OT: I am confused with a rule!

[Calciumee]

We all know what happened with Calvin Johnson in week one!

Well, I was just watching the highlights of the Lions - Rams game from last Sunday, and Johnson catches as TD pass as he is falling. While on the ground, he throws one of the refs the ball!

How is this different! He didn't come up with the ball!

NFL Game Center: St. Louis Rams at Detroit Lions - 2010 Week 5 - About 1:05 in!

 

[emoney_33]

We all know what happened with Calvin Johnson in week one!

Well, I was just watching the highlights of the Lions - Rams game from last Sunday, and Johnson catches as TD pass as he is falling. While on the ground, he throws one of the refs the ball!

How is this different! He didn't come up with the ball!

NFL Game Center: St. Louis Rams at Detroit Lions - 2010 Week 5 - About 1:05 in!

What happened to Calvin Johnson was ridiculous. A stupid interpretation of a stupid rule. Some people will argue anything but Calvin Johnson had a TD and the refs and/or rule screwed him and his team.

The refs have to decide when "going to the ground" stops, and the last time they decided it didn't "stop" yet.

 

[Calciumee]

What happened to Calvin Johnson was ridiculous. A stupid interpretation of a stupid rule. Some people will argue anything but Calvin Johnson had a TD and the refs and/or rule screwed him and his team.

The refs have to decide when "going to the ground" stops, and the last time they decided it didn't "stop" yet.

That's what I wondered! Had the refs said that once he had hit the ground and still had it, the play is over! No getting up with it cr@p!

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Nothing in the rule requires the player to stand up with the ball. The rule requires the player to maintain control after touching the ground. Johnson did not do so in game 1.

The official interpretation of the rule is that as soon as the player has made a "second" or "new" move with the ball, he has conclusively demonstrated control. By transferring the ball and flipping it to the ref, Johnson demonstrated control last week. It's actually similar in baseball to the notion that once you go to transfer the ball from your glove, you demonstrate control conclusively.

Johnson probably did it deliberately last week, because he now (better than anyone) knows the rule. Interestingly, if you watch the play, Johnson does not appear to be down by contact last week when he flips the ball to the ref. If he had done that in the field of play it would have been a fumble, but since the offense can't fumble in the opponent's end zone, it's not, obviously, a fumble.

Like everyone, I have a problem with the rule. I don't, though, have a problem with the way it was called either week.

 

[emoney_33]

Nothing in the rule requires the player to stand up with the ball. The rule requires the player to maintain control after touching the ground. Johnson did not do so in game 1.

The official interpretation of the rule is that as soon as the player has made a "second" or "new" move with the ball, he has conclusively demonstrated control. By transferring the ball and flipping it to the ref, Johnson demonstrated control last week. It's actually similar in baseball to the notion that once you go to transfer the ball from your glove, you demonstrate control conclusively.

Johnson probably did it deliberately last week, because he now (better than anyone) knows the rule. Interestingly, if you watch the play, Johnson does not appear to be down by contact last week when he flips the ball to the ref. If he had done that in the field of play it would have been a fumble, but since the offense can't fumble in the opponent's end zone, it's not, obviously, a fumble.

Like everyone, I have a problem with the rule. I don't, though, have a problem with the way it was called either week.

I have a huge problem with how it was called in week 1. He landed one foot after the other, jumped sideways landed on his rear, rolled over and jumped up off the ground. If landing with 1 foot and then the other can be subjectively determined to be "in the act" or "going to the ground" then where does it stop? A 3rd wobbly step? a 4th wobbly step?

 

[unoriginal]

Week 1 was not a catch because Calvin Johnson was turning as he went to the ground; he lost the ball to the ground at the end of his turn. The rule is the same as if a diving receiver laid out and intially caught the ball, but then hit the ground and skidded, and at the end of the skid the ball jarred lose and touched the turf. The catch is not complete at the moment the receiver first touches the turf; it is complete at the end of the skid.

Week 5 was a catch because Johnson fell directly on his side, then tossed the ball to the ref. His original motion stopped with him in possession; tossing the ball is a new action. Had he tossed the ball to the ref AS he hit the ground, it would have been incomplete.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I have a huge problem with how it was called in week 1. He landed one foot after the other, jumped sideways landed on his rear, rolled over and jumped up off the ground. If landing with 1 foot and then the other can be subjectively determined to be "in the act" or "going to the ground" then where does it stop? A 3rd wobbly step? a 4th wobbly step?

I think the question under the rule is whether he went to ground in the act of catching the pass. I imagine all sorts of hypotheticals can be constructed where that would be a tough judgment call. I thought he clearly went to the ground in the act of catching the pass in week 1, at least under a common sense interpretation of those words as I understand them.

Would 4 steps be going to the ground in the act of making the catch? I'd need to see it. If a defender knocked into the player and put him off balance as the was getting the ball and the player did one of those weird things where he was falling down but trying to retain his balance before finally giving way to gravity, I'd say it sounds like it's going to ground in the act of making the catch and he would need to maintain control through the ground (or in the language of the rule "maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground," which I don't think Johnson did in week 1.)

Again, I hate the rule. But I think it was an easy call for the refs on both plays and dissecting it up and looking for slippery slopes is simply something one does because they don't like the rule. I especially don't want refs trying to decide whether or not they like the rule before calling it like it's written.

 

[DaBruinz]

Nothing in the rule requires the player to stand up with the ball. The rule requires the player to maintain control after touching the ground. Johnson did not do so in game 1.

Say what? He most certainly DID maintain control of the ball. How else would you explain him being able to exchange it from one hand to the other???

The official interpretation of the rule is that as soon as the player has made a "second" or "new" move with the ball, he has conclusively demonstrated control. By transferring the ball and flipping it to the ref, Johnson demonstrated control last week. It's actually similar in baseball to the notion that once you go to transfer the ball from your glove, you demonstrate control conclusively.

Johnson probably did it deliberately last week, because he now (better than anyone) knows the rule. Interestingly, if you watch the play, Johnson does not appear to be down by contact last week when he flips the ball to the ref. If he had done that in the field of play it would have been a fumble, but since the offense can't fumble in the opponent's end zone, it's not, obviously, a fumble.

Like everyone, I have a problem with the rule. I don't, though, have a problem with the way it was called either week.

Well, then you have a problem because Johnson had total control of the ball during week 1 until he put it on the ground. If you believe otherwise, you are deluding yourself.

 

[DaBruinz]

Week 1 was not a catch because Calvin Johnson was turning as he went to the ground; he lost the ball to the ground at the end of his turn. The rule is the same as if a diving receiver laid out and intially caught the ball, but then hit the ground and skidded, and at the end of the skid the ball jarred lose and touched the turf. The catch is not complete at the moment the receiver first touches the turf; it is complete at the end of the skid.

Umm.. No. Johnson got 2 feet down in bounds, had his arse hit the ground, then had his left hand hit the ground and it was only when his right hand came around that he put the ball on the ground. And even if he was "trying to turn" as you imply, that's a football move and he had control through more than 100 degrees of rotation before the ball touched the ground.

Sorry, but that is a CATCH and a TD. He had 4 points of contact with the ground before the ground caused the fumble. And he had total control of the ball until the ground caused it. Which it's not supposed to be able to do. And, had it not been in the endzone, he probably would have been ruled down by contact as well.

Heck, one could even go so far as to say that he made a football motion because he had control of the ball when his feet first touched the ground and then he kind of bounced up and that is when he came down with his feet, arse, and then left hand. And the entire time he has control of the ball. And that includes when he purposely switches hands from his left to his right so that his body will hit the ground first to prevent a fumble.

Calvin Johnson got robbed. Plain and simple.

 

[sbpatfan]

The Lions have had the best offense in the NFC even without Stafford. The only thing holding them back is their defense. I know they are 1-4 or whatever, but you can definitely see the improvement. They could be a pretty scary team in the future.

 

[Calciumee]

The Lions have had the best offense in the NFC even without Stafford. The only thing holding them back is their defense. I know they are 1-4 or whatever, but you can definitely see the improvement. They could be a pretty scary team in the future.

They are a play or 2 away from 3-2 or even 4-1! Very good looking team!

 

[West Philly Patriot]

Umm.. No. Johnson got 2 feet down in bounds, had his arse hit the ground, then had his left hand hit the ground and it was only when his right hand came around that he put the ball on the ground. And even if he was "trying to turn" as you imply, that's a football move and he had control through more than 100 degrees of rotation before the ball touched the ground.

Sorry, but that is a CATCH and a TD. He had 4 points of contact with the ground before the ground caused the fumble. And he had total control of the ball until the ground caused it. Which it's not supposed to be able to do. And, had it not been in the endzone, he probably would have been ruled down by contact as well.

Heck, one could even go so far as to say that he made a football motion because he had control of the ball when his feet first touched the ground and then he kind of bounced up and that is when he came down with his feet, arse, and then left hand. And the entire time he has control of the ball. And that includes when he purposely switches hands from his left to his right so that his body will hit the ground first to prevent a fumble.

Calvin Johnson got robbed. Plain and simple.

A ton of valid points in this post.

If this same play had happened to randy moss or welker than patsfaninaz would prob be in an uproar. But it's the lions and this is ok. The zebra's stole that TD and the win from a team that really needed it early on.

Calvin Johnson exhibited complete control until he voluntarily put the ball on the ground. He didn't lose the ball. We have all seen enough football to know what a bobbled ball looks like and having your entire hand wrapped around it isn't usually a characteristic of a dropped ball.

 

[RayClay]

I don't like the rule, but it's his own fault. By failing to secure the ball with both hands and being a hot dog, he inadvertently made a catch technically an incomplete pass. Happens all the time with great catches falling out of bounds as receivers are actually trying to secure the ball before they hit the ground.

 

[WhiZa]

The ball and player here came to a complete stop compared to the one weeks ago. There was no confusion of "still in the act of catching the ball"

 

[emoney_33]

The ball and player here came to a complete stop compared to the one weeks ago. There was no confusion of "still in the act of catching the ball"

Disagree, if he did not throw it to the ref and put it on the ground instead it would be worse than week 1's, since in week 1 he got left foot down, right foot down, stumble-jump to rear, left hand down, roll to get up and celebrate.

 

[unoriginal]

Umm.. No. Johnson got 2 feet down in bounds, had his arse hit the ground, then had his left hand hit the ground

At no point was he ruled out of bounds, correct.

and it was only when his right hand came around that he put the ball on the ground. And even if he was "trying to turn" as you imply, that's a football move and he had control through more than 100 degrees of rotation before the ball touched the ground.

Football move is the old definition of a catch, and regardless it was not a football move because it was a motion imparted during the act of the catch as Johnson tried to secure the ball and create space from the defender. "Football move" would be if he ran out the back of the end zone after the catch, or possibly if he was seen to be stretching the ball for the goal line or a first down.

Sorry, but that is a CATCH and a TD. He had 4 points of contact with the ground before the ground caused the fumble. And he had total control of the ball until the ground caused it. Which it's not supposed to be able to do.

The rules for establishing possession and maintaining possession seem to be jumbled together in your analysis. At no point was Johnson's "catch" ruled a catch and fumble.

And, had it not been in the endzone, he probably would have been ruled down by contact as well.

That wouldn't have been a catch anywhere on the field. In fact, frequently that is not ruled a catch on lots of plays, especially defensive interceptions, each week, but nobody cares because they're not game winning TDs. Appearently that situation requires special rules incorporating judgments about intent, equity, and artistic merit.

Heck, one could even go so far as to say that he made a football motion because he had control of the ball when his feet first touched the ground and then he kind of bounced up and that is when he came down with his feet, arse, and then left hand. And the entire time he has control of the ball. And that includes when he purposely switches hands from his left to his right so that his body will hit the ground first to prevent a fumble.

Calvin Johnson got robbed. Plain and simple.

Let us undergo the following thought experiments:

David Tyree catches a lob from Eli Manning against his helmet. Rodney Harrison flips him in the air, a process during which Tyree attempts to move the ball from his helmet to one hand, but when he hits the ground on his side, Tyree loses the ball when his helmet and hand whip against the ground. Is that a catch?

Charles Woodson intercepts Kevin Kolb by diving in front of a curl route. His momentum pushes him forward two steps as he's going to the ground headfirst, during which time he pulls the ball into his chest. However, when he hits the turf the point of the ball also hits, which jars the ball lose and causes it to pop out beneath his groin. Is that a catch?

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

Like everyone, I have a problem with the rule.

I don't have a problem with the rule. I've seen that play dozens of times since then and not once did I feel like it deserved to be a catch. I still don't know what everyone is cryin about.

 

[emoney_33]

I don't have a problem with the rule. I've seen that play dozens of times since then and not once did I feel like it deserved to be a catch. I still don't know what everyone is cryin about.

I understand the people arguing the letter of the law, but to argue that SHOULD NOT be a catch regardless if there were even any rules... that I can never agree with.

If someone were to know no NFL rules and watch that play, I'd expect 100 out of 100 to say that it should be a TD.

 

[WhiZa]

Disagree, if he did not throw it to the ref and put it on the ground instead it would be worse than week 1's, since in week 1 he got left foot down, right foot down, stumble-jump to rear, left hand down, roll to get up and celebrate.

I agree with your mutilation of my argument If the ball hit the ground would of have still been moving and therefore never a complete catch

 

[emoney_33]

I agree with your mutilation of my argument If the ball hit the ground would of have still been moving and therefore never a complete catch

Stop the play at the moment he throws the ball to the ref. Now change that to losing the ball while throwing it to the ref so it looks like a "fumble". Or if he did exactly everything he did except held onto the ball longer (not throw it to the ref) and put it on the ground instead, the only thing that would change is people's opinion. He'd still have had the exact same "completed" catch, except with extra time with the ball.