It is all part of a single act.
Was there anytime Johnson could have done something else? That he had possession and could have run or dove or something (not that he needed to but could he have)?
He did not have control.
Again imagine the player diving for a catch. The ball could clearly be in his hands. When he lands it pops out. Not a catch.
Again, the rule only states “control of the ball”.
It never states “control of his body so that he could run or dive or something”.
No, I don’t think he could have run, but he clearly had “firm grip and control of the ball” which is what the rule requires.
Precisely. Because in this case the going to the ground rule applies.
In your example, the player is not touching the ground with both feet when he controls the ball. He is in the air. Therefore the first rule does not apply, and he does not have possession yet. As soon as he touches the ground it pops out. Not a catch.
Johnson, however, already had possession because he WAS touching the ground with both feet while controlling the ball. The going to the ground rule does not apply.
What do “feet” have to do with anything here? The rule talks about feet only to determine if the ball is in-bounds or not.
Define “control” for me.
As mentioned the diving catch player could be in “control” of the ball while flying through the air. When he lands it pops out…lost control, not a catch.
The rule does not state “could run or dive or something” but I think that implication is clear. “Control” implies that, well, you have control such that you can do things (not that you have to but that you could). Johnson never had control in a way that he could have done anything else but crash to the ground…same as the diving player.
“Control” does not simply mean “it is in my hands at some point” in football.
I think the issue here is that Johnson almost certainly could have pulled the ball in. It did seem he had that much control. In football though the refs never call on what “might have been” and only call on what happened.
Either Johnson did not have control or he goofed. Either way the Refs have to call it like they did. They are not mind readers nor do we want them to try.
You are free to argue that Johnson never had control of the ball with both feet down. But then the issue is completely uncontroversial. If he never had control he obviously never had possession. My argument is not with you.
My argument is with those who admit he had control of the ball with both feet down, but believe his later loss of control makes it a non-catch.
(Although, as I said before, I am willing to believe it is always called that way. It just means the rule is poorly written)
Your argument is with how these plays have been called consistently for years. As was posted earlier see this Louis Murphy reception that was deemed an incompletion. Seems he had more claim to a reception than Johnson did (note Murphy had both feet down too). The Refs are consistent on this. You may quibble with the wording but the Refs go through lots of training and the routinely call this the same way. Apparently your lawyer-istic interpretation is not the same as that the officials get.
If you dislike the rule then fine. You are free to argue it could be better (although I’d be curious how you’d make it “better”).
If your argument is that this was a bad call then your argument is just not with me but with pretty much all professional analysis I have seen on this play. The call, as the rules are written, was a correct one. Even the Lion’s head coach agrees with that.
I agree that different people could interpret the wording of the rule different ways. However, the NFL has people whose job is specifically to interpret the rules. We call these guys referees and every referee I’ve heard express an opinion (during the game by calling the pass incomplete and after the game in interviews) agrees that the rule means that Johnson had to hold onto the ball until he was completely fell to the ground.
Furthermore the NFL has guys whose job it is to make sure the refs are doing their jobs. We call these guys the competition committee. One guy on that committee, a former pass catching player, has said that the refs are interpreting the rule correctly in general and in this particular case. (Ozzie Newsome earlier in the thread.)
People have said something along the lines of, “Of course referees are going to say the call was correct,” earlier in this thread. However, in the past, referees have come out and said the rules in general, and this specific rule, were applied incorrectly in games. Door’s earlier referred to Troy Polamalu’s playoff interception that was overturned. Here’s link to an ESPN article quoting Mike Pereira, vice president of officiating at the time, saying that this exact rule was misapplied in this case.
This, coincidentally, is the same Mike Pereira who explains the rule in the video in post 24 and has said the rule was correctly applied in this case.
In summary, while the wording of the rule could lead to different interpretations the people who enforce the rule have agreed on, and consistently applied, an interpretation that says that Calvin Johnson did not make a catch.
Mike Pereira ,last years head of officials, on ESPN yesterday, said the call did not pass the smell test. They like to think, what would 50 guys in a bar ,think about the call. It is a strange litmus, but he says it would fail the test. He figures it will be changed soon.
It is a stupid rule, but Johnson is stupider for not knowing the rule and attempting to break his fall with his ball hand. Detroit fans should be mad at Johnson, not the refs.
Nice cherry picking what Pereira said:
So yeah he said 50 guys in a bar would think Johnson had a touchdown but he also expressed he is not sure how to make the existing rule better.
I am not seeing how this in any way implies a bad call was made nor where the refs use “50 guys in a bar” as a litmus test.
If you don’t like the rule fine. You are welcome to your opinion.
You are not welcome to your own facts however and the facts are the call was correct as the rule is written.
Nobody said the call was wrong. But the rest of your lame post was an agreement with me. It was a crappy rule change and the refs , players and pro announcers all agree. It was a mistake.
As long as breaking the plane is enough for a runner, how can you accept a receiver having a more difficult standard? The league will rescind the rule as soon as they can do it without too many ramifications.
Because the runner already has possession while the receiver does not.
What “rule change” do you keep harping about? What rule change? When?
New V.P. of officiating doesn't want the Calvin Johnson rule to change - NBC Sports It is a crappy rule with poor definitions that will result in different calls all season.
Answer the question. What change? When did the change happen?
Who says the rule is a mistake? You need to work on your reading comprehension.
My “lame post” noted that Pereira could not think of a way to make a better rule than what it is now (he implied as much twice in fact). Yes he notes that it is not perfect but “What would 50 guys in a bar think” is not a workable rule in the NFL. That to me says Pereira is ok with the rule as is despite it being imperfect.
No rule can be perfect. There will always be those exceptional circumstances that rules simply cannot account for. They do the best they can and till you can magic up a rule the NFL missed that is better than what they have I am sure they would love to hear it. The task is harder than you seem to think. Do you really think the NFL rules committee just pulled this out of their collective ass then went for drinks?
It is not harder for a receiver. The person who breaks the plane (repeat this five times) has to have control of the ball!
Johnson did not have control of the ball. Yes it was in his hands in the air but he needs to maintain control once he hits the ground too and he did not do that. This is called the same everytime I can think of.
Also, if you think the runner has an easier job than the receiver than you’ve never played football. If running the ball was so much simpler they’d be running the ball a lot more.
This seems a strange statement - he very clearly did have control (indeed, carried the ball in one hand). This is exactly why the play is controversial - had he not shown obvious control, there would be no way anyone would question this ruling.
This is correct, but seems inconsistent with the previous sentence. IOW, he had control, but failed to maintain it through all of his contact with the ground.
Which is why he failed to establish control.
They were attempting to stop guys from immediately spiking the ball once they got 2 hands on it. They tried to find a way to stop that, but went too far. They know it. The fans know it. It will be modified.
Can I ask you to explain your proposal for your new rule to determine a completion when a catch is made in mid air? You keep harping on about how this rule will be changed, but I have yet to hear you clearly articulate what you think it should be so that in the future the rule will be 100% infallible and will never ever result in any controversy no matter what happens on the field.
Remember this has to be a one size fits all rule to govern what is control and what is a completion in a mid air catch and must never ever leave open room for anyone to disagree with it’s application.
I will wait for your response on this. I mean if you are so vehemently advocating this rule be revoked, then you must have a substitute proposal for this situation ready to go right? There has to be some rule about this, so what have you got that is better than the current rule and will never be disputed?
That’s a bizarre assumption, and also quite wrong.
Before this rule, there were many more replays because you had to determine if the ball was indeed in control during the fall. If the ball jiggled a little, the two feet down didn’t count (because the ball was being bobbled) so you’d have to look beyond that, and then it became a muddied mess. What if the receiver caught it with control, but just as the second foot came down he bobbled it a little, then it got knocked out of his hands? You need instant replay to determine with exact precision 1) if the ball ever moved even slightly, 2) when his feet came down, 3) when the ball gets knocked loose, and 4) which came first in order to see if it’s an incompletion, fumble, or touchdown. Because every pass could potentially be bobbled, to be sure you got it right instant replay could be needed countless times per game.
The “going to the ground” rule, which has been in place for years now, eliminates all that. No more do you have to parse nanoseconds with super slow-mo to determine if the ball ever jiggled, and if so were the feet down before the jiggle happened. Now all you have to do is watch with the naked eye to see if the receiver ends up with the ball. Super simple, with no risk of controversial judgement calls like the old way had. (For all the controversy of the Megatron call, there was zero subjective judgement involved. When the ball hit the ground it came loose; everyone with eyes can see that.)
This rule also has the nice benefit of greatly reducing the number of free-for-all scrums for loose balls, significantly reducing the risk of injury all around.
This is not inconsistent at all since by definition control of the ball is when you are on the ground. They couldn’t give a crap if you levitated for five minutes holding the ball if you drop it when you come back to earth.
The act of a successful reception is the whole process and not just holding it while in the air.