WOW, Detroit gets SCREEEEWED, the refs are terrible.

[Fezmid]

But if you have two feet in bounds a millisecond before you are out of bounds, that's a completion? Or if a player crosses the goal line and the ball immediately gets knocked out of his hands or he drops it, that's also a TD? These rules are completely idiotic.

 

If the player taps his toes on the sideline, then falls out of bounds and the ball pops out - it will be ruled incomplete.

 

A player with possession crossing the goalline is a completely different situation - he already has possession.

 

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.

You mean the coin toss where Bettis called heads, then changed his mind to tails and the ref (correctly) took the first thing Bettis called as the actual call? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Luckett

 

The refs ALWAYS call it incomplete nowadays if the ball pops out when the receiver hits the ground.

 

The refs make bad calls - but the coin toss and the incomplete pass yesterday were both spot-on according to the rule book.

 

The ball was not remotely close to being the first thing to hit the ground, which means that it's a reception, and then, the ground can't cause a fumble.

The ground didn't cause a fumble -- the ground caused an incomplete pass. Which it can, if the player falls down and doesn't hold on to the ball. It happens all the time.

[Captain Caveman]

The ground didn't cause a fumble -- the ground caused an incomplete pass. Which it can, if the player falls down and doesn't hold on to the ball. It happens all the time.

 

The problem is, his butt hits the ground with him having possession. At that point, he should be down, in the end zone, with possession. How long does he have to hold onto it?

[lets_go_bills]

The coaches, refs and NFL reps all say the right call was made.

 

Yet how come every time I watch that play, all I see is a TD catch? I don't get it.

[Another Point of View]

Questionable call, very close

[Fezmid]

The problem is, his butt hits the ground with him having possession. At that point, he should be down, in the end zone, with possession. How long does he have to hold onto it?

It's not a reception as soon as you have control and hit the ground. You need to end the play with the ball. If it pops out, it's incomplete.

 

Something similar happened in the Bills game yesterday, but nobody talked about it because it didn't have an impact on the game.

[DC Tom]

It looked questionable. Screwed? Not even close to screwed.

 

Unless they changed the rule from "possession and a football move" to "must get up from the ground with possession of the ball", they got screwed.

[Fezmid]

Unless they changed the rule from "possession and a football move" to "must get up from the ground with possession of the ball", they got screwed.

 

They changed the rule from "possession and a football move" to "possession of the ball, all the way through hitting the ground." Johnson didn't hold the ball after hitting the ground. Therefore, incomplete.

 

Look, here's a reference to the rule from back in 2004:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-041231jerrymarkbreitsanswers,0,5802190.story

 

Everybody who knows a little about the definition of a catch knows that all the receiver needs is possession with two feet on the ground. At the end of the Bears-Lions game, Bernard Berrian had both. The defender tried but failed to knock the ball out of Berrian's hands and I think that confused the ref. The play was long over by the time he fell to the ground, correct? -- Joe, Mt. Prospect, Ill.

 

The ref was not confused on the play in question; the ruling was correct. The reception rule states that once a receiver gains possession of the ball with two feet inbounds, whether it be in the end zone or the field of play, he must hold onto the ball if he is driven to the ground by an opponent. In the play in question, the receiver hit the ground and the ball moved on his chest, which under current NFL rules, does not constitute a catch.

[Ramius]

It's not a reception as soon as you have control and hit the ground. You need to end the play with the ball. If it pops out, it's incomplete.

 

Something similar happened in the Bills game yesterday, but nobody talked about it because it didn't have an impact on the game.

 

He did hit the ground and hung on to the ball. The call was BS no matter which way you look at it. He had possession and was down in the endzone. Touchdown.

 

So now WRs need to hang onto the ball while getting up? Pure and simple bull ****.

[Captain Caveman]

It's not a reception as soon as you have control and hit the ground. You need to end the play with the ball. If it pops out, it's incomplete.

 

Something similar happened in the Bills game yesterday, but nobody talked about it because it didn't have an impact on the game.

 

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I don't think the Lions were intentionally robbed.

 

Obviously, the NFL did not think it was a reception. Obviously, most fans think the NFL is wrong, myself included. I think the rule is not clear, and even if they go to great lengths to spell it out, the rule is ridiculous. To me, there were two separate motions:

 

1. He catches the ball, his butt hits the ground.

2. He rolls over on his way to getting up and drops the ball as he is rolling over.

 

After #1, to me it's a touchdown. The initial jarring of him hitting the the ground did not cause the ball to pop out. Which indicates possession. To me, and most other people.

[Cookiemonster]

It was the right call. You should be arguing the rule, not the call.

A rule is a rule, but when was the last time that you saw this one enforced?

Try, like, never. Not saying that this was a conspiracy or anything, but this

type of stuff involving little obscure rules that are not consistently enforced,

is one way for the NFL to subtly influence the outcome of a particular game.

This typically gets lost on the average fan, who typically states things like,

how could they possibly get to everyone involved in a game, and make sure that

they do their part to have one particular outcome, they don't have to, with little

obscure rules like this, nobody but the official, and it could be just one, has to know.

And if you don't think that it is in the NFL's best interst to have a particular outcome

over another, wake up, THIS IS A BUSINESS.

[Fezmid]

A rule is a rule, but when was the last time that you saw this one enforced?

Try, like, never.

 

Sorry, that rule is enforced ALL the time. That's how I knew about it. You see a guy catch the ball, get tackled to the ground, and it pops out -- incomplete.

 

This one is slightly different because he hit the ground and rolled, which doesn't happen often in the NFL, but the "ground causing an incompletion" gets called a lot.

[Cookiemonster]

Sorry, that rule is enforced ALL the time. That's how I knew about it. You see a guy catch the ball, get tackled to the ground, and it pops out -- incomplete.

 

This one is slightly different because he hit the ground and rolled, which doesn't happen often in the NFL, but the "ground causing an incompletion" gets called a lot.

Sorry, not buying it, dumb call!

[Fezmid]

Sorry, not buying it, dumb call!

 

You need to watch more football then if you've never seen the ground cause an incomplete pass in the last 6+ years.

[Nuncha]

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. Amazing this stuff can happen nowadays. Nice job Goodell, keep up the good work with your moronic rule changes.

 

Incomplete???

 

The call had nothing to do with the refs - they followed the rule as it is written and made the correct call - incomplete pass.

[DC Tom]

They changed the rule from "possession and a football move" to "possession of the ball, all the way through hitting the ground." Johnson didn't hold the ball after hitting the ground. Therefore, incomplete.

 

Look, here's a reference to the rule from back in 2004:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-041231jerrymarkbreitsanswers,0,5802190.story

 

That's bull ****.

[The Dean]

The call on the field was horrendous. He clearly had control all the way to the ground.

 

The reply officials botched it pretty bad, too.

[Da Big Man]

Thats nothin. around here we eat calls like that for breakfast.

[Fezmid]

That's bull ****.

 

The call on the field was horrendous. He clearly had control all the way to the ground.

 

The reply officials botched it pretty bad, too.

 

You may not agree with it, but it's been the rule for 6+ years.... Nobody botched anything, except for Johnson letting go of the ball as he rolled over on the field.

[The Dean]

You may not agree with it, but it's been the rule for 6+ years.... Nobody botched anything, except for Johnson letting go of the ball as he rolled over on the field.

 

By the time he let go, it was over. He had control when the ball was on the ground...then he let it go. Is there some sort of standard number of seconds he needs to hold the ball on the ground? There is no question he was in control of the ball, is there?

[Da Big Man]

By the time he let go, it was over. He had control when the ball was on the ground...then he let it go. Is there some sort of standard number of seconds he needs to hold the ball on the ground? There is no question he was in control of the ball, is there?

I agree! He was down by contact long before he rolled over and I thought the ground can't cause a fumble.