F’n A….you are the first reader to correctly interpret the “2nd act”…..good job.

You can’t be serious. Well for one, Calvin Johnson’s catch was in the Endzone. Second, Calvin had control of the ball. Three, Calvin fought for the ball with a Bears defender, I’m pretty sure there was some contact there (legal contact).

Comparing Calvin Johnson’s catch to Burress’ fumble is just stupid.

Why not the same for a receiver? If he catches the ball and maintains possession and control of it all the way to the ground, then it is a catch even if the ground jars the ball loose. It’s a completion. End of play.

It’s easy enough to tell if the receiver is juggling the ball on the way to the ground or if the ground aids the reception. They’re making a big deal out of nothing, IMHO.

Does the NFL really believe it’s okay for a bad call to stand because a coach ran out of challenges? Because a home team didn’t show a replay in time for opposing coaches to challenge? Or because a ref went under a hood but refused to reverse himself out of ego–or incompetence?

Please.

The Great and Powerful Wizards of the NFL snatched the idea of red flags from the USFL. It’s not a tradition that goes back to the Canton Bulldogs. Enough already. Let’s get the calls right. Dump flags and hoods–and overblown rules like the one that shafted the Lions–and institute a booth review system.

We rip him because he smashed the game winning TD off the ground instead of just holding onto it. HE cost them the game, not the officials and not the rulebook.

We all made fun of rookie Plaxico Burress when he got up after a first down catch and spiked the ball without being down by contact, which resulted in a fumble. How is Calvin Johnson’s situation any different? Neither of them knew the proper rules and it cost their teams.

If the player goes down in the endzone, voluntarily or otherwise, if he has the ball, it’s a catch. If he doesn’t, it’s not.

In the Calvin Johnson case, it would have been a catch because his knee hit the ground before the ball every touched the ground.

Easy rule, simple application.

Indeed, why should it be any different than when a runner attempts to cross the goal line? On goal line plays, we look at whether the player was down before the ball crossed the goal line and all it has to do is cross for a second. If it crosses the plane before he’s down, it’s a TD even if he subsequently loses control.

Too much is being read into the words “second act” Pereira could’ve said the same thing omitting the words ” and performs a second act” Although, according to the rule book he would be wrong. As the rule book 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 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.”

Why should a receiver stretching the ball and breaking the plane (providing he has control) be different than a running back stretching the ball and breaking the plane? Once a running back breaks the plane with the ball it’s a TD. Even if he loses control of the ball. After the ball breaks the plane, it’s a TD and the play is over.

Make it the same for all ball carriers and maybe that will eliminate some of the confusion.

I agree with Pereira in that if a receiver has possession of the ball when the ball breaks the plane, it’s a score. End of play.

Now if a receiver is attempting to gain control of the ball while crossing the goal line, then the play isn’t over until either the receiver gains control of the ball, or it’s knocked out of his hands before he gains control.

Calvin Johnson got off so easy on this play. We should all be ripping on him instead of ripping on the rules, officials, etc.