Once again... (The Lions get !#%!%-ed)

[weezie]

Detroit on the short end of the stick.

THAT WAS A LIONS TOUCHDOWN AND A "W" THAT ANOTHER IDIOT REF STOLE FROM US! :mad:

[Newton_14]

Detroit on the short end of the stick.

THAT WAS A LIONS TOUCHDOWN AND A "W" THAT ANOTHER IDIOT REF STOLE FROM US! :mad:

I agree with you it should have been a TD using common sense, however by rule they made the correct call. I just think the rule stinks. He came down with clear control of the ball when his knee hit, so boom, touchdown right? However, the NFL has the stupid rule that if a receiver is falling during a reception, he must maintain full control all the way through. Which basically means he would have needed to maintain control of the ball until his body came to a complete stop.

The receiver let go of the ball as soon as his right hand hit the ground. On purpose? It looked that way to me.

So the ground cannot cause a fumble on a runner but it can cause an incompletion on a receiver? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[DukieInKansas]

Weezie - I thought of you when I saw that play. I think it was a TD.

[weezie]

Weezie - I thought of you when I saw that play. I think it was a TD.


Yeah, well so did Herm Edwards but what does he know? :(

[blazindw]

Here's what the rule states: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end z...one. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

The rule is actually being misinterpreted here. Calvin had control of the ball the entire time - from the time he first snagged it mid-air, to the time he had two feet (and then 3) down, to the point his butt hit the ground and then his knee. The rule says that if he loses control prior to the ball touching the ground, it's incomplete. But he had control prior to the ball touching the ground when he sets the ball down to go celebrate, knowing he had done 4 different moves to signify that it was a great catch. Therefore, the pass, by RULE, should have been complete. Detroit gets the shaft...AGAIN. And I'm NOT happy about it.

[JasonEvans]

The bloggers at Shutdown Corner (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Video-Controversial-rule-strips-Lions-of-first-;_ylt=AuhqfFVKX8Hgp2wdOpTpecA5nYcB?urn=nfl-269035) are not happy --


Toddlers know when a ball is caught and when it isn't. Aside from getting two feet in, what more does the NFL want people to do? Should Calvin Johnson have brought the ball with him to the sideline? Should he hold it for the flight home? Take it to dinner? When does the process of a catch end?

--Jason "this was a really, really bad decision -- and seeing as I have CJ on my fantasy team, it makes me even angrier" Evans

[InSpades]

Here's what the rule states: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end z...one. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

The rule is actually being misinterpreted here. Calvin had control of the ball the entire time - from the time he first snagged it mid-air, to the time he had two feet (and then 3) down, to the point his butt hit the ground and then his knee. The rule says that if he loses control prior to the ball touching the ground, it's incomplete. But he had control prior to the ball touching the ground when he sets the ball down to go celebrate, knowing he had done 4 different moves to signify that it was a great catch. Therefore, the pass, by RULE, should have been complete. Detroit gets the shaft...AGAIN. And I'm NOT happy about it.

You're mis-reading the rule. It doesn't say anything about losing control prior to the ball touching the ground. It just says that he must maintain control after touching the ground (it doesn't say for how long after touching the ground). The part about the ball touching the ground is just to note that he has the chance regain possession if he loses control of it (before it hits the ground). Listening to Chris Carter talk on the radio this morning he basically said that you have to "hand the ball to the referee" for it to count. Calvin Johnson should know the rule, he's getting paid a lot of money to know the rule. Argue that the rule is dumb all you want (many would agree) but I think the referees were just following the rule.

[hurleyfor3]

Yeah, the Lions got robbed. How is the play not over the instant you come down in the endzone? From what I saw the Bears had no business winning that game anyway.

[JohnGalt]

Listening to Chris Carter talk on the radio this morning he basically said that you have to "hand the ball to the referee" for it to count. Calvin Johnson should know the rule, he's getting paid a lot of money to know the rule. Argue that the rule is dumb all you want (many would agree) but I think the referees were just following the rule.

Yea and he made a good point too that if you watch the play closely, Calvin's hand clinched up into a fist after he let the ball go which seems to indicate it wasn't entirely voluntary...him losing the ball. Although I think the rule is asinine, it was called correctly. It deserves a spot on the shelf next to other odd rulings the NFL has come up with.

[A-Tex Devil]

Yea and he made a good point too that if you watch the play closely, Calvin's hand clinched up into a fist after he let the ball go which seems to indicate it wasn't entirely voluntary...him losing the ball. Although I think the rule is asinine, it was called correctly. It deserves a spot on the shelf next to other odd rulings the NFL has come up with.

I think the rule can be easily fixed. That should be a catch 100 times out of 100.

The reason for the rule was when a player goes up in the air and lands on his back, his shoulder, his a**, whatever, that he must hold on to the ball and not let the ground jar it loose.

This is different -- CJ had not one, but 2 feet on the ground, and while he was "in the act of falling" he actually made about 3 football moves - catching it, bringing it in, turning left, then holding it out again with his hand (which was the ultimate show of "I got this").

Again, interpreted literally, maybe it's the correct call as he was always "in the act of falling", but when the rule was made, I **GUARANTEE** that a catch like that was not what the league wanted to rule an incompletion.

Go watch Lance Moore's touchdown in the Super Bowl. That was less of a catch if this wasn't a catch.

[weezie]

Well, thanks for making me feel better but can I point out that I did not put the supposed bad word in the title of the thread?!:o

The nuns at the Convent of the Sacred Heart school would not be pleased;)

Thanks to (I'm guessing) my DET wingman: blazindeedub' !!

[bjornolf]

I think the rule can be easily fixed. That should be a catch 100 times out of 100.

The reason for the rule was when a player goes up in the air and lands on his back, his shoulder, his a**, whatever, that he must hold on to the ball and not let the ground jar it loose.

This is different -- CJ had not one, but 2 feet on the ground, and while he was "in the act of falling" he actually made about 3 football moves - catching it, bringing it in, turning left, then holding it out again with his hand (which was the ultimate show of "I got this").

Again, interpreted literally, maybe it's the correct call as he was always "in the act of falling", but when the rule was made, I **GUARANTEE** that a catch like that was not what the league wanted to rule an incompletion.

Go watch Lance Moore's touchdown in the Super Bowl. That was less of a catch if this wasn't a catch.

Yes, it goes against the "spirit" of the rule, but with the letter of the rule. In a game deciding play, the ref has no choice but to make the call he did. Calvin used the ball to brace himself from a fall. He should know better than to EVER use the ball as anything but the most precious object on the field. Clutch it to your chest, roll your shoulder, and hit the ground, man. That's the first thing I was taught in pre-high school football, high school football, and college football. The ball is first, over everything else. Treat it like a gold ingot that somebody's trying to steal from you. With this rule, which has been in the books for two seasons now, if you go down with the ball on a catch, you need to stand back up with the ball in your hands to make sure the ref doesn't do this to you. It's a HORRIBLE rule, yes, but you do everything humanly possible to keep the ref from having to make that choice.

There was a game earlier in the day where a lineman barely bumped the QB WELL after the ball was gone. The QB fell and the flag flew. The guys were saying how bad that call was and how the lineman pulled up. He had THREE steps before he made contact with the QB after the ball was gone, and he was coming off a blocker, so he wasn't even going full speed when the ball was thrown. No, if the QB hadn't fallen, the ref probably wouldn't have thrown the hankie. But if you're smart, you don't give the ref the CHANCE to throw the flag in that instance. Same thing with Calvin Johnson.

It's like we say in Duke basketball, "If you play smart and play well, you don't LET the refs decide the game."

[cspan37421]

With all the replay technology, I'd think it would be a simple thing to run a stopwatch of sorts synchronized with the video. Why not simply state that you must control it for one full second for it to be a catch. To me, this is more in the spirit of "did the ball break the plane of the goal line [while being possessed by the offensive player]". So if guy goes up in the air, in the end zone, grabs it and holds it for a full second, who cares if he loses it after he hits the carpet-covered concrete? He had possession of it in the end zone, that's what should count.

How you would mesh it with the two feet in thing, I'll leave to others. I'm too tired at the moment. And maybe that would be hard to judge - feet touching is easier to judge. But I like the notion that 1 second (or whatever) defines possession of a catch, and that if the ball is hovering over the end zone for that second, it's a touchdown - just as if it were a running play and you stick the ball out on the inside of the cone (not even for a second for running!).

That the standard is different for passing TDs makes no sense.

I agree with the above poster, if CJ wasn't so eager to play to the crowd, it probably could have been a TD. Would have been wise to take a cue from Barry Sanders and act like you've been there before. Especially when it's a close call. Unforced error, Lions.

[blazindw]

I agree with the above poster, if CJ wasn't so eager to play to the crowd, it probably could have been a TD. Would have been wise to take a cue from Barry Sanders and act like you've been there before. Especially when it's a close call. Unforced error, Lions.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with this vehemently. And, of course, most of you know that weezie and I are diehard Lions fans to the core, so maybe I'm saying this with Honolulu Blue-colored shades on, but I really disagree with this.

He didn't celebrate. In the course of NFL football celebrations, on a scale of 1-100, that was probably a 2. Act like he'd been there before? He didn't celebrate with the cheerleaders or put on a musical production. He put the ball on the ground and ran off the field to celebrate what should have been a monumental victory at Soldier Field for a team desperate for a road victory and a fanbase just hungry for a statement win to put us in a positive light for a change. We needed that win more than you know...now, instead of being 1-0 with all the confidence in the world for a franchise and fanbase that needs as much confidence as we can get, I now see this added to the list of all the possible ways I've seen the Lions have had defeat snatched from the jaws of victory...only this one was the cruelest because the Lions did everything they were supposed to do and STILL had it taken away.

The only celebration more tamer than what Megatron did would be the Barry Sanders "give the ball to the referee" thing that you mentioned (Note: Even Barry Sanders spiked the ball twice). He had a catch...he had a touchdown. He jumped up for the ball, came down on two feet, turned, got tripped, took another step, fell onto his rear end, turned his body, knee hit the ground, ALL while controlling the football. He even held the ball out with his left hand as he hit the ground to show to the side judge. He didn't complete his turn until the side judge signaled TD. THEN, he sets the ball down on the ground as he gets up to celebrate...why? Because that official 3 yards from him with sight clear as day had already signaled it was a touchdown.

If you recall last year's Super Bowl, Lance Moore had a 2-point conversion that was hotly debated because he caught it, turned and as the ball crossed the plane, it was knocked out of his hands. It was ruled an incompletion but was then overturned on review because the rule was once the ball crossed the plane and he had possession, that was a TD and the play was dead at that point. Nothing that happened after the ball crossed the plane mattered. Calvin Johnson was 6-7 yards deep in the endzone, put at least 6 body parts on the ground in the endzone all while maintaining possession and had the ball for about 1.5 seconds. That's not a touchdown, but Lance Moore needed only a millisecond's worth of possession for his 2-pointer to count.

That's why us Detroit fans feel slighted. The spirit of the rule was not meant for vertical catches, but horizontal catches. It seems that only Detroit would be the team that got jobbed by this rule...and you can add this play to the several times this year alone that a Detroit-area sports team has had a goal/TD/out clear as day that was taken away due to some stupid rule/interpretation or simply the wrong call being made.

[bjornolf]

He put the ball on the ground...

And I can't agree with you here. If you watch the replay closely, he doesn't PUT the ball on the ground, he loses control of it. The ball doesn't sit there, it scoots off and his hand claps shut because he wasn't expecting to lose it. He was squeezing hard and lost it when he slammed it to the ground either bracing his fall or trying to get back up. He even looks down at his hand to find the ball when he loses it. That's not the same as putting the ball on the ground. Look, I agree that it's a bad rule and that it wasn't intended for the purpose, but that's the rule, and the rule applies to a player catching the ball going to the ground, NOT to a player showing control on the field of play and then crossing the goal line. Two completely different instances.

If you're a Cowboys fan, you're probably screaming that nobody should call holding on the last play of the game, even if your lineman tackles the opposing rusher. They got jobbed by a ref's call too, right? I mean, holding COULD be called on almost every play, right? Why mess with the "best team in the league" according to many and hurt their chances with such a call.

They talked about this on Sportscenter yesterday. A couple players got jobbed out of touchdowns by this rule last year, but none of them were right at the end of a game with everything on the line, so people didn't throw fits like in this instance. So the world isn't just out to get the Lions. The Lions' lack of luck just continues to bite them in the rear end. I'm more worried about the implications of your QBs injury on the future of your team than about the end of this one game.

Methinks your blue and silver glasses be clouding yer vision. Don't worry, happens to me at least 10x during every Duke and Redskins game. ;)

[blazindw]

I'm a secondary Cowboys fan (from my days living in DFW during the 3 SBs in 4 years span) and was at the game Sunday night. I agree that it was a hold and should have been called...Barron shouldn't have held in the first place, but he's the most penalized player in the league by far...I should have expected it.

I agree that the Lions (and all other Detroit teams) have experienced a great deal of bad luck over the years...far too many instances to count. I'm sick of it, and I know a lot of fans like me are over the edge too. We just get sick and tired of always being the subject of the "Woe Is Me" highlights on Sportscenter. Our fanbase deserves much better, yet every week it's something else, it seems. Loyalty is a heckuva drug.

[JasonEvans]

I don't care what anyone says, it was a TD!!!!

Of course, I may be saying that because I have CJ on my fantasy team and I lost by less than 2 points this week (I had it in the bag until Antonio Gates had a big Monday night game). If CJ makes that catch, I win comfortably by 6+ points. Grrrrr.

--Jason "in fairness, CJ did not put the ball on the ground, he lost control of it after he used the ball to brace himself -- but it still looked like a catch/TD to me!" Evans

[weezie]

Our fanbase deserves much better, yet every week it's something else, it seems. Loyalty is a heckuva drug.

Say it brother!

[A-Tex Devil]

I'm a secondary Cowboys fan

First. Ewww.


I agree that the Lions (and all other Detroit teams) have experienced a great deal of bad luck over the years...far too many instances to count. I'm sick of it, and I know a lot of fans like me are over the edge too. We just get sick and tired of always being the subject of the "Woe Is Me" highlights on Sportscenter. Our fanbase deserves much better, yet every week it's something else, it seems. Loyalty is a heckuva drug.

Look on the bright side -- you could be a Cleveland fan.

Otherwise, I am with you BDW. The 3 steps and the football moves made before he lost the ball are completely contradictory to the reasons they made this rule in the first place. And Chris Carter can shove it. I don't think he, or Jerry Rice, would have agreed with the call had they been on the receiving end under that rule. He can play holier than thou all he wants. I don't believe him. He is being a contrarian, essentially saying "I was just a better receiver, and I wouldn't have put myself in that situation." Yeah. You would have lost the jump ball.

[bjornolf]

I'm a secondary Cowboys fan (from my days living in DFW during the 3 SBs in 4 years span) and was at the game Sunday night. I agree that it was a hold and should have been called...Barron shouldn't have held in the first place, but he's the most penalized player in the league by far...I should have expected it.

I agree that the Lions (and all other Detroit teams) have experienced a great deal of bad luck over the years...far too many instances to count. I'm sick of it, and I know a lot of fans like me are over the edge too. We just get sick and tired of always being the subject of the "Woe Is Me" highlights on Sportscenter. Our fanbase deserves much better, yet every week it's something else, it seems. Loyalty is a heckuva drug.

Look at what Daniel Snyder has done to my favorite team the last decade. (Hey, we broke you guys' big losing streak! And St. Louis's too!) ;) I was SURE we were gonna lose that game, especially after Carlos Rogers dropped the 1000th interception of his career. We've lost SO many games like that over the last 15 years or so. 90% of the games we lost under Zorn were by less than 7 points, and 75% of those games, we had leads in the 4th quarter. The funny thing is, I went back to watch the second to last play of the first half. The hold that put the Cowboys back 10 yards to the 36 and led to the whole debacle with Hall's touchdown was almost IDENTICAL to the one on the last play of the game. Orakpo beat Barron and he hog-tied him around the neck. The only difference was that Orakpo went to the inside on that one instead of the outside. I had to laugh when I saw that. In a way, Barron cost them two touchdowns in that game.

[Udaman]

I've watched it several times...it was a catch, plain and simple. He dropped the ball getting up after having both feet, his but, and his back down and rolling over. The rule is vague to begin with, but then to take the vague rule and stretch it, and argue that by putting the ball down as he got up it was a drop, is nuts.

Lions were screwed.