Delicious_bass Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 It looks like a TD to me too ... my point is that players have to be smart and not give the ref.s the opportunity to make a call. If Calvin simply holds onto the ball there is no question. I could be wrong, but it looked to me that the ball came out from hitting the ground moreso than him just letting go of it, though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 He put the ball on the ground cuz that was it, incomplete pass, GAME OVER. Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 Frankly, I don't know the letter of the law, but that should be a touchdown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 I could be wrong, but it looked to me that the ball came out from hitting the ground moreso than him just letting go of it, though... Yes I believe you are correct ... which is why the ref.s ruled it the way they did ... he did not maintain control of the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Itals Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 It looks like a TD to me too ... my point is that players have to be smart and not give the ref.s the opportunity to make a call. If Calvin simply holds onto the ball there is no question. Yep, he coulda pulled the ball into his body, which I had wondered about before. If he does that and gets up it's an indisputable touchdown. I still believe that is a catch if it occurs outside of the endzone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 the other thing i don't understand is that it looks like he was touched by the bears defender. so if you are touched by a defender on your way to the ground, aren't you considered tackled? so if it were in the open field, the ball would be spotted as the offensive player came to rest after being touched. so one would think since the ball was possessed when he hit the ground after being touched, he would be "spotted down" in the endzone. i'm a bears fan and they got completely hosed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewjh Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 The worst call I have ever seen. CJ had three feet down and his rear, celebrating the touchdown and let's it go. If you argue this you are an idiot. For what it is worth I don't have CJ on my team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 Yes I believe you are correct ... which is why the ref.s ruled it the way they did ... he did not maintain control of the ball. Correct. I misunderstood your other post where you said "players need to be smart" as you implying he let go of the ball to go celebrate. Doesnt sound as though that is what you were saying and (in any event) its a moot point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABC123 Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 The worst call I have ever seen. CJ had three feet down and his rear, celebrating the touchdown and let's it go. If you argue this you are an idiot. For what it is worth I don't have CJ on my team. I am with you. But, sadly, I have to say, he should have just hung on to it. That is the reality of it. Sad but true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csrulz16 Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 (edited) Fixed Dont change my quote fck head Edited September 12, 2010 by csrulz16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 I could be wrong, but it looked to me that the ball came out from hitting the ground moreso than him just letting go of it, though... agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 Correct. I misunderstood your other post where you said "players need to be smart" as you implying he let go of the ball to go celebrate. Doesnt sound as though that is what you were saying and (in any event) its a moot point... I think we was more focused on getting up to celebrate than he was on maintaining control of the ball and finishing the play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABC123 Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 I think we was more focused on getting up to celebrate than he was on maintaining control of the ball and finishing the play. In a nutshell, that is it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 (edited) In a nutshell, that is it. I dont know. I have watched the replay in slow-mo several times and it looks to me like he caught the ball with two hands(no juggling), got two feet down, and then extends his right hand out and up with the ball in it (as if to keep it from coming close to the ground) and extends his left hand to help break his fall when his backside hit the ground. His momentum (keep in mind he was running full speed down the field) caused him to roll over after hitting the ground and only then did the he put the ball to the ground as part of instinctive breaking of the fall/stopping the roll. The ball squirts out of his hand and (if you watch closely) he kind of grabs for it again. I dont think he meant to let it go so that he could go celebrate. I think it came loose from the contact with the ground. He got up and ran off to celebrate because he probably figured he had done enough for it to be a TD... It really is a moot point, though, because whether he meant to let go of it or not, it came out and that's what the ruling was based on. As others have said, technically it was the correct call (based on the rule) but its not really a very good rule. Edited September 12, 2010 by Delicious_bass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosGatosEnFuegos Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 I could be wrong, but it looked to me that the ball came out from hitting the ground moreso than him just letting go of it, though... Strongly disagree. In the slow motion replay, you can see he flicks the ball out of his hand in celebration. In the linked youtube video, you can see it most clearly at 1:15. As he falls, he has the ball controlled in his right hand & has no need to put it down. He turns to land on his back as he's falling. His actual falling process is over when his feet, butt, and left hand are on the ground. He catches, falls, believes he's down, and then swings his right arm around and onto the ground to get up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 (edited) Strongly disagree. In the slow motion replay, you can see he flicks the ball out of his hand in celebration. In the linked youtube video, you can see it most clearly at 1:15. As he falls, he has the ball controlled in his right hand & has no need to put it down. He turns to land on his back as he's falling. His actual falling process is over when his feet, butt, and left hand are on the ground. He catches, falls, believes he's down, and then swings his right arm around and onto the ground to get up. You see it as him "flicking the ball out of his hand in celebration" but it looks pretty clear to me he loses control of it after it hits the ground and his hand closes (perhaps causing the motion you're interpretting as "flicking") because he had been applying pressure to hold the ball tightly. I guess we're just seeing it differently... As far as "His actual falling process is over when his feet, butt, and left hand are on the ground", grab your neighbor and go out in your yard and run full speed for about 25-30 yards, jump as high as you can(with your neighbor trying to pull you down), and see how quickly you come to a stop and if you end up needing to put your hands down to stop your roll/tumble/slide/etc. I dont think you're taking into consideration the speed and momentum that was involved in the play... Edited September 12, 2010 by Delicious_bass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 You see it as him "flicking the ball out of his hand in celebration" but it looks pretty clear to me he loses control of it after it hits the ground and his hand closes (perhaps causing the motion you're interpretting as "flicking") because he had been applying pressure to hold the ball tightly. I guess we're just seeing it differently... As far as "His actual falling process is over when his feet, butt, and left hand are on the ground", grab your neighbor and go out in your yard and run full speed for about 25-30 yards, jump as high as you can(with your neighbor trying to pull you down), and see how quickly you come to a stop and if you end up needing to put your hands down to stop your roll/tumble/slide/etc. I dont think you're taking into consideration the speed and momentum that was involved in the play... Just did the above and the neighbors are giving me weird looks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 Just did the above and the dairy cows are giving me weird looks. Perhaps they are just hungry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 Perhaps they are just hungry? That kinda made me laugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramhock Posted September 12, 2010 Share Posted September 12, 2010 When his butt hit the ground, the play should be over, TD. I don't even know what I am watching, at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 Clear case of the consequences of trying to take judgment out of the game. A few years ago the rules committee decided to eliminate the possibility of an official having to use their judgment to determine whether a player had possession of the ball when they hit the ground after a catch. So they created the rule that stated that a catch is not a catch if the receiver goes to the ground in the act of the catch and fails to control the football upon contact with the ground. It didn't matter where on the field this occurs and other seeming TDs have been negated in the past because of the ball being jarred loose when the receiver made contact, even though the receiver clearly had possession of the ball and two feet down in the end zone - which was the old criteria and is much more similar to the runner breaking the plane. So, that being the case and that being exactly the action that occurred - despite some here attempting to make the play much more simplistic than it was. Johnson caught the ball, got two feet down, but in the action of catching the football also fell to the ground. As soon as he falls in the same action as the catching, per the revised rule, he has to demonstrate possession of the ball after he comes in contact with the ground. He did not. The refs got the call correct and Perea explained the rule clearly afterwards. You want to argue that the rule sucks? I'll agree with you 100%. You want to argue that the play should have resulted in a TD under common sense and having using sound football judgment? I'll agree with you 100%. I saw the play watching the game with a rabid Bears' fan and even he agreed that the play should have been a TD. You want to argue that the refs suck because they blew that call - you're wrong. They applied the rule exactly as written. This is the result of trying to eliminate the human factor of the officiating as much as possible. There were unintended consequences that have arisen quite plainly now that ended with a game's score going the wrong way. The full potential of the rule was not thought through. Now it is apparent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 Clear case of the consequences of trying to take judgment out of the game. A few years ago the rules committee decided to eliminate the possibility of an official having to use their judgment to determine whether a player had possession of the ball when they hit the ground after a catch. So they created the rule that stated that a catch is not a catch if the receiver goes to the ground in the act of the catch and fails to control the football upon contact with the ground. It didn't matter where on the field this occurs and other seeming TDs have been negated in the past because of the ball being jarred loose when the receiver made contact, even though the receiver clearly had possession of the ball and two feet down in the end zone - which was the old criteria and is much more similar to the runner breaking the plane. So, that being the case and that being exactly the action that occurred - despite some here attempting to make the play much more simplistic than it was. Johnson caught the ball, got two feet down, but in the action of catching the football also fell to the ground. As soon as he falls in the same action as the catching, per the revised rule, he has to demonstrate possession of the ball after he comes in contact with the ground. He did not. The refs got the call correct and Perea explained the rule clearly afterwards. You want to argue that the rule sucks? I'll agree with you 100%. You want to argue that the play should have resulted in a TD under common sense and having using sound football judgment? I'll agree with you 100%. I saw the play watching the game with a rabid Bears' fan and even he agreed that the play should have been a TD. You want to argue that the refs suck because they blew that call - you're wrong. They applied the rule exactly as written. This is the result of trying to eliminate the human factor of the officiating as much as possible. There were unintended consequences that have arisen quite plainly now that ended with a game's score going the wrong way. The full potential of the rule was not thought through. Now it is apparent. Spot on summation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 If they got the call right, and I think they did, then that rules sucks ass. That was a TD. There is no doubt about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 Again, I was watching the game live. For all the heart-felt essay's on what should be, once Megatron dropped the ball, I knew it wasn't a TD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 If they got the call right, and I think they did, then that rules sucks ass. That was a TD. There is no doubt about it. bingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.