Thanks for repeating it. It is beyond whether it was a catch. Using strict use of the rules ,you can arrive there. But the controversy is due to it not being called that way in the past. What the hell makes Johnson’s catch so special that it required a new and strict interpretation.
The reason there is a lot of noise, is because this one was treated differently. Most football fans were shocked at the call. Not just someone who doesn’t follow the game, but genuine fans were aghast.
“but genuine Detroit Lions fans were aghast.”
FTFY.
So any progress on what rule you’d like to replace this with that is impervious to all future possible controversy? What is your ideal rule for an in air catch that will work perfectly in all possible cases?
I’m not sure it makes sense to only apply the rule to catches in the air.
What if he had made the catch with both feet on the ground, but without any balance? In other words, the same play, except he didn’t catch the ball until he landed.
The going to the ground clause is quite unclear, but surely a player who catches the ball with both feet down, is unable to stop himself from falling, falls, and eventually loses the ball when his hand hits, does not have a catch.
IT WAS NOT TREATED FUCKING DIFFERENTLY. THIS HAS BEEN THE RULE FOR YEARS. Johnson’s catch wasn’t special, and it didn’t get a new or stricter interpretation. It was called exactly like every other catch has been called for years. Get that through your fucking head.
The only thing that set this play apart is your dumbfuck of a receiver was too stupid to hold onto the ball. It’s his fault. Megatron sucks balls. Be pissed at him, not the league. Because the league did nothing different.
You know why you never saw this before? Because nobody is as fucking stupid as Calvin Johnson. It’s just like Plaxico Burress spiking the ball or DeSean Jackson tossing the ball away before crossing the plane. Steelers and Eagles fans took their receivers’ stupidity like men. Lions fans should do the same and shut the fuck up.
It was? Care to point out where it was treated differently?
This was linked to earlier, look at it again. Louis Murphy had better claim to a catch than I think Johnson did. (Note at the very end of the video they show another, similar play that was ruled a TD but if you look closely in the second one the player retained possession)
Compare CJ’s catch with Butch Johnson’s (no relation) TD catch in Super Bowl XII. The play starts at :26…
Where is control defined that way (and is that even a definition)? The rule clearly says that when deciding between complete and incomplete the control that matters is what happens during and through contact with the ground. But in that rule, “control” is used in the normal football sense, as references to maintaining and losing control attest.
Indeed - but that’s the standard for a complete pass, and not the definition of control. It’s wrong to say Johnson did not have control of the ball - he had control, but didn’t maintain it.
You do grant that the controversy stems from just this point, don’t you? (Note that I agree with you that the rule appears to have been applied correctly.)
Watch it WHACK a MOLE ,and you will see what a completion was until last Sunday.
So, still no suggestion for what rule should replace the current one? Something that noone anywhere will ever disagree with, and which covers every possible situation that could arise during an airborne catch?
Granted I just got home from a night drinking so perhaps that has something to do with this but for the life of me I cannot figure what you are asking here.
Err…dude…that was in 1978!
Willing to bet the rule changes happened between then and now. That was over thirty-freaking years ago!
Seriously…that all you got? Ellis should be embarrassed trying to pass that off as if it is relevant here.
YOU should be embarrassed suggesting that a catch filmed thirty years ago is what a catch was till last Sunday.
The catch rules changed in 2000 to clarify what counts as a catch. It’s been tweaked since then.
Did not say that. The 30 years ago catch is not an isolated event, All catches like that were legit. That went on for 3 decades. The point is that we all knew what a completion looked like. The rule was changed. But last Sunday was the first important and controversial call due to the change. It seems the league has misgiving about the rule. Announcers and coaches don’t like it. I suppose you are the only one who can not see the problem.
Bearflag70 said the rule was changed in 2000. The only case you have of a controversial call is two cases. If any NFL rule produces only one or two controversial calls in ten years I’d say it is a pretty successful rule.
As for me being the only one who cannot see the problem that is not fair. I stipulated in my first post to this thread that I can see how this would bother people (me included). However, it is a fair ruling based on the rules and is called consistently. Further, we have NFL people saying that while this looked bad they are hard pressed to think of a way to improve the rule.
No rule is perfect. There always seem to be exceptions no matter how tightly you form the rule. It covers the vast majority of catches just fine…occasionally one ruling (in adherence with the rule) seems goofy.
You have been asked to tell us a better rule that is workable and fair for the Refs to apply. If this rule is so awful you should have no problems articulating one for us.
We are still waiting.
(To be fair good luck with that…the NFL rule committee spends a lot of time on this stuff and unintended consequences are a real problem.)
What about going back to the rule that was in place from time immemorial until 2000? I’m still not clear on why there was a pressing need for it to be changed. I’ve been watching football since the mid-1970s and I cannot recall such a firestorm over the ruling on a reception/incompletion. I remember some controversial calls in the '70s regarding in bounds vs. out-of-bounds but pretty much everyone agreed on what a reception was.
Ask the NFL. I presume they had reasons and are not prone to doing stuff just cuz.
My guess is the passing game has gotten stronger over time and they felt this was needed.
This video says the rule changed to clarify the definition of a catch as a result of this play (Emanuel catch in the Rams v. Bucs 1999 NFC Championship Game, ruled incomplete after booth review).
Ha! That would be rich. It was the league’s rule-makers who made the passing game get stronger over time with their liberalized blocking rules & expanded definition of pass interference & defensive holding. A cluster of these new rules came into effect in '78 and ever since then just about every new rule has worked to the advantage of the passing game. If teams today had to play by 1975 rules the average score of a game would probably be about 7-6. If we look at NFL historical records we find, somewhat surprisingly, that passing stats are not that much different from what they were in the '50s and '60s. The '70s were the anomalous decade for being so rush-heavy. Defensive strategy had evolved at such a rate by 1970 or so that it had outpaced offensive strategy; hence the rule changes of '78 and afterwards that boosted the passing game & offense overall.
And?
Sounds like this made it a tad more difficult for the receiver to get a catch. Given what you just laid out that is not a bad thing.
That may very well be what the league is thinking. I would have done it differently - by giving defenders more leeway regarding incidental contact or bump-offs… something like that. I like to see defenders involved in breaking up a pass - guess I’m just a fan of defense.