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

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

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

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

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by tooge

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?

A metric **** tonne of THIS

[Hydrae]

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?

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

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

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

[Molitoth]

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.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by tooge

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?

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.

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

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

I agree completely, the rule is dumb as shit.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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

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".

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by tooge

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?

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.

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by lcarus

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.

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by Molitoth

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.

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

[carlos3652]

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?

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by carlos3652

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.

[MahiMike]

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.

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by MahiMike

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.