OT: Lions Fan Rant on Johnson TD Reversal

[Zeus]

Highly entertaining. Be careful, this is considerably more profane than your average conversation with Fat Rex.

YouTube - F*CK THE NFL IM NOT PAYING OR WATCHING ANY MORE GAMES LIONS CALVIN JOHNSON ROBBED

 

[Calciumee]

I think it is an unfortunate play, and think the rule is abit c**p!

Why doesn't it usually matter if a player goes down, and doesn't come up with the ball, but in the endzone it does!

 

[Snake Eyes]

The moment the receiver has posession with 2 feet on the ground (or 1 knee) the "process" should be complete. That was how it always was but they changed the rule last year, it should be changed back.

 

[woolster22]

Wow. You show that play to 1000 fans, and all 1000 will tell you thats a touchdown. Every time. Detroit got robbed (and thats not cause I had them picked to upset), seriously, how isn't that a touchdown? Cause he can hold the ball with one hand and braced himself with the other as he went down after getting two feet in bounds? Lions got porked, no lube. Too bad, they could use any break they can get after the last decade or three (okay, maybe outside of Barry...).

 

[wistahpatsfan]

Wow. You show that play to 1000 fans, and all 1000 will tell you thats a touchdown. Every time. Detroit got robbed (and thats not cause I had them picked to upset), seriously, how isn't that a touchdown? Cause he can hold the ball with one hand and braced himself with the other as he went down after getting two feet in bounds? Lions got porked, no lube. Too bad, they could use any break they can get after the last decade or three (okay, maybe outside of Barry...).

The lions got robbed the same way the Raiders did during the Tuck Rule Game. By a rule.

The Raiders didn't do anything to rectify it because they couldn't. Their season was over. The Eagles have to go into Detroit and play the Lions who should have beaten the Bears on the road. The Lions now can show us what they're made of. I wouldn't want to be the Eagles next week.

 

[woolster22]

It may be the rule, but it does not mean that it makes sense. I'd call the tuck play a fumble, but am certainly not complaining the call got reversed (tho it meant I watched the rest of the game jacket/shirtless...and I wasn't anywhere near the legal drinking age so alcohol was not involved ) Same goes for this play. Now the ones where the reciever is making his best Santonio re-enactment (toe tapping as falling out of bounds) yeah, it makes sense that he needs to keep possession through the act of hitting the ground blah blah blah. But on that play? Seriously, you could almost make the argument that he was using the "ball-hand" to push himself up as he ran around the back of the endzone celebrating. There should be some wiggle-rooms for refs for plays like that. Call it the sniff test...if the by-the-book nitpicky interpretation of the rule makes the call stink like poo...the hell with the nitpicky interpretation, go with the gut.

 

[Synovia]

Why doesn't it usually matter if a player goes down, and doesn't come up with the ball, but in the endzone it does!

It always matters. When a player gets hit in the air, he has to maintain possesion when he goes to the ground. CJ didn't do that.

 

[Synovia]

But on that play? Seriously, you could almost make the argument that he was using the "ball-hand" to push himself up as he ran around the back of the endzone celebrating. There should be some wiggle-rooms for refs for plays like that. Call it the sniff test...if the by-the-book nitpicky interpretation of the rule makes the call stink like poo...the hell with the nitpicky interpretation, go with the gut.

No, you can't make that argument. Thats exactly what I though the first time I saw it, but watch it again on nfl.com.

He hits the ground, rolls, the ball smacks on the ground and pops out. He never has control. He didn't let go of the ball. The ball hit the ground as he was falling and popped out.


He, at no point, is on the ground with control of the ball.

 

[ALP]

No, the play was over when CJ had his ass o. The ground, nevermind the feet
At the point when he sits down the ball is firmly in his hand, play over, TD

Then he doesn't drop the ball, he places the ball down while turning around to go to the fans inthe endzone

No story here really, just that NFL officials suck

 

[BradyManny]

No, you can't make that argument. Thats exactly what I though the first time I saw it, but watch it again on nfl.com.

He hits the ground, rolls, the ball smacks on the ground and pops out. He never has control. He didn't let go of the ball. The ball hit the ground as he was falling and popped out.


He, at no point, is on the ground with control of the ball.

He was in control the entire way. Two feet down (in fact, he took a full step and put a 3rd down), knee down, elbow down = Possession. It's honestly no different than if someone had run a 100 yard touchdown back and jumped over the goal-line and the ball pops out when it hits the ground (like Guyton's INT return), for instance. It isn't even contemplated whether that is a fumble or not, its a TD. In this case, he caught the ball, came down with it, stepped again. He had possession. At that point, he could throw it into the stands, launched it into the air, it shouldn't matter what happens next.

I don't even think the refs are interpreting the rule correctly here. He caught the ball. Then he started to fall. They need to separate the two actions. I understand what they THINK they called.

 

[BradyManny]

It always matters. When a player gets hit in the air, he has to maintain possesion when he goes to the ground. CJ didn't do that.

Right, but his feet hit the ground and he was fully in control of the ball. He established possession before the ball hit the ground.

 

[Synovia]

No, the play was over when CJ had his ass o. The ground, nevermind the feet
At the point when he sits down the ball is firmly in his hand, play over, TD

No, he doesn't. You have to maintain possesion until you finish going to the ground. Seriously, watch the play again. I thought exactly the same as you when I watched it the first time.

 

[Synovia]

Right, but his feet hit the ground and he was fully in control of the ball. He established possession before the ball hit the ground.

No, he didn't. If a reciever is touched by a defender in the air, and goes to the ground, he does not establish possession until he has control of the ball on the ground.

 

[Synovia]

The way I saw it, he was down by contact (Intentional, or not, there was contact) he maintained posession of the ball, albeit in one hand and then his knee hit the ground BEFORE the hand with the ball did. IMO posession was maintained and it was a touchdown.

Again, possesion isn't accomplished when he hits the ground. Read the rule.


The player has to keep the ball AFTER HE HITS THE GROUND. It doesn't matter when the knee hits the ground in relation to the ball. All that matters is he was still rolling when the ball hit the ground and came out.


This is exactly the same as every other time a reciever catches the ball in the air, hits the ground, and the ball pops out. It happens 10 times a game, and is called the same exact way every single time.


To quote the rule:

if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, he must maintain control of the ball AFTER he touches the ground

You can dislike the RULE all you want, but it was absolutely called correctly.


Right about 2:30
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...s-not-concerned-about-controversial-notd-call

Its one motion, he hits the ground, the arm comes down, ball smacks into the ground, ball pops out.

 

[Calciumee]

Again, possesion isn't accomplished when he hits the ground. Read the rule.


The player has to keep the ball AFTER HE HITS THE GROUND. It doesn't matter when the knee hits the ground in relation to the ball. All that matters is he was still rolling when the ball hit the ground and came out.


This is exactly the same as every other time a reciever catches the ball in the air, hits the ground, and the ball pops out. It happens 10 times a game, and is called the same exact way every single time.

Yes; but the rule is stupid! That is what people are arguing! That common sense would say it was a TD, but the rulebook says it isn't!

 

[BradyManny]

This is exactly the same as every other time a reciever catches the ball in the air, hits the ground, and the ball pops out. It happens 10 times a game, and is called the same exact way every single time.

I'd agree with you - but that's not how this specific play transpired. You are alluding to and comparing it to plays which are different. This was a very unique play.

if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, he must maintain control of the ball AFTER he touches the ground

Johnson had touched the ground and maintained control of the ball. After that, his arm swung down and hit the ground. He touched the ground before that act. Which, admittedly, was wholly unnecessary on Johnson's part. Literally every part of Johnson's body had hit the ground save for the hand with the ball in it - and he had 100% control over the ball all the while. Nowhere in the rule does it say the entirety of the body must touch the ground for it to be a catch. If it did, we'd get into absurdity where a player would have to basically smother the ground while maintaining control of the ball. I bring it into hyperbole here, obviously, but you get my point. He had control, he'd touched the ground, with all the parts of the body part which - in any other play - deem a player "down".

 

[Synovia]

I'd agree with you - but that's not how this specific play transpired. You are alluding to and comparing it to plays which are different. This was a very unique play.

Watch the play I linked to above. Its exactly what happens. He hits the ground rolling, his arm comes down and the ball hits the ground and pops out. its one fluid motion. Hes never sitting on the ground.

 

[Chupacabra]

We'll just have to wait until this happens to Peyton Manning, and then they'll change it.

 

[Synovia]

Johnson had touched the ground and maintained control of the ball. After that, his arm swung down and hit the ground. He touched the ground before that act. Which, admittedly, was wholly unnecessary on Johnson's part.

Please point out to me, exactly at what second on the video that Johnson has established and maintained control of the ball on the ground.

It does not matter if he TOUCHED the ground before the ball comes out. He has to maintain control after he hits the ground.

 

[Synovia]

Literally every part of Johnson's body had hit the ground save for the hand with the ball in it - and he had 100% control over the ball all the while. Nowhere in the rule does it say the entirety of the body must touch the ground for it to be a catch. If it did, we'd get into absurdity where a player would have to basically smother the ground while maintaining control of the ball. I bring it into hyperbole here, obviously, but you get my point. He had control, he'd touched the ground, with all the parts of the body part which - in any other play - deem a player "down".

Again, read the rule. The player has to MAINTAIN control of the ball after he hits the ground. It doesn't matter how many parts hit the ground. He has to MAINTAIN control of the ball, something Johnson clearly does not do.