Thank God for the Lions

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:39 am

If that's not a catch in strict accordance with the "rule," then it's a horseshit rule that needs to be changed. That should be a catch from Pop Warner all the way to the NFL. Jesus. Sometimes a little common sense is all that's needed.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:40 am

Joe in PB wrote:
And you're right, Butkus did not wear an earring.

I was on a business trip in Chicago a few years back and I saw that on a T-shirt. Thought it was great. :D

I'd like to find one of those t-shirts and wear it to a high school baseball practice, but I can just hear my players asking "who's Butkus?"

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:51 am

mvscal wrote:Yes, the play is "completely over" when the player is down with possession of the football. The ball was dead when it touched the ground.

THIS. The play is dead when the player hits the ground and nothing about this bullshit "continuance" matters. I thought this was football, not baseball?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:00 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:THIS. The play is dead when the player hits the ground and nothing about this bullshit "continuance" matters. I thought this was football, not baseball?

So you're saying the rule was applied correctly, but you don't agree with the rule?

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:45 am

This is how it goes, moron: Catch + Two Feet + Possession + Body Down = PLAY OVER = TOUCHDOWN.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:46 am

Receiver had possession of the ball, two feet down in the end zone, touchdown. Anything after that was meaningless.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:48 am

Goddamn fucking cockblocking jizzmopper.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:50 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:This is how it goes, moron: Catch + Two Feet + Possession + Body Down = PLAY OVER = TOUCHDOWN.

Too bad the NFL Rule book does not agree with that. It is also too bad that Johnson was unaware of that rule. Because I am certain that he would have maintained control had he tried.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:15 am

BSmack wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:This is how it goes, moron: Catch + Two Feet + Possession + Body Down = PLAY OVER = TOUCHDOWN.
Too bad the NFL Rule book does not agree with that. It is also too bad that Johnson was unaware of that rule. Because I am certain that he would have maintained control had he tried.

A smarter move would've been to cradle the ball into his body, sure, but that doesn't negate the fact it was a catch. He caught the ball, both feet touched down, established control, body hit the ground, maintained control = play over. That, my friend, is a completion of "the process." Then he put the ball down after the play to celebrate. Just because it happened quickly doesn't mean it didn't happen.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:41 am

process, you dumbfucks. if he would have rolled all the way through the back of the endzone, dropped the ball on a cheerleader's snatch, and finally came to a complete stop in the third row, it would have been an incomplete pass because the refs don't stop paying attention till the receiver's actually dead and in the ground.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:06 am

Heh. Every TD spike should be reviewed for 10 minutes since the post catch particulars are more important than the catch itself.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:52 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:A smarter move would've been to cradle the ball into his body, sure, but that doesn't negate the fact it was a catch. He caught the ball, both feet touched down, established control, body hit the ground, maintained control = play over. That, my friend, is a completion of "the process." Then he put the ball down after the play to celebrate. Just because it happened quickly doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Too bad the rules, as they are written today. Which is why even when Bob Costas railed against the rule, even he admitted the call was correct BY THE RULES.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:32 pm

Though it appears the rule was correctly applied, it's one that needs changing- FAST. Johnson demonstrated control long enough through the catch and the "football move" that he made was him getting up to celebrate the TD. More and more receivers are able to palm the ball with complete control as Johnson did and rather than reward those players for their athletic ability, this rule instead penalizes them for it.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:44 pm

M Club wrote:process, you dumbfucks. if he would have rolled all the way through the back of the endzone, dropped the ball on a cheerleader's snatch, and finally came to a complete stop in the third row, it would have been an incomplete pass because the refs don't stop paying attention till the receiver's actually dead and in the ground.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:02 pm

BSmack wrote:Of course not. You've never admitted you are wrong about anything.

I-R-O-N-Y.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:44 pm

KC Scott wrote:Michael Silver

I hope this one bites the dust next March. In the meantime, my advice to any NFL receiver who finds himself in a situation like Johnson’s: Make the catch, pull the ball into your body and, after hitting the ground, stuff it into your uniform pants – just to make sure.

Sound advice from Mr. Silver.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:57 pm

KC Scott wrote:Nice Rant by Michael Silver on this:

the “second act” requirement of the NFL’s interpretation of what constitutes a catch: “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.

That is exactly what he did. The rule doesn't need to be changed. The officials need to make the correct call on the field and some of the idiots here need to stop being bamboozled by bullshit.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:11 pm

God damn. Reading the back and forth between Mac/BSmack and the rest was exactly the same conversation I had this weekend. We were in a Vegas sportsbook watching the game. My brother-in-law is a Detroit fan. When that play happened, everyone went crazy. As soon as I saw that ball come out, I said to him "Not a catch bro." I was the only one there who said no catch. Fast forward a couple minutes and the head referee confirmed it after watching the replays.

I attempted to explain the rul to my brother in law, both of them actually. They stuck their fingers in ther ears as I tried to explain having to control the ball through the fall. I just said fuck it and told them to believe what they want and dropped it.

I do think it is a horseshit rule. That SHOULD be a catch according to the rules, but it is not. You can't rewrite the rule in the middle of the game as much as you would like to.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:29 pm

Here's an example of the exact same rule being applied last season. The only difference was it was the Raiders who lost so nobody gave a fuck.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:53 pm

Take a wild guess what the hot topic is on local sport talk radio today? And it ain't about Shoelace Robinson or the Tigers' 8th inning rally yesterday against the Orioles...

I understand how in a case of a player stretching out and trying to make a catch along the sidelines that they must get both feet and maintain possession to complete the process of a catch. That's honestly the first time I've heard "process" used as part of the rules that define a catch. I've heard the term "make a football move" after a catch when it comes to a catch being made (allegedly) and if the ball is knocked loose and the ruling has to be made between is it a fumble or is it an incomplete pass.

BSmack wrote:Here's an example of the exact same rule being applied last season. The only difference was it was the Raiders who lost so nobody gave a fuck.

Based on the rule...that play there is about as much of a catch as Johnson's but he had a player fall on him the ball came loose after he had landed with both feet down and he falls to the ground. The parallel is trying to be drawn to "the ground can't cause a fumble". It can only be a fumble is the ball-carrier had clear possession of the ball is the first place.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:38 pm

The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause an incomplete pass.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:21 pm

Mace wrote:The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause an incomplete pass.

That's what I find funny and I even think the "ground can't cause a fumble" seems short-sided considering if a player is running with the ball and the fall down without being touched or tackled and they lose the ball on the ground...that's not ruled as fumble because the ground caused it but the player isn't ruled down by contact.

Joe in PB · Post by **Joe in PB** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:02 pm

When looking at that play at regular speed it looks flaky because the hand with the ball moves so fast to the ground and the ball comes out. This is football and fans/refs shouldn't need to see the play in slow motion to know whether it was a TD or not IMO.

Meanwhile what are the odds Stafford finishes the season when he finally returns? They can't be good, dudes a porcelain doll.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:22 pm

Joe in PB wrote:Meanwhile what are the odds Stafford finishes the season when he finally returns? They can't be good, dudes a porcelain doll.

The announcement from Schwartz is coming around 3 on how long he's going to be out. Initial indication is that he's out 2-6 weeks.

As for calling him a porcelain doll...did you see how prone he was on that hit? Backus went a matador or a traffic cone or a turnstile and Peppers had a clean shot at him. How many guys don't get screwed up after a blind side where the defender gets a running start and hits his throwing arm and buries him into the turf. He's taken some wicked hits in his brief time in the pros...he won't survive if the line play doesn't improve.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:23 pm

Shoalzie wrote:short-sided

That's the Shoalzie I remember.

Intensive purposes

It was a roost

Short-sided (works in the Golf Forum, though)

And all the other classics I've forgotten.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:25 pm

And that's the Dins I know... :doh:

I tend to screw things up when I'm typing something during work and I've got music blaring in my ear. My concentration is not always so good.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:44 am

BSmack wrote:Here's an example of the exact same rule being applied last season. The only difference was it was the Raiders who lost so nobody gave a fuck.

I remember the reaction to that from this board ranged from "that was bullshit. It was a catch" to "the play was called by the book. Stupid rule. Sucks to be you", even from Charger fans.

At least the angry mob is consitent.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:35 pm

Here's the actual rule as it reads in the 2010 NFL rule book.

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3
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.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:54 am

NFL rulebook wrote:he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

Johnson did, as did L. Murphy on the Raider play last season.

Both calls were missed.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:01 am

Mace wrote:The receiver has to maintain possession until the play is completely over

Well how long are we to imagine a player must maintain possession of the ball after touching the ground?

The rulebook doesn't say how long he must maintain the ball.

Just make something up?

It says he must maintain the ball after he touches the ground.

Johnson CLEARLY did that.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:03 am

BSmack wrote:All he had to do was get up with the ball still in his hands and it would have been a TD.

LOL

The rulebook doesn't say that.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:05 am

Dinsdale wrote:The receiver must maintain control until he comes to a stop on the ground.

That's not in the rulebook.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:55 am

poptart wrote:
BSmack wrote:All he had to do was get up with the ball still in his hands and it would have been a TD.
LOL

The rulebook doesn't say that.

The rulebook doesn't say you're an ignorant fucktard who believes in fairy tales. But that's what you are. The moral of the story is to hang onto the fucking ball at all costs. And if you happen to catch the ball in the endzone, don't drop it until you are certain the whistle has blown.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:41 pm

All he had to do was get up with the ball still in his hands and it would have been a TD.

don't drop it until you are certain the whistle has blown.

he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground

You're a complete mess, dude.

He has to get up with the ball still in his hands.
He mustn't drop it until the whistle has blown.
He must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground.

Which one is it, 'tard?

Quit making a total dumb@ss of yourself and just look at what the rule says, guy.

Maintain control after he touches the ground.

Johnson certainly did.

6 points.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:59 pm

BSmack wrote:Here's the actual rule as it reads in the 2010 NFL rule book.

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3
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.

You don't need to keep posting the rule. People know the rule. The argument is that it was a catch according to the rule.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:04 pm

He maintained control of the ball after he hit the ground. How is this so difficult for BSmack to admit?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:05 pm

Exactly.

If Johnson had dropped the ball when he hit the ground they could have rightfully called it incomplete, based on their dumb rule.

But he didn't.

He maintained control after he touched the ground.

No doubt about it.

The NFL better rewrite their rule to say something other than what it says if they want to deny a catch like that.

Total joke.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:07 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:He maintained control of the ball after he hit the ground.

So explain the ball rolling around on the ground.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:08 pm

BSmack wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:He maintained control of the ball after he hit the ground.
So explain the ball rolling around on the ground.

It's a dead ball, you stupid, dong slurping douchebucket.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:22 pm

poptart wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:The receiver must maintain control until he comes to a stop on the ground.
That's not in the rulebook.

One of the NFL Rules Committee guys explained the standard several years back... when this same scenario came up for the umpteenth time, and the usual get-their-panties-in-a-bunch-because-they-don't-know-the-rule-that's-been-explained-ad naseum-by-the-NFL still whine about it every year, even though that rule has been applied very consistantly for the last 10 freaking years.

As long as the player is still moving, he's "in the process" of making a catch, until he comes to a full stop on the ground. Same way it's been for the last decade.

Hell, even with my chemically-impared memory, I remember that one being clarified when they made the freaking rule, like 10 or 11 years ago, the reason being to take the subjectivity out of it, which it does -- to all but the hand-wringers.

I think where you folks are struggling, is with "maintain control after he touches the ground." Part of the "process" of "maintaining control after he touches the ground" has been clearly defined as coming to a complete stop after touching the ground.

Bitch all you like -- just don't shoot the messenger... since I'm right, and the pro-catch crowd is wrong -- which a quick check of the SCOREBOARD will verify.

Although I've found the conspiracy-theorists pretty entertaining here -- TVO and LTS would be proud, if they were hetero enough to care about football.