Detroit Lions, Calvin Johnson Robbed of Game-Winning Touchdown

[IMMensaMind 460]

Interesting conversational techniques.

 

 

Literally one minute later...

 

Well, since truth eludes you, apparently: my comments were directed at someone who launched deleterious comments without provocation. I don't ever throw insults without the person being at first insulting. Both recipients were insulting and posted douchebaggery.

 

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.

 

While he can try such a thing, it is another to succeed. And you need to learn what hypocrisy is - it isn't on display in what I wrote.

 

Alsothatishowwedothingshereandwelcome.

 

Actually, what I did is how we do things here. What you did is be another ###### with nothing useful to say. You gonna try to punch me?

[tikigods 76]

 

Thanks, drobeski. I thought I won this thread on the second post.

[IMMensaMind 460]

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.

 

You have your opinion; I have mine. I backed mine by saying that the act of putting the ball on the ground was conscious and controlled - just as spiking a ball would be. Your attempted to back your opinion by merely claiming that I "lost all credibility".

 

That doesn't happen merely because you state it. You have to offer something of substance. In this case, you need to explain how you believe how Johnson's actions with pushing the ball to the ground wasn't conscious, or controlled.

 

Yes, he had possession of the ball while he was palming it on the way down.

 

You're cooked here IMO - because there is no such thing as having possession, and then fumbling it in the endzone in such a circumstance as this. Having possession is a de facto TouchDown. Every rule wrt to endzone scoring looks to establish possession of the ball after breaking the plane. That's why a ball can be reached across the plane, and result in a TD - even after the ball is knocked out of the player's hand.

 

Capische?

 

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.

 

Not if the act of possessing the ball and then not possessing the ball is sandwiched around an action which demonstrates control - that is what the term "football move" is meant to explain.

 

This was a TD. Your magic has no effect.

[Me_2006 14]

Well, since truth eludes you, apparently: my comments were directed at someone who launched deleterious comments without provocation. I don't ever throw insults without the person being at first insulting. Both recipients were insulting and posted douchebaggery.

 

 

 

While he can try such a thing, it is another to succeed. And you need to learn what hypocrisy is - it isn't on display in what I wrote.

 

 

 

Actually, what I did is how we do things here. What you did is be another ###### with nothing useful to say. You gonna try to punch me?

 

 

Okay, I'll just go back over here. You keep being pretentious and analyzing your usage of verbs. Shame Scooter is gone. He'd love you.

[TimHauck 1,889]

You have your opinion; I have mine. I backed mine by saying that the act of putting the ball on the ground was conscious and controlled - just as spiking a ball would be. Your attempted to back your opinion by merely claiming that I "lost all credibility".

 

That doesn't happen merely because you state it. You have to offer something of substance. In this case, you need to explain how you believe how Johnson's actions with pushing the ball to the ground wasn't conscious, or controlled.

 

You're cooked here IMO - because there is no such thing as having possession, and then fumbling it in the endzone in such a circumstance as this. Having possession is a de facto TouchDown. Every rule wrt to endzone scoring looks to establish possession of the ball after breaking the plane. That's why a ball can be reached across the plane, and result in a TD - even after the ball is knocked out of the player's hand.

 

Capische?

 

Not if the act of possessing the ball and then not possessing the ball is sandwiched around an action which demonstrates control - that is what the term "football move" is meant to explain.

 

This was a TD. Your magic has no effect.

 

If you think Johnson intentionally lost control of the ball, you must not have watched the play. His hand went down, the ball popped out. The ground caused the ball to come out, not Johnson.

[IMMensaMind 460]

If you think Johnson intentionally lost control of the ball, you must not have watched the play. His hand went down, the ball popped out. The ground caused the ball to come out, not Johnson.

 

He intentionally swung his arm to the ground with the ball in it. What happened afterwards indicates that he had no concern about what the ball did afterwards: there was no double-clutch; there was no lunge - he didn't care at all about the ball at that point.

 

The ground is of course what caused the ball to come out - but Johnson consciously engaged the ground with the ball because the play was already over.

[IMMensaMind 460]

 

Okay, I'll just go back over here. You keep being pretentious and analyzing your usage of verbs. Shame Scooter is gone. He'd love you.

 

Methinks you're a giant hypocrite.

[Me_2006 14]

Methinks you're a giant hypocrite.

Based on? Make sure to mind your verbs.

[Gepetto 1,011]

82% of people in the United States polled by ESPN think it was a touchdown.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Based on? Make sure to mind your verbs.

 

Your posts in response to mine are pretentious. Witness above. You didn't like what I posted, probably because I called out one of your BFFs or something.

 

[Me_2006 14]

Your posts in response to mine are pretentious. Witness above. You didn't like what I posted, probably because I called out one of your BFFs or something.

 

I'm mocking you for getting the redass over me focking with you. I'm imitating you. It doesn't make me a hypocrite, it makes you too stupid to realize you're being made fun of.

[IMMensaMind 460]

I'm mocking you for getting the redass over me focking with you. I'm imitating you. It doesn't make me a hypocrite, it makes you too stupid to realize you're being made fun of.

 

No, it makes you a toolbag, which I suspect is already widely known. Likely a fan of a sh!tty team as well. Do you pull wings off flies for your daily yucks, or is this the only place where you feel a modicum of control?

[Me_2006 14]

No, it makes you a toolbag, which I suspect is already widely known. Likely a fan of a sh!tty team as well. Do you pull wings off flies for your daily yucks, or is this the only place where you feel a modicum of control?

1.Widely known? Please, start a pole asking who the bigger tool is.

 

 

2. Colts fan

 

 

3. Pull wings off flies? Serial killer much? WTF are you going on about?

[Jedi Sensei 17]

He intentionally swung his arm to the ground with the ball in it. What happened afterwards indicates that he had no concern about what the ball did afterwards: there was no double-clutch; there was no lunge - he didn't care at all about the ball at that point

Here's the play again:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81a81326/article/lions-schwartz-on-nontd-call-its-not-my-job-to-like-any-rule?module=HP_headlines%29

 

Highly debatable that he "intentionally swung" his arm to the ground; from my non-referee eyes, it would appear his momentum carried his arm towards the ground. The next part of the play is less debatable: once the ball pops out, you can see clear motion in his hand that he was attempting to relocate the ball, before using the hand to prop himself back up.

 

The real question on this play is 'When does the act of "maintaining control of the football through contact with the ground" end?' and, frankly, this one is a close call; by the letter, it doesn't fit the definition, but in spirit it sure felt like it...

[IMMensaMind 460]

Here's the play again:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81a81326/article/lions-schwartz-on-nontd-call-its-not-my-job-to-like-any-rule?module=HP_headlines%29

 

Highly debatable that he "intentionally swung" his arm to the ground; from my non-referee eyes, it would appear his momentum carried his arm towards the ground. The next part of the play is less debatable: once the ball pops out, you can see clear motion in his hand that he was attempting to relocate the ball, before using the hand to prop himself back up.

 

The real question on this play is 'when does the act of "maintaining control of the football through contact with the ground" end",' and, frankly, this one is a close call; by the letter, it doesn't fit the definition, but in spirit it sure felt like it...

 

I can buy what you're saying here. I think that there was a separate football move prior to that action regardless.

[IMMensaMind 460]

1.Widely known? Please, start a pole asking who the bigger tool is.

 

 

2. Colts fan

 

 

3. Pull wings off flies? Serial killer much? WTF are you going on about?

 

I'll leave the talks of poles to you. And your BFF, which is what I suspect is your motive. The waaahmbulance is waiting for you by the door.

[Me_2006 14]

I'll leave the talks of poles to you. And your BFF, which is what I suspect is your motive. The waaahmbulance is waiting for you by the door.

 

 

It saddens me to see what this place has become.

[IMMensaMind 460]

 

 

It saddens me to see what this place has become.

 

Move along, porkchop.

[Me_2006 14]

Move along, porkchop.

Oooh! ooh! Call me something else. Please?

[IMMensaMind 460]

Oooh! ooh! Call me something else. Please?

 

I'm wondering how you reconcile doing exactly what it is you whined I was doing.

[TimHauck 1,889]

Here's the play again:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81a81326/article/lions-schwartz-on-nontd-call-its-not-my-job-to-like-any-rule?module=HP_headlines%29

 

Highly debatable that he "intentionally swung" his arm to the ground; from my non-referee eyes, it would appear his momentum carried his arm towards the ground. The next part of the play is less debatable: once the ball pops out, you can see clear motion in his hand that he was attempting to relocate the ball, before using the hand to prop himself back up.

 

The real question on this play is 'When does the act of "maintaining control of the football through contact with the ground" end?' and, frankly, this one is a close call; by the letter, it doesn't fit the definition, but in spirit it sure felt like it...

 

^This. It looked like he put his arm down in order to break his fall, he was just too stupid to realize that if he did that with the ball in his hand, it would most likely pop out, which it did. What I was saying before was that he probably could've fell to the ground without putting that arm down, and no one would be talking about this.

[IMMensaMind 460]

^This. It looked like he put his arm down in order to break his fall, he was just too stupid to realize that if he did that with the ball in his hand, it would most likely pop out, which it did. What I was saying before was that he probably could've fell to the ground without putting that arm down, and no one would be talking about this.

 

We have a terminal difference of opinion, obviously. I respect your POV, but I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the NFL or the fans to offer any support in any way of this rule or the subsequent ruling. Calvin Johnson made a great and clutch play. By any reasonable measure, it was a TD (and the vast majority of NFL fans agree). By any reasonable measure, the vast majority of NFL fans believe that this rule is asinine, and a smaller majority believe that this play could still have been interpreted to protect the integrity of the game by recognizing the completion of the catch - and the TD - before his arm moved downward at all (regardless whether it was intentional or not).

 

That his arm arced to the ground willfully or not should be completely moot here. The completion of the football play was evident before that point.

[The Hood 9]

I'll leave the talks of poles to you. And your BFF, which is what I suspect is your motive. The waaahmbulance is waiting for you by the door.

 

 

 

We have a terminal difference of opinion, obviously. I respect your POV, but I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the NFL or the fans to offer any support in any way of this rule or the subsequent ruling. Calvin Johnson made a great and clutch play. By any reasonable measure, it was a TD (and the vast majority of NFL fans agree). By any reasonable measure, the vast majority of NFL fans believe that this rule is asinine, and a smaller majority believe that this play could still have been interpreted to protect the integrity of the game by recognizing the completion of the catch - and the TD - before his arm moved downward at all (regardless whether it was intentional or not).

 

That his arm arced to the ground willfully or not should be completely moot here. The completion of the football play was evident before that point.

 

Alright who bought their 12 year old daughter a thesaurus and let her start posting here?

[Me_2006 14]

I'm mocking you for getting the redass over me focking with you. I'm imitating you. It doesn't make me a hypocrite, it makes you too stupid to realize you're being made fun of.

 

 

I'm wondering how you reconcile doing exactly what it is you whined I was doing.

 

 

I'm wondering how you reconcile being a complete mongoloid with acting intellectually superior on a football message board.

[phillybear 365]

Move along, porkchop.

 

Hey, Rusty.

[Bears_Rule 0]

We have a terminal difference of opinion, obviously. I respect your POV, but I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the NFL or the fans to offer any support in any way of this rule or the subsequent ruling. Calvin Johnson made a great and clutch play. By any reasonable measure, it was a TD (and the vast majority of NFL fans agree). By any reasonable measure, the vast majority of NFL fans believe that this rule is asinine, and a smaller majority believe that this play could still have been interpreted to protect the integrity of the game by recognizing the completion of the catch - and the TD - before his arm moved downward at all (regardless whether it was intentional or not).

 

That his arm arced to the ground willfully or not should be completely moot here. The completion of the football play was evident before that point.

 

This is exactly where your logic gets flawed. There were no separate football moves during the play. The act of jumping, catching, falling, transfering it to one hand, gripping it with one hand, rolling, arcing the ball towards the ground, having the ball hit the ground and pop out are all one football move. It was the attempt to make a catch. He did not complete it. No action from the beginning of him jumping into the air to when the ball hit the ground could even vaguely be constituted as a separate football move. He was trying to catch the ball and based on the rule he must possess it throughout the entire process that was started when he jumped in the air. Here's a direct quote from Mike Pereira:

 

"Right now it's really black and white, and it's all on the receiver at this point. If he's going to the ground, he's got to hold on to the ball until he has completely finished, until he's come to a stop. If he doesn't, it's an incomplete pass."

 

You may not like that this is the standard being used. You may not think its applied consistently or correctly in different parts of the field, to different teams or by different officials. But this is the standard and also the clear cut reason why the official confirmed the call on the field.

 

Calvin Jumps

Calvin secures the ball with two hands

Calvins right foot hits

Calvins left foot hits

Calvin Falls towards the back of the endzone

Calvins ass hits the ground with ball securely in right hand

Calvin spins to the right

Ball Touches Ground in Calvins hand

Calvins hand is on top of the ball

Calvin tries to grip the ball as he stands up

Ball stays on the ground

 

 

All of the actions above constitute the same act - that of catching and possessing the football. You may wish that the play could be ruled completed at some point before based on the athleticism of the catch, previous standards of making a catch, inconsistent rulings in different plays or other reasons but the fact remains that he did not maintain possession of the football throughout the duration of the play - the play that starts when he jumps and ends when he's come to a stop." He did not make any deliberate act of letting that ball go or spiking it. Trying to make those arguments are based purely on semantics and more likely because you had Calvin in a big money league and/or had money on the game.

 

Again the same thing that has been said dozens of times: bad rule but correct call.

[IMMensaMind 460]

I'm wondering how you reconcile being a complete mongoloid with acting intellectually superior on a football message board.

 

You can't stop, can you, hypocrite? It isn't very difficult to be more intelligent than you, apparently. All I need to do is breathe through my nose.

 

You should have kept your mouth closed, and kept us guessing whether you were an idiot, rather than opening it, and removing all doubt.

[IMMensaMind 460]

This is exactly where your logic gets flawed. There were no separate football moves during the play. The act of jumping, catching, falling, transfering it to one hand, gripping it with one hand, rolling, arcing the ball towards the ground, having the ball hit the ground and pop out are all one football move. It was the attempt to make a catch. He did not complete it. No action from the beginning of him jumping into the air to when the ball hit the ground could even vaguely be constituted as a separate football move. He was trying to catch the ball and based on the rule he must possess it throughout the entire process that was started when he jumped in the air. Here's a direct quote from Mike Pereira:

 

"Right now it's really black and white, and it's all on the receiver at this point. If he's going to the ground, he's got to hold on to the ball until he has completely finished, until he's come to a stop. If he doesn't, it's an incomplete pass."

 

You may not like that this is the standard being used. You may not think its applied consistently or correctly in different parts of the field, to different teams or by different officials. But this is the standard and also the clear cut reason why the official confirmed the call on the field.

 

Calvin Jumps

Calvin secures the ball with two hands

Calvins right foot hits

Calvins left foot hits

Calvin Falls towards the back of the endzone

Calvins ass hits the ground with ball securely in right hand

Calvin spins to the right

Ball Touches Ground in Calvins hand

Calvins hand is on top of the ball

Calvin tries to grip the ball as he stands up

Ball stays on the ground

 

 

All of the actions above constitute the same act - that of catching and possessing the football. You may wish that the play could be ruled completed at some point before based on the athleticism of the catch, previous standards of making a catch, inconsistent rulings in different plays or other reasons but the fact remains that he did not maintain possession of the football throughout the duration of the play - the play that starts when he jumps and ends when he's come to a stop." He did not make any deliberate act of letting that ball go or spiking it. Trying to make those arguments are based purely on semantics and more likely because you had Calvin in a big money league and/or had money on the game.

 

Again the same thing that has been said dozens of times: bad rule but correct call.

 

Disagree. If it were as cut and dried as you are attempting to claim, there would not be a massive uproar over this rule, or its interpretation.

 

You do not have the order of events correct. Here's the proper sequence of events, with actions separated:

 

Calvin leaps

Calvin instantly secures ball with both hands

As CJ falls to earth, he solidly palms ball with his right hand, demonstrating control

His ass hits the turf; the ball doesn't bobble one iota in his right hand

As his right hand swings to the ground, he still demonstrates control of the palmed ball

His arm decelerates towards the ground - control is still demonstrated

At this point, his ass is fully on the ground, but he is already beginning to get up

The ball hits the ground; the ball pops of out his hand; his hand snaps closed.

 

Other than my description of what happened (which is far more accurate than yours), my description also highlights two things that yours does not:

 

1) A demonstration of utterly clear control of the football through the switching of hands

2) It includes the fact that CJ was getting up already when the football hit the ground.

 

Look at it yourself:

 

My link

 

Even the commentators mention that there was a separate move in the play - which is enough for a ref without his head up Periera's ass to rule this a TD as he should have - which is why I say that it is both a bad rule and a bad call.

 

This play was over. The rule states that he has to maintain control until he is on the ground. He. Did.

[Frank M 181]

Has anyone mentioned rat's ass?

 

That being said, if that call was made on the field instead of in the endzone, there would be no uproar at all. People want it to be a catch because it was a pivotal play in the game.

 

Maybe he should have secured it before running off celebrating like a dumbass.

[Me_2006 14]

You can't stop, can you, hypocrite? It isn't very difficult to be more intelligent than you, apparently. All I need to do is breathe through my nose.

 

You should have kept your mouth closed, and kept us guessing whether you were an idiot, rather than opening it, and removing all doubt.

Any more 7th grade homeroom poster cliches? Maybe Garfield says to 'Hang in there' ? Gonna tell me I'll miss 100% of the shots I don't take?

 

 

Please, share your knowledge with me.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Has anyone mentioned rat's ass?

 

That being said, if that call was made on the field instead of in the endzone, there would be no uproar at all. People want it to be a catch because it was a pivotal play in the game.

 

Maybe he should have secured it before running off celebrating like a dumbass.

 

Would it have been ruled a fumble had this taken place on the field?

[Frank M 181]

Would it have been ruled a fumble had this taken place on the field?

 

Incomplete pass.

[Gepetto 1,011]

Would it have been ruled a fumble had this taken place on the field?

 

No, the ground can't cause a fumble.

 

You should ask if it would have been ruled a catch in the field of play and who knows, but based on the way this play was called I guess it would have been incomplete, and still a bad call and a bad rule.

[IMMensaMind 460]

No, the ground can't cause a fumble.

 

The ground cannot cause a fumble if you're being tackled. It can mos def cause a fumble if you trip and cough up the ball, can it not?

 

You should ask if it would have been ruled a catch in the field of play and who knows, but based on the way this play was called I guess it would have been incomplete, and still a bad call and a bad rule.

 

I believe this would have been ruled a catch - and then a fumble - when the player made a move to turn upfield.

[Dan 60]

You can't stop, can you, hypocrite? It isn't very difficult to be more intelligent than you, apparently. All I need to do is breathe through my nose.

 

You should have kept your mouth closed, and kept us guessing whether you were an idiot, rather than opening it, and removing all doubt.

 

Um. Just a thought here, but you should probably drink decaffeinated drinks. As intelligent as your vocabulary and articulation of your own opinions suggest that you are, you seem to lack the ability to gather nuance within the scope of your reading comprehension. As a result, you've attacked a respected member of FF Today as though you were talking to a troll, simply because he teased you.

 

Either that, or you had a momentary lapse in comprehension, and have too much pride to admit that you overreacted from the first.

 

 

PS. The pithy idiom, while true, is ironic coming from one so verbose.

[phillybear 365]

I like turtles.

[Gepetto 1,011]

The ground cannot cause a fumble if you're being tackled. It can mos def cause a fumble if you trip and cough up the ball, can it not?

 

 

 

I believe this would have been ruled a catch - and then a fumble - when the player made a move to turn upfield.

 

Yes, it would be a fumble if it was first considered a complete pass and if also the receiver wasn't contacted/tackled or touched down by a defender. Calvin Johnson was tripped by a Chicago defender. Ball hit the ground. Ground can't cause a fumble. Also, it has to be a catch before it could be a fumble. Incomplete pass. Although, I disagree with the rule.

 

 

FYI, in general on the entire play the following is my opinion.

I think Calvin Johnson caught the ball with two feet down and was then tripped by the Chicago Defender. Since a tackle after a catch for a touchdown is after the play is over, it's completely meaningless what happens to the ball after Calvin fell to the ground.

[Gepetto 1,011]

edjr has been acting like "white trash" and a d-bag on the main board. IMMENSAMIND called him on it. ME_2006 got all offended that his buddy edjr was called out. I think you're out of line Me_2006 or in love with your buddy edjr.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

edjr has been acting like "white trash" and a d-bag on the main board. IMMENSAMIND called him on it. ME_2006 got all offended that his buddy edjr was called out. I think you're out of line Me_2006 or in love with your buddy edjr.

Ahh grow a pair you focking nancy.

[Gepetto 1,011]

Ahh grow a pair you focking nancy.

 

I just think ME_2006 is making himself look bad.