Detroit Lions get robbed.

[Bluzmann57]

Calvin Johnson catches a pass in the endzone with 35 seconds on the clock and some idiotic rule about "continuation" screws him and the Lions out of a TD. Johnson caught the ball, was still moving and his momentum made him fall down when he put the ball on the ground to break his fall. The ball then came loose. It is a rule, but it is as crappy as the "tuck rule". Goodell had better get his shit together and lean on the competition committee to change the stupid rules.
I am starting to appreciate college football more and more everyday. At least Johnson would have had a TD on that play in college.

[LiberalFighter]

1. There are many rules in college not the same as the NFL

Just as other sports.

I wanted Detroit to win. But realized that there is a difference between running into the end zone with the ball and it then coming loose vs catching it in the end zone and falling with the impact causing it to come loose.

[Renew Deal]

19. It's the same rule in all levels.

At least how it's taught and enforced. It's designed to eliminate cheap fumbles and simplify "when in doubt" situations.

[1gobluedem]

2. What about players who strut in and spike the ball?

They hold it for less time in the end zone than Calvin Johnson did. Do they 'finish the process?' That's the most ridiculously stupid rule I've ever heard of. Lions won that game -- they were ROBBED.

[LiberalFighter]

3. They had complete control of the ball while entering the end zone.

[1gobluedem]

4. Calvin Johnson caught the ball and had two feet down

That's a catch. That's a TD.

[LiberalFighter]

6. It would be if he had stayed on his feet and voluntarily dropped the ball.

He was knocked down (fell down).

No different when catching the ball in the air and falling down and losing control of the ball.

I thought the ruling was wrong too but after consideration they made the correct ruling.

[1gobluedem]

8. He had full control

It was a garbage call. When has that rule EVER been invoked before? Who's even HEARD of it? I've been watching football for the better part of 50 years, my father's watched it far longer than that AND was a football coach and neither of us have ever heard of that rule or seen it used. Ever.

Figures it would be against the Lions. QB goes down, the defense battles ferociously, they come back seemingly for the win with the second string QB, and they lose on the only invocation of the most obscure rule ever.

[Goblinmonger]

10. I believe there was a ruling like that

in the Vikes game on Thursday. Not about a touchdown, but they ruled it incomplete because the receiver didn't make it through the continuation with the ball even though he caught it and had control but lost it before the continuation stopped. Sorry, it's just not an obscure rule.

Lions need to shore up their offense. Their defense rocks and scares me as a Vikes fan. The Vikes defense will eat that offense for lunch.

[LisaM]

47. Mmmmm.....it was a catch

he didn't lose control. I understand the rule. I do not believe that the rule was applied correctly here. And one ref did call it a TD, so they overturned the call, by the way.

[Goblinmonger]

57. It was one fluid movement.

Had he raised his hand inches and spiked the ball, it would have been a touchdown because the continuation of movement would have stopped. If he had just tucked in the ball like I'm quite sure he has been told to do for many decades, it would have been a touchdown.

Do you want to live by your new rule that if one ref calls something that's the will it shall forever be? No room for someone with a better view to overrule that call? No room for them to conference and calmly discuss the rules? Just simply one guy makes a call so there is the decision? I bet not.

[Renew Deal]

15. The rule is "invoked" on every single pass thrown.

It's the same rule from college to the pros. It's the reason why it wasn't overturned on replay and why Pereira says it's incomplete. If you want to see the rule being invoked watch these videos http://www.youtube.com/user/midmocollegerefs#g/c/192785806A812933

Or the catch/no catch videos on this site: http://www.refereeclinic.com/videos

[Renew Deal]

13. Example?

[Goblinmonger]

14. He didn't have possession pre-endzone.

The hypothetical running back which you present did. With possession, you only need break the plane. The point in question is whether Johnson had control. The rule is pretty clear that when he hits the ground, he has to come up with the ball. He should know that. I did. As soon as he dropped it I said it was incomplete before the refs did.

[one_voice]

5. Yup...

Lions got robbed. Makes me sick when a game is decided on a bullshit call.

[RockaFowler]

7. Another Bad Call

The Officials are getting worse and worse in all sports. Look Baseball this year has been horrendous. Look at the NBA and the refs who seem to make up calls at the end of the game. This is the first game and the NFL refs are already blowing it. Just really poor this year!!!

[Goblinmonger]

11. They called it correctly according to the rule.

Don't like the rule? Fine. But the refs got it right. Do you really want refs to go against the rules because of how they "feel" about a play?

[Renew Deal]

16. It looks like it would have been a TD if the player tucked the ball.

Better to blame the player than the refs.

[Goblinmonger]

17. Yep

I don't think he really lost control of the ball but rather just set it down. That's stupid. He's played football long enough to know he has to come up with it.

[Renew Deal]

18. I wondered if he set it down too.

The problem is that the action of the catch never really completed. That's why you see the ball rolling when it hits the ground.

[LisaM]

37. No, they didn't.

I don't like the rule, but the example they showed on the NFL channel where they invoked the same rule was completely different. In that case, the receiver caught the ball, fell on his back, and the ball popped out (how they could even make a comparision to the Calvin Johnson catch is beyond me). He had complete control.

It was a bullshit call, but I expect nothing less. If someone on the Cowboys had made the same catch, they wouldn't have overturned the TD call (and, BTW, it WAS called a TD by one of the refs, so they overturned it).

I would like to see a replay of that earlier TD, where it appeared that the Bears' player went out of bounds. I never got a good look at that, but I actually heard the announcer say he wouldn't want to be the ref that overturned that call in Soldier Field. EXCUSE ME?

[Upton]

9. It was a good call..

you may not like the rule, but the call was good..


Rule 8, Section 1, Article 4.

A play from start to finish is a process. When you go to the ground, even after you've caught the ball, you have to maintain possession.

The rule states: 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, whether in the field of play or the end zone. 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.


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Pereira-explains-big-call-in-Detroit-Lions-Chicago-Bears-game-091210

[trumad]

28. Agree---

A rule is a rule...

[Renew Deal]

12. It was a good call.

And you can't claim that the rule is "idiotic" and say he was "robbed" at the same time.

This is the same rule in HS, College and the Pro's. There's nothing for the NFL to change. What would they change it to? Bobbled balls are now catches? Ummm, no.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81a77070/Controversial-call-on-Megatron-non-TD?module=HP_headlines

If you want to learn a lot more about this, watch "Catch or Incomplete" video on this site: http://www.refereeclinic.com/videos

[1gobluedem]

20. Ten to one if it had been the Patriots, Colts, Saints, or Packers

It would have been a TD. It's that close. I read the rule, I read your explanations and I've watched the replay over and over and over. He had control. He held the ball. It was a touchdown.

[Goblinmonger]

21. I understand your frustration.

But there isn't a conspiracy to keep the Lions winless. It isn't like this is the first time in 50 years this rule has been applied. This is just a very noticeable example on a touchdown to win the game. It happens and announcers talk about it frequently.

[1gobluedem]

22. Winning teams get the calls

Whether they are correct or not. Teams with bad records never get them. I'm positive that if this exact same thing had happened to any one of those teams listed above, it would have been ruled a TD. No, there isn't a conspiracy to keep the Lions from winning but there is benefit of the doubt vs. culture of dobut.

And I'm also pretty sure that if the situation had occured for any one of the teams for whom the people who posted in this thread and it was a game-deciding decision, each one of you would be as upset as we Lions fans are.

[LisaM]

38. I don't think you do understand the frustatration

But taking cheap shots at the Lions has become kind of a stock in trade (just ask Leno).

[Goblinmonger]

43. When did I take a cheap shot at the Lions?

Or do you mean this call was a cheap shot? Because I don't think the league created this rule so they could screw the Lions.

And I do understand the frustration. I am 44 and have been a life-long Vikings fan. I understand frustration.

[UrbScotty]

82. +1

[Poiuyt]

23. It may have been a good call, but the rule really sucks

This is inconsistent with the concept of having possession when crossing the plane of the goal line. If a running back crosses the goal line and then fumbles, it's still a touchdown. In this play, CJ clearly caught the ball, both feet came down, then his butt. Only then did he put the ball on the ground as he was getting up. I'm not saying the refs blew it, but I will say that the Lions were robbed.

[Goblinmonger]

25. I don't think the RB vs WR comparison is valid.

The RB in your example has control of the ball prior to being in the endzone. With possession, RBs and WRs only need to break the plane. If the WR (or RB) is catching the ball in the endzone, they need to establish possession in order to get a touchdown. Part of establishing possession after contact is continuation with the ball. This didn't happen in this case because it was one fluid motion and the ball, after hitting the ground, did not come up with the WR.

[trotsky]

29. And that's even more interesting.

If he had stood up with the ball, then tossed it in celebration, it would have counted. Literally just a fraction of a second holding that ball makes the difference. Sucks, yeah. But that's the rule. And honestly, having the rule like that is probably far better than the alternative, where you don't have a clear definition of what completing a catch is.

[Poiuyt]

48. Well I say he had possession when he caught the ball with two hands,

both his feet came down, then his butt. All the time he was maintaining control of the ball. He didn't release the ball until he let go of it when he was getting up. Perhaps by a literal interpretation of the rules it was not a catch. But it WAS a catch.

[Goblinmonger]

59. So you don't want refs held to a literal interpretation of the rules?

Nothing could go wrong with that plan, Pinky.

[wilt the stilt]

76. Tecnically Bush never said saddam was Al Queida

they still went to war. that is technical.

[Forkboy]

24. Just like the tuck rule, the right call but for a bad rule.

Week 1 and already whining though...not a good sign.

:hide:

[Renew Deal]

26. It's actually a good rule.

It prevents a lot of problems like cheap fumbles and even worse catch/no catch calls.

[Forkboy]

27. I'm trying to be nice here!

;)

[LisaM]

39. So......when the Notre Dame player dropped the ball before he got to the endzone

and was still awarded the TD.....that was a good call? I don't see people caring much about that. I didn't even see one replay of it after the game was over.

[JonLP24]

42. I saw that too

I cut the refs slack because you don't really expect that kind of thing to happen and our eyes miss a lot of things we don't expect to see. However in college football, reviews come from the booth no matter how much time is left in a game and that should of been reviewed. At least Michigan got the win though.

On edit-Now that I think of it. What would of a review accomplished? The play was blown dead and there was no instant fumble recovery by another player which is what it takes to award possession on reviews where a player was whistled down but replays showed that the player fumbled and there was someone right there to recover it.

[LisaM]

44. Just saying......

if a rule is a rule, that wasn't a touchdown. And if a Michigan player had run down there and recovered the ball in the end zone (which one should have done, wake up coaches) it would have been a touchback.

At least Michigan did win, but man, is it frustrating.

[Iggo]

30. Same exact thing as the Tuck Rule.

Good call. Stupid rule.

[Goblinmonger]

31. But the tuck rule is a poor comparison.

The tuck rule sucked because the refs had to read the QBs mind to make the call. It was all about the intent of the QB. This has nothing to do with intent but whether the receiver has control of the ball through the continuation of hitting the ground.

It's almost the complete opposite. People hated the tuck rule because the refs made calls based on their feeling of the play. Here they made a call that was spot on the the letter of the rule. NOW people want them to make the call based on their feeling that this was a touchdown when it didn't meet the criteria. I would much rather there be clear criteria for what is a completion than go with the feeling.

[Iggo]

33. After further review, I agree.

He did not maintain possession.

[wilt the stilt]

32. A couple of thoughts

My friend was invited to the NFL combine and was a split end. He said that the ball was caught and if you look at it I think he is technically down. His butt and knee hit the ground and the he was in possession of the ball.
The trouble with the call is it is not the spirit of the game. This was a call closer to a lawsuit. Most of the refs are "professional" people(lawyers and upper management). I doubt any of them played much sports and can anyone give me a reason why the NFL uses "professionals" as opposed to average joes who actually played sports.

[Goblinmonger]

34. But the rule doesn't say that

After contact during the process of catching the ball which results in the receiver going to the ground, the receiver must maintain possession of the ball through the continuation of hitting the ground. Had he spiked the ball or stood up with it, it would have been a touchdown.

Let's not act like players know all the rules. This guy should have known the rule and come up with the ball. McNabb has shown embarrassing lack of knowledge of the rules. The refs made the right call based on the wording of the rule.

I don't think we want "spirit of the game" rules. Remember the tuck rule? We asked refs to determine the intent of the QB and go with the spirit of the play as it emerged. It sucked. I would rather we give them a concrete rule and have them apply it. Which they did. Correctly.

[wilt the stilt]

35. did he catch it or not?

forget the rule. did he catch it or not? yes or no.

[Goblinmonger]

36. I don't think you want refs making calls based on that.

He didn't finish the catch. If we start letting refs make the calls based on "it felt like a catch" there will be way more bitching than there is regarding this. There is a rule; it is clear; it was followed. That is a better option. Maybe the rule needs to be tweaked, but I like that there is a clear rule.

[wilt the stilt]

40. do you think he caught it?

simple yes or no

[Goblinmonger]

41. No.

Before the refs even called it, I said incomplete pass. Wife thought I was crazy. For the same reason that a Vikings pass was incomplete against the Saints on Thursday. This rule gets applied a lot. Just not so visual and vital a play.

[wilt the stilt]

45. fair enough

at least it only took you 3 replies to answer a simple question. I however will agree with my buddy who was invited to the NFL combine as a receiver. he said it was unequivocally a catch.

[LisaM]

46. The Bears' announcers (on the radio) thought it was a catch, also

we were listening to them, and we thought we had a win, finally. Asshole refs, asshole Bears fans, asshole everyone!!!!!!!

SO ANNOYING.

[wilt the stilt]

49. It's pretty evident it was a catch

at least i think so. So many things make it an end of play. he was "down by contact. he jumped for it and secured it. looks pretty obvious to me.

[Renew Deal]

54. Evident to everyone except the refs, the league, and the rulebook.

You need to complete the catch. The ball came rolling out before the action stopped. No catch.

[Goblinmonger]

60. By all means, let's go by what announcers say.

I vote that your Lions get Chris Collinsworth as an announcer forever so that you are stuck with what that fuckin' moron thinks about the world.

[Upton]

66. If you watched the end of the game..

you would have noticed that, after some initial confusion, the on field call was incomplete. The announcers, plus that ex official guy Fox has in a booth somewhere, all thought the call would stand.

It's pretty simple Lisa. The rule says: 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, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete.

Johnson did not maintain control..the call was correct.

[Renew Deal]

53. Is your player friend a referee?

Most players don't really know the rules as well as many of the coaches and almost all of the fans.

[wilt the stilt]

73. he is a superior athlete

and he knows what is a catch by actually playing football at the highest level as opposed to the rest of us who didn't. This guy is also in the Mmichigan records for 10 most HR's in a high school season(17)was the starting shortstop and pitcher in his division of state champs and was the starting PG gor the basketball team. He knows sports from the inside.

[Renew Deal]

79. So he is not a referee

And has no idea what the rules are. There's no shame in that, but being an exceptional multi-sport athlete doesn't make one knowledgable about the rules.

[wilt the stilt]

83. actually he is very familiar

he also was a lawyer went to school on an academic scholarship and really knows the games. you can say anything you want but i believe he caught the ball and so did the ref closest to the play.

[Renew Deal]

85. The ref closest to the play will get marked down for two things

Getting the call wrong and signaling too early/not confirming with other refs.

[Goblinmonger]

84. Well McNabb is a more accomplished player than your friend

and McNabb didn't know the tie rule. So we should go with what McNabb says and let them keep playing to a win in regular season?

Hopefully you see the flaw in your reasoning. And, "Hey, he's really smart and a good athlete that knows the rules" doesn't mean jack. Every ref has said that wasn't a catch. Plays are overruled on the field all the time.

[Goblinmonger]

55. I thought it was pretty clear I didn't think it was a catch. Sorry.

But, as I said before, players are not always the best source of rule knowledge.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aDb5JzQEC5Qk

[Renew Deal]

51. No

obviously

[Renew Deal]

50. The NFL does not use full time referees.

The people refereeing NFL games are average joes that play sports.

But forget about that. Mike Pereira who was the head of officiating from the NFL said it's the right call. So maybe it's not the ref. If the player tucked the ball, this wouldn't have happened.

[LisaM]

52. Can you honestly tell me, if it had been Dallas, or the Colts

the same call would have been made?

[Renew Deal]

56. Yes, completely honestly.

It's no catch. It's the way the rule is taught. It's the reason why it wasn't overturned on replay. Look at some of the links I posted up thread. You'll see exactly how the rule is taught.

[LisaM]

58. I've watched the replay a dozen times

I don't see how you can say that he placed the ball on the ground after he'd already gone down, as Deion Sanders said, on all four points. He never lost control.

And I really don't think they'd make that call against the Cowboys or any other league darlings.

[Renew Deal]

61. Watch the catch-no catch video on this site.

http://www.refereeclinic.com/videos

You'll see how the rule is taught. I'm not saying that he placed the ball on the ground. If he did, it would have been a catch. I'm saying that the ball came loose when it touched the ground which means he didn't have possession/complete the catch. The rule is taught the same way from HS to college to the Pros. The refs on the field don't care who the teams are. It's no catch for the Lions or the Vikings or the Giants.

And getting your rules knowledge from Deon is probably not the best idea. ;)

[LisaM]

65. Not the rules knowledge.....the fact that he maintained control

and he did place the ball on the ground. How long did he have to hold on to it, a minute?

[Renew Deal]

69. Here's where I think it went wrong.

He might have wanted to place the ball down, but the ball rolled away when he sprung up, so it looked like he didn't have control. If the player tucked it, it would have been fine.

[LisaM]

67. I can't log into that either

however, it's not about understanding the rule. I do understand the rule. I believe it was misapplied.

[Renew Deal]

70. Then you don't understand the rule.

:shrug:

[Goblinmonger]

64. Yeah, no way a ref would make a game ending call against the Cowboys

Oh, wait, they did on a holding call.

Next argument?

[LisaM]

62. PS, also, that video wouldn't load

so I couldn't watch it, but I tried.

Where the disconnect is happening is that I believe the rule was incorrectly applied. I do not think he lost control.

I heard the announcers say earlier (when it appeared that Matt Forte might have stepped out of bounds on his 86-yard TD run) that they wouldn't want to be the ref who overturned that call at Soldier Field. They admitted that the refs are afraid of the Chicago fans.

I can't find a replay of that play anywhere.

Why it matters: the Lions have worked really, really hard. First, the QB was cheap-shotted out of the game by Julius Peppers (who already had a call for hitting Stafford in the head). They perservere. They get down and they score. It's stolen away.

Winning seasons often come down to a call here or there. Every game counts. The Lions deserved the win, their fans really deserve it. You can nitpick on the rules all you want, but everyone knows that should have counted. If the Bears' announcers admit it, I think we all know what really happened.

[Renew Deal]

68. I understand the emotion of the situation.

The league disagrees that the rule was incorrectly applied. Mike Pereira who was the head of officiating even said it was correct.

The announcers say a lot of stupid stuff from the beginning to the end, season after season. They know little about the rules. I heard a couple of college guys going on and on in a college game about how great of a call some flag for Block in the Back was. The referee made the announcement and said there was no foul. It was a legal side block (correct call BTW). The announcers then went on about how they went to referee school and it was clearly not a foul. lol

Announcers have no idea what refs are afraid of. The officials are motivated by playoff and Super-bowl spots. They'd rather get a high rating getting the rule right and doing a Super Bowl than fearing the fans.

You can watch the video by right clicking and saving it locally. It's pretty big: http://videos.refereeclinic.com/videos/2010-5.wmv

You can also watch the videos and read the comments on this site. It's the same exact principle: http://www.youtube.com/user/midmocollegerefs#g/c/192785806A812933

[LisaM]

72. When does the league ever disagree with the refs?

They always spout the party line. It's generally an official who eventually admits the error, like the guy who didn't call the pitch that hit Brandon Inge last year in Game 163.

I'm sure it's happened, but I cannot remember an instance where the league has said an official made a wrong call. Look, my boyfriend was an umpire for years. I understand that you need officials, and you need to back them up. In this case, they erred on the replay. In fact, the offical closest to the play actually called it a touchdown. They could have gotten it right; they chose not to.

It kinda ruined my day yesterday. Can't the Lions ever catch a break?

[Upton]

74. They DID get it right..

you may not like the rule, but the officials interpretation of the rule was correct. Johnson did not maintain control all the way through the play.

I saw the end of the game, and as soon as Johnson lost that ball when it hit the ground, I thought uh oh..

[LisaM]

77. We'll have to agree to disagree then

I thought he placed the ball on the ground after the catch. But, again, the Lions will never catch a break and no one will ever care.

[Renew Deal]

80. All the time.

Here's a video from last years playoff games. They disagree on some huge (non) calls. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d816041bd/Official-Review

[wilt the stilt]

63. They tend not to be avearge joes

the tend to be pretty well off professionals. upper manangement and lawyers. Name all the truck drivers and factory workers(any left?) that are referees. NFL referees are not the typical middle class guy.

[Renew Deal]

71. They are not in poverty, but that's for one reason

The league doesn't want guys tempted by bribes. But they are also no rich guys. The NFL doesn't pay enough to leave their jobs. I tried to find a list of jobs, but I couldn't quickly.

[wilt the stilt]

75. everyone is tempted by bribes

lame excuse. I do believe that the NBA guy was making a pretty hefty salary. It's a class issue. They think the unwashed are the only ones who are tempted by bribes and that the upper class is morally superior. Where have I heard that before.

[Renew Deal]

78. You heard it in your own mind

Because you just made it up. NFL referees often start as college kids trying to make money. They develop careers and advance in officiating. But they often are successful in life for the same reason they succeed in officiating. They are professional, thorough, competent individuals. That's not saying that "truck drivers" aren't successful. There are wealthy truck drivers too.

[wilt the stilt]

81. you didn't catch the sarcasm

same argument that republicans are always saying that they are the values party. like "their values" are the superior values and that liberals are immoral.