The Calvin Johnson Incompletion

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Deviant
    Yes, please.
    • Nov 2008
    • 2861

    The Calvin Johnson Incompletion

    How is this not a catch?



    Side note: LOL @ was he trying to reach for additional yardage. Dumbass announcer.

    I understand that there's an argument about the "going down to the ground" rule and the rule makes sense in a situation like the Greg Lewis TD in which he's falling out of bounds. He HAS to prove that he has possession the whole way.



    But I don't understand how that applies when the receiver clearly has possession, gets technically FOUR feet in, and goes to slam the ball down. So, does this mean that if a receiver catches a ball and stumbles looking as if he's going to the ground, he doesn't have possession until he makes contact with the ground? For instance, a receiver can take five/six steps, clearly maintain possession, but be stumbling to the ground and lose it and that's an incompletion? Because I always thought that would be ruled as a fumble and I feel that if Johnson were not in the endzone, that would be ruled a fumble.

    But, more importantly, if that is not a touchdown, how the fuck does this even count as a score when there's no clear possession and he bobbles it all the fucking way and has possession for maybe a split second?



    Back at it, yet again. Sign up here!
  • Realist
    Junior Member
    • Mar 2009
    • 6057

    #2
    Yea that was a dumb call blown by the refs on that one.

    Comment

    • mobbdeep1122
      I just win
      • May 2009
      • 1549

      #3
      So happy the refs fucked this up because I had Chicago in a suicide pool and as part of a 3 team teaser, in which the other 2 teams already won.

      Comment

      • Derrville
        Dallas has no coaching...
        • Jul 2009
        • 5321

        #4
        Its a rule, a rule that needs to change.

        Comment

        • Scorask
          Junior Member
          • Feb 2009
          • 379

          #5
          They got the call right, its the rule that is ridiculous. See Tuck Rule for further clarification!

          Comment

          • Chrispy
            Needs a hobby
            • Dec 2008
            • 11403

            #6
            The refs interpreted the rule right, but its a horrible rule and should be fixed, it cost the lions the game assuming the kicker makes the XP

            Comment

            • Macken
              Blah
              • Oct 2008
              • 7185

              #7
              yeah he got screwed on that rule..

              Lions almost beat a division opponent?

              Comment

              • FirstTimer
                Freeman Error

                • Feb 2009
                • 18729

                #8
                Originally posted by Realist
                Yea that was a dumb call blown by the refs on that one.
                Fail.

                Comment

                • MrBill
                  Billy Brewer Sucks Penis
                  • Feb 2009
                  • 0

                  #9
                  The stupid rule jobbed the Lions, not the refs.

                  Comment

                  • jms493
                    Junior Member
                    • Feb 2009
                    • 11248

                    #10
                    Hold on to the ball when you get up.....dope! 2 HANDS SON!

                    Comment

                    • Deviant
                      Yes, please.
                      • Nov 2008
                      • 2861

                      #11
                      I'm not blaming the refs here. I just don't get the rule in that situation. I feel that it doesn't apply in that situation. The Greg Lewis catch, yes, it should absolutely apply because he has no choice but to fall down to catch the ball. He has to prove that he has possession.

                      The Calvin Johnson incompletion shouldn't fall victim to this rule though considering that he had two feet in, caught the ball, and went down to the ground. By the time he was down, he still had possession. He didn't "lose possession" until he slammed the ball on the ground, which is why I hate the call. I understand the ref's decision and the rule is really stupid, but I think there should have been much better judgment by the ref considering the situation.


                      Back at it, yet again. Sign up here!

                      Comment

                      • FirstTimer
                        Freeman Error

                        • Feb 2009
                        • 18729

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Deviant

                        The Calvin Johnson incompletion shouldn't fall victim to this rule though considering that he had two feet in, caught the ball, and went down to the ground. By the time he was down, he still had possession. He didn't "lose possession" until he slammed the ball on the ground, which is why I hate the call. I understand the ref's decision and the rule is really stupid, but I think there should have been much better judgment by the ref considering the situation.
                        He didn't really "slam" the ball down on purpose. It happened more as an act of him rolling over after the catch. I think it's a horeshit rule and the Bears should not have won but let's not change what actually happened.

                        I guess I don't understand what you are asking the ref to do...not call the game by the rules?

                        Comment

                        • BigHouseUSA
                          Late to the party.
                          • Jun 2009
                          • 4907

                          #13
                          Can we just lock this thread forever?
                          We can pretend this didn't happen.
                          Okay.
                          Time for Week 2.
                          Originally posted by mgoblue2290
                          If you want to win, put Drew in.

                          Comment

                          • mgoblue2290
                            Posts too much
                            • Feb 2009
                            • 7174

                            #14
                            Originally posted by BigHouseUSA
                            Can we just lock this thread forever?
                            We can pretend this didn't happen.
                            Okay.
                            Time for Week 2.
                            Shaun Hill vs. Mike Vick!!

                            Actually, we should start Stanton. It'd be a battle of dual threat quarterbacks.

                            Comment

                            • BigHouseUSA
                              Late to the party.
                              • Jun 2009
                              • 4907

                              #15
                              Drew Stanton = New Mike McMahon
                              4.8 speed, reckless abandon.
                              Originally posted by mgoblue2290
                              If you want to win, put Drew in.

                              Comment

                              Working...