Did the refs miss an Intentional Grunding call?

[fringe]

any idiot could see he held it long enough. And he wasn't performing, he was maintaining his balance. You should go thru your life half as professional as calvin johnson.

[CrazedDogs]

any idiot could see he held it long enough. And he wasn't performing, he was maintaining his balance. You should go thru your life half as professional as calvin johnson.

 

Blu, subjectively I have to agree...he clearly put it on the ground on purpose, as part of his celebration.

 

Where we disagree is I believe we cannot allow refs to make calls based on style points or what "should" have happened.

[fringe]

Blu, subjectively I have to agree...he clearly put it on the ground on purpose, as part of his celebration.

 

Where we disagree is I believe we cannot allow refs to make calls based on style points or what "should" have happened.

 

so then holding should be called on every play. are you telling me they don't interpret the rules there?

[ksm7]

As either Moose or Goose was saying yesterday about the Umenyiora roughing penalty, "Why even put yourself in that position?" Sure it WASN'T roughing, but there was no reason to even lay a hand on the QB, regardless of how gently.

 

Same exact thing applies for Calvin Johnson. Hold on to the ball before you start the showboating and you win the game.

 

yes and no...the dog agrees somewhat on those who are saying don't celebrate and this doesn't happen...etc...but really, given the fact that they just mounted an amazing comeback (by lions standards), he really wasn't showboating (by nfl standards). But yes, tuck the ball away...hand it to the refs...blah blah...it was a catch, flat out. the ground can't cause a fumble yet he establishes possession in the endzone, is untouched, and slams the ball down on the ground and he loses the score...again, may be the rule, but doesn't make sense and needs to be changed.

[CrazedDogs]

so then holding should be called on every play. are you telling me they don't interpret the rules there?

 

No, they just call what they see.

[fringe]

No, they just call what they see.

 

that's what a ref would say but when he retires he says they call what's flagrant in their interpretation.

[Treehugger]

yes and no...the dog agrees somewhat on those who are saying don't celebrate and this doesn't happen...etc...but really, given the fact that they just mounted an amazing comeback (by lions standards), he really wasn't showboating (by nfl standards). But yes, tuck the ball away...hand it to the refs...blah blah...it was a catch, flat out. the ground can't cause a fumble yet he establishes possession in the endzone, is untouched, and slams the ball down on the ground and he loses the score...again, may be the rule, but doesn't make sense and needs to be changed.

The ground can't cause a fumble AFTER possession is established. If the ball is caught in the air the receiver has to maintain possession all the way through contact with the ground.

 

I definitely think he caught it but I can see where the ref has to drawn the line, especially with the game in the balance.

[Storm]

yes and no...the dog agrees somewhat on those who are saying don't celebrate and this doesn't happen...etc...but really, given the fact that they just mounted an amazing comeback (by lions standards), he really wasn't showboating (by nfl standards). But yes, tuck the ball away...hand it to the refs...blah blah...it was a catch, flat out. the ground can't cause a fumble yet he establishes possession in the endzone, is untouched, and slams the ball down on the ground and he loses the score...again, may be the rule, but doesn't make sense and needs to be changed.

 

yah, showboating is a little extreme of a word....more like save the celebration till the official throws two hands in the air....then you can put the ball through the ground if you want....but just don't put yourself in position to have the referee take away the game...

[Virginia Giant]

yes and no...the dog agrees somewhat on those who are saying don't celebrate and this doesn't happen...etc...but really, given the fact that they just mounted an amazing comeback (by lions standards), he really wasn't showboating (by nfl standards). But yes, tuck the ball away...hand it to the refs...blah blah...it was a catch, flat out. the ground can't cause a fumble yet he establishes possession in the endzone, is untouched, and slams the ball down on the ground and he loses the score...again, may be the rule, but doesn't make sense and needs to be changed.

Completely agree, I understand wanting to have more proffesionalism on scores that put your team up 31 to 10, but for a team that hasn't won a road game in 2 years or whatever, and has been a real shitty team for a while, that was a pretty modest "celebration" for a game winning catch. He put the ball on the ground, didn't spike it, didn't throw it...he placed it, then went to celebrate a huge td catch that would have likely won the game.

[ksm7]

The ground can't cause a fumble AFTER possession is established. If the ball is caught in the air the receiver has to maintain possession all the way through contact with the ground.

 

I definitely think he caught it but I can see where the ref has to drawn the line, especially with the game in the balance.

 

true. the dog was just saying that a RB can get drilled, hold onto the ball and lose it when he hits the ground and he is down by contact, no fumble. a receiver establishes control with the catch, and puts the ball down on the ground as he moves on to celebrate the game winning score and it is ruled incomplete. just seems like an odd/unfair ruling. he also, if the dog recalls correctly, did land in the endzone with clear possession (knees and body hit ground without him losing possession of the ball)...get the rule, don't get the premise.

[Treehugger]

true. the dog was just saying that a RB can get drilled, hold onto the ball and lose it when he hits the ground and he is down by contact, no fumble. a receiver establishes control with the catch, and puts the ball down on the ground as he moves on to celebrate the game winning score and it is ruled incomplete. just seems like an odd/unfair ruling. he also, if the dog recalls correctly, did land in the endzone with clear possession (knees and body hit ground without him losing possession of the ball)...get the rule, don't get the premise.

The problem was the ball was moving as he only had one hand on it and he let go off it while he was still moving, during the motion of hitting the ground. If he'd just sat still for an instant or put his second hand on the ball he would have scored. Definitely a real fine line but he let go of the ball while his body was still in motion.

 

Again, with the RB example he's already established possession before contact, so he's down as soon as his knee touches the turf. The ground doesn't come into play in that case. Johnson on the other hand still had to demonstrate that he had established possession before they can rule him down as he'd caught the ball in the air.

 

It's a shitty call but by the letter of the law its the right one. Johnson should know better.

[CrazedDogs]

that's what a ref would say but when he retires he says they call what's flagrant in their interpretation.

 

Perhaps. But doing something wrong in another circumstance isn't a case for doing it wrong in this circumstance.

 

Its interesting to me how many different opinions are out there about the Calvin Johnson non-TD. To my eyes, he was laying the ball on the ground in celebration. But from the footballoutsiders.com forum:

 

"I disagree that he put the ball on the ground. IMO it was knocked out of his hand when it hit the ground."

 

"The ground knocked the ball out of his hands as he fell down ergo he couldn't have had control of it."

 

"Why do people keep saying that he "placed the ball on the ground"? The ball clearly rolled out of his hand when it made contact with the ground"

 

"Agreed. We can't just assume he let go of it on purpose. It appeared to me that the ball slipped out when he was using it to gain balance as he spun around."

 

We're all looking at the same play, in real time and then in slow mo, and yet look at all the differing interpretations...this is exactly why the rule is written without room for interpretation.

[ksm7]

The problem was the ball was moving as he only had one hand on it and he let go off it while he was still moving, during the motion of hitting the ground. If he'd just sat still for an instant or put his second hand on the ball he would have scored. Definitely a real fine line but he let go of the ball while his body was still in motion.

 

Again, with the RB example he's already established possession before contact, so he's down as soon as his knee touches the turf. The ground doesn't come into play in that case. Johnson on the other hand still had to demonstrate that he had established possession before they can rule him down as he'd caught the ball in the air.

 

It's a shitty call but by the letter of the law its the right one. Johnson should know better.

 

dog agrees 100%, which is why they need to change it in the future. it is like getting a speeding ticket for going 40 in a 35...by the letter of the law, youre speeding, but really, in court, the dog is pretty sure the judge is going to drop the points on that one...anyway, the dog has beaten this topic to death, so probably should move on...

[Treehugger]

dog agrees 100%, which is why they need to change it in the future. it is like getting a speeding ticket for going 40 in a 35...by the letter of the law, youre speeding, but really, in court, the dog is pretty sure the judge is going to drop the points on that one...anyway, the dog has beaten this topic to death, so probably should move on...

It's not a judgment call when the game is on the line though. They can't award Detroit the win for almost getting a TD.

[BronxRik]

Calvin Johnson had possession through the play. His knees hit the ground, the play was dead, and called a TD. He then used the ball to get up off the ground. He was robbed of a TD.

[Treehugger]

Calvin Johnson had possession through the play. His knees hit the ground, the play was dead, and called a TD. He then used the ball to get up off the ground. He was robbed of a TD.

Nope. He had to maintain possession all the way through making contact with the ground as prior possession hadn't been established. Knee down is not enough in that situation.

[CrazedDogs]

Calvin Johnson had possession through the play. His knees hit the ground, the play was dead, and called a TD. He then used the ball to get up off the ground. He was robbed of a TD.

 

Thats not the rule on receptions anymore BronxRik, they changed it a few years ago.

[fringe]

Calvin Johnson had possession through the play. His knees hit the ground, the play was dead, and called a TD. He then used the ball to get up off the ground. He was robbed of a TD.

 

agreed. but some of these 50 year old lawyers and p/t officials are afraid to go by what their eyes tell them, so they hide behind a silly rule. no one would've faulted them for calling it at TD. the official over the play got it right.

[BronxRik]

Nope. He had to maintain possession all the way through making contact with the ground as prior possession hadn't been established. Knee down is not enough in that situation.

 

He had the ball in one hand throughout the play. He had possession. It was a TD. It was called a TD. Then he lost possession on the '2nd football act', which entailed him using the ball to get up off the ground, which is bullshit. Even if he was doing a mini-spike, it's bullshit as it was already called a TD. If this were against the Giants, the internet tough guys would be oozing out of the woodwork.

 

Thats not the rule on receptions anymore BronxRik, they changed it a few years ago.

 

Really? They show that as a gauge during replay all the time: "There he is, he has possession right THERE.....then his knee goes down. That's a first down".

 

agreed. but some of these 50 year old lawyers and p/t officials are afraid to go by what their eyes tell them, so they hide behind a silly rule. no one would've faulted them for calling it at TD. the official over the play got it right.

You know, I'm not a big 'blame the refs' kind of guy, and I certainly don't claim to know the rules of football like they do. This non-catch may be a rule, but somehow I can't help but think it's like Jaywalking. Yeah, it's illegal, but nobody really gets busted for it. You're right, the official who called it got it right.

[CrazedDogs]

Really? They show that as a gauge during replay all the time: "There he is, he has possession right THERE.....then his knee goes down. That's a first down".

 

No they don't... not when they're talking about receptions...or at least, not if they're talking about receptions and are up to date on the rules. (Of course, as we've probably all seen, not all the announcers and commentators are even as knowledgeable as the average fan.)

 

I think the fact that so many people watch that same play and see a receiver who accidentally loses possession of the ball is a great illustration of why the rule is written as it is. I don't have a problem with it, you change it back to what it was and we're just trading one controversial play for a half-dozen more.

 

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Shockey TD catch vs. the Seahawks in '05 or so, speaking of TDs that shouldn't have been....and wouldn't have been, under today's rules.

[ksm7]

Oh sure, before this rule we had a possession rule that was arguably even sillier. In the case of CJ, he was obviously putting the ball on the ground of his own free will...but pretend for a moment that the defensive back drilled him just as he caught the ball, and although CJ appears to have possession as his knee touches the ground, the ball comes loose as the hit drives him to the turf. Thats not a reception to my eyes, but once upon a time it could have been.

 

We can't have rules that require the ref to make a quality judgement. Bottom line, if you're a professional receiver, under no circumstances do you let that ball touch the ground, ever....you play smart and hand the ball to the ref when the play is over. If Calvin Johnson is a professional on that play, the Lions win the game and the "silly" rule is a non-issue.

 

the dog can't believe he is being sucked back in, but...since you seem to be a by the rule book kind of guy, to your statement above - refs make these "quality judgement" calls all the time. someone here (the dog thinks it was blunatic) stated that by the definition of the rules, holding could be called on any play. but officials make quality judgements to avoid throwing flags on every play. certainly this can impact games all the time (watch the giants 2007 super bowl - during tyree's catch there were two potential holding calls missed or not called - that would have changed the outlook of the game (surprising to most here, the dog is actually thankful they were not called - much better having that play made then having it called back for the game in general))...they make those kind of calls on many touchy pass interferences throughout a game...silly rule. needs to be changed.

[CrazedDogs]

the dog can't believe he is being sucked back in, but...since you seem to be a by the rule book kind of guy, to your statement above - refs make these "quality judgement" calls all the time. someone here (the dog thinks it was blunatic) stated that by the definition of the rules, holding could be called on any play. but officials make quality judgements to avoid throwing flags on every play. certainly this can impact games all the time (watch the giants 2007 super bowl - during tyree's catch there were two potential holding calls missed or not called - that would have changed the outlook of the game (surprising to most here, the dog is actually thankful they were not called - much better having that play made then having it called back for the game in general))...they make those kind of calls on many touchy pass interferences throughout a game...silly rule. needs to be changed.

 

I think holding is the exception that proves the rule. Everyone knows its there, on every play, yet sometimes they call it when it isn't.

[Storm]

No they don't... not when they're talking about receptions...or at least, not if they're talking about receptions and are up to date on the rules. (Of course, as we've probably all seen, not all the announcers and commentators are even as knowledgeable as the average fan.)

 

I think the fact that so many people watch that same play and see a receiver who accidentally loses possession of the ball is a great illustration of why the rule is written as it is. I don't have a problem with it, you change it back to what it was and we're just trading one controversial play for a half-dozen more.

 

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Shockey TD catch vs. the Seahawks in '05 or so, speaking of TDs that shouldn't have been....and wouldn't have been, under today's rules.

 

Like when Moose was talking about why the Giants "had them re-kick" on that punt last Sunday, even though it was a False Start penalty and the Giants didn't have a choice.