• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Detroit Lions - Calvin Johnson TD Pass

beastinem

beastinem

New Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
159
As a die hard Lions fan since I was little, it hurts me to type this up. But I was wondering if anybody saw that "catch" by CJ today that would have won the game for Detroit. I can't believe it was ruled incomplete. The announcers and football staff on every channel is pretty much talking about how the rule is too literal and should be used with common sense. I agree.

Broke my heart today!
 
Only saw one replay of it, but I don't know how that was incomplete.
 
I agree, he caught and controlled the ball, but the rule is that you have to maintain control after hitting the ground (if you hit the ground). I think there has to be some middle ground on the rule.

Ken
 
I'm not a Lions fan (and my Cowboys got screwed on a holding call) but that was the worst call I've seen in the NFL. I understand that the refs interpreted the rule correctly, but the rule itself is asinine. When a guy has the ball with two hands, lands on two feet, falls to the ground holding it firmly in his grasp as he his butt hits the ground and only loses the ball as he is using the ball to get himself up off the ground to celebrate, there is no way on God's green Earth it could be construed as 'incomplete'. Just plain stupid.

I remember a play a year or two ago on Monday Night Football where a receiver caught a pass near a sideline, had two feet in bounds, landed two steps out of bounds, fell to the ground on his butt out of bounds and as he landed, the ball came loose. Two steps in bounds, two steps out of bounds, landed on his butt and the ball came out and it was ruled incomplete. I simply don't understand this "part of the process" theory being put forward by the League. I'm usually not one to promote or like excessive celebration or showmanship, but I truly hope that the next time Johnson catches a TD pass he overemphasizes keeping a hold of after it is ruled a TD. If it were me, I might go as far as bringing that ball out to the huddle of the next offensive series with me. Just to be sure.
 
grateful1 said:
As long as the calls are the same for everyone, what's the problem?
Click to expand...

The problem is it is taking away from achievement. Regardless of the circumstance, achievement should be awarded. Whether it be at the end of the game on a game winning catch as in the case of Johnson or some meaningless 5 yard completion in the middle of the third quarter, for there to be a rule to rob a player of doing everything he is supposed to do and doing it successfully is asinine. It is the whole "part of the process" that pisses me off. In the Johnson instance the "process" should have ended when he landed on his two feet with possession of the ball. In the other instance I gave the "process" should have ended when the player's first foot touched out of bounds. The "process" is done at that point.

Secondly, they are not applying the rule to everyone. If a ball carrier breaks the plane of the goal line for an instant while in possession of the ball, the play is over and it is ruled a touchdown. If the player fumbles a nano-second after the ball breaks the plane it is considered a touchdown. If they applied the "part of the process" to that the player would have to possess the ball after crossing the goal line and he came to a complete stop as this would be the end of his running process. Get rid of the silly rule and the committee that approved it. Put Dick Butkus, Joe Greene and Deacon Jones on the rules committee and I'll be happy.
 
101008-ines-sainz1.jpg

ines.jpg

4164726051_64d72323c6_b.jpg
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=5055
 
Yeah bad enough you Detroit fans lost your QB Stafford, and then lose the game on a call like that. That was a clear TD.
 
I'm still crying about my Cowboys game. I don't think we got screwed. I think our lineman was a complete moron and lost the game for us.
 
MoeCizlak said:
(and my Cowboys got screwed on a holding call)
Click to expand...

Clint, please tell me you're not talking about where Alex Barron was charged with holding because he had his arm wrapped around the neck of hard-charging Redskins linebacker Brian Orakpo?

It's the NFL, not MMA. :laugh:
 
As a bears fan I'm glad the bears won. And yes, the refs made the "right" call based on the rule, but it is a stupid rule and CJ should've had a touchdown, and the bears should've lost and lovie and colangelo should be fired, but a perfect world it ain't.
 
Heard the old VP of the refs talking on the radio today. He was asked similar questions. The reason they say that control has to be maintained throughout the whole process of the catch is how do you define when the catch is made? On any catch you could land on both feet in bounds (a complete pass), but when you fall to the ground, the ball could come loose, making it an incomplete catch. If it wasn't defined as a "process" then there would be ambiguity as to when a catch was made, which is not something you want in a rule.

With respect to a runner crossing the plane of the goal line and then losing the ball, the ref said the difference is the runner already has possession of the ball, so when he crosses the plane, its a touchdown. With respect to a receiver trying to catch the ball, he is trying to gain possession, so it doesn't matter if he is across the goal line or not until he has possession, which occurs at the end of the process.

So technically the correct call was made, but that was a touchdown and the Bears should have lost. I am a Bears fan too. Maybe next time the receiver will tuck the ball away rather than rushing to get up and celebrate. If he just would have fallen down, there would have been no controversy.
 
PM for details!
If a Bears fan shits in the parking lot, how many Lions fans will feel at home?





:0 :laugh: :cool:
 
If you have trouble beating Detroit at home, then you suck as a football team. Don't expect the Bears to go far this year.
 
ChiTown_Huck said:
Heard the old VP of the refs talking on the radio today. He was asked similar questions. The reason they say that control has to be maintained throughout the whole process of the catch is how do you define when the catch is made? On any catch you could land on both feet in bounds (a complete pass), but when you fall to the ground, the ball could come loose, making it an incomplete catch. If it wasn't defined as a "process" then there would be ambiguity as to when a catch was made, which is not something you want in a rule.

With respect to a runner crossing the plane of the goal line and then losing the ball, the ref said the difference is the runner already has possession of the ball, so when he crosses the plane, its a touchdown. With respect to a receiver trying to catch the ball, he is trying to gain possession, so it doesn't matter if he is across the goal line or not until he has possession, which occurs at the end of the process.

So technically the correct call was made, but that was a touchdown and the Bears should have lost. I am a Bears fan too. Maybe next time the receiver will tuck the ball away rather than rushing to get up and celebrate. If he just would have fallen down, there would have been no controversy.
Click to expand...

I think they answered their own question. If the player loses control after that, it is a fumble. I don't buy the ambiguity argument because they have already defined possession as it applies to a receiver near a sideline. If that defines possession near a sideline why doesn't it define possession for the rest of the field? I still think it's a poorly written rule.

Ben, you are dead to me.

John, I agree it was a hold. But it didn't seem any different than any other hold I see on 99% of the pass plays. Barron would've been much better off had he simply placed his hand on the redskins guy's chest and used his own momentum to take him out of the way. Any loss to the redskins is bitter to me, but to lose on a last second play like that really irks me. I'll get over as soon as Romo dies a slow, horrible death.
 
Lol, I can always count on CP having mixed reactions to any topic. A lot of well stated replies. Including the pics of that amazing behind. My goodness, lol.

It's funny, the NFL took a poll and 82% of America agrees the rule should be changed. I mean, it's ok to have a rule but why not have a clause or something at the end that says "according to refs opinion". I mean, these guys are paid to uphold the rules, but they should have a little free reign when it comes to common sense as well.

Either way, it's a loss in the L column for Detroit. Nothing they can do about it except move on and forget it. But hopefully, like they were saying tonight during the game, the rule will more than likely be revisited in March for next season.
 
Saw it. As a Raider fan I now the call well. It costs the Raiders the opening game in SD last year. Correct call based on the rule, but an absolutely terrible rule. Nothing so stupid should determine the outcome of games. Just as dumb as the tuck rule which I am also intimately familiar with.
Receivers just need to learn to go fetal for 20 seconds after a catch.
 
MoeCizlak said:
I think they answered their own question. If the player loses control after that, it is a fumble. I don't buy the ambiguity argument because they have already defined possession as it applies to a receiver near a sideline. If that defines possession near a sideline why doesn't it define possession for the rest of the field? I still think it's a poorly written rule.
Click to expand...

Its not a fumble, its an incomplete pass. If that had been a fumble, then it would have been a touchback for the Bears.

If a guy stretches out on the sideline with two toes in with the ball in his possession, but the ball hits the ground as he comes down and the ball comes lose, it is an incomplete pass.

For what it is worth, I think it is a poorly worded rule, but I would hate to have refs using their judgment on calls. And again this is a non issue if the receiver just falls down in the end zone, which he could have done easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top