that was a touchdown. i see no argument.

the rules are dumb. if your a runningback and stretch out to the goal line and lose the ball when it hits the ground its still a touchdown..but yet that's not a touchdown

 

if he can flip it out of his hands he had possession in my opinion which means he had a td

 

NFL rule was called correctly for a receiver that leaves his feet (jumps, leaps, dives) in the act of "catching a ball", possession must be maintained throughout the process.....

NFL call on the field and by the replay booth was correct.

You can argue the rule, but you cant argue whether they got it right based on the rule as it stands and reads now.

 

totally different apples to oranges vs. Receiver that leaves his feet in attempt to "catch" a ball. Thats not the same as a RB that has possession of the ball in the field of play prior to stretching and simply breaking the plane of the goal line. A receiver espeically in the Endzone hasnt obtained possession in the field of prior to the endzone, and is attempting to establish control.

the rule is clear, you may not like it, but its clear, and can not be compared to RB taking handoff and breaking plane of goal line

 

Last I saw he had two feet and possession. Went down on his butt, with possession.

He was down twice before he touched the ground with the ball. When he did, it was not a trap.

Touchdown in my book.

Classic example of the refs absolutely ruining the game of football. If a running back breaks the plane and than fumbles, it is still a touchdown. For some reason, the NFL holds wide receivers to completely different standards. Makes no sense to me.

 

I disagree with you that Calvin Johnson didn't finish. I just watched the clip and it's clear to me that he had possession of the ball with two feet on the ground in the end zone, and then he fell down backwards due to momentum carrying him that way. That was a touchdown through and through.

This won't happen, but I'd like the NFL to overrule the referees and award Johnson the touchdown and give the Lions the W. That was a clear touchdown, and referee error can't keep screwing games over like this. It's inane.

 

Since having possession of the ball and two feet on the ground in the end zone results in a touchdown and the end of the play.

The play was over the second Calvin Johnson got his second foot down, before he fell over.

 

Not true per the rule of a RECEIVER that leaves his feet to make the attempted "catch".....requires possession throughout the entire process.

Thats the rule.

 

And the rule is inconsistent with what is acceptable as a reception outside the end zone.

 

The rule is the same in the endzone or outside the endzone on a "catch attempt" for a receiver that leaves his feet.

its different then if a receiver doesnt leave his feet....but its consistent in its own right.

Again, as written for a receiver that jumps to catch the ball.....they got the call correct. Doesnt matter if it was in the end zone or not....possession throughout the process. Thats the rule when you jump to catch a ball.

 

I'm sorry, but that rule is ridiculous.

 

Not arguing over the validity of the rule....just pointing out that they got it right based on the rule. Thus dont blame the refs for calling it correctly - thats their job.

It was implemented last year....agree, dumb rule then, dumb rule now......

that shouldnt take away from the refs and the replay booth getting it right and calling it correctly per the rule as written.


The issue is the rule existing. Totally different debate.:lol:

(Yes, I think the rule should go away......I think it was a catch the minute contact caused his backside to hit the ground with possession. Thats the way you would wish the rule would read as to what defines a catch - whether you jump prior to or not)

 

I understand that part of the rule, but IMO, when he has two feet in bounds, with posession across the goalline, and then his entire body hits the ground, I'd say that process is complete then. The fact that he put the ball on the ground and pushed off of it to get up and throw the ball away to celebrate should not rule out the fact that its a catch.

Sure it was called right by way of the rule, but the NFL needs to fix that rule. To say that is not a catch and a touchdown, is extremely ridiculous. Especially when the call, and the stupid rule just decided a game.

 

I am always interested at times like this, who from DETROIT was part of the rules committee, representing the team at time of the vote when the rule was recommended.

Did they vote YES?

interesting......

 

As an aside....really sad about Stafford shoulder injury in the game.....that injury and sling doesnt bode well for them going forward.

 

That was a catch. There is no way it's not a catch. It's in the endzone. He doesn't need to make all kinds of 'football moves'. He just needs to come down with it with possession. It was clear he had possession when his feet and hindquarters hit the ground. How is it that a runner can cross the plane and that's six points and the play is instantly dead but a WR has to I guess run around the endzone with the ball in his hands? What a ridiculous call that cost them the game. Highway robbery.

 

Caught it. Both feet down. Hit the ground. He had complete control of that ball and then literally placed the ball on the ground. That's maintaining possession the whole way through.

I don't buy it. In my eyes... by the rules it's a catch.

I don't blame Calvin Johnson for what he did. It was a catch and the Lions got screwed.

 

Detroit is the new Cleveland.

First Jim Joyce and the Phantom Perfect Game, now Megatron and his Ghost TD.

Glad I'm a Miami fan. :lol:

 

Already been addressed, apples and oranges to RB vs. WR leaving his feet and having to come down with possession all the way through thus making a catch. Per the rule...they got it correct.

Wrong. I dont like the rule, dont agree with the difference, but per the rule they called it correctly.

Also, per slow motion, what they see, and what they used was the act of rolling off his backside, and in one motion putting his hand down that held the football onto the ground and watching/having it leave his hand and in essence lose possession, by rolling away. It wasnt two moves, it was one, it wasnt celebratory, he lost his grip. Thats the rule how it reads now.

I personally think if you jump, you come down with two feet, are contacted and either remain on your feet, or your body hits the ground (ie. his backside in this case) and you should be credited with the catch.

Unfortunately per the rule, they say, beyond your body hitting, you must maintain control in essence do not drop, or bobble, the ball at all - at all......its ticky tack. But was voted on and passed and thats the rule, and compounded cause it was in the END ZONE and scoring plays are in greater microscope based on points - plus he never established control in the field of play thus making this a break the plane call, etc. So all in all, per the RULE, its not a catch, they called it correctly.

I do wish and hope they fix and clean up the rule....but thats a different issue.

 

If his rear end hits the ground, he's considered down. That's a touchdown IMO.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkc-Rk6fHDw&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - clvntd[/ame]

 

Sadly, this is judged once feet and body hit the ground (after jumping etc) just like a ball that moves, or is bobbled in ones arms.....meaning, once he put the ball on the ground and didnt bring it up under his control, its no different than watching the ball move, rotate, etc when it looks like a receiver had possession in the end zone, etc.

Not arguing that they should fix it....but per the rule, its not a catch since he put the ball down on the ground in one motion while rolling off his butt and didnt maintain possession.

thats the rule.

 

What a weird rule. If the ref. would have said he was in the act of getting up when he dropped the ball it would have counted. IMO the fact that it was at the end of the game and it was in Chicago had alot of influence on the call.

 

No justification behind this. I don't care what any "expert" has to say. This is easil the dumbest ****ing garbage I've ever witnessed in sports.

Worse than the tuck rule. Significantly.

If this happened to the Dolphins.... Sigh. Don't know what I'd do.

 

:lol:

I love your posts because of the way you speak in absolutes and extreme exaggeration.

 

I watched this play in a sport's bar and it looked like he had the ball in both hands briefly and both feet down....as he went to the turf he moved the ball to one hand but it looked like the ball was still in his grasp.... then he kind of rolled the ball on the ground with one hand, but I still think he had possession of the ball and got both feet down. Even the Bear's fans around me thought it was a catch and they got away with a lucky win.

 

I refer to this as the Louis Murphy rule as he got screwed out of a touchdown last year for the same principle.

 

I wish it was a TD, I got him on one of my fanatsy teams.....

 

The Lions got hosed, no doubt about it.

 

I remember Chris Chambers having a TD against the Jets called back because of the same rule. The call was correct, whether we like the rule or not. The call on Calvin Johnson was correct:up:

 

It cost them the game. It was a TD all day every day.

That's why I would tell all my players to always hold on to the ball and give it to the ref.

 

That would have made it an UNDISPUTED TD all day every day.:wink2:

 

Bottom line is: he should have held on to it.

 

Guys, you are missing the rule change. It used to be, that you could catch the ball, get two feet or your butt or whatever down in bounds, fall and lose the ball, and it would be considered a catch.

They changed the rule a few years ago, that you must maintain possession throughout the fall if you are coming down with a catch. It's a newish rule, but not that new. I swear every announcer mentions the rule whenever there's a challenge, and you have 3 laborious minutes to wait for it, and they mention it over and over, so I'm quite surprised it appears some in here don't know the rule.

Comparison to a running back is not valid. If CJ caught the ball before the endzone and made a mad dash he would be considered the same as a running back with the ball.

Just watched the replay. Looks like CJ should have not pulled a desean jackson and dropped the ball at the end. Did he toss it? Did he lose it? If he tossed it, he just costed his team a win.

 

Eh they didn't lose b/c of this call b/c they still had a chance but it still stunk to make a great play such as that only to get ****ed b/c of the rule IMO

 

Correct call; Dumb ****ing rule.

This is why in baseball they have the "transfer" rule. If a player catches a ball and then drops it when he's taking it out of his glove to throw it, it's still an out because he initially caught it.

Football needs this. Johnson clearly caught it, and then it fell out of his hand as he was getting up. The ball never hit the ground until the very end of the play.

 

k. Great addition by Fox, bringing in former NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira to interpret calls in mid-game. Very smart idea, popping him on the screen and letting him be interviewed by the game announcers when a controversial call happens. He nailed a Matt Ryan incomplete pass in Pittsburgh that was being reviewed; he was way ahead of everyone on the Calvin Johnson missed-catch interpretation in Chicago. We'll see how it works for a few weeks, but this could be the broadcasting innovation of the year. There's such little downside.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/09/12/week1/4.html#ixzz0zRNFlVPt​

 

Too bad he's a total dick.