Bengals Jermaine Gresham's catch/no catch
 

How was this not a catch?? THe NFL needs to change their rules....




http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com...n-johnson-rule



The "Calvin Johnson Rule" reared its ugly head again, this time in Baltimore's 31-24 win over Cincinnati in Week 11.

There's much debate surrounding the sequence of TE Jermaine Gresham's catch/no catch that would have brought the game to 31-28 with 5:35 left in the fourth quarter.

Sometimes, the ruling on the field is not well-explained, but it is still the correct call.



That appears to be the case here.

As it's written, the receiver must maintain possession after he hits the ground. The Calvin Johnson Rule is particularly controversial in end zone situations, but it applies everywhere on the field. It earned its name after Johnson, a receiver for the Detroit Lions, caught a pass in the end zone, but let the ball go before he stopped sliding on the ground. It was a highly controversial call, but according to the rules, the correct one.

Gresham originally touched the ball at about the 2-yard-line. He bobbled it toward the front pylon, and did not appear to have possession of the ball until the ball was just at the goal line.

Because of that, Gresham technically caught the ball in the end zone, therefore, he must maintain possession of it after he hits the ground. That's the main issue. There's no question he did not maintain possession when he goes to the ground, but if he was a runner on the play, it should have been called a touchdown. And the ball could not have been more than an inch or two over the line. It's hard to say it even was, but it was certainly close enough to suggest the call could fairly go either way.

While Ravens fans will likely praise the call, and Bengals fans will decry it, it could have gone either way. The ball was so close to the goal line, and without a replay from a camera that is flush with the goal line, it's extremely difficult to see if the ball does break the plane of the end zone when Gresham establishes possession

I knew they'd get it wrong as soon as they went under the hood.

This rule is !@#$ing stupid.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GtF_rIK8IHk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm not a huge fan of the NFL anymore. I used to watch every game I could. Now, I watch the Chiefs and maybe parts of another game or two each week, but it really doesn't interest me much. The rules are so ridiculous that it isn't worth my time.

NFL games are generally so close that one call can easily change the outcome of a game, and there are so many terrible rules/calls that the officials are more important than any player on the field besides the QBs.

Wow. He got ****ed on that one.

The real concern here is that people think it is a good idea to point a video camera at their tv and then put the horrendous output up on youtube.

I'm the same way. I'll watch the Chiefs, and then go one with my day. Or, just put it on NFL Redzone (or whatever it's call), and do chores etc.

I hated that call. That's so against the spirit of football. He caught that pass. It was a great football play.

The rule is completely terrible, but it was ruled correctly.

I don't like the fact that a different rule applies if the ball is caught in the endzone as opposed to the 2 yard line.

I have thought for years that if you have replay, you MUST have a goal line camera. Too many games don't have a good side view of the goal line.

TD imo.

That's bullshit. That rule should be changed. That was a TD as soon as he crossed the goal line.

what is bs asbout the rule is the inconsistency of it and how the general purpose of the ruld makes no sense. For example, why can you jump over the pile into the endzone, cross the plane, then have the ball knocked out, and it's still a td?

I had no idea how that could not be a touchdown.

The problem was he didn't have clear possession of the pass as he was starting to hit the goal line.

A metric **** tonne of THIS

IMO, he caught the ball, took 3 steps (one out of bounds) before going to the ground. I also feel he made a football move and it should have counted. How many steps does it take before it is considered a catch?

Ehhh......I'd argue that he did....but theres no point in arguing. It's a dumb ****ing rule.

The rule should be changed to "a fumble is a fumble" no matter if it has crossed the goal line or not. If you fumble in the end zone and another team recovers, it's a touchback.
If you fumble in the end zone and the ball goes out of the end zone.... place the ball back at the 1 yard line or something.

Agreed. If they're saying the play is over the instant the ball crosses the goal line, then this is a touchdown.

Maybe they should go back to the old rules where you have to touch the ball to the turf while you're holding it. I always thought that looked cool in the old clips, and it would definitely be my touchdown celebration if I was a pro player. Great nod to the history of the game.

I agree completely, the rule is dumb as shit.

No. You need to establish possession. To establish possession on a catch requires control of the ball and a football move, or all the way to the ground etc. Otherwise, a 10th of a second "catch" that is knocked out of the receiver's hands is a TD.

That's the difference between a player who has established possession before he hits the goal line (receiver who previously established possession and is running down the field, or a RB who takes the handoff) and a player who is still working to establish possession on the "catch".

Because as soon as the ball touches the goal line, the play is over and it's a TD, but I do agree that the receiving rules are stupid. IMO, if you catch the ball, establish possession with 2 feet in bounds, it shouldn't matter if you fall down afterwards and lose the ball after hitting the ground.

But in reeruned rules sense, it could be argued that he didn't have complete control of the football as he was crossing the goal line since he was shifting it from one hand to the other. In that case, since he didn't have clear possession as the ball was crossing the line, he'd have to maintain possession all the way through.

This is one of those wonderful "completion of the process" situations.

Nah, the second the ball touches the goal line, the play is over. Touchdown.

What i dont understand though, is the fact that once the player caught the ball, two feet in, football move, touched by an opposing player, across the plane, goes out of bounds, then the ground causes the ball to come loose... how is that not ruled

a) a td
b) a touchback

how is it incomplete?

It should be a TD. It was clear he possessed the ball with 2 feet inbounds.

It couldn't be a touchback, because in order for that to happen the receiver would have needed to have possession of the ball and fumble it before crossing the goal line, and the ball would have needed to go into the end zone and out of bounds. In this case, they're saying he never had possession, so no fumble. If they said he had possession, it would have been a TD because he crossed the goal line with possession.

Catch! Definitely a catch. Cinci got screwed. Basically, the refs made the wrong call for Detroit couple years ago so now they have to continue to make the wrong call to stay consistent.

Yep, and if they gave the Bengals that Gresham TD, they would have just needed a FG to tie at the end there, and they were well in range. NFL rules are just awful now.

Definitily a catch. The Calvin Johnson rule is reeruned.

So if he makes that catch in the middle of the endzone and bobbles it a few times before putting it away, is it a no catch or touchdown?

Touchdown. The difference between that example and this was Jermaine Gresham eventually lost control of the ball when he was going to the ground.

If the "possession all the way through the catch" rule was changed there would be many more questionable calls.

However you dice it up, the Bengals clearly got ****ed on that play.

This rule thing has gotten out of hand.

The NFL has gone off their rocker, man.

They have tossed the fruitcake.

Spent their marbles.

Slept on the deck in their hat.

FAX

Was that play where the defender guy touched the ball while he had one toe out of bounds but the receiver guy caught the ball and had possession before he went out of bounds but they called it incomplete because the defender guy touched the ball against us?

FAX

yea, should have been a touchdown and we should have drafted Andy Dalton. that is all.

We're not going to listen to the opinion of someone who is a fan of a team that gets every ****ing call in their favor every game.

Before it can be a touchdown, it has to be a catch - a completed pass. And that means he has to hold it when he hits the ground. Where he is on the field doesn't matter.

OP: "it applies everywhere on the field" This is correct.

The OP then contradicts itself "Because of that, Gresham technically caught the ball in the end zone, therefore, he must maintain possession of it after he hits the ground." WRONG! Only the non-struck part is correct, the rest is just muddle.

If you have control at any point then it should be ruled a catch. I don't understand how you can demonstrate control then suddenly lose control resulting in an incompletion?

Ands that is SO a TD it's not even funny. He had control and crossed the goalline.

He would of been ****ed if Pioli drafted him.

Translation: you don't understand - or accept - the rules. I'm sure the NFL will endure.

p.s. it was not a catch, not a touchdown, and the Bengals lost. C'est la vie.

IMHO if you have to control it after you hit the ground on a pass, the same thing should go when you are rushing.

IMHO if you put the ball out there on a lollypop when you are diving over the pile on the goal line and someone swats the ball out before you are down, that should be a fumble. (especially if you are going to enforce this ridiculous "Calvin Johnson" rule. Don't care if you break the plane or not.

DT

Just because you can quote Frenchie talk doesn't make you right.

FAX

Maybe not, but Jean Leroux agrees with me.

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/Ac...1878-16450.jpg