The ground can’t cause a fumble but it can cause an incomplete pass.
Rule making is a process. This crappy call will probably result in the league tinkering with the reception rule again.
Yes, but in what way? Can you please explain exactly what you want to happen with this rule, and how you would change it?
Being angry about something is one thing. But if you don’t have anything constructive to say about it, then what is the point of all the anger?
This thread reminds me of the tea party. Full of anger about something, but no actual proposals for how things should be done differently.
I don’t know if it was a catch or not, nobody does, which I have to believe is what the league wants. Always more rules, always the gray areas get larger, always the officials get more power over the game.
I promised myself not to revisit this thread, but the rule maybe the rule should be re-written so that it isn’t a touchdown/or a catch until the reciever hands the ball to the ref, unless the receiver loses the ball as a result of a late hit.
Football has changed a lot since I was a kid. But I am old. A runner had to be stopped. If he was crawling with a defender on his back, he was still in play. You had to secure the tackle.
So rule changes are p[art of the game. Sometimes they blow the rule change. Next year they will fix it.
I’m getting a little tired of asking this, but how so? What specifically should the new rule be? Shouldn’t you have some idea how to move forward besides just blow up the current rule? Should it go back to being totally subjective and have every catch be decided on the whims of whoever the official is that day? Do you really think that’s better? If not, then you need to put up the replacement rule that you want instead or just accept it and move on. Be constructive with your anger. Solve the problem, don’t just bitch about it.
I’ve been thinking out this some more.
My proposal was that there are two classes of catch:
- Possession+2
and
- Going to the ground
If you qualify for #1, then you don’t need to worry about #2.
As applied to this case, the result would be a TD because Megatron had possession+2 before going to the ground.
The drawback, as someone argued, is that my proposed rule makes catch-fumble more likely, potentially turning many otherwise incomplete passes into dangerous scrums “just in case” the pass is ruled a catch-fumble instead of incomplete. I can see a lot of pissed off people bitching about cheap turnovers and injuries.
One possible solution to this problem is applying the current rule to catches in the field of play while applying my rule to end zone catches. This creates problems though. What about a catch that’s right on the goal line? People are going to bitch about that. Also, I don’t see why an end zone catch should be any different from a catch anywhere else on the field. A catch is a catch is a catch.
Until I hear something better, I’m thinking the current rule is a good as it gets. As has been solicited by others repeatedly, anyone else want to take a stab at it?
Like it or not, I think the current rule is as unambiguous as we’re going to get. Every now and then the rule will be applied rigidly and people are going to get pissed off, but as you and others have said, altering the rule still causes the same problems.
"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."
Taking this literally, Johnson had possession and the TD as soon as he had control with both feet down.
So why didn’t he? Apparently because of the “note” which comes after this rule. But usually “notes” aren’t a complete contradiction of what came before.
All X are Y. Note: Some X are not Y.
Moreover, the note does not even state it is overriding the previous rule, and does not seem to apply to people who already had possession by the statement of the previous rule.
Fix: “Except under the circumstances in the following note, to gain… etc”
"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball [with or without contact by a defender] must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground"
First problem: “goes to the ground” is not clear. Does it mean a catch in the air? Or does it include catching a ball with both feet down but no balance and being unable to prevent falling? I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem right to penalize someone for catching a ball earlier.
Second problem: “after he touches the ground” is not clear.
Johnson did maintain control for some time after touching the ground. Then he lost control. In this thread many are talking about “until the fall is complete” but the rule doesn’t say that. It actually makes more sense based on the wording to give him the TD because he had control for some time after touching the ground.
Fix: “A player who goes to the ground (and here you would clarify if it includes only airborne or also leaning catches) in the process… must maintain control of the ball until after the fall is completed.”
“Taking this literally, Johnson had possession and the TD as soon as he had control with both feet down.”
Not really. When he had the ball and his feet were touching the ground he wasn’t in control of his body because he was still falling down. Can a receiver really be considered to have control of the ball if he doesn’t also have control of his body? If I’m falling down the stairs, but at some point, both of my feet happen to touch the stairs, does that mean I’m in control at that moment? I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t feel like it.
Athletes have control of the ball without having control of their bodies all of the time. A famous recent example is the NY Giants helmet catch in the Superbowl. And to head people off at the pass, no, that would not have been a catch if it was dropped.
And note that at no time does the ball touch the ground or leave David Tyree’s hands. He completes the catch by completing the fall with the ball.
Yes, the difference is, ultimately Tyree gained control of both his body and the ball without the ball ever touching the ground.
I don’t see how you can call it a catch if both the ball and the receivers body are never under control at the same time.
Would any of those who think the catch was good like to rethink their position now that they know Easterbrook agrees with it?
And here’s The Onion’s take on it:
Touchdown Disallowed After Ref Drops Ball Handed To Him By Player
He says this: "He came down with both feet, in full control. Then he took a stride, fell, and the ball bounced away. " Which is patently untrue. It’s been beaten to death, but Johnson was in no way “in control” when he was falling. He in no way “took a stride”, and there was no second “fall”.
Easterbrook is a liar.
I agree. While in the act of catching the ball, he was falling, which fall was aided and abetted by the defensive end. He initially “caught” the ball with both hands but instantly transferred it to one hand, and he used that hand, holding the football to partially break his fall, with the football touching the ground (and not his hand). Immediately upon touching the ground, the ball squirted away.
Of the ball. Of the ball. Of the ball. Of the ball.
Control of the ball.
Nowhere in the rules does it say “control of his body”, “control of his mental condition”, or “control of all sea creatures”.
It is clear that if you take the rule, as written, it was a catch. Obviously that isn’t the way it is ever called, though, so it wasn’t a bad call.