Yeah, it’s the correct call. If you go down, you need to control the ball all the way to the ground. It is an odd looking play, but according to the rules the correct call.
I can see that call going the way it did.
It’s not a TD unless it’s a catch.
To be a catch, the receiver must maintain possession all the way to the ground. Two feet down is irrelevant if the player is going to the ground. As he fell to the ground, the ball hit the ground and he lost it.
Incomplete.
Then why wasn’t that call made before? The reason we have a controversy ,is because a play like that is ,until today, a touchdown.
Same play, last year. You’re welcome.
Every call I’ve seen in the past several years is that the pass is incomplete if the player loses the ball going to the ground.
Yes. Good explanation of the rule and its application without commentary on the merits of the rule itself.
HOSED! That was TD all the way.
That is a much better explanation of the rule than we got today, but the Louis Murphy catch (shown in this video) should also have been a catch. However, the rule is the rule, even though, now, you have to substantiate a “football move” and where one ends and another begins.
Rules are rules, however.
Looking at it again, I can see the argument that the Lions player caught the ball, put two feet down for the catch, then deliberately lunged as a “second act” after the catch. Close call, but the the call on the field has to stand on review. If the player was falling down as a single act of the catch, then it’s incomplete.
The person in the video is the DIRECTOR OF OFFICIALS! He is FAR from unbiased. If he doesn’t explain it the way he does, he has to acknowledge the rule is idiotic.
This rule has not been invoked before. It was 2 feet in bounds, ball in control. Perhaps if you throw it to the ref after the play and he drops it, then it is incomplete.
Jeeeesus christ you are talented at doing that.
The “all the way to the ground rule” only makes sense with regard to plays that don’t conclude IN THE END ZONE. In the end zone, once you land IN THE END ZONE with both feet, the play is supposed to be over. Touchdown. Terrible call.
20 road losses in a row. 20. It could have ended at long last. Now , here we go again.
21 road losses. 21.
The rule applies equally all over the place. The act of the catch isn’t finished when 2 feet are down if the player goes to the ground in the same act of the catch. If so, then you disregard the 2 feet down for purposes of establishing the possession portion of a catch, and you look to what happens when the player hits the ground. However, the two feet down is sufficient to establish whether the player was in-bounds regardless of whether the player goes to the ground afterward.
Take this scenario. A player catches the ball in the air, then puts 2 feet down in bounds, then falls out of bounds and strikes the ground out of bounds.
-
If he loses the ball, disregard the 2 feet down. Incomplete.
-
If he maintains possession of the ball, then it’s a catch, but you don’t disregard the two feet down because those two feet establish that the catch was in bounds… even though the act of the completion was not finished and couldn’t be determined until the player was down on the ground out of bounds.
Screwy rule?
maybe a terrible rule but the call was definitely in accordance with the rules.
if the dude hadn’t been trying to hot dog the durn play and just came down and cuddled it then it’s a touchdown. lions win. as it is you have another durn athlete worrying, it seems to me, how he will look on sportscenter rather than worrying about how his team does.
It’s a good rule put in to prevent cheese. I believe it was created to deal with the Shockey catch against Seattle five or so years ago, where the toes on his second foot just barely brushed the tippy-top of the turf before he was hammered by a defender knocking the ball loose. After review, he was awarded the touchdown. That was every bit as egregious an offense to common sense as this one was. So that’s why the rule.
This rule has been in place since before Megatron joined the league, so he’s been playing under this rule for his entire career.
This wasn’t a terrible play because of the rule, which is a good rule. This was a terrible play because the chowderhead started celebrating before he completed the catch. Blame hotdogging receivers, not the rules.
Here is a link to video of the Shockey catch back in 2005. They don’t focus on it or slow it down or anything, but you can see it. Play starts at 40 seconds in.
The Shockey catch was much quicker and he had control for an instant ,if he had it at all. Johnson had it for a much longer time. He had possession in the end zone. That is a TD.
No, it is not a TD. What does holding it for a longer time have to do with anything? Are you saying that because he held it for longer it really “feels” a lot like he could have held on if he wanted to? Yeah, that’s a great basis for a rule. You convinced me.