Detrioit just got screwed...

[5wide]

This is a bad rule. All a running back has to do is break the plane and the play is over. When Johnson fell to the turf with the ball, the play should have been over. To satisfy my curiosity, I'd like to know the evolution of this rule.

 

I think it's an attempt to make things black-and-white, and take as much human judgment as possible out of these types of plays. This rule has been in place for a couple of season, I believe, if not longer, and I've seen similar plays as this where the guy clearly caught the ball, but didn't maintain possession all the way through.

 

It's a tough break for Detroit for sure, but to be honest, I like the rule. I think it eliminates a lot of guesswork for the officials, and over the long run, I think that means less calls end up wrong than vice versa. And, the rule is the same for everybody.

 

JMO

[banana slug]

A loss as a direct result of a Johnson not understanding the exact interpretation of a rule...........sound familiar?

[RomanEmpire]

I thought it was a horrible call as well. Johnson knew he caught the ball, and was already celebrating. He did not lose control of the ball imo. Rule needs to be changed. Awful.

[sackmaster]

This cost me a win in fantasy football. After watching the video i am pretty disappointed.

[Clyde]

How should the rule be worded?

[SSC]

I think it's an attempt to make things black-and-white, and take as much human judgment as possible out of these types of plays. This rule has been in place for a couple of season, I believe, if not longer, and I've seen similar plays as this where the guy clearly caught the ball, but didn't maintain possession all the way through.

 

It's a tough break for Detroit for sure, but to be honest, I like the rule. I think it eliminates a lot of guesswork for the officials, and over the long run, I think that means less calls end up wrong than vice versa. And, the rule is the same for everybody.

 

JMO

 

Totally agree.

[CincySportsFan]

Wording of the actual rule vs the one we all wish was the rule:

 

 

The rule in question 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."

 

I think the problem lies within the wording of "the ball touches the ground before he regains control". In this particular instance, it seemed very obvious he had "control of the ball" UNTIL he hit the ground. He was palming it in one hand, for Pete's sake. There was no bobbling or juggling. There was no rotation still occuring. So that to me shows "control". It was the contact with the ground that caused the loss of control. And the NFL seems perfectly content in preaching that the ground can not cause a fumble. So, why here?

[Clyde]

I think the problem lies within the wording of "the ball touches the ground before he regains control". In this particular instance, it seemed very obvious he had "control of the ball" UNTIL he hit the ground. He was palming it in one hand, for Pete's sake. There was no bobbling or juggling. There was no rotation still occuring. So that to me shows "control". It was the contact with the ground that caused the loss of control. And the NFL seems perfectly content in preaching that the ground can not cause a fumble. So, why here?

 

What if the receiver is on the endline, catches the ball, gets nailed by the defender, hits the ground and the ball pops out?

 

As to your "ground can't cause a fumble" you're forgetting that by the wording of the rule there is no possession YET on this catch unlike the run.

[swamprat]

Have a friend in Detroit that said they rioted after the game last night. Burned couches, flipped cars, broke windows...etc. Said it wasn't on the news because no one noticed anything was out of place.

 

:D

[Voice of Reason]

If the rule was not in place as it is and the play had been ruled a catch, I think there would be just as much of an uproar with people saying how can you call that a catch? At least with this rule, it is clear that by rule it is not a catch.

 

If I were a coach, I would be hammering ball security and wait to celebrate with my receivers. I saw 3 or 4 plays in college and pros this weekend where a receiver was scoring and dropped the ball well before he should have. There were two I believe in college where a receiver looked like he may have let go of the ball before he crossed the goal line.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Voice of Reason

[CincySportsFan]

What if the receiver is on the endline, catches the ball, gets nailed by the defender, hits the ground and the ball pops out?

 

As to your "ground can't cause a fumble" you're forgetting that by the wording of the rule there is no possession YET on this catch unlike the run.

 

I understand that. But that's where I think everybody is having a problem with the rule. If he was a runner who took a handoff and hurdled a defender and was in the process of going to the ground in the same manner, then they would not rule not rule it a fumble...the ground would have no affect on possession (or possible loss thereof). However in this instance, it seems clear that he has control of ball (by a layman's view, not by a written rule)...and they're saying that the ground CAN have an impact on possession.

 

BTW, I don't have an easy answer for the situation. I'm just saying where I think a lot of the confusion (and subsequent anger) is coming from.

[5wide]

There shouldn't be any confusion. This rule has been in place for at least two seasons and we've seen it come into play before. I think it's pretty clear. If you catch a pass and go to the ground, you must maintain possession all the way through for it to be ruled a catch.

 

And, again, the rule as is takes the human factor out of the equation and applies equally to every team. That was the goal of the rule and I think it has achieved that.

[jvdfc]

There shouldn't be any confusion. This rule has been in place for at least two seasons and we've seen it come into play before. I think it's pretty clear. If you catch a pass and go to the ground, you must maintain possession all the way through for it to be ruled a catch.

 

And, again, the rule as is takes the human factor out of the equation and applies equally to every team. That was the goal of the rule and I think it has achieved that.

 

But I'm saying he did this. Play should have been over at this point. I understand the rule ,but I don't think it was meant for this situation. Hurts the game IMO.

[DragonFire]

Detroit just won a challenge on this very same rule, and you could tell it was pretty much like "Well, we messed them over last week - throw them a bone."

[mcpapa]

It looked to me like the guy caught the ball, took 2 steps, fell to his hip, rolled and then the ball hit the ground. But I'm old and don't see so well.