If anything, it looks like Johnson deliberately left the ball on the ground as he got up. Ouch.
I agree that the letter of the rule says no TD…but I have ALWAYS hated that interpretation of it. If the ground can’t cause a fumble, then why does this rule exist? He had possession when he hit the ground, and lost the ball when he was getting back up!
I don’t see how you can argue that he had possession when he hit the ground. Can we agree that he fell to the ground, and that various parts of his body hit the ground from that fall at different times? His hand with the ball was the last thing that hit the ground from the fall, and it popped out immediately.
I may be seeing something different, so to clarify here is the basic question I have: Do you guys think he could have prevented that arm/hand/football from touching the ground at all if he wanted to? I contend that he could not; his arm hit the ground with momentum from the fall.
If his hand hitting the ground and losing the ball was indeed part of the fall – which it clearly looks like it to me – there is no question this was a correct call based on the spirit of the game. In other words, clearly not a catch, and in no way an affront to the football gods.
Were both feet/tippy-toes clearly down on that catch? I didn’t see it there on that video.
That’s also a catch.
If it was not a catch, why is that the first time I saw it called that way. Everybody thought it was a TD. Why was that?
To rub it in, Stafford got hurt in the first quarter and left in a sling. Nice day all around.
If that’s true, then that’s insane.
Look at today’s video again. The receiver leaps, catches with both hands, lands, pivots, has ball firmly held in his right hand while his left knee hits the ground (at which point he’d have been considered “down” had the play ended within the non-endzone part of the field) and then, correctly thinking he’d scored, released the ball with a little flip. TD. Lions take the lead. QED.
If the ground can’t cause a fumble, it shouldn’t be able to cause an incompletion.
Knee and ass down with possession of the ball should be a catch. And I don’t see the video as conclusively as Ellis Dee did–I saw CJ as landing in bounds and with possession, then rolling over onto all fours and getting up, leaving the ball on the ground as he got up. The ball didn’t pop out of his hand when he hit the ground–for an instant, he was actually using the ball as support, then he stood up and left the ball down. He had control the whole way.
I agree. How long does the receiver have to stand there with the ball for it to count? How many receivers are going to get crushed by defenders on plays like that in the future?
The league says that they have decided to make a change in the possession rules for TDs. Lucky us, but the Lions get the first new call. It was not called like that before, but now it will be.
This is according to Detroit Sports news.
If this is the way they are going to call it on plays like that, I am completely done with the NFL. I’ve been slowly slipping away from the game for a number of years now, and a horseshit call like that, where he had 2 feet AND 2 buttcheeks down before the ball “got away” from him, with a virtual eternity in football terms between the catch and the ball rolling away, is just the perfect excuse to go and say, “Fuck this league.”
The ref may have been Jim Joyce.
Cite?
Looks like a bad rule was enforced. This rule defies common sense whether it’s a touchdown or not. If control of the ball is lost, that would be a fumble, but this rule says there is no control until some arbitrary point in time when the referee indicates a completed pass. The problem in this case is the appearance that the receiver had control on the ground, then lost it when rolling over, something that seems to exceed the idea of maintaining control all the way to the ground. Despite all that, the rule is applied equally (or at least as much as any rule is), and the players should know what the rule is. It’s not the only bad rule in the NFL.
Are you guys saying he landed and was standing, then rolled onto the ground? I say he was unable not to go to the ground because he never fully had his balance when he landed on his feet. In other words, going to the ground was part of a single fall that was only slowed (not stopped) by his feet hitting the ground.
What is the ground? They never touched the ground, but they brush the turf that sticks up out of the ground. Effectively they brushed the blades of grass but never touched the earth proper.
Let me stop you right there. Are you saying landed fully on his feet, with balance, and then chose to roll on the ground? Or is it more likely that he went to the ground because he didn’t have enough balance to stay on his feet from the landing? If that’s the case, then he hasn’t finished falling yet, and the rolling on the ground is still part of the landing.
And no, even if that were in the dead center of the field, the same rule would apply. It would not under any circumstances end the moment his feet or knees touched the ground. It hasn’t been that way for years.
That was the first time you saw it called that way because you don’t pay attention or your memory isn’t very good. It has been called exactly that way for years. I just heard a guy on NBC (Mike Florio?) say it was called that way in last year’s Superbowl.
I doubt that. It would have raised a huge noise if they made a call like that in the Superbowl.
Well, the ground can cause a fumble. So proceeding from there… the ground should be able to cause an incompletion, which makes perfect sense.
Fleming: Breaking down the NFL's arcane catch rules - ESPN The rule is about 200 words long. The question is when was Johnson down, when his butt cheeks were on the ground.? If so he had possession. When his left hand hit. Still had it. He lost it when he rolled to get back up to celebrate the win. What if he rolled over 2 or 3 times, then tried to get up?
Almost any football fan who saw that play would have called it a catch. So who knows what a catch is anymore?
The relevant part is the “going to the ground” clause:
In a nutshell, if you catch a ball then fall to the ground, you must hold onto the ball until you stand back up.
“Almost” every fan is probably true. I know I would have called it incomplete on the field because it is really easy to see he did not stand up with the ball in his hands.
People think this rule is terrible, but is it, really? Does it really undermine the game of football if receivers have to hold onto the ball? I see today’s example a bozo receiver making a mockery of a fine rule. Much like I saw Plaxico Burress’ spike as comical and in no way wanted the rule to change to prevent such a clearly wrong result. He spiked the ball, the other team grabbed it and ran, fumble recovery. Was that any more just than what happened to Megatron? If both outcomes were unjust – which I think they both are – why does one call for mockery of the receiver (Burress) while the other elicits calls to change the rule? The only problem is when bozo receivers get jobbed by their own bonehead mistakes.
The reason I love this rule is because it’s one of the precious few rules that promotes defense. Smash that receiver as hard as you can as soon as the ball gets there; if it pops out at any point, that’s a successful pass defense. In fairness, though, I did hate the “football move” rule that used to be required, and this does smell a little similar. Then again, I think this rule may have replaced the “football move” rule.
Possibly, but even if not, he seemed to have control of the ball. He leaned on it for a moment, and then flicked it away. It wasn’t forced out of his hand by the impact of the ground.
I do think this is an affront to the spirit of the game. If you weren’t familiar with all the minutia of the rulebook, would your immediate reaction be that it was a touchdown or not?
Seperately, I’m curious - would this same call have been made if he caught it at the 15 yard line instead of the end zone? If not, why not?
I also don’t think he should be blamed for “hot dogging” it - he wasn’t rushing off to do some Chad Johnson bullshit routine, he wanted to run and celebrate an exciting game winning catch with his teammates on opening day. I don’t feel like he did anything wrong here really.
I think it was “forced” out of his hand by the impact of the ground but he could easily have held on if he thought he needed to. Put it this way: he guaranteed could have made that catch if he knew the rule as well as he should have been coached to know it, not doubt, 100%. But he just didn’t know it I guess. Same deal with Plaxico Burress spiking the ball.
Another example I thought of was DeSean Jackson in his rookie year tossing the ball down in celebration before he crossed the goal line. Another bonehead receiver play, and again no gnashing of teeth to change the rule about breaking the plane because him not getting a touchdown was clearly unjust and a crime against the football gods. No, in that case everyone was united in mocking the hotdogger, much like with Burress.
The key difference, I think, is that Calvin Johnson is not seen as a me-first hotdogger, at least to most football fans because really, who watches Lions games? Personality-wise he’s a blank slate, so that means he’s much more palatable than, say, the Cincinnati receivers. Combine that with the fact that the Lions have become lovable losers that everyone roots for, and I think that’s the sum total of the outrage.
I don’t thihnk anyone honestly hates this ruling just from a rules perspective, because this exact same rule has been applied countless times over the years, including last year’s Superbowl, and everyone has seemed to embrace it. Ball comes out, not a catch. So simple, so intuitive. Why the problem now? Because it cost the lovable losers a game, so agreeing with the ruling feels like kicking a puppy.
The rule for catching a ball is not minutia. We’re not talking about a kick returner putting a foot on the sideline to draw an illegal kick penalty or being able to immediately kick a field goal after a fair catch even if the clock has expired at the end of a half; this is a basic, fundamental rule that could potentially come into play on every pass thrown in every game. It’s on the level of “two feet down inbounds” or “one knee = two feet.”
I would question how CJ didn’t know it, but after McNabb not knowing how overtime works I guess anything is possible.
Yes, it would have applied. This is not a special case rule. This rule applies to every catch thrown in every game played. Every pass, every interception, everything, anywhere on the field. The rule is, if you catch the ball in the air, you can’t drop it when you hit the ground. That’s all it is.
Changing this rule would be yet another anti-defense crutch to help the offense, except this one would be so pointless. It’s not like CJ couldn’t hold onto that ball with proper coaching, and I guarantee you he’ll never do it again. Why make it easier for receivers and harder for defenders? Isn’t it already easy enough to pass? There were double-digit 4000-yard passers last year; how much more passing do we really need? This isn’t the Arena League.
I tend to agree. It did seem like a genuinely spontaneous expression of emotion, as opposed to a choreographed look-at-me celebration. I feel bad for the guy. I might fire the receivers coach, though.
You guys are flat out making things up.
Calvin Johnson did NOT flip the ball away as he was getting up. This is simply not debatable or open for interpretation. Set aside the rule and everything else. Watch the replay, when the ball hits the ground you can see Johnson’s hand clamp together from the force of him squeezing it as the ground knocks it lose. He did not release the ball intentionally and he did not flip it anywhere. His wrist and elbow don’t move, the only things that give the ball any momentum are the impact with the ground and the pressure of his grip, no flip or flick is present. It squirted out like watermelon seed.
He wasn’t using his hands to get up. He didn’t lose the ball as he was getting up. Every bit of motion prior to the ball touching the ground was downward and a result of the fall and the CB falling against his thigh. Calvin touches the ground again after losing the ball to get up. Unless people make a habit of touching the ground twice as the get up, you can’t correctly claim he appeared to lose it while pushing to get up. He touched the ground a second time AFTER the ball was out and the fall completed to get up.
This rule has nothing to do with the end zone or touchdowns. Breaking the plane is irrelevant as that only applies to a runner crossing the goal line who already possesses the ball. The whole point is that Johnson never had possession.
This rule has nothing to do with having 2 feet down. Having 2 feet down only establishes a players position in bounds. There is no debate about him being in bounds. Discussion about two feet down means nothing for possession or completions, it only applies to in bounds or out of bounds.
This rule has nothing to with a player being “down”. Johnson was not trying to advance the ball. Being down only implies that a runner can no longer fumble or advance the ball. It has no impact on complete or incomplete passes.
The ground CAN cause a fumble. This was not a fumble so it is irrelevant, but that is not a rule and never has been. The ground can cause an incompletion as is the case here. Repeating that meme is simply untrue.
There was no second act. Watch the play in full speed, not slow motion which distorts the flow of the play, and watch Johnson fall. He doesn’t stop, slow, hesitate, or change direction after catching the ball. The twist that began with his leap was continued as he rotated to his hands. He did not lunge to the ground, he was pushed while off balance from the jump by the momentum of the falling defender’s shoulder into his thigh.
Argue that it’s a bad rule all you want. Don’t make things up that didn’t happen and don’t cite rules that don’t exist or aren’t relevant to the situation.