Calvin Johnson Catch

[Masters]

Originally Posted by DaBrowns41

That's not possible considering having possession of the ball with two feet, an elbow, and his butt in the end zone automatically makes it a touchdown, thus making the play over, and his motions.

End of story.

Except that whole part in bold isn't in an NFL rule book. What is, is what I posted already, regarding these types of plays, when a player is going to the ground while catching the ball.

[Masters]

Originally Posted by DaBrowns41

The rule is irrelevant as soon as he lands in the end zone with possession (no juggling or anything), two feet, a butt, an an elbow in bounds, before the ball even hits the ground, thus making it a catch, and a touchdown, and the play stops.

One problem with that, it's not the rule.

The rule is as follows: 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 or the endzone. 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.

[Vegasdogg]

Originally Posted by Masters

Except that whole part in bold isn't in an NFL rule book. What is, is what I posted already, regarding these types of plays, when a player is going to the ground while catching the ball.

Did he cradle the ball? Did the ground have ANYTHING to do with him securing the ball? Did the ground assist him in catching the ball?

He never once lost control of the ball or needed the ground to catch that ball, which is what the rule centers around. Once his ass hit the ground, and his left arm his the ground, done. If you slow the film down where he takes his right arm with the ball to the ground, does he have control of the ball? Yes!

TD

This is overanalysis is what it is, bro. He caught that ball.

[Vegasdogg]

Originally Posted by Masters

The rule is as follows: 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 or the endzone. 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.

Apples and oranges. He already secured the ball and maintained control all the way to the ground. He never lost control of the ball, so the "regains control" part of this rule should not apply, I don't think. This rule should not be applied to this play because he caught the ball and hit the ground, and no part of the ground played a part in the catch.

[DaBrowns41]

Originally Posted by Masters

One problem with that, it's not the rule.

The rule is as follows: 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 or the endzone. 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.

He had control of the ball after he hit the ground. It was a few seconds after (which they play should have already been called a TD), in which he got up from making the catch that they ruled he didn't have possession.

He never lost control of the ball UNTIL he got up and the ball hit the ground (after the play was over). He never lost his control, so the ball touching the ground is irrelevant.

I can argue this all day.

[Enigmatic Evil]

I like what Chris Carter said the other day, and I don't know if it was mentioned here or not (sorry that I'm just too lazy to read back to when I last commented here) but he said that the best way to know if the catch is a TD or not, is to hand the ball to the ref once you're getting up.

I think that's smart, really, that's the kind of awareness that a veteran with Chris Carter's tenure would have. Calvin Johnson still has some learning to do and I am sure this incident will make him approach the end zone a little differently should he wish to have this play out again.

I have stated this should have been a TD, I am standing by that, I think this is the kind of thing that we could be debating all year. Or at least until the next debatable call.

[Vegasdogg]

No question EE. Just get up and then hand the ball to the ref. Every player now is informed after this play. No excuses.

[damajuki]

Originally Posted by DaBrowns41

He had control of the ball after he hit the ground. It was a few seconds after (which they play should have already been called a TD), in which he got up from making the catch that they ruled he didn't have possession.

He never lost control of the ball UNTIL he got up and the ball hit the ground (after the play was over). He never lost his control, so the ball touching the ground is irrelevant.

I can argue this all day.

Originally Posted by DaBrowns41

He had control of the ball after he hit the ground. It was a few seconds after (which they play should have already been called a TD), in which he got up from making the catch that they ruled he didn't have possession.

He never lost control of the ball UNTIL he got up and the ball hit the ground (after the play was over). He never lost his control, so the ball touching the ground is irrelevant.

I can argue this all day.

You can argue this all day, but evidently not very well.

First of all, there were no "seconds after...in which he got up"; the whole point of this discussion is that it all happened IN ONE MOTION. From hands on ball to ball on ground was less than 2 seconds.

Your description is inaccurate in two main ways:

1. He never established possession of the ball. That, again, is the main point here. He took his left hand off the ball and put it on the ground and then put the ball in his right hand onto the ground. It all happened in one motion.

2. The play wasn't "over" when he released the ball. Your description makes it sound like he was already off the ground when he let the ball go. He wasn't. He got up WITHOUT the ball. Kind of an important thing to have as the WR, no?

Again, watch the replay. The call wasn't wrong. The rule isn't wrong.

You guys are basically arguing that WRs should be able to determine when a catch is complete based solely on how much they feel like holding onto the ball.

CJ chose to release one hand from the ball and break his fall and then he chose to put the ball on the ground with the other.

If you guys really believe CJ had possession of that ball then you have to admit he PURPOSEFULLY did all those things, including and especially releasing the ball.

And if you believe both those things, then you also must accept that what you're saying is he determined he scored before the referees did.

So, again, you're ultimately saying that WRs should get to decide TDs on their own and that referees should be there to agree with them.

Right?

[DaBrowns41]

He had possession of the ball with one hand.

Are you saying that when players carry the ball like a loaf of bread that they don't have possession? Maybe we should start reviewing those plays.

He had clear possession. Two hands, two feet, and landed with an elbow.

The problem is that he didn't complete a "football" move afterward, which is the reason why it wasn't a catch.

The reason I call BS is this: How are you supposed to make a 2nd act or a "football move" after the initial "catch" in the end zone? If this is the case, then why is it that a WR can land with two feet in bounds with the ball and fall on the ground (i.e. Santonio Holmes TD catch in the Super Bowl), and it be legal. He didn't make a football move. By the rules, that is not a catch. He had possession, and he had two feet. But he didn't complete the play.

Judging by that ruling, Calvin Johnson, having two hands on the football, with two feet, his body, and an elbow, should be a catch as soon as he grabbed the ball with two feet.

Thanks.