The Calvin Johnson Incompletion

[Deviant]

How is this not a catch?

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4s_EPK9MtJE?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4s_EPK9MtJE?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

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.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/un3B7Og-FS0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/un3B7Og-FS0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

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?

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_J0_WL06AAc?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_J0_WL06AAc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[Realist]

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

 

[mobbdeep1122]

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.

 

[Derrville]

Its a rule, a rule that needs to change.

 

[Scorask]

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

 

[Chrispy]

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

 

[Macken]

yeah he got screwed on that rule..

Lions almost beat a division opponent?

 

[FirstTimer]

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

Fail.

 

[MrBill]

The stupid rule jobbed the Lions, not the refs.

 

[jms493]

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

 

[Deviant]

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.

 

[FirstTimer]

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?

 

[BigHouseUSA]

Can we just lock this thread forever?
We can pretend this didn't happen.
Okay.
Time for Week 2.

 

[mgoblue2290]

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.

 

[BigHouseUSA]

Drew Stanton = New Mike McMahon
4.8 speed, reckless abandon.

 

[mgoblue2290]

Drew Stanton = New Mike McMahon
4.8 speed, reckless abandon.

Glad the Lions stole Stanton in the 2nd round in 07. Nowadays in the NFL you have to a QB who can run, throw, and throw while running. Its the next evolution of football.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Even by the interpretation of the horrendous rule, the more I watch it, the more it looks like a catch anyway.

How long do you need to hold onto the ball? Do you need to wrap it in silk and carry it to the sideline? Take it on the plane home with you?

Two feet down, fell on his ass, rolled over, had coffee, ate dinner, fucked his baby mama, then let go of the ball.

 

[1ke]

Even by the interpretation of the horrendous rule, the more I watch it, the more it looks like a catch anyway.

How long do you need to hold onto the ball? Do you need to wrap it in silk and carry it to the sideline? Take it on the plane home with you?

Two feet down, fell on his ass, rolled over, had coffee, ate dinner, fucked his baby mama, then let go of the ball.

All that matters is that.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

All that matters is that.

Garbo.

Sometimes, we just need common sense. He made the catch.

What about when they spike the ball? How far do you take it? He had the ball in his hands for like 4 seconds.

What about Bert Emmanual rule? So now, the ball can hit the ground and be a catch, but if you let the ball go after you clearly make a catch, it doesnt count? How is that fair or consistant?

Rule needs to be tweaked. Needs to be a judgement call. Any reasonable person thought that was a catch. Let players decide games, not silly rule interpretation loopholes.

 

[killgod]

Garbo.

Sometimes, we just need common sense. He made the catch.

What about when they spike the ball? How far do you take it? He had the ball in his hands for like 4 seconds.

What about Bert Emmanual rule? So now, the ball can hit the ground and be a catch, but if you let the ball go after you clearly make a catch, it doesnt count? How is that fair or consistant?

Rule needs to be tweaked. Needs to be a judgement call. Any reasonable person thought that was a catch. Let players decide games, not silly rule interpretation loopholes.

This.

They need to add an addendum to all NFL rules.

"Yeah theses are the rules, but if logically something makes sense, then it fucking overrides this shit."

Tuck rule, this shit, whatever.

Just fucking get it right, isn't that point of adding things like replay challenges? To get it right? Clearly the issue is defining how to decide what's right.