It seems that anyone who actually read the rule, can see that by the letter of the law, the Lions should have won against the Bears. Calvin Johnson made the catch and by how the rule was written, it was a touchdown. Yet the Lions coach, Jim Schwartz just accepts the blatant lies from the NFL.
The refs said it was incomplete. The NFL spokesmen have said that the refs were correct and that only those who knows the rule understands the definition. I have read the rule and I can tell you, the NFL's definition is adding meaning that is not in the wording of the rule. Yet Schwartz will not speak against it. Instead, Jim Schwartz has said that the Lions did not play well and he will not let the players think that they lost the game because of one play.
I have news for you Jim. That is exactly what happened! Yes the Lions offense was horrible. Sure they missed Forte badly and gave up the long score. I understand that if the Lions would have played better that they would have won anyway and that rule wouldn't have made a difference. Yada yada yada!
The fact is, however bad the offense was, as a team the Detroit Lions played well enough to beat the Bears. If the refs would not be adding secret meanings to the rules that are not in the contents of the rules, the Lions would have won. So any way you put it, that screw up by the refs cost the Lions a win in Chicago.
I understand what Jim Schwartz is trying to do. He is looking to take the high road rather than whine about something he cannot change. He is trying to push his team to play better so that they wont be in that position again. But the message I see coming across is that he will not stick up for the honor and dignity of the Detroit Lions organization or its players or their fans.
Schwartz could easily say that he is upset that his players did not execute better and so on, but he could also say... "that being said, that was a touchdown. Johnson and Hill should have touchdowns on their stat lines. Hill should have a win under his belt. The fans should have had a better week because the Lions won! The NFL owes them an apology!"
As the leader of the Detroit Lions, coach Jim Schwartz should be willing to face a fine to stand up for his players and the teams fans. The city of Detroit has been too loyal through extremely bad times in the last forever, and to have a win snatched away because of a bad interpretation to a rule is a terrible crime. To have the NFL tell us we don't know how to interpret the rule, as if we cannot look at what is written and see that what the refs say simply is not in the rule, that is ridiculous. But the worst crime of them all against the Detroit Lions fans, is that after being so thoroughly screwed over, our coach is not willing to defend his team or their fans.
Showing posts with label NFL Rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NFL Rules. Show all posts
9/13/10
Was Calvin Johnson's Catch a Touchdown?
Should Calvin Johnson's Catch Have Been a Touchdown? It is the biggest question of the day and there is no shortage to the arguments.
Many have already stated the rule and agreed that it was actually not a catch by official NFL rules. The rule that keeps being stated goes as followed .... "A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball in bounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground in bounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground in bounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession."
According to the written rule, some are saying that Calvin Johnson needed to have control of the ball after falling to the ground for it to be a touchdown. I disagree!
According to NFL rules, if a receiver catches the ball and has control of the ball and takes two steps, or makes a football move with the ball, it is a reception. If he drops the ball after taking two steps, it is a fumble.
According to NFL rules, if a receiver catches the ball and runs with it and falls due to contact with a defending player, the ball is down where the ball is when he hits the ground. If he loses the ball when he hits the ground, it is still down because the ground cannot cause a fumble.
According to NFL rules, the ball only needs to cross the plain of the goal line while in possession of a player for it to be a touchdown. Even if it is knocked out of his hands afterwords! Because once the touchdown is made, the play is dead.
Now lets look at Calvin Johnson's catch.
Johnson was in the end-zone when he leaps backwards and catches the ball in the air. With clean control of the ball in two hands, Johnson comes down on one foot then a second foot. At this point, the ball is considered a reception. He is in the end-zone so it should be a touchdown. Play should be dead. Then his momentum causes him to fall backwards and he lands on his butt. Now holding the ball in one hand with a firm grip, if he wasn't down with the ball before, he is now. The buttocks is considered a part of the body that if it touches the ground while that player has possession of the ball, the player is considered to be down and the play is dead (If he fell due to contact from a defensive player). If the player falls on his own, he has the opportunity to get up and run, but either way, it is considered a reception. If he is in the end-zone, the result of the play is a touchdown. So Calvin Johnson had possession of the ball while putting two feet down. Then he still has possession of the ball when he falls on his butt. Touchdown! So it should have been.
In a continuous motion, the ball now in only one hand, Johnson spun around and hit the ball to the turf. His hand came away without the ball. This is the problem with the interpretation. Many are saying that the rule is saying that he has to have control of the ball after he hits the ground. However, the rule does NOT say that he has to have control after the BALL hits the ground. When Johnson got both feet on the ground, THAT was when he hit the ground. He had control of the ball at this time. IF that is not good enough, when Johnson fell to his butt, THAT would constitute him hitting the ground. He still had firm control of the ball.
Nowhere in the rule does it state that the receiver must have control of the ball after he hits the ground for the third time!
So by the written rule, the play should have been called a catch and a touchdown. The Lions should have won the game.
Many have already stated the rule and agreed that it was actually not a catch by official NFL rules. The rule that keeps being stated goes as followed .... "A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball in bounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground in bounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground in bounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession."
According to the written rule, some are saying that Calvin Johnson needed to have control of the ball after falling to the ground for it to be a touchdown. I disagree!
According to NFL rules, if a receiver catches the ball and has control of the ball and takes two steps, or makes a football move with the ball, it is a reception. If he drops the ball after taking two steps, it is a fumble.
According to NFL rules, if a receiver catches the ball and runs with it and falls due to contact with a defending player, the ball is down where the ball is when he hits the ground. If he loses the ball when he hits the ground, it is still down because the ground cannot cause a fumble.
According to NFL rules, the ball only needs to cross the plain of the goal line while in possession of a player for it to be a touchdown. Even if it is knocked out of his hands afterwords! Because once the touchdown is made, the play is dead.
Now lets look at Calvin Johnson's catch.
Johnson was in the end-zone when he leaps backwards and catches the ball in the air. With clean control of the ball in two hands, Johnson comes down on one foot then a second foot. At this point, the ball is considered a reception. He is in the end-zone so it should be a touchdown. Play should be dead. Then his momentum causes him to fall backwards and he lands on his butt. Now holding the ball in one hand with a firm grip, if he wasn't down with the ball before, he is now. The buttocks is considered a part of the body that if it touches the ground while that player has possession of the ball, the player is considered to be down and the play is dead (If he fell due to contact from a defensive player). If the player falls on his own, he has the opportunity to get up and run, but either way, it is considered a reception. If he is in the end-zone, the result of the play is a touchdown. So Calvin Johnson had possession of the ball while putting two feet down. Then he still has possession of the ball when he falls on his butt. Touchdown! So it should have been.
In a continuous motion, the ball now in only one hand, Johnson spun around and hit the ball to the turf. His hand came away without the ball. This is the problem with the interpretation. Many are saying that the rule is saying that he has to have control of the ball after he hits the ground. However, the rule does NOT say that he has to have control after the BALL hits the ground. When Johnson got both feet on the ground, THAT was when he hit the ground. He had control of the ball at this time. IF that is not good enough, when Johnson fell to his butt, THAT would constitute him hitting the ground. He still had firm control of the ball.
Nowhere in the rule does it state that the receiver must have control of the ball after he hits the ground for the third time!
So by the written rule, the play should have been called a catch and a touchdown. The Lions should have won the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
