What's new
By:

one of the bigger crocks of BS

Gameface said:
The dude caught the ball. That's not enough? He has to maintain control through the entire process? Didn't he though? Looks like he caught it with one hand and had it the entire time. I must be missing something...
Click to expand...

apparently if you go down on a catch, you have to have the ball in your hand when you get back up, or something like that.

what's an even bigger crock is that if you're running with the ball, once the ball crosses the end line into the endzone it's a touchdown, and it doesn't seem to matter where the player is or what happens to the ball immediately after it crosses

anyhow, here's a link with some interesting info:
https://lions.football-news-update.com/detroit-lions-loss-to-chicago-bears-calvin-johnsons-fault-not-referees/
 
The Bears got ****ed. Johnson didn't lose the ball as much as let it go. It's still not as bad as the tuck rule, though.
 
I guess I don't know about the NFL but on the playground that is an epic catch and touchdown to win the game.
 
NFL refs are the best in the world at refereeing their respective sport. Sadly, they got that call right. The blame to be had is on the rules, not the refs. They interpreted it exactly how it is written.

It should have been a catch and Detroit should have won that game. But, the rule sucks.

The sad thing is that the NFL hasn't even made a statement about correcting the rule, because I'm sure 99% of people that watch and love football would have called that a catch. It looked good to me in real-time and it looked good on the replay, until I understood how the rule was supposed to be enforced.
 
It is a rule that needs to be changed. There is a double standard. A running back can extend his arms on the goal line, and if a mere fraction of the ball crosses the plane, even if the defender knocks it away immediately; then it is a touchdown. Johnson makes a great catch, maintains control while going to the ground and both feet hit and he lands on his butt, and it is an incomplete pass.
 
I guess I'm the only one in the world that didnt think it was a catch.

To me his momentum carried him to the ground and the ball hits and comes loose. No catch.
 
Having played football as a receiver that was a ****ing god damn awesome catch!! The poster above me has no clue. Probably waxing his 360 control paddle when others were actually playing the game.
 
U Gotta Love It Baby said:
I guess I'm the only one in the world that didnt think it was a catch.

To me his momentum carried him to the ground and the ball hits and comes loose. No catch.
Click to expand...

wait, but isn't the rule that the ground can't cause a fumble? And they're not really making a judgment that the ball came loose, it's that he didn't finish the "process" of the catch - it definitely seems like a dumb rule that's inconsistent with the way a touchdown would be called had it been a running play

at any rate, having watched the replay in slow-motion repeatedly during the game while the refs were reviewing it, it looked to me like it might've been a situation where he let go of the ball as he was getting up, not that it came loose accidentally - it looked like it could have been an intentional release

and besides, the original ruling was touchdown - - so what about the rule that it has to be incontrovertible evidence to overturn the original call?

I haven't been able to find a video where they slow it down to the extent that they slowed it down during the game, but the replays I've watched, it looks like he had control, and released the ball as he was getting up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSYDYI4F4xs&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jESb8ekQdgI&feature=player_embedded
 
Last edited:
The argument against the rule isn't whether he caught the ball or not. He did. Every part of his body that would declare him "down" was down before the ball hit the ground. But, the rule says that he has to "maintain control without the ball touching the ground".. where that time frame ends, nobody really knows.

The biggest complaint I have, though, is that if he touched the ground with his feet, then fell out of bounds and dropped the ball in a similar fashion, absolutely no question it would be a catch. It's just a dumb rule that seems to have very little foresight. If he has the ball in two hands or "under control" (which he clearly did) when he hits the ground and is declared down or out of bounds, it should be a catch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top