Jump to content

mr0zip0

Lions Robbed vs. Bears

Recommended Posts


I disagree with the rule. However, I have watched this video many times now and I think you'll see that Calvin meant to grab the ball when he landed to run with it. He squeezes it and his fingers slip off at the end of the 'process'. It's a stupid rule, but he definitely did not grip it when it touched the ground.

I also don't understand why a veteran WR doesn't pull that ball in as he's landing.

Watch at 1:19 mark:

NFL Videos: Calvin Johnson, not a TD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The call was right. The problem is with the rule.

It was not the correct call. here's the rule:

"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by a defender) must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception or recovery."

Johnson had control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground, so it is a catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if I understand the rule correctly, or at least how supporters of the call are interpreting it, if ... :

- Calvin had streaked down the sideline way past any Bear defender and caught the ball with outstretched arms for complete possession one yard into the end zone with no one around him, but because he had stretched out and was moving so quickly he stumbled his way through the endzone, into a falling motion for 10 more steps with no juggling, before having the ball pop out as he came down to the ground right before the railing

... then it STILL would have been ruled incomplete?! WTF, what a rule.

This was exactly what I was thinking. I was going to make it more obnoxious by having the ball dislodge when he fell on a photographer out of bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not blaming the "victim," I think he was robbed. But if he makes the catch with two hands then it's not an issue.

Right?

Yes, thank you.

Yes... but...

Look, people were saying that in the Galaraga imperfect game that Cabrera should have let the second baseball field the ball and he should have gone back to first. Had he done that it would have been a clearer out and there is no controversy... there's no question if he was out or safe. Cabrera made it more complicated than it needed to be.

So do you put some on Cabrera that Galaraga doesn't have a perfect game? Yep, Cabrera/Johnson should have done things a bit differently. Yep, had they it likely wouldn't be an issue. That said, both still did what they needed to do and should have gotten the correct call and in both cases the ump/ref blew the call. You can say all you want that the player should have done something more or different, and I'll agree with you. But the player still did what was needed, even if they did it in a more complicated way.

As I understand it, what the ref is saying is that Johnson never had control because in order to have control you need to: A.) Maintain the ball through the whole process of hitting the ground (which he didn't) or B.) Make a second motion (which I think he clearly did).

You can't compare this to the running back who barely breaks the plane and then drops the ball because the running back, as he's moving into the endzone, already has possession. According to the refs Johnson never had possession and therefore it isn't a catch. Now as I mentioned above, I think this is bull because I think it's pretty clear that Johnson is on the ground, and then tries to get up. That trying to getup is a second effort/motion/whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes... but...

Look, people were saying that in the Galaraga imperfect game that Cabrera should have let the second baseball field the ball and he should have gone back to first. Had he done that it would have been a clearer out and there is no controversy... there's no question if he was out or safe. Cabrera made it more complicated than it needed to be.

So do you put some on Cabrera that Galaraga doesn't have a perfect game? Yep, Cabrera/Johnson should have done things a bit differently. Yep, had they it likely wouldn't be an issue. That said, both still did what they needed to do and should have gotten the correct call and in both cases the ump/ref blew the call. You can say all you want that the player should have done something more or different, and I'll agree with you. But the player still did what was needed, even if they did it in a more complicated way.

As I understand it, what the ref is saying is that Johnson never had control because in order to have control you need to: A.) Maintain the ball through the whole process of hitting the ground (which he didn't) or B.) Make a second motion (which I think he clearly did).

You can't compare this to the running back who barely breaks the plane and then drops the ball because the running back, as he's moving into the endzone, already has possession. According to the refs Johnson never had possession and therefore it isn't a catch. Now as I mentioned above, I think this is bull because I think it's pretty clear that Johnson is on the ground, and then tries to get up. That trying to getup is a second effort/motion/whatever.

He clearly had possession in that big mitt of his

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think to eliminate some interpretation of the rule they could justify possession by a 3 second rule or something. If all else fails determine if it was a catch by how long he had the ball. Because I bet you if the ball didn't hit the ground and get jarred loose but instead he just placed the ball on the ground they would have called touchdown. When they saw the ball jarred loose is when they ruled incomplete, which is ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think to eliminate some interpretation of the rule they could justify possession by a 3 second rule or something.

That wouldn't work. If you did that you are giving the defense three seconds to rip the ball away from the receiver to make it an incomplete pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and possession was clearly knocked out by the ground and not by him letting go of the ball to celebrate

Yes, and as stated in the rule in a previous post, if he has possession before the ball touches the ground, it's a catch. He did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to PFT

I don't think CJ lost control.. he scored a TD and used the ball to help him get up to celebrate. TD.

If you watch the video his fingers clench in towards the ball as if he's trying to continue to hold it, if he was releasing or using the ball as his celebration, the fingers would have released from the ball and not squeezed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and possession was clearly knocked out by the ground and not by him letting go of the ball to celebrate

I fully agree that the ball was 'knocked' out of his hand rather than released. But in my ever so humble opinion, Johnson had already achieved possession by this point by the fact that he was trying to stand up (second act) while still holding the ball. This would have been a fumble had it been in the middle of the field, but because it was in the endzone it should have been a TD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fully agree that the ball was 'knocked' out of his hand rather than released. But in my ever so humble opinion, Johnson had already achieved possession by this point by the fact that he was trying to stand up (second act) while still holding the ball. This would have been a fumble had it been in the middle of the field, but because it was in the endzone it should have been a TD.

I agree it should have been a catch and the rule is dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a subjective rule. Either side could say he made the catch or he didn't.

When was the catch "complete"? You can argue that it was not complete until he got up (which is what they're saying) and that he didn't have the ball when he got up. I would argue the catch was complete when he hit the ground WITH THE BALL IN HIS HAND.

It's totally subjective and anyone saying it's "obvious" one way or another (me included) is wrong.

That being said...again...Johnson should have made the catch and didn't. I don't see why more people aren't mad at him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a subjective rule. Either side could say he made the catch or he didn't.

When was the catch "complete"? You can argue that it was not complete until he got up (which is what they're saying) and that he didn't have the ball when he got up. I would argue the catch was complete when he hit the ground WITH THE BALL IN HIS HAND.

It's totally subjective and anyone saying it's "obvious" one way or another (me included) is wrong.

That being said...again...Johnson should have made the catch and didn't. I don't see why more people aren't mad at him.

The way I saw it, he was still in the act of hitting the ground when the ball came free, mostly because of the way he tried to fall with one hand behind him and the other holding the ball. It was still the impact of him hitting the ground that caused the ball to come free, not the impact of him trying to stand up. At least that's how I saw it. So the refs were calling the game correctly, even if it's dumb. Unlike the Gallaraga issue that people are comparing it to where the Umpire just blew the call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love for someone to explain to me how this is considered okay and Johnson's catch wasn't.

_J0_WL06AAc

Their justification was that since the ball broke the plane it was a touchdown and because of such even though the ball came loose...it didn't matter...all the ball had to do was be in his possession for that split second as it broke the plane.

Edited by EchO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That being said...again...Johnson should have made the catch and didn't. I don't see why more people aren't mad at him.

For the same reason I'm not mad at Cabrera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would love for someone to explain to me how this is considered okay and Johnson's catch wasn't.

Their justification was that since the ball broke the plane it was a touchdown and because of such even though the ball came loose...it didn't matter...all the ball had to do was be in his possession for that split second as it broke the plane.

I think the fact that he rolled over grabbed possession again and then had the ball knocked free by another player makes it a different situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the same reason I'm not mad at Cabrera.

What did Cabrera do wrong? He made the play within the rules of the game.

Johnson did not.

Your analogy is flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes... but...

Look, people were saying that in the Galaraga imperfect game that Cabrera should have let the second baseball field the ball and he should have gone back to first. Had he done that it would have been a clearer out and there is no controversy... there's no question if he was out or safe. Cabrera made it more complicated than it needed to be.

So do you put some on Cabrera that Galaraga doesn't have a perfect game? Yep, Cabrera/Johnson should have done things a bit differently. Yep, had they it likely wouldn't be an issue. That said, both still did what they needed to do and should have gotten the correct call and in both cases the ump/ref blew the call. You can say all you want that the player should have done something more or different, and I'll agree with you. But the player still did what was needed, even if they did it in a more complicated way.

As I understand it, what the ref is saying is that Johnson never had control because in order to have control you need to: A.) Maintain the ball through the whole process of hitting the ground (which he didn't) or B.) Make a second motion (which I think he clearly did).

You can't compare this to the running back who barely breaks the plane and then drops the ball because the running back, as he's moving into the endzone, already has possession. According to the refs Johnson never had possession and therefore it isn't a catch. Now as I mentioned above, I think this is bull because I think it's pretty clear that Johnson is on the ground, and then tries to get up. That trying to getup is a second effort/motion/whatever.

But he did have control. The ball was never bobbled. He jumped up, snared it and landed squarely with both feet in total possesion of the ball, because it's in the end zone there is no tackle there, so the play should be dead the SECOND his feet hit the ground - because, as we are told time and time again, the ground can't cause a fumble. Dumb rule, and the rule should not have even been applied here since there was no tackle to be made, the play should be dead the second his feet touch that end zone ground with control of the ball. If he plays for the Pats, Giants, Cowboys, Jets, Packers, Colts or Steelers - it's a catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What did Cabrera do wrong? He made the play within the rules of the game.

Johnson did not.

Your analogy is flawed.

In your opinion. I my opinion Johnson made the play within the rules of the game. I think the refs viewed the play incorrectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In your opinion. I my opinion Johnson made the play within the rules of the game. I think the refs viewed the play incorrectly.

But the way the rule is written makes it completely subjective. Why do three quarters of the "pundits" including the ref guy on Fox who called the play incomplete before the replay official did, say it was the right call? Because it is within a certain interpretation of the rules.

The Cabrera-Joyce call was the wrong call. The rule is that the ball is there before the runner, the batter is out. There is nothing subjective about it. Since the ball was there, the runner should have been out.

There is nothing really similar about the situations. Within an interpretation of the rule, Johnson did not make the catch. If he holds onto the ball with two hands as he hits the ground, the catch is good. He didn't do that. And the Lions lost the game because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But he did have control. The ball was never bobbled. He jumped up, snared it and landed squarely with both feet in total possesion of the ball, because it's in the end zone there is no tackle there, so the play should be dead the SECOND his feet hit the ground - because, as we are told time and time again, the ground can't cause a fumble. Dumb rule, and the rule should not have even been applied here since there was no tackle to be made, the play should be dead the second his feet touch that end zone ground with control of the ball. If he plays for the Pats, Giants, Cowboys, Jets, Packers, Colts or Steelers - it's a catch.

But that's not what the rule says. It says you have to have control through the entire catch. And the entire catch includes hitting the ground and rolling around. The rule absolutely should have been applied here. Simply because it was the end zone is not a factor.

You can argue that he controlled it withing the boundaries of the rule, but the fact that he was in the end zone doesn't change the application of the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...