RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 The people complaining simply don't understand the rule. Here's the logic behind it. We've all heard the expression "the ground can't cause a fumble." That's the rule when a player is already in possession of the ball. If he has possession, and falls to the ground, he is down, even if the ball comes out. When a receiver, catches a pass and falls to the ground in the process, he is in the process of gaining possession. He doesn't have possession yet. So if the ball comes out during that process, it's an incomplete pass. The way the rule is written is much more consistent than something arbitrary such as two feet down. I appreciate your effort there, but am not convinced, since it is obvious to me that the process was complete. Anyone watching that play (and considering it was video-reviewed, that would be anyone) can clearly see the ball is caught, all feet, arms, butt down... and the player put it on the ground to celebrate. For the official to choose to read more into it than that is an unacceptable insertion of the official into the play, which is something the NFL should be trying to avoid, especially in game-changing plays. That the video folks chose to screw the Lions is simply further indication that bad teams can expect to have the rules interpreted to their detriment. The NFL should be ashamed, and if they trot out a few flunkies this week to natter on about process, that will only make it worse. This beats the tuck rule!
thebug Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 The people complaining simply don't understand the rule. Here's the logic behind it. We've all heard the expression "the ground can't cause a fumble." That's the rule when a player is already in possession of the ball. If he has possession, and falls to the ground, he is down, even if the ball comes out. When a receiver, catches a pass and falls to the ground in the process, he is in the process of gaining possession. He doesn't have possession yet. So if the ball comes out during that process, it's an incomplete pass. The way the rule is written is much more consistent than something arbitrary such as two feet down. The ground can cause a fumble, if the player was not touched by an opponent.
Rayzer32 Posted September 12, 2010 Author Posted September 12, 2010 But you also said "I have never seen a more incompetent call in my time as a fan of the NFL. The ref even watched the video replay and STILL had the balls to call this an incomplete catch." The call was, well, very competent. He would have had to "have balls" to call it complete. So apparently I can't call it an incompetent call IMO and also call the rule moronic IMO? What's the problem with that? I can question both, right?
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 Apparently, according to NFL rules, that was incomplete, but it really shouldn't be and probably wouldn't have been depending on how you interpret the rule That a new rule? Last I recall, the rule was you have to have control and make a "football move"...which he did. When did "have to come up from the ground with the ball" become a rule?
Rayzer32 Posted September 12, 2010 Author Posted September 12, 2010 I appreciate your effort there, but am not convinced, since it is obvious to me that the process was complete. Anyone watching that play (and considering it was video-reviewed, that would be anyone) can clearly see the ball is caught, all feet, arms, butt down... and the player put it on the ground to celebrate. For the official to choose to read more into it than that is an unacceptable insertion of the official into the play, which is something the NFL should be trying to avoid, especially in game-changing plays. That the video folks chose to screw the Lions is simply further indication that bad teams can expect to have the rules interpreted to their detriment. The NFL should be ashamed, and if they trot out a few flunkies this week to natter on about process, that will only make it worse. This beats the tuck rule! Very well stated. And if the ground can cause a fumble if the player is not touched, then in this case he fumbled the ball out of bounds making him the last to have possession of the ball. But, if he never had possession, then a fumble is impossible. The league only makes it harder on themselves with their petty little rule changes.
CardinalScotts Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 Yep, that's incomplete. Rule clearly states you have to maintain control after you hit the ground. Johnson didn't - easy call. Thought so too saw it and said that might get overturned - sure enough it did. Right call but was rooting for Lions
stevestojan Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 So apparently I can't call it an incompetent call IMO and also call the rule moronic IMO? What's the problem with that? I can question both, right? Honestly? No, you can't. The rule sucks, IMO. But the ref called it as it's written. Here's my concern - since this isn't the first time this rule has been questioned and gotten attention in the NFL world, why didn't the receiver JUST HOLD ONTO THE BALL UNTIL HE STOOD UP. Learn the sport you play, understand the rules (especially the "controversial" ones and play by the rules. I agree this rule is questionable, but no, again you can't say the rule is moronic, and then say the ref is incompetent (the ref, the guy responsible for following the rules) for abiding by it. But I'm done here.
Rayzer32 Posted September 12, 2010 Author Posted September 12, 2010 Have to have two feet inbounds , control of the ball including landing with it. What I'm saying is Johnson had control and or possession of that ball longer than so many catches that get called complete along the sidelines and such. He had control of that ball for at least two steps, and had his knees, legs, elbows, hand down before he let the ball out of his grip. What more did he need to do?
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 What I'm saying is Johnson had control and or possession of that ball longer than so many catches that get called complete along the sidelines and such. He had control of that ball for at least two steps, and had his knees, legs, elbows, hand down before he let the ball out of his grip. What more did he need to do? He needed to play for a different team. Seriously, there is a pattern of bad calls in the NFL, always has been. Good teams get fewer bad calls, bad teams get more of them—see the holding penalties and lack of arm bar penalty in today's Bills game.
inkman Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 It's clear that he dropped the ball to go celebrate... While I don't necessarily agree with the call, it was a jackass move to throw the ball that soon to go celebrate.
MRW Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 I appreciate your effort there, but am not convinced, since it is obvious to me that the process was complete. Anyone watching that play (and considering it was video-reviewed, that would be anyone) can clearly see the ball is caught, all feet, arms, butt down... and the player put it on the ground to celebrate. Then Johnson is just dumb, or he lost his head for a minute. I bet 95 times out of 100 that play would be called incomplete.
MDH Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 What more did he need to do? Hold onto the ball until the momentum of the play is over. Hold onto it the entire time and don't let go of it.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 Then Johnson is just dumb, or he lost his head for a minute. I bet 95 times out of 100 that play would be called incomplete. I would take that bet. Remember, the official right on top of the play, standing right there, signaled TD.
Rayzer32 Posted September 12, 2010 Author Posted September 12, 2010 Honestly? No, you can't. The rule sucks, IMO. But the ref called it as it's written. Here's my concern - since this isn't the first time this rule has been questioned and gotten attention in the NFL world, why didn't the receiver JUST HOLD ONTO THE BALL UNTIL HE STOOD UP. Learn the sport you play, understand the rules (especially the "controversial" ones and play by the rules. I agree this rule is questionable, but no, again you can't say the rule is moronic, and then say the ref is incompetent (the ref, the guy responsible for following the rules) for abiding by it. But I'm done here. I tell you why he didn't, because he had already completed about three football moves by the time he let go of the ball. You can't tell me you've never seen guys do a lot less and have a completion get called. So, yes I can say the rule is moronic, because if it was written properly and clearly, there wouldn't be so many people questioning it. And I can easily call the refs incompetent. When a well paid NFL official can't tell the difference between heads and tails during a coin flip, I consider that a little incompetent.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 While I don't necessarily agree with the call, it was a jackass move to throw the ball that soon to go celebrate. No disagreement there. Remember Bobby Shaw wanting to hold the ball out to show he caught the 2-point conversion against TN in 2003? It got knocked away, and called incomplete. Dumb plays... but in this case, a dumb rule that obscures rather than clarifies.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 If this were the Patriots, this would have been ruled a touchdown. Case closed.
stevestojan Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 I tell you why he didn't, because he had already completed about three football moves by the time he let go of the ball. You can't tell me you've never seen guys do a lot less and have a completion get called. So, yes I can say the rule is moronic, because if it was written properly and clearly, there wouldn't be so many people questioning it. And I can easily call the refs incompetent. When a well paid NFL official can't tell the difference between heads and tails during a coin flip, I consider that a little incompetent. So you're calling the refs incompetent because of a coin flip? Holy ****. Is this what I sounded like when I first started posting here? If so, I apologize to everyone. Rayzer, stop while you're just a little behind.
Thoner7 Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 There is no argument. Johnson caught that ball. If by NFL rules he didn't catch the ball, then the NFL rule is wrong and should be re written. End of discussion.
Rayzer32 Posted September 12, 2010 Author Posted September 12, 2010 So you're calling the refs incompetent because of a coin flip? Holy ****. Is this what I sounded like when I first started posting here? If so, I apologize to everyone. Rayzer, stop while you're just a little behind. I've been posting here for 6 years. And yes, botching a coin flip is incompetent. And FWIW, you sound like an ****** in about 75% of your posts so no need to apologize, it's much too late for that. Have a swell night sweetie. Oye! If this were the Patriots, this would have been ruled a touchdown. Case closed. This is most likely 100% true. And if it were the Bills, it would have been incomplete and most likely everyone on here backing the call right now would be M-Fing the officials like crazy.
Captain Caveman Posted September 12, 2010 Posted September 12, 2010 Yep, that's incomplete. Rule clearly states you have to maintain control after you hit the ground. Johnson didn't - easy call. he had control after his butt hit the end zone. touchdown.
Recommended Posts