Comments on: Mike Pereira says the Calvin Johnson rule "is certainly suspect"

By: iLLKev

iLLKev — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:56:26 +0000

andcmu86 has the most factual and well thoughtout response to this conundrum (A paradoxical, insoluble, or difficult problem) of a ‘going-to-the-ground’ catch…. Through all of the ambiguity of explanations of this rule….The fact remains, when watching the catch, Lance Moore was “GOING TO THE GROUND”, just as CJ was going to the ground…so by “RULE”, after bobbling the ball, Lance Moore had to regain control of the ball, complete his fall to the ground and then get up off of the ground with full control of the ball throughout the entire “PROCESS” of the catch for it to truely be a completed pass…the pass should have been incomplete in the same manner that CJs catch was incomplete….But the Crooked refs, found a backdoor to attempt to justify the rule for the undeserving Saints…Now flip the script for this “second act” BS that the superbowl refs concocted for the Aints….(in my reverbed ref mic voice to millions of football fans across the country) As the receiver caught the ball going to the ground, he maintained complete control of the ball and landed in bounds with both feet and his hand which was also inbounds, the receiver began to get up, thus begining a second act, ending the first act of catching the ball while going to the ground. It wasn’t until after begining the second act that control of the ball was lost and therefore should be ruled a completed pass and Touchdown……….Yatzee!!!

By: thenfljunkie.com

thenfljunkie.com — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:23:46 +0000

dscjmc , you don’t know that. why don’t you get over it

By: andcmu86

andcmu86 — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:56:39 +0000

To everyone saying that the Lance Moore play isn’t comparable, I disagree.
Here’s the rule that’s already been cited numerous times:
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. 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 zone. 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.
I understand what some people are saying in terms of Moore losing possession and then regaining it, thus making it a catch. They’re arguing that Moore getting the ball kicked out was irrelevant because he had already established possession at that point. I AGREE, that should be how the rule works. That is common sense.
But based on the wording of the rule and all of Pereira’s explanations, Moore’s catch should have been ruled incomplete for the same reason that Johnson’s was ruled incomplete. Moore went to the ground while making the catch, and even after bobbling the ball and regaining it, the process of the catch was not complete. As Peirera said, “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.” Moore was still sliding when the ball was kicked out. That’s why I don’t see a distinction between the Moore play and the Johnson play. Based on common sense, they should both be touchdowns. But based on the the awful, ambiguously-worded rule, and the mind-boggling explanations that have come out in recent days by Peirera and the like, both are incomplete.
Either way, the whole thing is a joke. You hear all these different explanations mentioning “process of the catch” and “second acts” and having to “come up with the ball” but none of that language is even in the rule to begin with. It’s all a huge joke.

By: RexRyan'sStressedLapband

RexRyan'sStressedLapband — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:39:08 +0000

@ Kirmie -
5/5 Family Guy references are awesome.
PFT comments crowd is ON today! LMAO

By: dewalt2990

dewalt2990 — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:38:32 +0000

Last I heard from this DB…..not defensive back…..he said it was black and white.

By: scra22

scra22 — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:53:33 +0000

Koozy says:
September 14, 2010 3:53 PM
scra22: are you sure your name isn’t Carl Johnson? You sound like you’re reading out of the “black and white,” “clear cut” NFL talking points on the rule in question.
=====
Koozy, I am simply just confused as to why people are saying Lance Moore’s catch should have been incomplete according to this rule when, if you watch the play, the rule perfectly describes what happened in that situation – he regained control of the ball before it hit the ground. I don’t understand what is so hard to reconcile about that.

By: scra22

scra22 — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:49:09 +0000

Koozy says:
September 14, 2010 3:49 PM
“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.”
Based on this rule, Lance Moore lost “control” of the ball before it touches the ground, and doesn’t regain control prior to the ball hitting the ground.
=====
No. I have watched that play countless times. He gained control of the ball — he bobbles it and then his hands firmly grasp the ball as he stretches it across the goal line. He is in no danger of losing the ball or dropping it. He is holding it far from the ground. He had possession before it hit the ground.

By: nps6724

nps6724 — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:53:28 +0000

Koozy says: September 14, 2010 3:49 PM
“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.”
Based on this rule, Lance Moore lost “control” of the ball before it touches the ground, and doesn’t regain control prior to the ball hitting the ground. I realize that the Lance Moore play isn’t what the NFL was targeting when they wrote this rule, but their rules are so dang ambiguous, one has to apply the same rule to the Moore catch as one does to the Johnson catch, particularly because it seems it is agreed that the Super Bowl play was also an end zone reception.
—————————————————-
Except that isn’t true. Moore lost control then regained control before the ball was kicked out of his hand.

By: Gregjennings85

Gregjennings85 — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:17:29 +0000

Suspect?
Any rule that disallows a touchdown is INCORRECT, not suspect.

By: Cal Daddy

Cal Daddy — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:55:41 +0000

Why is this so difficult? the rule should be “If the receiver is determined to have control of the ball at the time he is ruled down in the field of play then the pass is ruled complete. If that control occurs in the end zone, a touchdown is awarded regardless of whether control is subsequently lost and regardless of whether the player is ruled down.”
You can say this opens too many cans of worms in trying to referee “control of the ball”, but we’ve got replay review and HD for that. Also, refs have to establish control on every other catch, why not use it in the endzone?

By: Koozy

Koozy — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:53:17 +0000

scra22: are you sure your name isn’t Carl Johnson? You sound like you’re reading out of the “black and white,” “clear cut” NFL talking points on the rule in question.

By: Koozy

Koozy — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:49:55 +0000

“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.”
Based on this rule, Lance Moore lost “control” of the ball before it touches the ground, and doesn’t regain control prior to the ball hitting the ground. I realize that the Lance Moore play isn’t what the NFL was targeting when they wrote this rule, but their rules are so dang ambiguous, one has to apply the same rule to the Moore catch as one does to the Johnson catch, particularly because it seems it is agreed that the Super Bowl play was also an end zone reception.

By: officialsrmorons

officialsrmorons — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:48:18 +0000

For you losers trying say there is no comparison to the Lance Moore catch…
…regardless of him bobbling the ball I am sure you can agree he was standing on his head when he reached across the plane of the goal line then the ball was knocked loose but here is a excerpt from an interview with the former VP of officiating 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.”
keywords: until he comes to a complete stop. If he doesn’t its an incomplete pass.
So if it’s Black and White why did Moore’s count and Johnson’s not?
Its different for the Saints playing in the superbowl but not for the lowly Lions?
Also I heard Steratore grew up a Bears fan.
So shut your mouths.. the officials are biased.
Here’s the link if you want it.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/16250/pereira-on-c-johnson-call-black-and-white

By: nps6724

nps6724 — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:47:34 +0000

cuthruit says: September 14, 2010 2:38 PM
I agree with Nacho Libre. I have been thinking the same thing. If the ground cannot cause a fumble how can it cause an incompletion? It makes no logical sense. This situation is not as complex as they make it out to be.
If the receiver has possession prior to hitting the ground then the ground cannot cause an incompletion! When and how did they come up with this rule? Please be consistent.
—————————————————-
Possession CANNOT be established prior to hitting the ground. Otherwise, they wouldn’t need 2 feet inbounds.
# Koozy says: September 14, 2010 2:38 PM
The reason the Moore comparison is apt is because Moore never has control of the ball until the ball has crossed the goalline. Given that both plays were, in essence, catches in the end zone, I think the “process,” “stop,” and “second act” standards that have been applied to the Moore catch in the Super Bowl merit comparison to the Calvin Johnson play. We’re not talking about a running back reaching over the goalline attempting to score a touchdown, then losing the ball; we’re talking about two plays where WR’s are attempting to complete a catch in the end zone.
—————————————————-
Actually, Moore’s play is the exact same situation as someone running the ball into the endzone untouched. How does a WR who goes untouched into the endzone score a TD? By having control of the ball and crossing the plane. That’s what Moore did, though he did it on his back and had to re-establish control of the ball. Once the goalline is crossed with possession, the play is over.
That is very different than CJ’s catch/non-catch.

By: scra22

scra22 — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:38:30 +0000

rpiotr01 says:
If the letter of the law is applied with this rule, if a player catches a pass in the end zone and gets two feet down, the d-back has every incentive to follow that player out of bounds and strip the ball away because according to the rule that would make it an incomplete pass.
=============
The only reason the pass would be called incomplete is if it touches the ground before the receiver establishes possession.
If a receiver catches a touchdown, has full possession of the ball, and then is chased and has the ball stripped to the ground, it will still be complete because the receiver had possession of the ball before it touched the ground. That is what the rule says.

By: Lionshawk

Lionshawk — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:35:25 +0000

Rockstar
Realistically Calvin didn’t need to regain control like Lance Moore because he had control the moment it hit his hands. What was a rule to determine if a player has control when going to the ground has superceeded the fact that he has control before he goes to the ground. If the player controls the ball as he dives into the endzones laying on top of bodies, clearly not on the ground, it’s a TD. But a WR in control of the ball must keep it controlled all the way to the ground and after his body comes to a complete stop to realize he has possesion. It stupid.

By: scra22

scra22 — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:35:12 +0000

“Koozy says:
September 14, 2010 2:38 PM
The reason the Moore comparison is apt is because Moore never has control of the ball until the ball has crossed the goalline.”
====
That doesn’t matter. The rule states that a player just has to have established possession before the ball touches the ground, which Moore did.
Here is the first part of the rule:
“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 zone.”
Lance Moore went to the ground while catching the ball and so did Calvin Johnson. While Moore was bobbling the ball as he went down, he regained control before the ball touched the ground (a defender kicked it out), which makes it complete according to the second part of the rule:
“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 difference is Lance Moore was ruled as establishing possession of the ball before it went to the ground, while Johnson was ruled as not having firm possession before it hit the ground.
Johnson’s action of putting the ball to the ground as he soon as he came down is what made it questionable to the refs. Moore never put the ball to the ground, held it firmly out past the goal line, and it was kicked by the defender. If the defender had kicked it before Moore established possession, it would have been incomplete, but he didn’t.

By: FloriosHairHat

FloriosHairHat — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:29:38 +0000

jd says: September 14, 2010 12:47 PM
“Can we just go back to “two feet in” and “control of the ball”??? Everyone understood that just fine.”
Careful jd, you’re making perfect sense, and that doesn’t fly around here…

By: Lionshawk

Lionshawk — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:29:09 +0000

First, his second act after he got both feet down and was in possession of the ball was holding the ball away from the defender and showing the offical. He bursts up to celebrate only after seeing the ref 5 feet away signal TD! It was a TD. His second act was holding the ball away from the defender. He had possession when he had control and two feet on the ground. This really means if I am a safety and see a guy control the ball but is going down, to knock the crap out of him because if he coughs it up while still sliding, it’s incomplete. I shouldn’t be penalized because the play is not over until he stops sliding right!

By: DetroitLionsSufferer

DetroitLionsSufferer — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:28:58 +0000

As a Lions fans all I’m going to say is good win for the bears and the only justice I want is for the league to fix the DAM RULE! And if they don’t because the Lions are to sucky to warrant respect I pray this rule ruins a superbowl hopefully a New York team. Nothing against New York but if the Jets lose a superbowl or Giants because of this the rule will be changed on the spot.

By: smsurine

smsurine — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:27:45 +0000

Since when did the NFL become as complicated as a formal legal proceeding? The NFL needs to strive for simplicity in its rules. This sort of complication strips the joy right out of the game. Is anyone else simply feeling like, “IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THIS WAY!”?

By: bluelion

bluelion — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:15:29 +0000

Let me point out to everyone that Calvin had the ball in one hand, ON TOP OF THE BALL.
As anyone who has tried to palm a basketball will know, if you ‘don’t have control’, a ball will fall to the earth when your hand is on top of it.
Conclusion: Calvin had freakin’ control of the ball, all the while he landed two feet, a butt cheek and an arm on the ground.
LIONS WIN! LIONS WIN! LIONS WIN!
Well, at least we covered.

By: jcjets

jcjets — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:51:18 +0000

why did they have to complicate the rule? Two feet in bounds with possession is a catch.

By: Yash

Yash — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:51:05 +0000

@ Kermie- LMFAO priceless!!!!!!!!

By: JDMP

JDMP — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:47:27 +0000

The NFL is broke, fix it now before a garbage call like this happens again.

By: Koozy

Koozy — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:38:55 +0000

The reason the Moore comparison is apt is because Moore never has control of the ball until the ball has crossed the goalline. Given that both plays were, in essence, catches in the end zone, I think the “process,” “stop,” and “second act” standards that have been applied to the Moore catch in the Super Bowl merit comparison to the Calvin Johnson play. We’re not talking about a running back reaching over the goalline attempting to score a touchdown, then losing the ball; we’re talking about two plays where WR’s are attempting to complete a catch in the end zone.

By: cuthruit

cuthruit — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:38:32 +0000

I agree with Nacho Libre. I have been thinking the same thing. If the ground cannot cause a fumble how can it cause an incompletion? It makes no logical sense. This situation is not as complex as they make it out to be.
If the receiver has possession prior to hitting the ground then the ground cannot cause an incompletion! When and how did they come up with this rule? Please be consistent.

By: BenRapistberger

BenRapistberger — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:29:56 +0000

BigD4Defense says:
September 14, 2010 12:44 PM
why is there a picture of Parcells up there?
————
He’s screaming at an official. This article is about a former NFL official. Take a wild guess who he’s screaming at.

By: faulkn22

faulkn22 — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:28:14 +0000

Horrible call….. it’s tarnished the game and really brought it down a peg. A catch is pretty easy to see and 100 drunks in a bar would tell you TD.

By: packerjoeZ

packerjoeZ — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:27:35 +0000

The central challenge is that football is not as precise as the technology used to broadcast and dissect it enables it to be.