Welcome to PatsFans.com

OT: Lions Fan Rant on Johnson TD Reversal

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Zeus, Sep 14, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zeus

    Zeus PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    945
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Sep 14, 2010
  2. Calciumee

    Calciumee PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    4,598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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!
  3. Snake Eyes

    Snake Eyes Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,821
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -1

    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.
  4. woolster22

    woolster22 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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...).
  5. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    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.
  6. woolster22

    woolster22 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  7. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  8. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  9. ALP

    ALP Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    7,401
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    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
  10. BradyManny

    BradyManny Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9,679
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    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.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2010
  11. BradyManny

    BradyManny Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9,679
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    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.
  12. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  13. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  14. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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:

    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.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2010
  15. Calciumee

    Calciumee PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    4,598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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!
  16. BradyManny

    BradyManny Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9,679
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    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.

    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".
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2010
  17. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  18. Chupacabra

    Chupacabra Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

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

    ;)
  19. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  20. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0


    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.
  21. BradyManny

    BradyManny Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9,679
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    The rule doesn't say how long after. The rule doesn't say a lot. Again, it could quickly become absurd. Thus, there is subjectivity left to the referee, as well there should be.

    This is not comparable to a play where a player goes up in the air, catches it, and the ball pops out when he lands. That is what the rule is for.

    YouTube - Calvin Johnson Robbed by NFL's Horrible Catch Rule

    The maker of the video freezes it at :19, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a catch at :16. He's down, he has control (one handed or not). Again, the ensuing action is a superfluous, dumb move by Johnson, but has nothing to do with whether he had control of the ball or not.
  22. BradyManny

    BradyManny Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9,679
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Does the rule say he must be sitting on the ground?
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2010
  23. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,226
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    To me it looked like just dropped the ball thinking he had a td. I thought it was a td when i firt saw the play, i had the sound down and i didn't understand what was wrong until later on.
  24. fxkane

    fxkane Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This call is a terrible black eye for the NFL. This isn't about how many angels fit on the end of a pin, this is football and that was a stupendously clear touchdown. Refs have all kinds of subjective power in almost all other aspects of the game, why not a smidgeon here.

    And to all you arguing for the call, just imagine Moss making the same catch on the near last play of the game with the game on the line--instead of this single thread which has come real late to the board, every single thread would be related to this catch

    To tell the truth that despite the great Pat victory, my elation dropped considerably when i saw this reversal---to of all teams the Lions, who had to play this one with their backup qb. OUTRIGHT INJUSTICE!!
  25. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Again, use my video, not the super slow mo one.

    This is exactly as above, he hits the ground, his arm is coming down, and the tip of the ball hits the ground and it pops up.

    Yes, hes trying to get up and celebrate, but this is no different than any other time the ground knocks the ball out. He hits the ground, his body is spinning from impact, and the ball pops out.

    That point on the video where you point out is literally a 1/16th of a second before the ball pops out. If you can't hold onto it for 1/16th of a second, you don't have control.
  26. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    No, it says he must maintain control of the ball after he hits the ground, through the entire impact with the ground, something he clearly didn't do.
  27. BradyManny

    BradyManny Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9,679
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    I feel like Bill Clinton a little bit asking what is is, but what constitutes "he". At what point does he hit the ground, and how long is "after". Let's say instead of being an idiot like he was on that play, Johnson tucks it into his arms, falls to the ground - at what point is it a catch? It's always going to be subjective, no?
  28. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Its a catch when his body stops rolling, or he stands up with the ball. He has to maintain control of the ball throughout contact with the ground. It doesn't matter when he hits the ground, he just can't let go of the ball after hitting it.

    if he had just tucked it into his body, it probably would have been a catch, but instead he kept his hand out, smacked his hand on the ground, and the ball popped out.


    he HAD the ball, he just make a rookie mistake and tried to get up to celebrate before securing it. Its a catch in a playground sense, but not in an NFL sense.



    It looks like its a catch in slow-mo, but if you look at it in real speed, he hits the ground and the ball is out in less than a 1/16th of a second.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2010
  29. emoney_33

    emoney_33 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    5,194
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    I watched it over and over. Something is broken, either the refs interpretation of the rule or the rule itself but there is absolutely no way in hell that should not be a TD.
  30. emoney_33

    emoney_33 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    5,194
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Oh man I had to go rewatch it again, and it gets worse each time I watch it. Catch, right foot, left foot, spin, fall, butt, left hand, roll, plants ball hand to get up and celebrate...

    JOBBED.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page