WOW, Detroit gets SCREEEEWED, the refs are terrible.

[Huuuge Bills]

Equally awful call in the ARI-STL game.

 

Tim Hightower (ARI RB) run up the middle, gets tackled, and lands shoulder first. Ball clearly pops out after his should hits the turf, yet after review, they still call it a fumble.

 

Now STL has a chance to steal the game at the end.

[Dante]

So if a guy catches the ball in the endzone. Both feet down in control. Looks around and spikes the ball its not a touchdown? I'm confused. Only the NFL could make something simple complicated

[TheChimp]

Unreal. Bad teams get robbed... there is no way that is not a catch, and if the idiotic rule wording says it is not, then the rule is wrong. Period.

Correct. According to the rule, he "dropped" the ball and the call was right. AND the rule needs to somehow be changed to make sure that isn't ruled a "drop" ever again.

[sharper802]

Easy call. That is not a catch. Classic definition of the rule. In fact if you had to draw up a play to define the rule any better you couldn't.

[spartacus]

Yep, that's incomplete.  Rule clearly states you have to maintain control after you hit the ground.  Johnson didn't - easy call.

he had and maintained control when his butt hit the ground.

 

 

he then rolled and he put the ball on the ground as he was getting up 

 

completely bogus call.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sharper802]

So if a guy catches the ball in the endzone. Both feet down in control. Looks around and spikes the ball its not a touchdown? I'm confused. Only the NFL could make something simple complicated

Yes you are confused. If the WR has a chance to look around he has completed the catch and made a second act. WR's must make a football move or control the ball all the way to the ground for it to be a catch. If Santonio Holmes had dropped or even bobbled the ball in the Superbowl it would have been reversed.

[Huuuge Bills]

Yes you are confused. If the WR has a chance to look around he has completed the catch and made a second act. WR's must make a football move or control the ball all the way to the ground for it to be a catch. If Santonio Holmes had dropped or even bobbled the ball in the Superbowl it would have been reversed.

 

That's the point. He turned in air, and landed on his feet. He then falls to his knee and elbow while still controlling the ball. After that he raises the spike it and it falls out.

 

Clearly a catch.

[kasper13]

Horrible call. Even more ridiculous rule. In college, soon as a knee or elbow hits the ground, play is over. So, if it were a college game, he had control of the ball and both feet down, then he falls and hits the ground before he rolls over- that would have been play over right there. Touchdown. In the NFL, all that happens and then he rolls over and puts the ball on the ground as he is getting up so it's incomplete. ASSININE.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Equally awful call in the ARI-STL game.

 

Tim Hightower (ARI RB) run up the middle, gets tackled, and lands shoulder first. Ball clearly pops out after his should hits the turf, yet after review, they still call it a fumble.

 

Now STL has a chance to steal the game at the end.

 

 

You don't suppose the NFL wanted to give Sam Bradford one more shot at a win, do you?

[TheChimp]

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see that Detroit receiver make a "football move" on that ref.

[theman331]

if it was the cheatriots this happened to they would have called that a td

[/dev/null]

if it was the cheatriots this happened to they would have called that a td

[wardigital]

Yep, that's incomplete. Rule clearly states you have to maintain control after you hit the ground. Johnson didn't - easy call.

 

He did maintain control after he hit the ground. He did not maintain control after the ball hit the ground, which was well after he hit the ground. Two butt cheeks, one elbow, and two feet clearly make a reception.

 

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.

 

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

 

I totally disagree, it was a completely perverted view of the rule. The rule isn't designed to take away receptions from people who clearly make a catch, and drop the ball when it touches the ground, its designed to deal with reception attempts on untouched plays, or where the receiver has not established possession. What the referee did was totally against the spirit of the rule, and probably a violation of the rule.

 

Contact was induced, Johnson completes the act of the catch and falls over, with an elbow, two feet and his ass all in bounds. That's it, that's the end of the play. He has completed the act of the reception and been tackled.

 

There is no rule in the National Football League that suggests that a receiver has to continue completing the act of the reception when the rest of the play is deemed done. The play is over or it's not.

 

Finally, any such rule would be up to interpretation of the referee, in which case, this referees interpretation was absolutely, positively wrong.

[uticaclub]

!@#$ing bull ****, the bills are the only other team that would screwed that bad. 3 steps and a knee and no catch. no excuse.

[wardigital]

Yep, that's incomplete. Rule clearly states you have to maintain control after you hit the ground. Johnson didn't - easy call.

 

Johnson maintained control for over a second (or at least a second) after he hit the ground. How long does a player have to reasonably maintain control of the ball? Christ, he slid over 3 yards in the end zone, maintaining control of the ball. As other posters suggest, it does NOTHING to eliminate the guess work out of the play. It is TOTALLY up to the interpretation of the referee, who interpreted that play completely incorrectly.

 

If there is no determination as to exactly how long a player has to hold onto the ball after making the reception, than it's up to interpretation. There is no way that this play should have be interpreted as lack of control.

 

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.

 

 

He *did* have possession of the ball, falling to the ground, and being touched. I don't think you understand the play?

 

He fell to the ground, WHILE IN POSSESSION OF THE BALL.

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81a77070/Controversial-call-on-Megatron-non-TD?module=HP_headlines

 

Here, watch the play. He is in possession of the ball at :06 seconds into the video, WHILE FALLING/BEING PUSHED TO THE GROUND. He is still on two feet. Nothing from the play indicates he is down. He is in the act of falling, WITH COMPLETE, AND TOTAL POSSESSION.

Edited September 13, 2010 by wardigital

[Dante]

I don't know how anyone can ref in the NFL with such convoluted, intricate rulings to make in a split second. It's getting to a point where soon NFL game results won't be officially decided until a review hearing is done. !@#$

Edited September 13, 2010 by Dante

[TheChimp]

No way of knowing whether he'd have brought the ball up with him had he tried, though, that's why the replay confirmed the call. The dude screwed up. All he had to do was bring the ball up in his hand as he stood up to exit the end zone and the rule wouldn't have come into play.

[Rayzer32]

This crap the NFL states about making a "second football move" is so stupid it's not even funny. So what constitutes a football move? Him getting up and showing the ref the ball is still in his hands? Give me a break, that's a TD in most likely 14 of the 16 games in a week and wouldn't even be challenged or reviewed. No one was complaining as Detroit was celebrating until an official, who wasn't even in as good a position as the ref that called it a TD, opened his mouth. Bob Costas said it best. "If it looks like a touchdown catch, it should remain a touchdown catch". He said it was definitely misinterpretation of the rule by the officials. The rule needs to be changed. Gee, that's never happened in the NFL before, a rule change during the season? Same crap, different year.

[DreReed83]

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.

 

He CLEARLY had possession of the ball so wtf are you talking about? That's a TD. It was a catch. Got both feet down WITH POSSESSION of the ball and stayed in bounds WITH POSSESSION of the ball and was DOWN before the ball came loose. I think he even took a step and a half before going down which could be seen as a "FOOTBALL MOVE" whatever that means. This is a TD and a blown call. This was as bad as Brady's bullsht "TUCK RULE"

Edited September 13, 2010 by DreReed83

[bobblehead]

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