Detriot just got f*$#ed!

[EllisDee]

@Bearflag70

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?

In my opinion, no, it would not be a good rule. The rule as written is better. Ideal, actually, again in my opinion.

Think back to the Steelers Superbowl win over the Cardinals two years ago. Remember that game-winning touchdown catch by Santonio Holmes in the back of the endzone? Remember how he stretched out for the ball, keeping his toes just barely in the endzone as he stretched his arms out to grab the ball?

Yeah, remember how they went to replay to verify that he maintained possession of the ball when he hit the ground? And that he did, in fact, maintain possession and so it was ruled a touchdown?

That’s exactly what I want to see out of the rule. It would be cheese if the play ended the moment his hands touched the ball with his toes in the endzone, because if the ball then immeditaely popped out it wouldn’t “feel” like a legitimate catch in a much more blatant way than Megatron’s bonehead play “feels” like a completion.

[etv78]

Omniscent has obviously never heard of an inadvertent whistle :rolleyes:
The reason the Lions coach didn’t bash the call had NOTHING to do with puting the event “in the past” he didn’t want GODDELL TO FINE HIM!
And the ground be able to cause a fumble is news to me.

[Airbeck]

Except no part of this had anything to do with a fumble, and the ground certainly can cause an incompletion. So I’m not sure I get the point you’re trying to make.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@etv78

And the ground be able to cause a fumble is news to me.

The ground can cause a fumble if the player just falls down on their own (as opposed to being tackled).

If you are merrily running down the field with no one near you and you fall if the ball comes out it is a live ball and a fumble.

[etv78]

Ok, I meant, the sense “being tackled to the ground couldn’t cause fumble”

[Lance_Turbo]

Another thing. The people saying that the ground can’t cause an incompletion are presenting a ridiculous argument. The ground causes the vast majority of incomplete passes. The ball hitting the ground before a catch is made is practically the definition of an incomplete pass. Now did the pass to Megatron hit the ground before he caught it? Yes, due to the definition of a catch as explained earlier.

People talking about the ground not being able to cause a fumble are presenting an even more ridiculous argument. Fumbles have nothing to do with the play in question.

[Airbeck]

Again, there was no fumble in this play, so can you explain how this is at all relevant to this discussion?

[EllisDee]

@zamboniracer

@EllisDee

In a nutshell, if you catch a ball then fall to the ground, you must hold onto the ball until you stand back up.

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.

Please stop spreading this lie. It would have been ruled exactly the same: incomplete pass.

This isn’t a special endzone rule. This rule applies to every catch in every game, anywhere on the field, for both offensive and defensive players.

I heard that Megatron admitted to not knowing the rule. He said something to the effect of “I had two feet down so I thought it was a catch.” That right there is criminally negligent coaching. The receivers coach should be fired immediately and with extreme prejudice.

[Bearflag70]

@Bearflag70

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?

ok bad idea.

[John_DiFool]

@Lance_Turbo

People talking about the ground not being able to cause a fumble are presenting an even more ridiculous argument. Fumbles have nothing to do with the play in question.

Oh I at least agree that the ground can cause an incompletion. But you can’t be guilty of a fumble (dropped, knocked out of your hands by someone else, or the ground is the agent in question) after you’ve been down by contact, or after you’ve touched the out of bounds (both of which happened on this play), so why should the incompletion rules be based on something different, something which happens after the receiver is legally down and has held onto the ball for a reasonable period of time? That makes absolutely no sense. [Again arguing against the rule moreso than the call]

@Lance_Turbo

@John_DiFool

Nobody has responded to my corrolary point, which was that a defender, once he sees that the receiver is rolling around on the ground, is better off risking the 15 yard personal foul on a late hit, in the hopes of causing the receiver to lose control and have the pass ruled incomplete, than he is not attempting the late hit.

Defenders are supposed to try to hit receivers attempting to catch the ball. That’s their job. Does this pose a danger to receivers? Of course. It’s football.

You misread my post-I’m talking about the defender deliberately hitting the receiver AFTER the receiver is already on the ground. If, as was the case here, the play is still “live” until the receiver “completes” the play (i.e. stops rolling around and doesn’t drop it or let it touch the ground) then you can bet that any defensive back worth his salt is going to hit the receiver in said situation to try to knock the ball out (or he should), and risk the penalty. Does nobody else really see the inherent contradiction here? The NFL, with their weird rules clarification, is tempting exactly that kind of dangerous play. The late Jack Tatum is sitting in Hell (Raider’s Hell, where all the girls are…well anyway), virtually salivating at the prospect.

@Whack-a-Mole

@gonzomax

The ESPN guys showed the Superbowl play ,which was ruled a catch. Then showed Calvins catch showing how much longer he had the ball, yet it was ruled incomplete. There is plenty of reason to feel screwed over.

I agree it looks like he was screwed over but really he wasn’t. It is an incomplete catch. How long he has the ball makes no difference. I believe where you are getting hung up is the distinction between a single act and a second act.

[emphasis mine]

And that is precisely the ground some of us are attacking the rule on-that it apparently “doesn’t matter” how long the receiver holds onto the ball, if his body is merrily tripping along, or even rolling along, and the officials don’t consider the catch to have been “completed” yet. I already mentioned a hypothetical where the guy is rolling around on the ground for half a dozen revolutions, and the ball pops out at the end. How about if he in on a crossing route in the end zone, catches the ball and starts tripping over his own feet for ten-twenty strides, then drops the ball? A reductio ad absurdum (yes this is not the strict version of the fallacy, for the logicians out there keeping score) result like this means the rule is fatally flawed.

My sense of fair play tells me that this rule simply isn’t fair, and can lead to bizarre and/or contradictory results in extreme circumstances, as it did here. I’ll even bet everyone here who is defending the rule (not the call, mind) that the NFL will change this rule to make it fairer in the near future-we’ll say the next 2 calendar years. I’ll also bet that a defender, sooner or later, will attempt a cheap shot hit on a receiver already on the ground (before the rule is changed or 2 years are up, whatever is shorter), the ball will pop out, it’ll be ruled incomplete, AND the DB will get flagged for the 15 yards. If they instead said something like, “Three strides equals a catch, no bobbling allowed, or if you would be down by contact, the play is dead at that instant and you can drop the ball anytime after”, wouldn’t that make a lot more sense?

[EllisDee]

@John_DiFool

If they instead said something like, “Three strides equals a catch, no bobbling allowed, or if you would be down by contact, the play is dead at that instant and you can drop the ball anytime after”, wouldn’t that make a lot more sense?

Would that mouthful make more sense than “if you catch it in the air, you can’t drop it when you land”? No, it doesn’t even remotelyu make as much sense, much less more.

Here’s a hyopthetical: Santonio Holmes’ Superbowl-winning catch in the back of the endzone. Instead of holding on, it pops out when or even before he hits the ground. Should that be a catch or an incompletion?

[TriPolar]

I feel like I have to say something controversial in this thread, but I don’t see it as that big of deal. There’s no doubt in my mind that the rule was correctly applied. I don’t like the rule personally, but the players are supposed to know the rules. He could have tucked the ball and rolled over on his arm to save the play, but he didn’t and let the ball go.

I would prefer to see a reception complete when the receiver has control in his hands or arms and both feet have touched in bounds. After that I would consider him to be running with the ball, and those rules apply there. I don’t know why that isn’t the rule. I suspect it was a the result of a bunch of rules to protect the receiver, but I don’t see how this rule does that. The other reason I see is the difficulty of determining control the way receivers are bobbling the ball all the time. But why not just say if the receiver maintains contact with the ball with the same part of at least one hand or arm during the the time it takes to make contact with both feet, that it is a reception, and the receiver becomes a runner at that point. If he gets hit and the ball knocked out before those things happen, its incomplete. After, its a fumble. And in the end zone, once its complete it would be a touchdown.

Hope someone can get worked up enough to comment.

[barbitu8]

@Lance_Turbo

@gonzomax

The ESPN guys showed the Superbowl play ,which was ruled a catch. Then showed Calvins catch showing how much longer he had the ball, yet it was ruled incomplete. There is plenty of reason to feel screwed over.

During yesterday’s game, Calvin Johnson hitting the ground caused him to lose possession of the ball resulting in an incomplete pass.

I have to disagree. He did not lose possession of the ball when he hit the ground, but he used the ground to maintain control, as I previously posted.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

He lost control immediately after hitting the ground, but it appeared to be a voluntary relinquishment. He did have control, but used the ground to maintain his control with one hand. That, IMHO, is the same as losing control as the ball touched the ground.

[zamboniracer]

[quote=“Ellis_Dee, post:108, topic:553537”]

@zamboniracer

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.

Please stop spreading this lie. It would have been ruled exactly the same: incomplete pass.

Ellis, what I (and others) wrote wasn’t a “lie.” A lie is a “deliberate misstatement of fact with intention to deceive.” You have your opinion, and I have mine. Neither opinion is a lie. Your’s just happens to be wrong.

And with that, having said - and resaid my piece - I leave the field, being pelted with garbage by Ellis Dee.

[Ellis_Aponte_Jr]

The NFL survived for 80+ years without this weird rule and did OK for itself. I think the problem people have with this rule/interpretation is due to that fact… we’ve followed football for such a long time (not just NFL but college or any other level) and suddenly there’s a fundamental change in how a basic play is called. Furthermore it seems to give extra, arbitrary judgement power to the officials while taking away the capacity of the spectator to immediately know what happened thanks to his or her own eyes.

It would be interesting to imagine this rule being retroactively applied… how many Super Bowl touchdowns would have to be subtracted from history?

[etv78]

@Ellis_Aponte_Jr

The NFL survived for 80+ years without this weird rule and did OK for itself. I think the problem people have with this rule/interpretation is due to that fact… we’ve followed football for such a long time (not just NFL but college or any other level) and suddenly there’s a fundamental change in how a basic play is called. Furthermore it seems to give extra, arbitrary judgement power to the officials while taking away the capacity of the spectator to immediately know what happened thanks to his or her own eyes.

It would be interesting to imagine this rule being retroactively applied… how many Super Bowl touchdowns would have to be subtracted from history?

Not to mention it’s counter-intuititveness.

[Airbeck]

its counter intuitive to expect a receiver to hold onto the ball when he comes down from the air with the ball and hits the ground?

[Bearflag70]

Reconsidering the rule as this sounds reasonable to me… possession plus 2 feet down should be a catch.

If the WR grabs the ball, gets drilled in the air, and loses it in the air, then incomplete. Defense still has an opportunity to cause an incompletion.

If the WR grabs the ball in the air, gets 2 feet down, gets drilled immediately, and loses it, then catch-fumble. Defense has a great opportunity for a turnover that isn’t present in the current rule.

If the WR grabs the ball in the air, lands flat on his back, and loses it, then incomplete (because no 2 feet down before going to the ground).

If the WR grabs the ball in the air, gets drilled in the air, lands flat on his back, and loses it, then incomplete (because no 2 feet down before going to the ground).

If the WR grabs the ball in the air, gets 2 feet down, then falls and hits the ground and loses it, then it’s a catch-fumble. If the 2 feet down are in the end zone then TD regardless of falling and losing it afterward. If two feet are down in bounds but the fall and losing it are out of bounds, then it’s a catch and the clock stops for out of bounds.

This proposed rule seems just as clear and easy to follow as the current rule. It seems even more clear in that you don’t have to guess if a player is making one move or two moves when the ball pops out (whether the ball pops out in the process of the catch).

[etv78]

@Airbeck

its counter intuitive to expect a receiver to hold onto the ball when he comes down from the air with the ball and hits the ground?

What’s counterintuitive- the idea that two feet down, with clear possesion, NOT being a catch!

[Bearflag70]

@Bearflag70

It seems even more clear in that you don’t have to guess if a player is making one move or two moves when the ball pops out (whether the ball pops out in the process of the catch).

Correction - It seems even more clear in that you don’t have to guess if a player is making one move or two moves when the ball pops out (whether the ball pops out in the process of the catch) if the player gets 2 feet down with possession.