Detroit Lions, Calvin Johnson Robbed of Game-Winning Touchdown

[RLLD 3,473]

Rule sucks - but refs got it right. You guys here want to "freeze frame" and say "look - he's down!!". It's all one continuous motion - if he had stopped his momentum and then released the ball - well then it's a touchdown. This whole "his hand's on the ground, his arse is on the ground" doesn't mean anything. A player can jump 5 feet in the air, catch the ball and have it tightly secured with both arms and then hit the ground and if the ball pops loose, then it's an incomplete pass. This is what happened yesterday - Johnson did not maintain control of the ball through the "entire process of catching the pass". Can't say he has total control for half the process and then say "completed pass"; must maintain control through the "entire process"

 

I know - not a popular opinion, but don't let the situation of it being a late touchdown or you have Johnson on your fantasy team cloud your judgement.

 

Rule sucks, and the ref's did not apply it properly.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Rule sucks - but refs got it right. You guys here want to "freeze frame" and say "look - he's down!!". It's all one continuous motion - if he had stopped his momentum and then released the ball - well then it's a touchdown. This whole "his hand's on the ground, his arse is on the ground" doesn't mean anything. A player can jump 5 feet in the air, catch the ball and have it tightly secured with both arms and then hit the ground and if the ball pops loose, then it's an incomplete pass. This is what happened yesterday - Johnson did not maintain control of the ball through the "entire process of catching the pass". Can't say he has total control for half the process and then say "completed pass"; must maintain control through the "entire process"

 

I know - not a popular opinion, but don't let the situation of it being a late touchdown or you have Johnson on your fantasy team cloud your judgement.

 

How does fully extending the arm that has the ball in a one-handed grip not constitute demonstration of controlling the ball once contact with the ground has been made?

[RLLD 3,473]

How does fully extending the arm that has the ball in a one-handed grip not constitute demonstration of controlling the ball once contact with the ground has been made?

 

The ref's decided that since the ball popped out when it touched the ground it could not be determined that he would have kept control of it without it touching the ground.......THAT is the bullsh!t reasoning behind this......the stupidity of that assertion staggers common sense.....

[TimHauck 1,841]

He did have control of it while he was going down...he just didn't maintain control of it after he fell. Could be a bad rule, but probably the correct call. It looks like Johnson probably could've gotten by without even putting the right hand down, so it's his own fault. But I'm sure he learned his lesson.

[IMMensaMind 460]

He did have control of it while he was going down...he just didn't maintain control of it after he fell. Could be a bad rule, but probably the correct call. It looks like Johnson probably could've gotten by without even putting the right hand down, so it's his own fault. But I'm sure he learned his lesson.

 

I think you undermine your position a bit by admitting that "he could have gotten by without even putting the right hand down" - because that cedes that it is a separate move.

 

The rule accounts for separate moves within the play. Him catching the ball with two hands, then landing on two feet, then switching from two hands to a one-hand grip of the football - with a fully extended arm - to hitting the ground again on his arse while still holding the football in a one-handed grip on a fully extended arm - to putting that hand with the football down on the ground and snapping it out of his hand on the ground and then running and celebrating...

 

...that demonstrates to me that catching the ball and then manipulating it while in full control of it while hitting the ground again and rising up - are separate moves.

 

And should have been ruled a touchdown. If they wanted to call a fumble while celebrating, they're free to do so ( ), but that would have been after the points were scored.

[Cel 0]

Touchdowns are called touchdowns because you used to have to do exactly what CJ did, hit the ball on the turf of the endzone before the score counted. Came from Rugby. Look how far we've come... Was playing against CJ, worst call I've ever seen.

[TimHauck 1,841]

I think you undermine your position a bit by admitting that "he could have gotten by without even putting the right hand down" - because that cedes that it is a separate move.

 

The rule accounts for separate moves within the play. Him catching the ball with two hands, then landing on two feet, then switching from two hands to a one-hand grip of the football - with a fully extended arm - to hitting the ground again on his arse while still holding the football in a one-handed grip on a fully extended arm - to putting that hand with the football down on the ground and snapping it out of his hand on the ground and then running and celebrating...

 

...that demonstrates to me that catching the ball and then manipulating it while in full control of it while hitting the ground again and rising up - are separate moves.

 

And should have been ruled a touchdown. If they wanted to call a fumble while celebrating, they're free to do so ( ), but that would have been after the points were scored.

 

How does saying he didn't have to put his right hand down concede it was a separate move? You can maybe argue that going from holding it with both hands to one was a separate move, but I'm just saying he probably could've fell down and gotten back up without putting his right hand (holding the ball) down, and no one would be talking about this.

[IMMensaMind 460]

How does saying he didn't have to put his right hand down concede it was a separate move?

 

It's a priori evidence that the move was gratuitous (read: wasn't necessary, therefore: wasn't part of the action of catching the ball).

 

You can maybe argue that going from holding it with both hands to one was a separate move,

 

I'm arguing that as well. In fact, this play involved two separate moves on CJ's part. You just can't take away an obvious TD from him - particularly one which (probably) won the game for them!

 

but I'm just saying he probably could've fell down and gotten back up without putting his right hand (holding the ball) down, and no one would be talking about this.

 

While that's true, the whole reason he did is because he knew he had completed the act of catching the ball for a TD!

[TimHauck 1,841]

It's a priori evidence that the move was gratuitous (read: wasn't necessary, therefore: wasn't part of the action of catching the ball).

 

According to the rule, it was. Just because I'm saying that I don't think he had to put his hand down there, doesn't mean that it should be a touchdown, since of course he did put his hand down, and lost control of the ball while doing so.

 

But LOL at anyone saying he "snapped it out of his hand" or "let it go" after it hit the ground. He lost control of it when it hit the ground. The question is just whether it should've been a touchdown before that.

[IMMensaMind 460]

According to the rule, it was. Just because I'm saying that I don't think he had to put his hand down there, doesn't mean that it should be a touchdown, since of course he did put his hand down, and lost control of the ball while doing so.

 

Or...he gave up control - right?

 

But LOL at anyone saying he "snapped it out of his hand" or "let it go" after it hit the ground. He lost control of it when it hit the ground. The question is just whether it should've been a touchdown before that.

 

Not sure why you'd laugh at that. I used the verb "snapped" because it seemed more fitting. It was obvious by the replay that he was pinching the ball, and the impact with the ground "snapped" the ball out of his pinched hand (which "snapped" closed when the ball released). I do agree that the release of the ball was ancillary to this whole thing: the play was over already, and the call didn't acknowledge that.

[TimHauck 1,841]

Or...he gave up control - right?

 

 

 

Not sure why you'd laugh at that. I used the verb "snapped" because it seemed more fitting. It was obvious by the replay that he was pinching the ball, and the impact with the ground "snapped" the ball out of his pinched hand (which "snapped" closed when the ball released). I do agree that the release of the ball was ancillary to this whole thing: the play was over already, and the call didn't acknowledge that.

 

I think you undermine your position that he "gave up" control by saying that the impact with the ground "snapped" the ball out of his pinched hand. I laughed because I thought you were saying that Johnson himself "snapped" the ball, but it was the ground.

[drobeski 3,061]

This letter is going to make the NFL stand up and take notice.

[swamp dog 0]

on another note, where's walter? dr. J? and the one who shall remain nameless?

[IMMensaMind 460]

I think you undermine your position that he "gave up" control by saying that the impact with the ground "snapped" the ball out of his pinched hand. I laughed because I thought you were saying that Johnson himself "snapped" the ball, but it was the ground.

 

I mean snapped - as in - a conscious motion. He allowed the ground to pop the ball out of his compressed hand. I don't believe I undermine my position at all, as my position is that the play was over prior to the ball hitting the ground.

[swamp dog 0]

you know the nfl is saying behind closed doors today that "we better get this figured out moving forward before it happens to a team that really matters and in a game that really matters!"

[The Bears are Back 0]

No it wasn't. The call on the field was incomplete pass. When challenged, the play stood.

 

This is false.

 

Regardless- Lions should have won that game (both because the Bears were trying to give it to them and because of the call)

[mendomob 0]

I just wanted to give my heart felt support to the NFL and the refs in that game. Just outstanding all around...great call, great rule! I did a back flip when that TD got reversed...can u tell I was going against CJ?

[Bears_Rule 0]

There are a few things missing in the argument.

 

1. Momentum.

 

2. The difference between catching a pass and possessing a football.

 

To complete a catch you need to possess it throughout the entire act of the catch. This means the jump in the air to grab the ball is one continuous momentum as he falls, hits his ass, rolls over, tries to gain balance, has the ball hit the ground, and then the ball snaps out. He has to hold the ball throughout the entire process of him jumping, landing and rolling. It clearly popped out of his hand throughout the entire process of catching the pass.

 

The whole thing about "a separate move" is just intentional ignorance. You want to see it a certain way and are not trying to acknowledge the rule in the context of the entire rule book especially in regards to how momentum applies. Go read the case study book and not just the rule. You'll see this rule explained to you in clear language.

 

And it was ruled incomplete on the field and then upheld by the review official while Mike Pereira said in clear language it would be incomplete during the review. There isn't a single person who understands the rule who is saying it should have been a catch.

 

Back to the original statement: you can say "bad rule" you can't say "bad call".

[The Next Generation 10]

Back to the original statement: you can say "bad rule" you can't say "bad call".

 

Can I say stupid, focking horrible rule?

[Bears_Rule 0]

Can I say stupid, focking horrible rule?

 

Lol....yes, yes you can.

[TimHauck 1,841]

I mean snapped - as in - a conscious motion. He allowed the ground to pop the ball out of his compressed hand. I don't believe I undermine my position at all, as my position is that the play was over prior to the ball hitting the ground.

 

Who cares whether he allowed the ground to pop the ball out or not, the ground caused the ball to pop out. Thus he did not maintain possession of the football. Yes, you can argue that it should have been a touchdown before that, but then I don't know why you're trying to argue that he "allowed" the ball to pop out or that he "gave up control of the ball."

 

This is false.

 

No it's not. One ref called it a touchdown at first, but the official call on the field was an incomplete pass. Who knows, maybe if the call on the field was a touchdown, that wouldn't have been overturned either.

[Jules 0]

Chiming in as a Chicago homer...that call was horrible. We did not deserve the win.

[rotisserieking 34]

First I believe it was a catch and touchdown.

 

Regardless, the thing that annoys me most here is the inconsistency with the "control" issue. How can Matt Hasselbeck dive for the end zone, palm the ball down then immediately fall out of bounds with said ball lying on the grass and it's counted a TD? He has less control then Johnson did yet these calls are typically upheld weekly - I just don't get it.

[mayhem39 3]

That was a catch and a TD. If you use something called your eyes, it's a pretty easy TD. Common sense has left the building. Lions got hosed by one of the worst calls I have ever seen in 40 years of watching sports.

[TimHauck 1,841]

First I believe it was a catch and touchdown.

 

Regardless, the thing that annoys me most here is the inconsistency with the "control" issue. How can Matt Hasselbeck dive for the end zone, palm the ball down then immediately fall out of bounds with said ball lying on the grass and it's counted a TD? He has less control then Johnson did yet these calls are typically upheld weekly - I just don't get it.

 

I don't know the exact play you're talking about with Hasselbeck, but that's because the ground can't cause a fumble when someone is running (and thus already has possession). This play was in question because in order to have possession you have to have control the entire time.

[rotisserieking 34]

I don't know the exact play you're talking about with Hasselbeck, but that's because the ground can't cause a fumble when someone is running (and thus already has possession). This play was in question because in order to have possession you have to have control the entire time.

 

Yep that's essentially what happened I'm just saying I don't like the rule on possession where it compares to runners vs. receivers. Seems like there should not be a gray area.

[sirensong 111]

after watching the video, i'm going to say that the officials made the correct call vis a vis the letter of the rule. the "seperate move" argument is pretty good, but in the end, the officials are bound by the letter of the law. though the play obviously should have been considered a TD, the officials can't really plead "common sense" in a rules dispute--the rule is clear. so put me in the "good call, bad rule" camp.

 

that said, the biggest person deserving of blame is calvin, who absolutely did not get "robbed". had he completed the catching motion as coached--catch ball in hands followed immediately by tucking the ball--this would have been a TD and the lions would have won. when a receiver catches a ball off balance either in the end zone or on the sideline, they are all taught the same thing: establish feet, protect the ball, and go limp. do not try to remain upright. do not put a hand down to catch yourself.

 

his refusal to protect the ball--an elementary skill--is what put this game in the hands of the officials.

[The Bears are Back 0]

Who cares whether he allowed the ground to pop the ball out or not, the ground caused the ball to pop out. Thus he did not maintain possession of the football. Yes, you can argue that it should have been a touchdown before that, but then I don't know why you're trying to argue that he "allowed" the ball to pop out or that he "gave up control of the ball."

 

 

 

No it's not. One ref called it a touchdown at first, but the official call on the field was an incomplete pass. Who knows, maybe if the call on the field was a touchdown, that wouldn't have been overturned either.

 

I stand corrected. I guess I missed that while I had my head buried in my hands. I'm guessing it would have been overruled it they had called it a TD- the evidence was clearly indisputable with regards to the rule in question.... though I still agree the rule needs to be fixed, possibly to allow a level of judgement from the officials.

[The Hood 9]

That was a catch and a TD. If you use something called your eyes, it's a pretty easy TD. Common sense has left the building. Lions got hosed by one of the worst calls I have ever seen in 40 years of watching sports.

 

40 years? Louis Murphy and the Raiders had the exact same thing happen last year the first week of the year.

[swamp dog 0]

Chiming in as a Chicago homer...that call was horrible. We did not deserve the win.

 

again, i'm not so confident the lions d wouldn't have let the bears get in field goal position in the last 25 seconds, anyway.

[Jules 0]

again, i'm not so confident the lions d wouldn't have let the bears get in field goal position in the last 25 seconds, anyway.

 

Perhaps, it's definitely a possibility. I would have rather taken a win that way than through a terrible call like that.

[IMMensaMind 460]

There are a few things missing in the argument.

 

1. Momentum.

 

Momentum? That has nothing to do with this call. Momentum kept him in the endzone, and momentum caused him to fall on his ass while he palmed the football with one hand. Any role momentum played in making this call evaporated when he demonstrated full and non-bobbling control of the ball (a) when he hit the ground with both feet while simultaneously gripping the ball with two hands, and (b.) when he shifted the ball to his right hand and extended his arm while gripping the ball as he hit the ground with his rear. He was palming it, and it didn't move an iota. He had full control.

 

It was only after he did both of these things - demonstrating full control of the ball - that he then pushed the ball into the turf as leverage for getting up and it popped out of his hand.

 

2. The difference between catching a pass and possessing a football.

 

See above for an exhaustive and complete commentary on possession. The catching part happened initially; the possession part took place when he shifted the ball to one hand and palmed it without bobbling it while hitting the ground and then GETTING UP AGAIN.

 

To complete a catch you need to possess it throughout the entire act of the catch.

 

Your definition of "act of the catch" appears to include celebrating. It shouldn't.

 

This means the jump in the air to grab the ball is one continuous momentum as he falls, hits his ass, rolls over, tries to gain balance, has the ball hit the ground, and then the ball snaps out.

 

You missed a seriously critical part in that action: he shifted the ball to one hand, palmed it, and outstretched that palmed ball with full control while he hit the ground, and as he rose again OFF the ground.

 

He has to hold the ball throughout the entire process of him jumping, landing and rolling. It clearly popped out of his hand throughout the entire process of catching the pass.

 

The whole thing about "a separate move" is just intentional ignorance.

 

It's intentional, to be certain. It is anything but ignorant. Denying the particulars of my explanation of the catch? That may in fact be ignorance.

 

You want to see it a certain way and are not trying to acknowledge the rule in the context of the entire rule book especially in regards to how momentum applies. Go read the case study book and not just the rule. You'll see this rule explained to you in clear language.

 

The rule is ridiculous. Defending the rule is - likewise - ridiculous. This rule was written in such a way to create obvious conflict between what to the experienced viewer is definitively a catch, and what to the wonk may be manipulated into being something else. I'm sorry: that's a bad rule that does that.

 

And it was ruled incomplete on the field and then upheld by the review official while Mike Pereira said in clear language it would be incomplete during the review. There isn't a single person who understands the rule who is saying it should have been a catch.

 

I understand the rule fully. The rule acknowledges ref discernment of a "seperate action", and - in fact - the goalline judge raised his hands signalling it as a TD. He did that because he was right. There was not only one separate action, there were two.

 

Back to the original statement: you can say "bad rule" you can't say "bad call".

 

You can say both, and I just explained why. The bad rule led to the bad call. This call is causing controversy because it was both.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Who cares whether he allowed the ground to pop the ball out or not, the ground caused the ball to pop out.

 

No, I disagree: Calvin caused the ball to pop out - which makes it no different than a player demonstrating control of a football and then spiking it into the ground. There is a clear and easily discernable difference between hitting the ground with the ball because you're flying into the ground out of control, and hitting the ground with the ball in a finishing act/beginning act of celebration. As you said, Calvin didn't need to swing his arm into the ground with the ball.

 

I agree.

 

The natural extension of that agreement is that the swinging of his arm into the ground with the ball was as gratuitous as spiking the ball into the ground - which is what allows rules officials to consider it a separate action.

 

I believe his play - due to his athleticism - involved two separate actions. Simply transferring the ball to one hand without bobbling it demonstrates sufficient control of the ball - with both feet having touched the ground as they were - to consider the play over at that point. However he celebrates then - whatever happens after that point - is purely moot.

 

Thus he did not maintain possession of the football. Yes, you can argue that it should have been a touchdown before that, but then I don't know why you're trying to argue that he "allowed" the ball to pop out or that he "gave up control of the ball."

 

Why would you not understand that? He maintained possession of the football past any reasonable point to consider that he didn't have control! Palming a ball! Think about palming a ball - can you palm a ball without controlling it? No...you cannot. He allowed the ball to pop out of his hand just as any player would flip the ball out of his hand...after the play was over.

 

No it's not. One ref called it a touchdown at first, but the official call on the field was an incomplete pass. Who knows, maybe if the call on the field was a touchdown, that wouldn't have been overturned either.

 

The ref with the ideal view called it a TD. That it was reversed is a traveshamockery at its worst.

[TimHauck 1,841]

No, I disagree: Calvin caused the ball to pop out - which makes it no different than a player demonstrating control of a football and then spiking it into the ground. There is a clear and easily discernable difference between hitting the ground with the ball because you're flying into the ground out of control, and hitting the ground with the ball in a finishing act/beginning act of celebration. As you said, Calvin didn't need to swing his arm into the ground with the ball.

 

I agree.

 

The natural extension of that agreement is that the swinging of his arm into the ground with the ball was as gratuitous as spiking the ball into the ground - which is what allows rules officials to consider it a separate action.

 

I believe his play - due to his athleticism - involved two separate actions. Simply transferring the ball to one hand without bobbling it demonstrates sufficient control of the ball - with both feet having touched the ground as they were - to consider the play over at that point. However he celebrates then - whatever happens after that point - is purely moot.

 

 

 

Why would you not understand that? He maintained possession of the football past any reasonable point to consider that he didn't have control! Palming a ball! Think about palming a ball - can you palm a ball without controlling it? No...you cannot. He allowed the ball to pop out of his hand just as any player would flip the ball out of his hand...after the play was over.

 

You make some good points, but the fact that you are comparing what Calvin did to spiking the football is absolutely ridiculous and makes you lose all credibility here IMO.

 

Yes, he had possession of the ball while he was palming it on the way down. But he did not maintain possession of it after he went to the ground. It's like a guy making a diving catch but then it popping out when it hits the ground. He may have possession of it while he is in the air, but he has to maintain possession of it after hitting the ground.

[mobb_deep 918]

All I know is we're better than Chicago, with our back-up QB. I just hope Stafford is ok.

 

PS. Jay Cutler is a douche.

[surferskin 30]

how can you have one universal rule in all football that says when you hit the ground, the play is over.

but then have another rule that says no it's not

 

 

I don't want to hear how they had to follow the rule, because what they did today was follow it incorrectly. The rule is all about

coming down with the ball. Well he did. When he put the ball on the ground, his body was rising up. There is nothing in the rule

that takes the play that far out. If it said a wideout had to catch the ball, and then keep possession even when they get up, hell

then you have an incomplete pass. the rule sucks, but their misapplying it sucks 100x harder

 

This.

 

Also, Cowboys suck.

[Jedi Sensei 17]

My dream as a Chicago fan is to start next season with a new coaching staff and front office, so I was fully hoping for the Bears to lose this game, but to have won it with a 'controversy' is basically my worst nightmare.

 

 

 

(And I say 'controversy' in scare-quotes because, as has been said here already, his motion of swinging the ball onto the ground appeared to be a continuation of his catch of the ball as he was falling to the ground, and thus the ball being ejected upon contact with the ground would constitute losing possession of the ball while completing the catch, and therefore correctly be ruled an incompletion [as was the official call on the field during the game and subsequently upheld upon review] as defined by rule -- implemented after the 1999 season and widely regarded as a 'bad rule.' The play, by the way, can be found here: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81a81326/article/lions-schwartz-on-nontd-call-its-not-my-job-to-like-any-rule?module=HP_headlines)

 

(ps - that rule be damned: it was a fockin TD. That said, the Bears handed them the game.)

[ShaneFalco 0]

Had this play been ruled a touchdown, would anybody be screaming that an incorrect call was made? Would anyone have even noticed or invoked this rule?

[Me_2006 14]

You flap your gums an awful lot for someone who has no effing idea what he's talking about.

 

 

This was obviously a TD to anyone with an understanding of football.

 

You, meanwhile, need to bone up on the rules that much more.

Interesting conversational techniques.

 

I haven't posted much here, but in the last two days, I have seen two posts by you that indicate to me that you're an enormous pr!ck.

Literally one minute later...

 

 

What I'm implying is that edger should drive to your house, punch you in the face in front of your wife and kids, impregnate your wife and then abort the fetus with your hypocrisy.

 

 

 

Alsothatishowwedothingshereandwelcome.

[6_million_dollar_faulk 0]

What I don't understand about this rule is that it's interpreted differently in the end zone then everywhere else in the field of play. Example: If this play would have happened anywhere other then the end zone I'd imagine (since I've seen it happen repeatedly throughout the years) it would be ruled a catch because he caught the ball, was contacted by a defender, maintained possession when his knee (as well as his ass, thigh, hand, etc.) hit the ground & only lost control when the ball hit the ground while still in his hand (which would be ruled as the ground causing a fumble, which we all know is not a fumble).