Bengals Jermaine Gresham's catch/no catch

[Deberg_1990]

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

[Spott]

Definitily a catch. The Calvin Johnson rule is reeruned.

[Bowser]

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?

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by Bowser

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.

[Chiefnj2]

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

[Bowser]

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

[FAX]

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

[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

[KC native]

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

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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".

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.

[orange]

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.

[petegz28]

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?

[petegz28]

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

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by KC native

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

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

[orange]

Originally Posted by petegz28

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?

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.

[dtebbe]

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