OT: Lions Fan Rant on Johnson TD Reversal

[Robdude]

The instant he hits the ground it becomes "after". And he clearly had the ball in full control as he hit the ground, as he planted his other hand as he rolled and right before getting up. It came out in the act of getting up.

Bottom line, you can interpret the rule however you want, but there's no way that should not have been a TD in an ideal world.

I have to agree Synovia on all of this. The rule is clear. In all cases a player has to maintain control while falling. The ball left his hand while he was still in the act of falling.

I also do not see why everyone wants to feel bad for Johnson. Why it is ok that he even made the catch look questionable. All he had to do was hold on to the ball. Stay on the ground and show you have control. As a professional he should be aware of the rule and make sure he follows the rule. This is not an issue 99% of the time because when a receiver falls to the ground he makes a point of showing control and he does it for longer than a second.

I know I am in the minority here (according to ESPN Poll 80% think it was a bad call) but I think the rule is fine and the player did not follow the rule. He has a responcibility to show control before he tosses the ball away.

 

[emoney_33]

No, it absolutely didn't.

He lands on his left side, and hitting the ground causes his right arm to come down. The tip of the ball hits the ground and comes out. It is one FLUID motion. You can see that his fingers clench together after the ball squirts out.

It's one fluid motion including the popping up to his feet to celebrate. So you can call it whatever you want, but that's a TD.

And anyways, whether or not he was trying to get up is immaterial. He lost the ball going to the ground,

By YOUR (and the refs) definition of "going to the ground". You can pretend there's a clear black and white line but there simply is not. Fix the interpretation or fix the rule, I don't care but that's a Touchdown.

 

[Synovia]

It's one fluid motion including the popping up to his feet to celebrate. So you can call it whatever you want, but that's a TD.



By YOUR (and the refs) definition of "going to the ground". You can pretend there's a clear black and white line but there simply is not. Fix the interpretation or fix the rule, I don't care but that's a Touchdown.

If its one fluid motion, by rule, its not a touchdown. He never establishes possesion.


If thats a touchdown, then so is every time a WR gets hit in the air, and drops the ball when he hits the ground. Its the same application of the same rule, and its called the same way every single time.

 

[emoney_33]

If its one fluid motion, by rule, its not a touchdown. He never establishes possesion.

He absolutely established possession. You are being subjective to argue a rule is objective.

If thats a touchdown, then so is every time a WR gets hit in the air, and drops the ball when he hits the ground. Its the same application of the same rule, and its called the same way every single time.

No it isn't, really at all. He caught the ball, he planted his right foot, planted his left foot, while spinning fell to his rear end, put his left hand on the ground, rolled around and began getting up. You can see what you want to see but that is a Touchdown. It's a subjective interpretation of the same rule, this is not black and white like you want it to be.

The exact transfer from going to down to getting up is impossible to tell so there's not a black and white defined moment there either.

 

[Synovia]

The exact transfer from going to down to getting up is impossible to tell so there's not a black and white defined moment there either.

No, it is not. Anyone with any understanding of the way the human body moves, and simple physics can see that landing on one hip with the other hand up in the air is going to cause that hand to come down. The ball hits the ground, and then he tries to put his hand on the ground to steady himself and start to get up. The ball pops out before ANY part of his body starts moving upward.


And it does not matter whether he was getting up or not, he has to hold onto the ball after going to the ground.

 

[Synovia]

He absolutely established possession. You are being subjective to argue a rule is objective.



No it isn't, really at all. He caught the ball, he planted his right foot, planted his left foot, while spinning fell to his rear end, put his left hand on the ground, rolled around and began getting up. .

Again, these two statements are at odds. When a reciever goes to the ground, BY RULE, HE CAN NOT ESTABLISH POSSESSION UNTIL HE HAS MAINTAINED CONTROL OF THE BALL ON THE GROUND.

He could cut the ball open, put it on as a hat, then fall down and have it come off, and its still an incompletion. It doesn't matter how many feet, hands, asses, heads, or whatever touch the ground.

 

[emoney_33]

No, it is not. Anyone with any understanding of the way the human body moves, and simple physics can see that landing on one hip with the other hand up in the air is going to cause that hand to come down.

:sigh: He got 2 feet down and jumped sideways to his rear end. His catch is not much different from a guy who catches a ball and then dives forward outstretched hand to the endzoe, crossing the plane and landing with the ball coming out.

And it does not matter whether he was getting up or not, he has to hold onto the ball after going to the ground.

There is no clear destinction of when going to the ground is part of the catch nor is there a clear definition of "after going to the ground". It's SUBJECTIVE.

It was a TD, and I don't really care what the letter of the rule states. The fact that can even be argued with the rule indicates the rule is SEVERELY broken.

 

[emoney_33]

Again, these two statements are at odds. When a reciever goes to the ground, BY RULE, HE CAN NOT ESTABLISH POSSESSION UNTIL HE HAS MAINTAINED CONTROL OF THE BALL ON THE GROUND.

You can quote the rule all you want, there is no clarification of "establish possession", "going to the ground in the act of catching" nor "maintain control on the ground". So bringing up words that require subjective interpretation doesn't really do anything for the argument.

He could cut the ball open, put it on as a hat, then fall down and have it come off, and its still an incompletion. It doesn't matter how many feet, hands, asses, heads, or whatever touch the ground.

So if he catches it does 5 minutes of walking and then falls, it doesn't matter?

He could catch it and stumble from the 20 yard line to the goalline and then fall into the endzone and the ball comes out and it's incomplete?

 

[Synovia]

So if he catches it does 5 minutes of walking and then falls, it doesn't matter?
?

The 5 minutes of walking isn't "going to the ground in the act of catching the ball".


Are you really arguing that Calvin Johnson didn't fall in the act of catching the ball? Really?

 

[Synovia]

He could catch it and stumble from the 20 yard line to the goalline and then fall into the endzone and the ball comes out and it's incomplete?

If he gets hit while hes catching the ball, and never regains his balance, then yes.

 

[emoney_33]

The 5 minutes of walking isn't "going to the ground in the act of catching the ball".


Are you really arguing that Calvin Johnson didn't fall in the act of catching the ball? Really?

Watch it again... 2 feet down and pushes himself sideways. Falling in the act is debatable and subjective.

If he gets hit while hes catching the ball, and never regains his balance, then yes.

That's just absurd.