Have to say, sucks you be you, Detroit, but it was the right call. You have to maintain possession all the way to the ground, and as soon as his arm came down the ball popped out…that’s not control all the way to the ground. I frankly like the rule. (Please note that as a Steeler fan, I have absolutely no horse in this race either…the Lions / Bears, whoever…doesn’t matter to me one bit…though the underdog supporter in me would generally rather see the Lions win this one)
Nonsense. If the Johnson catch had happened at the 20 yard yard rather than the end zone, he would’ve been ruled down by contact and the play wouldn’t have been ruled a fumble.
but i think if you look at the last part of that clip then it definitely was a touchdown. he had possession, both feet down and then when he hits the ground a second time is when the ball comes loose.
it must be a lion’s curse, however. all he had to do was cradle the durn thing and land on his ass and then there is no question.
Hold onto the ball AFTER a part of their body (other than hands or feet of course) has contacted the ground, which normally immediately makes the play completely dead at that instant? And if you lose control of the ball after that moment, it’s not a catch? You seriously don’t see the inherent contradiction here?
[/quote]
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./QUOTE]
That seems to me, among many other things, an invitation for dirty play on the part of the defense-I’d take the chance of being flagged for a late hit if I can deny the catch by knocking it out of his grip after he’s already hit the ground.
I’d like to see a receiver push the envelope of the rule, by (in the last few minutes of a blowout game, mind) rolling about a dozen times along the ground after the catch, then go “oops!” and intentionally lose control of the ball. The heads of the officials would undoubtedly explode.
I went back and forth on this point. I watched it full speed and said incomplete. I watched in slo-mo and said maybe there’s a second act. Today, I watched again at full speed: incomplete.
The receiver in that video went to the ground twice and the refs said that they should only see if he drops the ball when he first goes the ground. The receiver in this case went to the ground only once.
People don’t like the rule because there’s a sense that possession plus 2 feet down should be enough for a catch regardless of what happens after the two feet are down. Many think the rule is or should be that if the player goes to the ground after 2 feet down, then losing the ball upon going to the ground is either…
(1) irrelevant in the case of a touchdown or falling out of bounds because the catch has already been established;
That play has been called a catch a million times. If the rule has changed, why is it called sporadically . I would like some reffing consistency. the reason so many were pissed is because it has been a catch so often. Now we have to scrape up a couple incidents where it was called and pretend that is how it is. No, that is how it is a couple times. I think if they call them like that, the players and fans will get pissed off. Why does a catch require so much more than breaking the plane for a runner? Why does an out of bounds catch get different scrutiny?
Cite? I think the rule has been applied consistently and Exhibit A is the Pereira video linked in this thread. In the games I’ve watched over the past several years, I don’t recall seeing any that were called differently.
A runner already has legal possession when crossing the plane. A receiver doesn’t have legal possession until there has been a legal catch. Losing possession of the ball when going to the ground in the process of the catch is not a catch and is thus incomplete.
It doesn’t. If the receiver gets 2 feet in and goes to the ground out of bounds and drops the ball, it’s incomplete.
A catch requires satisfying the definition of catch. The NFL went to the trouble of specifically defining what is and is not a catch for the explicit purpose of having the rules enforced consistently. Do you really think that, “I know it when I see it,” would be a better and more consistent rule?
I don’t think it was a catch, by the rules, but it was close. I don’t see it as Johnson being out of control and getting the ball knocked out when he landed, I see it as Johnson landing on his hip with possession, and being such an amped-up athletic freak that he tried to bounce up onto his feet while setting the ball down at the same time. Unfortunately he didn’t set the ball down cleanly; it was more of a half spike (you can see the bend in his wrist when he plants the ball onto the ground).
I wonder what the call would be if, instead of going towards the ground, Calvin Johnson had comically stumbled backwards across the length of the end zone with the ball firmly in his hand, fell down, and dropped the ball as his butt hit the ground. At some point, regardless of how much he’s flailing and appears to be out of control, a catch has to be declared, doesn’t it? Regardless, it’s a fair rule, and it’s in line with the NFL’s desire to let plays run their course and not blow any early whistles.
STOP SAYING THIS, it’s not true in any way shape or form. You simply don’t know the rules of football.
The play is not dead when his hip hits the ground. The runner is down when his hip hits the ground. The play is dead when the ref blows the whistle. There’s a difference. Regardless, that is irrelevant. Had this play happened when the ball was in the field of play the exact same thing would have happened and it would have worked out to the Lions benefit. CJ would NOT have been ruled to have fumbled the ball, he’d have been ruled incomplete when the ball came out. That his hip is down means only two things, that he is down by contact and can’t advance it and that he can’t fumble. Being down by contact has no impact on completions anywhere in the rules. Had the play happened in the field of play the ball would have been spotted where it was when his hip hit the ground ONLY if he maintained possession through the landing, which he didn’t.
Would it be a good rule to say possession + 2 feet is a catch regardless of going to the ground afterward, where going to the ground only applies when the receiver doesn’t get 2 feet down first?
It would depend when the refs blew the whistle. If the stagger and stumble lasted long enough that the refs blew the whistle then it’d be complete, but if the refs determined that the stumble was the result of being pushed and he didn’t regain even partial control of his body I don’t think the would. Perhaps if the stumble last 2 full strides, enough to represent a classic “football move”, they might have cause to whistle it complete.
Well, in that case it goes back to the Shockey play. If a player catches the ball and gets two toes down and immediately get lit up but a defender, knocking the ball out, then it counts as a catch? You’d essentially be removing any possibility of a defender causing an incompletion. Not a better scenario.
There doesn’t need to be a rule change, this is a good rule that’s been well defined to remove ambiguity. Consider this, had Johnson NOT landed on his hand holding the ball, but instead landed on his side or back and had the ball squirt out of his hand all the same no one would be complaining. That would have been an obvious incompletion. The only thing special about this case is CJs landing on the ball, something probably avoidable, and losing it instead of losing it from a jarring fall.
A lot of people that have watched football for decades also agree that it was incomplete. So what? Do you think we should replace the refs with a vote from the crowd on every call? Majority wins? Is that a better way to officiate a football game?
Opinions do not constitute evidence unless provided by an expert witness stipulated as such by both sides. Any NFL referees in this thread to offer such opinions?
