Controversial call in Chicago

[BigDawg819]

Calvin's is not a catch, breaking the plane and having the ball punched out is a TD. The audacity of the "Tuck Rule" has been succeeded.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by bearfan

I agree with the ruling. Not because I am a Bears fan, but because a reciever must have posession of the ball all the way through going to the ground. Someone mentioned a diving catch above, and I agree that the same type of ruling applies here. A guy can make a catch and have the ball roll out once he hits the ground...its not a catch. In this case, he let go of the ball too early.

except that they aren't really comparable at all, in that, in one case, the player is, you know, diving for the ball. i'm sure you'll let someone know when you've actually watched a replay before making further silly comparisons.

[bearfan]

Originally Posted by njx9

except that they aren't really comparable at all, in that, in one case, the player is, you know, diving for the ball. i'm sure you'll let someone know when you've actually watched a replay before making further silly comparisons.

Ok, maybe I wasn't specific enough by what I had in mind in the example I provided.





My point is, I don't see a difference. They both look like catches whether they are diving or not.

Was it a catch? Yeah, but he knows he has to maintain possession of the ball while going to the ground.

In review of watching the play njx... it looked to me that part of him going to the ground was that extended lunge where he then hit the ball against the ground and lost posession. It sucks, bad officiating happens, but its part of the game.

[Bengals78]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...t-was-a-catch/

[FlyingElvis]

Originally Posted by njx9

in an effort to decrease the number of "it was the right call based on the rules" (rules most people have likely never read because it's bloody well impossible to find the ******* rule book online), following is Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 from the 2010 NFL Rulebook:

The interpretation of the rule has been very clear, to the point where the head of officiating even says the player basically has to come up off the ground with possession.

Quoting the actual wording or any particular rule seems moot. We've seen the ruling enough times to know how it will be called upon review. Calvin ****** up, plain and simple. It sucks, b/c it does clearly look like he loses possession getting up after a great catch, but he didn't get up with the ball.

[BigDawg819]

Originally Posted by FlyingElvis

The interpretation of the rule has been very clear, to the point where the head of officiating even says the player basically has to come up off the ground with possession.

Quoting the actual wording or any particular rule seems moot. We've seen the ruling enough times to know how it will be called upon review. Calvin ****** up, plain and simple. It sucks, b/c it does clearly look like he loses possession getting up after a great catch, but he didn't get up with the ball.

Well said!


Calvin screwed up by allowing the refs to become involved. I know you're excited, but catch the ball and hand to the ref then go celebrate. Don't show off, don't be fancy, just make the catch then do whatever on the sideline.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by FlyingElvis

The interpretation of the rule has been very clear, to the point where the head of officiating even says the player basically has to come up off the ground with possession.

i'm curious how many times anyone involved in the league has said a ruling was wrong.

Quoting the actual wording or any particular rule seems moot. We've seen the ruling enough times to know how it will be called upon review. Calvin ****** up, plain and simple. It sucks, b/c it does clearly look like he loses possession getting up after a great catch, but he didn't get up with the ball.

there was a play monday night, that i wish i could find on youtube, where the player caught the ball going out of bounds, went to the ground, and dropped the ball before giving it to the official. it wasn't even mentioned as a possible review.

but again: i absolutely agree that he shouldn't have been so ready to celebrate. i understand why he did (game winning td? of course i'd be stoked), but you *have* to know better than to ever give the refs a chance to make a ruling.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

Originally Posted by njx9

there was a play monday night, that i wish i could find on youtube, where the player caught the ball going out of bounds, went to the ground, and dropped the ball before giving it to the official. it wasn't even mentioned as a possible review.

Just curious, did one of the receivers feet slide out of bounds before he went to the ground? If so, the play was over by the time he hit the ground and lost the ball. That would be the difference.

Then again, it's that kind of inconsistency that has people angry here. Anyone with common sense would call that final play a catch and a touchdown and would admit that had Calvin Johnson continued to grab the ball as he stood up instead of letting go of it, a purely aesthetic addition to the play in this case, would have yielded a completely different ruling. Considering that all it takes to score a rushing touchdown is the ball crossing the plane, it seems ridiculous to define "going to the ground" as still being a process after the player has maintained possession through his knee and hip hitting the ground (enough to rule the play dead on a running play, btw).

The refs had the right to make that call, but it was a crap call (just as with the tuck rule, there was flexibility in the verbiage to make that call even though it was a horrible call). The fault is inherent to the wording and it should be changed as soon as feasibly possible.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

Just curious, did one of the receivers feet slide out of bounds before he went to the ground? If so, the play was over by the time he hit the ground and lost the ball. That would be the difference.

i believe his entire body hit, but my memory sucks, so i could be off.