Horrible Call/Rule in Lions Game

[stethant]

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.

Extremely well written. It seems that there are definitely two standards for TD scoring depending on if the ball is run in (crosses the plane, play is instantaneously over) or thrown in (after-catch/possession actions matter). This should be standardized with a rule change. Definitely sucks for Detroit.

[Chief]

I don't care what anyone says, that was a td.

[Seahawks21]

TD. Awful, terrible rule. This rule will be somehow changed. That is a catch and a TD. The rule was not designed to negate legitimate TD's. It is just ridiculous.

[MTSuper7]

Costas compared this to Dustin Johnson getting penalized for grounding his club in a "sand trap" (which he didn't think qualified as a sand trap) at the U.S. Open and, thus, not earning a spot in the playoff. It's a fair comparison. Essentially, were talking about a rule that works against the spirit of fair competition. I actually miss the days when the refs were allowed to exercise judgment, because Calvin Johnson caught the ball, got two feet down, still held the ball when he initially hit the ground with his rear, probably thought that he had done enough to demonstrate possession (this is more an instinct - he knew he caught it), and simply didn't think he needed to keep the ball any longer in order for the TD to stand. Brady's incompletion via the tuck rule is the same thing. When you exercise appropriate judgment, you can make the call that is in the best interest of the game. Whoever posted the Youtube link of Lance Moore's 2-point conversion in the SB last year is spot on with that post. The ball was still moving bit in his hands when it was kicked out by the defender. I mean, the whole notion of a "complete catching motion" itself is, to some degree, a judgment. At what point was Moore's catch officially a catch? A split second before the ball was kicked out?

[Delicious_bass]

Costas compared this to Dustin Johnson getting penalized for grounding his club in a "sand trap" (which he didn't think qualified as a sand trap) at the U.S. Open and, thus, not earning a spot in the playoff. It's a fair comparison. Essentially, were talking about a rule that works against the spirit of fair competition. I actually miss the days when the refs were allowed to exercise judgment, because Calvin Johnson caught the ball, got two feet down, still held the ball when he initially hit the ground with his rear, probably thought that he had done enough to demonstrate possession (this is more an instinct - he knew he caught it), and simply didn't think he needed to keep the ball any longer in order for the TD to stand. Brady's incompletion via the tuck rule is the same thing. When you exercise appropriate judgment, you can make the call that is in the best interest of the game. Whoever posted the Youtube link of Lance Moore's 2-point conversion in the SB last year is spot on with that post. The ball was still moving bit in his hands when it was kicked out by the defender. I mean, the whole notion of a "complete catching motion" itself is, to some degree, a judgment. At what point was Moore's catch officially a catch? A split second before the ball was kicked out?

Exactly.

 

The League (with this rule) was attempting to take the burden of "a judgement call" of possesion off the officials on endzone plays like that. In reality, all they did was create an opportunity for legit good plays to be negated and it is still (to some degree) a judgement call on the officials part.

[michaelman]

I understand if you argue that the rule was applied as written...

 

but if you claim that CJ didn't catch that ball.. you're a worry wart.

[Cowboyz1]

Bottom line for me is CJ caught the ball, got two feet and a rump down then tried to get up with the ball in one hand and in essence let it go. Touchdown.

 

New England gets a TD, Detroit just another loss. Unfair yes, that was a TD by anyones standards and the refs could have said this " The player caught the ball, had two feet in bounds, controlled the ball to the ground, and at that point it's a Touchdown". Game over, Detroit wins.

 

I have seen guys rip the ball out after a second or two and still get called a touchdown while the guy was on his back. Bad call.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Cowboyz1

[LosGatosEnFuegos]

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...

Watch his shoulders. The ball hits the ground as his shoulders are rising. He is already in the process of geting up.

 

I know it's fast and fluid, but he is rising as the ball hits.

[Bronco Billy]

Watch his shoulders. The ball hits the ground as his shoulders are rising. He is already in the process of geting up.

 

I know it's fast and fluid, but he is rising as the ball hits.

 

 

Exactly how far are some people willing to go to make their argument? Johnson caught the football, had both feet hit the ground, and immediately began to fall. He braced himself first with the non-catch arm and then he let the catch arm hit the ground. When the catch arm hit the ground, the ball came out. It's that simple. The rules states unequivocably that this is exactly the point in the catch when Johnson must demonstrate that he has control of the football. He didn't. Therefore, by rule, there is no catch.

 

The rule is written poorly to in that its intent is to eliminate ref judgment, but does not account for this kind of situation. It's like school districts writing a no weapons policy and then having to suspend the honor student carrying a plastic butterknife to spread their jam on their PBJ, or Congress writing a rule that forces banks to lend mortgages to people who can not afford them. The consequences of an absolutist rule like this are obvious to rational and clear thinking people who foresee obvious flaws in its application, but to those endorsing the rule at the time of its inception, they think it solves all possible problems.

 

Well, now a team that should have won a ball game has instead lost. They lost because of the refs enforcing a rule exactly as it was written. So now it is on the league to undo its stupidity and re-write the rule so that judgment is placed back into the process again, and the standards for a TD catch are more equitable to those of a TD run. And when that happens, some human error will be re-introduced into the equation and the refs will make some very few mistakes when they have to make an instantaeous judgment on a very close bang-bang play. But at least those kinds of mistakes won't be a result of intentionally writing the mistake into the rulebook.

[Furd]

This is the rule (I think):

 

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he 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, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. (emphasis added)

 

I think that the questions are: 1) was he in the act of catching the pass (or had he caught it)? 2) when did he touch the ground?; and 3) for how long after he touches the ground must he maintain control?

 

As someone has already said, its a poorly written rule. I think that you have legitimate arguments either way.

[Ursa Majoris]

 

Exactly how far are some people willing to go to make their argument? Johnson caught the football, had both feet hit the ground, and immediately began to fall. He braced himself first with the non-catch arm and then he let the catch arm hit the ground. When the catch arm hit the ground, the ball came out. It's that simple. The rules states unequivocably that this is exactly the point in the catch when Johnson must demonstrate that he has control of the football. He didn't. Therefore, by rule, there is no catch.

 

The rule is written poorly to in that its intent is to eliminate ref judgment, but does not account for this kind of situation. It's like school districts writing a no weapons policy and then having to suspend the honor student carrying a plastic butterknife to spread their jam on their PBJ, or Congress writing a rule that forces banks to lend mortgages to people who can not afford them. The consequences of an absolutist rule like this are obvious to rational and clear thinking people who foresee obvious flaws in its application, but to those endorsing the rule at the time of its inception, they think it solves all possible problems.

 

Well, now a team that should have won a ball game has instead lost. They lost because of the refs enforcing a rule exactly as it was written. So now it is on the league to undo its stupidity and re-write the rule so that judgment is placed back into the process again, and the standards for a TD catch are more equitable to those of a TD run. And when that happens, some human error will be re-introduced into the equation and the refs will make some very few mistakes when they have to make an instantaeous judgment on a very close bang-bang play. But at least those kinds of mistakes won't be a result of intentionally writing the mistake into the rulebook.

There's a great irony in all this. The constant fan and media bleating for "consistency" (read: identicality) from human beings (refs) arbitrating a very fast and violent game played by other human beings has resulted in this NFL effort to make things consistent. Now that we theoretically have a higher level of consistency at least as far as TD catches are concerned, the bleating is for the refs to be allowed to exercise judgment.......

[Furd]

One other thing. Johnson has escaped scrutiny here in Detroit. Seems to me (and I've never played the game) that he didn't make any attempt to hold on to the ball longer. Did he even try? Did he just assume that he caught the ball? If he had tried, couldn't he have rolled over or done something else to maintain control of the ball?

[flemingd]

I mean, the whole notion of a "complete catching motion" itself is, to some degree, a judgment. At what point was Moore's catch officially a catch?

This is where the rule went wrong. Not sure how, but the original intention of the rule has become warped. This was intended for the "diving catch" scenario where there was question about whether the receiver ever actually possessed the ball. I'd love to see the official NFL rule addressing this to see if it's a perversion, a poor interpretation of a poorly worded rule, or a simple incorrect extrapolation of a good rule into the wrong situation.

[lkirc]

One other thing. Johnson has escaped scrutiny here in Detroit. Seems to me (and I've never played the game) that he didn't make any attempt to hold on to the ball longer. Did he even try? Did he just assume that he caught the ball? If he had tried, couldn't he have rolled over or done something else to maintain control of the ball?

 

He was fired up and ready to celebrate a game winning catch. I think it was safe for him to assume he caught the ball because he did. Everybody alse did too.

 

This rule is so wrong.

 

It is sad that, as a Lions fan, I wasn't shocked at all. You come to expect these things. The defense played their hearts out and deserved better. As did Calvin.

[Bronco Billy]

The defense played their hearts out and deserved better.

 

The defense got their asses kicked up and down the field. The Lions were dominated throughout the entire game on both sides of the ball, and the only reason they were even in any position to win ws some really question play calling by CHI and a couple of bad mental errors by Cutler.

 

CHI should have been up by at least 3 scores at the time the questionable play in the end zone occurred.

[Furd]

He was fired up and ready to celebrate a game winning catch. I think it was safe for him to assume he caught the ball because he did. Everybody alse did too.

 

I disagree. I don't think that its "safe" for a professional football player to assume that he caught the ball. Perhaps some of the blame lies on the Detroit coaching staff for not instructing their players about the rule. But there was no reason (or rush for that matter) for Johnson to bounce up and quickly run out of the endzone. How many times have you seen a WR cradle that thing like a baby if there is any doubt about the catch, leaving as little room as possible for a dispute.

 

Johnson deserves some blame for this.

 

This rule is so wrong.

 

Its a bad rule. But its a rule that players and coaches should know and for which they should be as prepared as possible.

 

The defense played their hearts out and deserved better. As did Calvin.

 

I've heard this quite a bit in these parts, but I don't get it. Cutler threw for more than 390 yards. The Bears rushed for more than 100 yards. The defense gave up big plays.

 

Only in Detroit.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Furd

[MrTed46]

TD, plain and simple.

 

Ed blows another game

[lkirc]

The defense got their asses kicked up and down the field. The Lions were dominated throughout the entire game on both sides of the ball, and the only reason they were even in any position to win ws some really question play calling by CHI and a couple of bad mental errors by Cutler.

 

CHI should have been up by at least 3 scores at the time the questionable play in the end zone occurred.

 

I didn't say they played perfectly. I said they played their hearts outs. They made some big plays. The offense put them in some horrible situations. The goal line stand was impressive. Ther defensive line played well. As a Lions fan, you have to look for the silver lining sometimes to keep your sanity.

 

A division win on the road would have been a nice thing....

[bushwacked]

He was fired up and ready to celebrate a game winning catch. I think it was safe for him to assume he caught the ball because he did. Everybody alse did too.

 

I don't agree with this..Ursa and I made these comments at the same time while the Lions were still celebrating the play in another thread.

 

Dropped it

 

 

Megatron started celebrating too early methinks.

 

 

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?act=...mp;qpid=3230999

 

I can understand not liking the rule, but this isn't the first time a play like this has been called incomplete.

Edited September 13, 2010 by bushwacked

[Delicious_bass]

After thinking about it some more, I remembered a similar play (ironically, from Week 1 last year). Some of you will no doubt remember this play and I believe there was a thread dedicated to it at that time, too.

 

Murphy made the catch and so did Johnson. That rule needs to be changed as this is now at least two hugh plays that have been negated and had major impact on the outcome of the games

[alexgaddis]

After thinking about it some more, I remembered a similar play (ironically, from Week 1 last year). Some of you will no doubt remember this play and I believe there was a thread dedicated to it at that time, too.

 

Murphy made the catch and so did Johnson. That rule needs to be changed as this is now at least two hugh plays that have been negated and had major impact on the outcome of the games

Dude, do you know what you have in that link???

 

You have VIDEO FOOTAGE of Jamarcus Russell throwing a TD!! That could be worth money!

[Rovers]

It is the worst rule in the NFL, m,aybe in the history of the league and this isn't the first time it has happened, and won't be the last. Simply put:

 

Miserable horrible rule.

 

Correctly called by the refs.

 

End of story.

[Egret]

As a Lions fan, it's time to move on already. Yeah, it sucks. Hopefully the team will move on continue to get better.

[Pope Flick]

Da BEARSZS.

[MrTed46]

As a Lions fan, it's time to move on already. Yeah, it sucks. Hopefully the team will move on continue to get better.

 

Who cares about the Lions, it might cost me a fantasy victory!