Besides, you still won’t admit that you’re player made a bonehead play. Can you at least admit that he should have put the ball away instead of trying to brace himself with the ball?!?
I understand being loyal to your team, but to refuse to think that your player could possibly have done something stupid? Redefines homerism.
I’m not sure if I’ve suddenly had a massive hormonal imbalance or what, but my god it seems like people are really being dicks about this. I barely give a shit about the NFL at all these days, but if I want to talk about the interpretation of a rule I have to deal with accusations that I’m somehow invested in the NFL’s image? What the fuck, seriously?
The problem is that Calvin Johnson - probably voluntarily - conducted himself in a way that was indistinguishable from a player who hit the ground, rolled over, and dropped a pass. When a guy hits the ground, rolls, and drops the pass, it’s an incompletion. I doubt that anybody here even wants that to be a completion across the board, because almost all of the time, the guy drops the ball because he never had it. In this case, it seems unfair because it seemed so obvious that CJ could have completed the fall and held on to the ball. But he didn’t. He could have thrown the ball into the stands (which would have made clear that he was finished falling and was in total control). He could have spiked it. He could have laid on his back and held the ball to his crotch and airfucked it for 20 minutes. He didn’t do any of those things - what he did was drop the ball while his body was still at the tail end of the momentum of the original catch.
So what the fuck are you going to do about that if you’re the ref? The rule is really clear about that point. It would have been “fair” to call it a touchdown, based on CJ clearly beating his man and clearly doing the hard part of the catch, but what he in fact did was exactly the same as dropping the ball and it says right in the rule what you’re supposed to do about it. So the ref said he dropped the ball, which is actually his job. At what point does some kind of grand faith-based conspiracy enter this discussion?
For all the people who say things like this used to be a catch, I’ve went to the trouble of finding the Bert Emanuel catch (actually ruled an incomplete pass).
Before the 2000 season (back in Herman Moore’s heyday) it wasn’t a catch if the receiver let the ball touch the ground. If we roll things back to old school NFL rules, Megatron still didn’t catch it.
I may have missed a few but at a quick glance I think this question was answered in posts 21, 22, 57, 81, 84 (in a quote from the Lions’ coach), 98, 111, and 124. Also the linked video in post 24 has an NFL ref going over specific instances where this rule is applied to both catches and non-catches.
But to answer it one more time
Q: At what point after the player hits the ground does the catch become legal?
A: When he is done hitting the ground.
I had no idea that you were in agreement with me.
I can’t quote the NFL Rule Book chapter and verse (appearantly you can) I just know the interpretation the play that carried the day defies common sense. 1 other thing, you seem to agree with the NFL that quarterbacks are the only players entitled to rules keeping them from incurring serious injuries.
It makes perfect sense and is called like that all the time.
Imagine a player dives forward to catch the ball. It clearly lands in his hands. He then belly-flops onto the turf and the ball pops out.
That a catch to you? Never has been in any game I have ever seen.
This is essentially no different. Whether the guy flies through the air for 5 seconds (part superman) or one second makes no difference even though he has the ball the whole time. Whether his feet then knees then hips then belly all contact the turf before his hands do makes no difference. That would be an incomplete pass.
He was a changed man. He wasn’t as good a quarterback as he used to be. This season he may get the chance to completely revert.
Whack-a-Mole ITA your scenario isn’t a legit catch. BUt that’s very different from Cal’s situation.
can you explain when, exactly, you consider Calvin’s fall to be over? When was the fall complete?
Why?
Please spell it out for me between the two and point out where the difference is and how a NFL rule would distinguish between the two.
In the belly flop case, he doesn’t demonstrate control to the degree Johnson did.
Control is measured in degrees in the NFL? What percentage of control equals a catch in your view?
I’m pretty sure demonstrating control is a binary value, yes or no. Either he did when he hit the ground, or he didn’t. I mean how would you measure the degree of control anyway?
The NFL has very specifically spelled out what control is in the case of falling catches. Calvin didn’t meet that definition. Accept it. Just because you can’t rationalize why the NFL chose to make this distinction and write it very specifically doesn’t make it an ambiguous NFL rule. The rule is very clear and concise, moreso than most NFL rules such as holding and pass interference for example, and unfortunately for the Lions their star player didn’t seem heed this. It would have been a dramatic play and given fans of the lovable losers warm fuzzies. Johnson’s lack of care in this situation is very excusable and understandable, people don’t want to vilify the guy for something that could have happened to anyone in the heat of the moment. He isn’t Leon Lett. None of that changes the fact that he quite clearly lost control of the ball before completing the process of catching the ball, which the NFL has pretty clearly and repeatedly described as a player falling and maintaining control of the ball until his fall/tackle is complete.
This rule has been one of the most widely discussed and emphasized rules over the last 2 seasons. It has come up over and over again on the biggest stages the NFL has. People pleading ignorance of it either watch very little football or are having selective hearing in order to support the outcome they wish for.
The rule, as can be easily shown, is extremely unclear, and in fact a strictly literal interpretation leads to calling it a catch.
“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.”
By this rule, he had possession. He had control of the ball with both feet on the ground.
The rule the non-catch supporters are using begins:
“A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball…”
Stop right there. Note the words “in the process of attempting to secure possession.”
Strictly speaking, he was not attempting to secure possession. He already HAD possession.
Now, that may not be how the rules are enforced, but that is what they say.
You’re forgetting this part:
“A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds.”
What part of Johnson going down would you call in control? He was holding the ball yes but control? No way. He was distinctly out of control and at the whim of momentum.
I should apply a caveat to this:
Looking at the play it is quite possible Johnson did have control of the ball inasmuch as despite flailing around he could have pulled the ball in and cradled it rather than hold it in one hand and plop it on the ground.
My impression is he probably thought putting the ball down like that was sufficient for the TD. Dumb mistake on his part.
Thing is the Refs are not mind readers who can figure what the player might have done. They have to call it on the empirical evidence of what did happen which has Johnson losing the ball thus not displaying control.
Whether that was just stupidity on his part or he really lacked control I’ll leave to you. Either way in the NFL that is not a catch.
This definition only applies to people standing (or running) on the ground. It does not apply to catching a ball in the air. That is covered by Note 1: Going to the ground.
You misunderstand. The rule isn’t saying IF a receiver is attempting to secure possession. It is explaining HOW you secure possession. All catches involve “attempting to secure possession.” For example, if you catch a ball while one of your feet is out of bounds, you havent secured possession. Similarly, if you catch the ball in the air and then drop it when you hit the ground, you haven’t secured possession.
Someone asked how long you hve to hold it. Until the kinetic energy from the fall is no longer moving your body.
I think you are being confused by the extremely poor wording of the rule.
Johnson was not in control of whether or not he fell, but he was in control of the ball, and that is what the word is referring to.
He did lose control of the ball when his hand hit the ground, but he clearly had “firm grip and control” of the ball with both feet on the ground earlier.
That isn’t what the rule says.
It doesn’t say “if a ball is caught in the air…”
It says “A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball…”
By the previous rule, Johnson already had possession, and therefore was not in the process of attempting to secure possession. The going to the ground rule does not apply.
That’s exactly what it says. The only way to “go to the ground” is if you aren’t already on the ground. Otherwise known as “in the air.”
The rule is clearly confusing to you. It is crystal clear to me, just like it is to every ref in the NFL.
Maybe, maybe not.
But if it is clear, it is not because of the written rule itself. It is because of experience in how it is enforced, along with talking about how to enforce it.
The rule itself, as written, is decidedly unclear. Literally applying the rule results in a catch, but I am willing to accept that it isn’t applied that way.