Comments on: When catching a pass, "second act" exception does not exist

By: the immortal SCURDS

the immortal SCURDS — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:37:18 +0000

the simple test is this: if that play was brady to moss, they could do it ten thousand times for ten thousand tlouchdowns, but it was detroit spoiling the bears home opener, so no way could the league allow it. it is an example of subtle game fixing that goes on in the nfl. polamalu scored a touchdown that covered the spread and it wasnt allowed because “it didnt matter”.
this detroit player caught the ball, brought it down, got one then 2 feet down in the end zone, rotated, took a step again, and reached the ball to the ground to steady himself 4 acts after it was a touchdown. the lions are not allowed to win in chicago when the bears are holding their season opener. simple, obvious, no other explanation.

By: ejmat

ejmat — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 08:41:38 +0000

The Lance Moore catch was in fact a TD. Calvin Johnson’s catch was also a TD. The fact is he was up in the air when catching the ball. One foot hit the ground in bounds. The second foot hit the ground in bounds. His butt hit the ground in bounds and his other hand hit the ground in bounds. All of this happened prior to the ball touching the ground in clear possession by Calvin Johnson.
What does crack me up is how was that not a catch but the ball that the Saints WR caught last year in the NFCCG right before the winning FG is a catch. Baffling!
Officiating in the NFL downright sucks. I don’t blame the refs. Just poor people in charge that continuously condone it and make excuses for them. Mike Periera was the worst at trying to explain bad calls. Example: One game the ref supposedly had a “bad angle” when lining the ball up with the 1st down marker. How does that happen?
At least Ed Hocules will come out and admit when he screws up and the only thing he gets is punished. Whereas the other refs will not man up to admit anything and they just keep going as usual.
When will the refs begin getting fined for getting calls wrong after a replay or even something as easy as lining the ball up with a first down marker? When will they be fined for taunting players (i.e. throwing a flag directly at players)?
The refs make a lot of money to work 17 – 20 Sundays a season. They need to get things right especially with the luxury of having instant replay.

By: Linejudge

Linejudge — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:40:43 +0000

@ gm12086
So you are a baseball umpire. When you work a game do you apply the rules, or do you apply what you think the rules should be? B/C you and every other idiot posting that CJ made a catch is flat dead wrong and/or misinformed and/or ignorant and/or blind and/or drunk and/or high and/or too lazy to actually know the rules
@ fastfred21
You are a waste of oxygen and an internet connection.

By: Vee

Vee — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:45:01 +0000

As I recall, the Colts would still have needed a touchdown to win, not a field goal. Therefore, their game plan was completely unaffected by either a 5 or 7 point lead.
Also;
FrankZappa says:
Polian’s remarks aren’t confusing…remember that article on espn about the saints winning the super bowl before the game even happened?…it is staged, so Polian is obviously towing the company line if he is on board with the fix
==================================
Gee Frank, please tell us who the 2nd gunman was that really shot Kennedy was, and where they’re hiding that alien space craft in area 51, and show us those original negatives of Big Foot and Lock Ness?

By: StevieMo

StevieMo — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:12:22 +0000

You guys are making this much too complicated. It’s simple.
Favored-nation teams (Patriots, Colts, Steelers, Saints, etc.) = Touchdown
Non-favored nation teams (Raiders, Lions, Bucs, Bengals, etc.) = Incomplete pass.

By: hockref

hockref — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:08:25 +0000

@RagnarTheBloodAxe
Anyone arguing that the Johnson play was a catch is simply to lazy of a fan to actually watch the replay and wants credit no matter what they do.
“Look mom I made cookies!”
“Yes you did dear but since you haven’t turned on the oven or taken them out of the bowl their just ingredients on the counter”.
Take the time to watch the plays then spout off on them.
To all the “its a conspiracy group”; post your email address I have a great deal on tin foil hats an you will want them before Sunday!

By: 8man

8man — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:57:29 +0000

gm12086 says:
September 15, 2010 11:24 PM
That was a catch. Period. The referees are stupid and I can say that because I have been a baseball umpire for 11 years.
————————————————
Ditto! And I’ve never officiated any sport in my life and I can say it.
NFL officating has always been somewhat of a crap factory. Stupid rules requiring the stars to align before a play is valid don’t help.
The Patriots are my team, and I still can’t believe how pissed I am about this and what they did to the Lions.

By: Murgen

Murgen — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:55:42 +0000

We just need to go back to the old school rules. You catch the ball, you gotta hold onto it after hitting the ground. How hard is that? His butt hit the ground, therefore he was down by contact. TD
The idea of the ball crossing the goal line is a TD even if you fumble it a milisecond later is dumb. The same rules on the field should apply in the end zone. You fumble in the end zone, you don’t get a freaking TD out of it.
But, the NFL wants high scoring games. So that’s why.

By: gfunk

gfunk — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:50:23 +0000

So let me get this straight.
If he catches the ball on the 1 yard line, lands on his feet, but hits the ground in the end zone, the ball crosses the plane as he goes to the ground, ball hits the ground in the end zone and comes lose, it is a TD because the play is dead when the ball crosses the plane of the end zone.
Huh?!?!

By: faulkn22

faulkn22 — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:47:44 +0000

Polian is a fool. 80%+ of the fanbase says it was a TD and you need to change the rule. You are out of touch with reality as they come…… unless of course it pisses off Peyton Manning, then you do tricks like his lap dog.

By: officialsrmorons

officialsrmorons — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:37:46 +0000

Regarding the Lance Moore play, I agree that once the ball crossed the plane the play was over but because of the comments of Pereira stating that a reciever catching the ball going to the ground must maintain possesion until he comes to a complete stop otherwise it is incomplete, you must compare the two because the ball was out of their hands before either came to a complete stop.. actually, I don’t think CJ came to a complete stop until he was on the sideline.
Point I am making is Lance Moore scored the 2pts and CJ scored the TD. If Pereira says you must come to a complete stop with possession then there IS a contradiction between the LM and CJ catches.

By: scra22

scra22 — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:34:06 +0000

bubba says:
September 16, 2010 7:08 AM
The difference between the Calvin Johnson and Lance Moore catch is the teams they play for. Everyone that is not confused knows that the officials “gave” the Saints the NFC Championship game and Super Bowl. The officials will call what they want to benefit the team the NFL wants to see win. These are the worst officials of any sport.
==============
If you really believe that, then why do you watch football? Do you have a favorite team? If so, what is the point since it’s fixed anyway?

By: Burritto

Burritto — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:27:41 +0000

Finfan 68 is 100% correct.
The explanation is so simple on this that I’ve come to the point where I think that people who are arguing about this are intentionally acting confused just for the sake of argument.
The ONLY thing that connects the Moore play and the Megatron play is that Moore’s catch looked like an incompletion but wasn’t, whereas Johnson’s catch looked like a completion but wasn’t.
You can argue that the rule is broken, but that doesn’t matter until the next competition committee meeting. Until then, find a better example to compare to what happened in the Lions game. As the rules see it, the two catches were very different.

By: Canned Gravy

Canned Gravy — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:24:33 +0000

G-man says:
September 15, 2010 11:07 PM
Just curious–Didn’t the “catch” occur when he got control of the ball five feet in the air and then when his feet hit the ground? Wouldn’t that make the “second act” his butt hitting the ground? Wouldn’t that, then, make the “third act” the action of rolling over and then placing the ball on the ground?
___________________________________
Exactly.
If he sits there on his ass and spikes the ball…..it’s a TD then. But, because he tries to get up with it quickly and pops out, it’s a no catch.
No one gives a rat’s ass what the league comes up with…it’s a catch and the Lions got raped. For the record, I laugh at the Lions. (and the Bears).

By: RagnarTheBloodAxe

RagnarTheBloodAxe — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:24:23 +0000

I can’t believe there are a bunch of morons here claiming that Calvin Johnson didn’t catch that ball.
Says a lot about how stupid and biased the NFL fan base has become…

By: scra22

scra22 — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:23:59 +0000

The problem isn’t the rule, but the so-called “second act” exception. It was applied to give the Saints a two-point conversion in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XLIV when receiver Lance Moore caught a pass at the goal line while falling, pushed the ball over the goal line while falling, and lost possession of the ball become coming to rest.
This is a very wrong description of the play. Tweaked so you can make your “controversial” point, I’m sure. Lance Moore did catch the ball while falling, and while on the ground (at rest), grasped TWO hands firmly around the ball and held it above the ground establishing possession. He never “lost” possession of the ball, and wasn’t going to lose possession because he had a firm grip – it was kicked out by a defender.
The rule states the receiver must maintain possession of the ball after falling to the ground. You ignore the part of the rule that states that if the receiver loses control after falling to the ground and the ball touches the ground, it’s incomplete. But;
If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
1) Moore had fallen to the ground: Check
2) Moore established possession of the ball before IT touched the ground: Check
3) Moore had possession because he was never going to drop or lose the ball – the only reason it touched the ground is because it was kicked out of his hands.
There was no “regaining” control by Johnson because he touched the ball to the ground immediately. Moore NEVER touched the ball to the ground, held it firmly above the ground (establishing possession), before it was kicked out of his hands by a Colt.
“But don’t expect the league to admit in a clear and understandable fashion the fact that, during the climax to the 2009 season, a rule that really isn’t a rule helped the Saints rule over the rest of the league.”
Clap. Clap. Clap. Really, this is a new low, even for PFT. I know this site lives to stir up controversy, but trying to act like this 2-point conversion, whether called correctly or not, is what gave the Saints the title (thus stirring up the tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists that live on this board) is quite impressive. Way to go.
Fact: The Saints won by 14 points, not 2.
Fact: Whether down by 5 or 7, the Colts needed a touchdown.
Fact: The Saints outplayed the Colts and won the game fair and square.
This site is such a joke sometimes. But I guess the joke’s on me since I even bothered to respond.

By: Codebeard

Codebeard — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:23:11 +0000

“Second act” isn’t a true rule exception. By “second act” they mean that the player is demonstrating that the process of catch is complete and the player is moving onto a different phase by performing a football move. Let it go.
As to CJ, the fact that he let the ball go too early cost him. Quite simply, he left his fate in the hands of the referees by not clearly demonstrating that he held onto the ball throughout the whole process of the catch. No, his butt hitting the ground did not end it. He was continuing to fall and roll out of the fall was a result of 1) his own momentum towards the back of the end zone and 2) contact with Zachary Bowman. Without performing a second act (spike, showing the ball to the ref, etc.) he’s leaving it vague as to whether or not he completed the “process of the catch”.

By: jediwrstlr

jediwrstlr — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:14:36 +0000

ANOTHER example of the NFL determining the winners who they want. NFL is rigged. Superbowls, games….its all rigged….Hey anyone watch the end of the Chiefs and Chargers????Anyone else see Darren Sproles pushed to the ground when the ball was in the air???? No flag….the REFS are paid to help determine the outcome of the game, and to help steer it to a better match for ratings. If they dont, blow uouts occur on nationaly televised games, and people dont like watching blow outs(unless it is their team winning), so they change the channel. It has all been about money …..I have been preaching this for years.

By: jnolte01

jnolte01 — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:07:50 +0000

@ pelion_panther
Completely agree, if that play happens at the 5, that is a catch and he is down by contact. Other than being outside of the endzone and then breaking the plane, rules should be applied consistently for all catches.

By: Chip

Chip — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:47:48 +0000

The truth is Johnson was too worried about celebrating and acting like he won the super bowl instead of completing the catch. No TD.

By: what about bob

what about bob — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:41:13 +0000

I maybe old (ok I’m old) ,but what ever happened to possesion and two feet down? I’ve wached this play and all this second act crap is stupid. What I saw was a catch and two feet touching the ground WTF. I’m not a Lions fan, but this a great example of taken technogy and rule’s to far…. TD

By: pelion_panther

pelion_panther — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:22:39 +0000

There is one thing that’s really bugging me about this whole thingand its something that no one is talking about.
Calvin Johnson catches the ball in the end zone. He is touched by Chicago Bears #35. He the goes down in bounds in the endzone on his butt, plus one hand, plus his left knee. This is what we like to call down by contact. The play should be over at this point. TOUCHDOWN. I’m not a Bears fan or a Lions fan, but bull crap is bull crap and this whole situation stinks.

By: wiley16350

wiley16350 — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:21:34 +0000

There is no need for a second act clause in the rule because by the very definition of second act it means that the first act has completed. And if the first act is completed then it means the player maintained possession of the ball completely through the first act. Which is what the rule basically says, a person must maintain a catch through the process of falling to the ground (till the completion of that action). So once he makes another football move (action), he has completed the first football move (action) and therefore it would be a catch. The question is, was Johnsons placement of the ball on the ground (when he lost it) an action enforced by his will or forced by the current momentum of his fall. The refs felt it was by the momentum of his fall and therefore it becomes an incomplete pass. That is debatable, but the point is there is no need for a second act clause because the rule defines that the catch must be maintained through the completion of an action.

By: Douchebaggery

Douchebaggery — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:48:00 +0000

G-Man, you are retarded. You’ve read all these articles all week long and failed to learn a single thing. Let me help you:
“If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass…” He went to the ground, right? So the normal standard of getting two feet in bounds is no longer sufficient to establish possession. “…he must maintain control of the ball *AFTER* he touches the ground….” He failed to do this. It’s clear as day, I truly don’t understand why people are unable to see this.
Maybe you need to watch it at regular speed, not slowed down, because he hits the ground and the ball comes out immediately. He doesn’t roll over and place the ball on the ground, the ball hits the ground and pops out of his hand.

By: TheDPR

TheDPR — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:39:46 +0000

Polian was careful. There really isn’t a second act in possession. When you make a “second act” then possession is over.
Possession is the first act, and that is all the rule applies to.
Possession is seen to be complete when a receiver makes a second act.
This is not clearly written in the rule but that is how it has been applied.
There is no problem at all if the receiver is on his feet and running. He catches the ball, then turning and running upfield ends the “possession” part because it is a “second act.”
But if the receiver is going to the ground the rule is fubar.
It needs to be reexamined and reworded.

By: Hound Dog

Hound Dog — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:28:41 +0000

Another example of the League controlling the outcome of games. Any bet that if Farve had thrown that ball to Driver it would be called “no catch”. Not a chance!

By: awdlmd

awdlmd — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:27:55 +0000

This convolution over possession is the result of excessive use of replay. Possession is best judged at live speed, when you start looking at super slow motion you get into this hair splitting. Make possession a non-reviewable judgement call and limit replay to in bounds/out of bounds and fumble/down.

By: BernieMac

BernieMac — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:25:39 +0000

They are using “second act” as a way to say that he already showed control of the ball. when you have control of the ball and that ball breaks the goal line the play is over! In this case neither of those things happened. Incomplete pass is the result. Plain and simple.

By: Duan

Duan — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:23:07 +0000

@ G-man says:
September 15, 2010 11:07 PM
Just curious–Didn’t the “catch” occur when he got control of the ball five feet in the air and then when his feet hit the ground? Wouldn’t that make the “second act” his butt hitting the ground? Wouldn’t that, then, make the “third act” the action of rolling over and then placing the ball on the ground?
=================================
Excellent point, I agree wholeheartedly with you as a true football fan

By: Nogard13

Nogard13 — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:20:00 +0000

Here’s the difference between the Lance Moore (LM) catch and Calvin Johnson’s (CJ) non-catch: Lance Moore had possession OUTSIDE of the end zone so the minute the ball breaks the plane, with possession established, it’s a TD (or a 2-pt conversion, in this case).
CJ was still in the act of catching the ball so possession was never established, by rule. Had CJ been 1mm outside the goal line, fallen on his ass with possession, and stretched the ball over the goal line, then dropped the ball, it would’ve been a TD because the ball crossed the plane while the receiver had possession.
Does that clear it up?