out of every ref on the field..i forgot that you cant use the ball to get up after you score

leviw
09-12-2010, 09:49 PM
you do realize that this call was the wrong call right and you do realize he was probably just trying to save himself from being fined for showing emotion in a press conference ..he would have gotten fined for going off on the stupid ass refs like he should have ..Johnson should have beat the shit out of every ref on the field..i forgot that you cant use the ball to get up after you score

So Schwartz knew it was the wrong call, but instead of standing up for his team which has sucked ass for nearly two decades and proving he has their back no matter what -- all in fear of a meager fine -- he decided to say the refs made the right call. Not "no comment," not "I'm not going to talk about it" -- neither of which would have resulted in a fine -- but they were right?

Sure.

jettio
09-12-2010, 09:52 PM
If the rule is so clear, please answer:

He did not push off the ball because he was trying to get up. He was still trying to control the ball with his right hand when he lost control of the ball. His fingers went into his palms because he was trying to maintain grip and he lost grip.

Earlier, he took one hand off the ball because he wanted to use it to break his fall.

The is no extra special rule that says the rule about catching the football goes out the window because some fall-breaking pussy from the Detroit Lions is not able to control the ball with one hand.

EyePod
09-12-2010, 09:52 PM
So neither have you?

I played football. I understand that those split second decisions that we end up taking for granted the plays that are analyzed in slow motion over and over again. The players don't conscientiously think I'm going to go celebrate now and then use the ball to get up. He just caught the ball, landed on the ground after touching another player (therefore making him DOWN in any other part of the field than the endzone), and then tried to get up to celebrate his god damned (should have been) game winning play.

It's not like when LJ took the flag and waved that shit around. I can understand that being an issue. He just got up! After being down!

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 09:54 PM
So Schwartz knew it was the wrong call, but instead of standing up for his team which has sucked ass for nearly two decades and proving he has their back no matter what -- all in fear of a meager fine -- he decided to say the refs made the right call. Not "no comment," not "I'm not going to talk about it" -- neither of which would have resulted in a fine -- but they were right?

Sure.

your right it was the complete right call he knew and the rest of the lions did too and i hope your a chiefs fan because lets see how many decades has it been since yall have won a superbowl???? guessin bout three or so right ?? we might not have as amny playoff appearencers in that time period who cares we were bout equal in blackouts last year

EyePod
09-12-2010, 09:54 PM
He did not push off the ball because he was trying to get up. He was still trying to control the ball with is right hand when he lost control of the ball. His fingers went into his palms because he was trying to maintain grip and he lost grip.

Earlier, he took one hand off the ball because he wanted to use it to break his fall.

The is no extra special rule that says the rule about catching the football goes out the window because some fall-breaking pussy from the Detroit Lions is not able to control the ball with one hand.

I'd love to see you not make that REACTIONARY move. I'm going to swing my fist at your face and you try not to blink even though you know I won't hit you. It's really hard to do, and you know it's coming. This was a split second thing where he didn't even get to think about it.

DanT
09-12-2010, 09:55 PM
I hate to rain on everybody's pity parade, but when I saw the play for the very first time, I thought, "Uh oh, he didn't hang on to the ball".

The fact is that he let the ground knock the ball out of his hands when he went down as part of the play. It's a sad way for the Lions to lose the game, but when you read the rule and watch the play, it's obvious that the referees got it right. The guys on the field got it right (the second time), and the replay official agreed.

And I don't see why everybody thinks the continuation rule is a horrible rule. If you can't hang on to the ball, you didn't catch it.

I agree. If you have control of the ball, you don't drive it into the ground with your hand on top of the ball and immediately release it. That call was exactly in accord with the rule and the rule is a good rule. If you have control of the ball, then stand up with the ball or at demonstrate control of it before you get up. Driving the ball into the ground and immediately releasing it means either one of two things:
(1) you didn't have control of the ball
or
(2) you used that control to do a flawless impersonation of a player who doesn't have control of the ball.

Sully
09-12-2010, 09:57 PM
your right it was the complete right call he knew and the rest of the lions did too and i hope your a chiefs fan because lets see how many decades has it been since yall have won a superbowl???? guessin bout three or so right ?? we might not have as amny playoff appearencers in that time period who cares we were bout equal in blackouts last year

Damn near every team's fan in the NFL can run Super Bowl smack on the Chiefs.

Sorry...Lions fan isn't one of them.

EyePod
09-12-2010, 09:57 PM
your right it was the complete right call he knew and the rest of the lions did too and i hope your a chiefs fan because lets see how many decades has it been since yall have won a superbowl???? guessin bout three or so right ?? we might not have as amny playoff appearencers in that time period who cares we were bout equal in blackouts last year

The Chiefs do have INFINITELY more Super Bowl wins and appearances than the Lions... Doesn't matter if we haven't done it recently.

leviw
09-12-2010, 09:57 PM
I played football. I understand that those split second decisions that we end up taking for granted the plays that are analyzed in slow motion over and over again. The players don't conscientiously think I'm going to go celebrate now and then use the ball to get up. He just caught the ball, landed on the ground after touching another player (therefore making him DOWN in any other part of the field than the endzone), and then tried to get up to celebrate his god damned (should have been) game winning play.

It's not like when LJ took the flag and waved that shit around. I can understand that being an issue. He just got up! After being down!

I was joking about the volleyball thing. But in general I think he "You've never played a sport" line is weak in an argument, because we accept the knowledge and opinion of a lot of sports writers, analysts and commentators who never played all the time without a second thought.

My thing is, his split second decision was to take one of his hands off the ball -- it was already on it, securing it! If he keeps the hand on it, ballgame over, Lions win, no further discussion.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 09:57 PM
He did not push off the ball because he was trying to get up. He was still trying to control the ball with his right hand when he lost control of the ball. His fingers went into his palms because he was trying to maintain grip and he lost grip.

Earlier, he took one hand off the ball because he wanted to use it to break his fall.

The is no extra special rule that says the rule about catching the football goes out the window because some fall-breaking pussy from the Detroit Lions is not able to control the ball with one hand.

man you are seriously f@cking retarded he wasnt breaking his fall and calvin johnson is a freak of nature theres not a guy on whatever team you cheer for that could hold his f@cking jock

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 09:58 PM
The Chiefs do have INFINITELY more Super Bowl wins and appearances than the Lions... Doesn't matter if we haven't done it recently.

we had a couple of championships same shit

Ugly Duck
09-12-2010, 09:59 PM
Defenders should take notice of this call. If a player catches a ball in the end zone, the defender should be able to knock him to the ground & pull the ball loose. That should satisfy the "going to the ground & losing the ball" requirement for an incompletion.

leviw
09-12-2010, 10:00 PM
we might not have as amny playoff appearencers in that time period who cares we were bout equal in blackouts last year

Fantastic sentence. On so many levels.

Ugly Duck
09-12-2010, 10:01 PM
Fantastic sentence. On so many levels.

He writes like a drunk person talks...

EyePod
09-12-2010, 10:02 PM
I agree. If you have control of the ball, you don't drive it into the ground with your hand on top of the ball and immediately release it. That call was exactly in accord with the rule and the rule is a good rule. If you have control of the ball, then stand up with the ball or at demonstrate control of it before you get up. Driving the ball into the ground and immediately releasing it means either one of two things:
(1) you didn't have control of the ball
or
(2) you used that control to do a flawless impersonation of a player who doesn't have control of the ball.

If that was in the middle of the field he would have been downed first because he was contacted, and after that, he lost control of it. It shouldn't matter. I'm just glad it wasn't the Chiefs. If something like this happens to us tomorrow night I'm going to have a coronary.

Oh, and I haven't seen anyone mention the Chargers/Broncos game 2 seasons ago... that was one where they actually said they made the wrong call. This one is at least debatable...

GloryDayz
09-12-2010, 10:03 PM
Wow, who would defend that call? It's a catch...

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 10:03 PM
Damn near every team's fan in the NFL can run Super Bowl smack on the Chiefs.

Sorry...Lions fan isn't one of them.

actually i can one superbowl in a franshise i guess thats something to brag about ..i thought the goal is to win every year not talk about your glory day with lenny dawson

Gonzo
09-12-2010, 10:04 PM
we had a couple of championships same shit

Was that before or after the great war?
Posted via Mobile Device

notorious
09-12-2010, 10:04 PM
Oh, and I haven't seen anyone mention the Chargers/Broncos game 2 seasons ago... that was one where they actually said they made the wrong call. This one is at least debatable...

Ed Bronculi manned up and admitted the mistake. I respect that.


They are glossing this over. That is bullshit.

EyePod
09-12-2010, 10:05 PM
we had a couple of championships same shit

No, yours were not Super Bowl wins.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 10:05 PM
He writes like a drunk person talks...

well i have been drinking since the game so good call ..ill try and remember to proof read

notorious
09-12-2010, 10:06 PM
I never thought I would see a Detroit fan talking smack on this board.



We went from 0 to Full Retard in about .2 seconds.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 10:06 PM
No, yours were not Super Bowl wins.

ohh yea your right compared to your 1 since ours were before the superbowl existed

Ugly Duck
09-12-2010, 10:07 PM
well i have been drinking since the game so good call ..ill try and remember to proof read

No..no... its good!

EyePod
09-12-2010, 10:07 PM
I was joking about the volleyball thing. But in general I think he "You've never played a sport" line is weak in an argument, because we accept the knowledge and opinion of a lot of sports writers, analysts and commentators who never played all the time without a second thought.

My thing is, his split second decision was to take one of his hands off the ball -- it was already on it, securing it! If he keeps the hand on it, ballgame over, Lions win, no further discussion.

He won't make this mistake again at least...

Unless he's DeSean Jackson (getting down while diving into the endzone in the Army game in High School and then as an Iggle too when he dropped the ball on the 1 yard line).

And maybe that's why I'm more bugged about it... DeSean deserves it. He's cocky as shit. Calvin isn't.

jettio
09-12-2010, 10:08 PM
I'd love to see you not make that REACTIONARY move. I'm going to swing my fist at your face and you try not to blink even though you know I won't hit you. It's really hard to do, and you know it's coming. This was a split second thing where he didn't even get to think about it.

I am not sure why you are trying to get personal, but your guess that I never played a sport is incorect considering that the Kansas City Star named my the scholar athlete for my school's graduating class and we had a lot of good athletes considering that we sent baseball and basketball teams to the state final four and football teams to the district playoffs.

During my time playing football, I made plenty of catches and I never made any split second decisions to let go of the ball so that I could break my fall, I needed both hands to secure the ball.

Maybe you should call your dad and talk about dodgeball instead of making silly guesses about people.

EyePod
09-12-2010, 10:09 PM
actually i can one superbowl in a franshise i guess thats something to brag about ..i thought the goal is to win every year not talk about your glory day with lenny dawson

At least we have glory days.

Dayze
09-12-2010, 10:09 PM
Defenders should take notice of this call. If a player catches a ball in the end zone, the defender should be able to knock him to the ground & pull the ball loose. That should satisfy the "going to the ground & losing the ball" requirement for an incompletion.

^ that.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 10:10 PM
At least we have glory days.
well we have 4 championships before superbowls existed thats kind of glory days

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 10:11 PM
At least we have glory days.

and we can both enjoy our blackouts together this year and bask in all of our glory

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 10:12 PM
I am not sure why you are trying to get personal, but your guess that I never played a sport is incorect considering that the Kansas City Star named my the scholar athlete for my school's graduating class and we had a lot of good athletes considering that we sent baseball and basketball teams to the state final four and football teams to the district playoffs.

During my time playing football, I made plenty of catches and I never made any split second decisions to let go of the ball so that I could break my fall, I needed both hands to secure the ball.

Maybe you should call your dad and talk about dodgeball instead of making silly guesses about people.

yet again your mistaken he was already getting up not breaking his fall

EyePod
09-12-2010, 10:13 PM
I am not sure why you are trying to get personal, but your guess that I never played a sport is incorect considering that the Kansas City Star named my the scholar athlete for my school's graduating class and we had a lot of good athletes considering that we sent baseball and basketball teams to the state final four and football teams to the district playoffs.

During my time playing football, I made plenty of catches and I never made any split second decisions to let go of the ball so that I could break my fall, I needed both hands to secure the ball.

Maybe you should call your dad and talk about dodgeball instead of making silly guesses about people.

Didn't say anything personal. Sorry you got your panties in a bunch.

My point was that it's not an actual decision. It's just a reaction. He didn't think, OH, I SHOULD BREAK MY FALL! He had complete control of that ball in one hand and then landed on the ground, and THEN the ball hit the ground and he lost it.

I didn't realize that he needs to make a football move in the endzone to have possession...

EyePod
09-12-2010, 10:14 PM
yet again your mistaken he was already getting up not breaking his fall

And I'm agreeing with you so back off! :)

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 10:15 PM
And I'm agreeing with you so back off! :)

ohh sorry been drinking still a little pissed read it wrong

Ugly Duck
09-12-2010, 10:18 PM
Sorry you got your panties in a bunch.



http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r30/ultragig/Pantiesinabunch.jpg

DanT
09-12-2010, 10:20 PM
Same thing that I said the second I saw it:

If it looks like a TD but the rule says it isn't, maybe it's time to take another look at the rule. The rules should serve the game, not have the game serve the rules.

I've watched and played in a lot of football games and that didn't look like a catch to me. A necessary condition for a catch to look like a catch is that there's little if any doubt that the ground was used to help complete the catch.

When I was growing up, baseball and football players who had control of the ball would not drive the ball into the ground with their hand on TOP of the ball and then immediately release it. The reason why you wouldn't do that is that it would be indistinguishable from an incompletion. Rules are supposed to be based on objective criteria. You're not supposed to guess if a player who just completed an action that was objectively indistinguishable from an incomplete pass had control of the ball. If you have control of the ball, you don't behave with it as if you don't.
It's a good rule and the NFL isn't going to change it just because some fans think that they grew up watching athletes driving footballs into the ground with their sole "controlling" hand on top of the ball and immediately releasing it. I don't ever recall seeing such an action being called a TD. Players who have control of the ball and of their minds make a point of demonstrating that they can keep the ball OFF of the ground.

EyePod
09-12-2010, 10:21 PM
ohh sorry been drinking still a little pissed read it wrong

Haha, np. I agree with you though. It was a catch, and he landed on his ass, and then the ball popped out.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 10:24 PM
[QUOTE=DanT;6997502]I've watched and played in a lot of football games and that didn't look like a catch to me. A necessary condition for a catch to look like a catch is that there's little if any doubt that the ground was used to help complete the catch.

When I was growing up, baseball and football players who had control of the ball would not drive the ball into the ground with their hand on TOP of the ball and then immediately release it. The reason why you wouldn't do that is that it would be indistinguishable from an incompletion. Rules are supposed to be based on objective criteria. You're not supposed to guess if a player who just completed an action that was objectively indistinguishable from an incomplete pass had control of the ball. If you have control of the ball, you don't behave with it as if you don't.
It's a good rule and the NFL isn't going to change it just because some fans think that they grew up watching athletes driving footballs into the ground with their sole "controlling" hand on top of the ball and immediately releasing it. I don't ever recall seeing such an action being called a TD. Players who have control of the ball and of their minds make a point of demonstrating that they can keep the ball OFF of the ground.[/QUOTE

if you dont call that a catch you must be talking about playing soccer

EyePod
09-12-2010, 10:25 PM
I've watched and played in a lot of football games and that didn't look like a catch to me. A necessary condition for a catch to look like a catch is that there's little if any doubt that the ground was used to help complete the catch.

When I was growing up, baseball and football players who had control of the ball would not drive the ball into the ground with their hand on TOP of the ball and then immediately release it. The reason why you wouldn't do that is that it would be indistinguishable from an incompletion. Rules are supposed to be based on objective criteria. You're not supposed to guess if a player who just completed an action that was objectively indistinguishable from an incomplete pass had control of the ball. If you have control of the ball, you don't behave with it as if you don't.
It's a good rule and the NFL isn't going to change it just because some fans think that they grew up watching athletes driving footballs into the ground with their sole "controlling" hand on top of the ball and immediately releasing it. I don't ever recall seeing such an action being called a TD. Players who have control of the ball and of their minds make a point of demonstrating that they can keep the ball OFF of the ground.

My point is that the rule doesn't apply.

The rule that was posted earlier only talked about the player bobbling and then the ball hitting the ground. This was not the case. The ground caused him to lose control of the ball after he maintained possession when he was falling.

jettio
09-12-2010, 10:25 PM
Wow, you must be amazing at making split second decisions. You're the type of person who's definitely never played a sport.

For example, I had someone who never played a sport tell me that Bernard Pollard should have realized what he was doing before tackling Brady. This is not even enough time to make a decision, you just react.

I want you to go out there and try some sport that looks nice and easy on TV.

I've played volleyball since high school. My father would critique me after games saying I should have hit this direction, should have made this decision, never having played the game. Finally, about 6 years later, he actually tries it. After that first day, he called and apologized to me, saying "It just looks so much easier when you're not out there doing it."

Sports fans have to realize that it's just not as easy as it looks when you're watching it on TV.

You're that type of person that guesses at facts about somebody and then conclude that you have not posted anything personal.

Seem like your method of disagreeing about this is to decide that you are an elite athlete like Calvin Johnson and that non-elite athletes should not criticize Johnson's pussified move to break his fall because your dad is worse at volleyball than you are.

Now you want to bring up panties. Okay, go ahead tell us the story about mommy and the panties and monday night football.

EyePod
09-12-2010, 10:29 PM
Here's a better explanation than I was able to put together, but it's still what I was saying:

http://www.fantasyfootballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=473266

Conclusion first:

The league is not applying the continuation rule correctly. The rule was never intended to, nor does it, change the definition of legal possession itself. The rule was intended to force receivers to have their feet in-bounds, eliminating the force-out rule. Calvin Johnson had possession of the ball in the end zone, and therefore he scored a touchdown. Any subsequent loss of possession is irrelevant.

Argument 1: Did Johnson have possession?

The NFL defines possession as:
Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.

The continuation rule adds:
A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds

The replay clearly shows that Johnson secured the ball before he hit the ground. Therefore, he had possession of the ball.

A touchdown is defined as:
Touchdown: When any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, breaks the plane of the opponent’s goal line, provided it is not a touchback.

If we accept that Johnson secured the ball before he hit the ground, then you must also accept that it was a touchdown and the play is dead, rendering any subsequent loss of possession irrelevant.

Argument 2: Application of the continuation rule:

The biggest misinterpretation (perhaps by the league itself) is that the continuation rule does not alter the definition of possession. It defines when a loose (juggled) ball cannot be legally completed. The ball was not loose when Johnson touched the ground. The continuation rule does not apply because Johnson already secured the ball before he hit the ground.

The 2009 version of the continuation rule is:

"A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.

"If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."

"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by a defender) must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

"If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception or recovery."


If you follow the letter of the law, the rule does not apply to Johnson's catch. Johnson was not in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball. He already was in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds.

In fact, a closer examination of the rule reveals that the word "inbounds" is included three times. In fact, I remember when the rule was first introduced, the rule was intended to apply to catches near the out-of-bounds line. The league was concerned with receivers jumping and catching the ball, and being slammed by DBs. That was the safety concern. The other problem with the force-out rule was that it was very difficult to determine if a reciever had possession of the ball inbounds on those plays, since the receiver's feet were in the air. The rule was intended to eliminate force-outs.

What the rule says is that you must have both feet (or be downed otherwise) in bounds with possession before going out of bounds. It does not change the rules of legal possession.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 10:30 PM
[QUOTE=jettio;6997519]You're that type of person that guesses at facts about somebody and then conclude that you have not posted anything personal.

Seem like your method of disagreeing about this is to decide that you are an elite athlete like Calvin Johnson and that non-elite athletes should not criticize Johnson's pussified move to break his fall because your dad is worse at volleyball than you are.

Now you want to bring up panties. Okay, go ahead tell us the story about mommy and the panties and monday night football.[/QUOT

its still funny that you think he tryed to break his fall lol watch the video again idiot

Shag
09-12-2010, 10:30 PM
He did not push off the ball because he was trying to get up. He was still trying to control the ball with his right hand when he lost control of the ball. His fingers went into his palms because he was trying to maintain grip and he lost grip.

Earlier, he took one hand off the ball because he wanted to use it to break his fall.

The is no extra special rule that says the rule about catching the football goes out the window because some fall-breaking pussy from the Detroit Lions is not able to control the ball with one hand.

So you can't answer my question? Got it. If you can't define what constitutes the ending of the catching action, then how can you possibly determine if a receiver possesses the ball through the end of the catch? It's a judgement call, like many other rules, and they made the incorrect judgement.

And LOL at "his fingers went into his palms". Of course he was gripping the ball - he swung the ball around his body, then planted it to push off of. Try doing that without gripping the ball.

DanT
09-12-2010, 10:34 PM
So you can't answer my question? Got it. If you can't define what constitutes the ending of the catching action, then how can you possibly determine if a receiver possesses the ball through the end of the catch? It's a judgement call, like many other rules, and they made the incorrect judgement.

And LOL at "his fingers went into his palms". Of course he was gripping the ball - he swung the ball around his body, then planted it to push off of. Try doing that without gripping the ball.


Why should it be a judgment call? If you have control of the ball, you need to use that control to behave in such a way that leaves no doubt. The completion of a catch in football should never have to be a judgment call. That pass doesn't even look like an unambiguous catch in slow motion. It looks like a player taking the ball and having it land directly onto the ground. What the hell kind of control does that show? A judgment call. Are you serious? You think that whether a pass is complete or incomplete should be a judgment call?

Shag
09-12-2010, 10:39 PM
Why should it be a judgment call? If you have control of the ball, you need to use that control to behave in such a way that leaves no doubt. The completion of a catch in football should never have to be a judgment call. That pass doesn't even look like an unambiguous catch in slow motion. It looks like a player taking the ball and having it land directly onto the ground. What the hell kind of control does that show? A judgment call. Are you serious? You think that whether a pass is complete or incomplete should be a judgment call?

Tell me, explicitly, what constitutes the end of "making a catch". What specifically determines when a receiver can let go of the ball?

And the CJ play looks like the ball lands directly on the ground? Have you even seen the play?

jettio
09-12-2010, 10:39 PM
[QUOTE=jettio;6997519]You're that type of person that guesses at facts about somebody and then conclude that you have not posted anything personal.

Seem like your method of disagreeing about this is to decide that you are an elite athlete like Calvin Johnson and that non-elite athletes should not criticize Johnson's pussified move to break his fall because your dad is worse at volleyball than you are.

Now you want to bring up panties. Okay, go ahead tell us the story about mommy and the panties and monday night football.[/QUOT

its still funny that you think he tryed to break his fall lol watch the video again idiot

Did he keep both hands on the ball through the catch?

Why not?

EyePod
09-12-2010, 10:40 PM
Well, according to the NFL rule guy here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7QwZCIwMyc

He says that after you hit the ground you still must maintain possession. The rule does not agree with him, but maybe that was the intention...

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 10:43 PM
Why should it be a judgment call? If you have control of the ball, you need to use that control to behave in such a way that leaves no doubt. The completion of a catch in football should never have to be a judgment call. That pass doesn't even look like an unambiguous catch in slow motion. It looks like a player taking the ball and having it land directly onto the ground. What the hell kind of control does that show? A judgment call. Are you serious? You think that whether a pass is complete or incomplete should be a judgment call?

think you were watching the wrong game

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 10:44 PM
[QUOTE=barry_smilez20;6997540]

Did he keep both hands on the ball through the catch?

Why not?

ohh ya i forgot you cant make one handed catches stupid me

EyePod
09-12-2010, 10:45 PM
[quote=barry_smilez20;6997540]

Did he keep both hands on the ball through the catch?

Why not?

Look, we're not trying to argue the things he could have done to make it an easier call.

We're trying to decide if, according to the rules, it was a TD with what actually happened. He did not keep both hands on the ball, but this is unnecessary for a TD.

DanT
09-12-2010, 10:48 PM
Just to be clear about what my opinion is, I do believe that in slow motion it very much looks like the receiver has control of the ball, although there's still ambiguity in whether there's a "catch" by the fuzzy rules of football fans. By the clearcut rules of the NFL, there's no doubt about whether this was a "catch". It wasn't. Good call and good rule.

barry_smilez20
09-12-2010, 10:50 PM
Just to be clear about what my opinion is, I do believe that in slow motion it very much looks like the receiver has control of the ball, although there's still ambiguity in whether there's a "catch" by the fuzzy rules of football fans. By the clearcut rules of the NFL, there's no doubt about whether this was a "catch". It wasn't. Good call and good rule.

horrible call horrible rule the refs decided the game we should just let them play next year during the lock out out

Wallcrawler
09-12-2010, 10:53 PM
He caught the ball with 2 hands, moved it to one hand, his knee hits the ground.

Play over.

TD.

Besides, how the F do you not have control of a football, if you are clearly grasping it in one hand?

EyePod
09-12-2010, 10:54 PM
Just to be clear about what my opinion is, I do believe that in slow motion it very much looks like the receiver has control of the ball, although there's still ambiguity in whether there's a "catch" by the fuzzy rules of football fans. By the clearcut rules of the NFL, there's no doubt about whether this was a "catch". It wasn't. Good call and good rule.

I still don't understand how it's perfectly clear. If he had sat there for a half second on his ass first, and then gotten up this wouldn't be an issue. It's just that everything happened so quickly. The ball was controlled in his one hand and he landed, spun around and then the ball came out when he hit the ground. I still say, according to the NFL rules, it's a catch.

Either way, CJ better hand that ball to the fucking ref after every god damned reception from now on. Oh, and DBowe better do it too.

EyePod
09-12-2010, 10:55 PM
He caught the ball with 2 hands, moved it to one hand, his knee hits the ground.

Play over.

TD.

Besides, how the F do you not have control of a football, if you are clearly grasping it in one hand?

Yeah, it's not like he bobbled it and then the ball hit the ground....

cdcox
09-12-2010, 10:56 PM
Just to be clear about what my opinion is, I do believe that in slow motion it very much looks like the receiver has control of the ball, although there's still ambiguity in whether there's a "catch" by the fuzzy rules of football fans. By the clearcut rules of the NFL, there's no doubt about whether this was a "catch". It wasn't. Good call and good rule.

Can you hit a WR who's knees are on the ground by contact? He hasn't completed the catch yet.

Or is there an effective fair catch rule for a receiver where you can't touch him while he is in the process of catching it if he is down by contact?

DanT
09-12-2010, 10:59 PM
Can you hit a WR who's knees are on the ground by contact? He hasn't completed the catch yet.

Or is there an effective fair catch rule for a receiver where you can't touch him while he is in the process of catching it if he is down by contact?

As far as I know, the moment that a WR has made any contact with the ball, he can be hit to stop the completion from happening. I never heard of a WR getting a "don't hit me shield" simply because his knees are on the ground.