Lions Just Got Screwed

killerofchicken wrote:

hearing the guys on blitz last night, i thought the referee in the endzone called it a td

I thought so too, but I looked at a yahoo article and it said it was ruled incomplete before Calvin even got to the sideline.

Watch the video again

Can see it at 7 & then again at 47 seconds sideline ref on the bottom left of the screen raises his arms calling the TD

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=300912003
"Calvin Johnson's TD catch overruled; Bears survive vs. Lions"

Oh god.


I love all you men, but you're all dumbdicks. It was initially ruled a TD but another judge came over and ruled it incomplete on the field, then it was reviewed and THE RULING ON THE FIELD STANDS, IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE PASS.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Oh god.


I love all you men, but you're all dumbdicks. It was initially ruled a TD but another judge came over and ruled it incomplete on the field, then it was reviewed and THE RULING ON THE FIELD STANDS, IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE PASS.

I apologize the game was not televised in my area. I only saw the highlights and they did not go into that detail. I thought it was ruled a TD and then overturned.

OUSOONERSOU wrote:

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Oh god.


I love all you men, but you're all dumbdicks. It was initially ruled a TD but another judge came over and ruled it incomplete on the field, then it was reviewed and THE RULING ON THE FIELD STANDS, IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE PASS.

I apologize the game was not televised in my area. I only saw the highlights and they did not go into that detail. I thought it was ruled a TD and then overturned.

same here

It's pretty simple... The rule is as shitty a rule as there is in the NFL. It might work on a play on the 30, but it's a different story in the end zone. If he had slid out of bounds, it would have been a catch. If he had been touched while on the ground before trying to get up, it would have been a catch. But he uses the ball and the ground to get up and drops the ball in the process, so it's not a catch? Everyone knows he had posession, but the letter of that horrible rule says otherwise... The NFL has to change or edit that rule.

No, the receiver needs to just maintain possession for a second longer and not let it pop out when it touches the ground.

If he did it on purpose - LOL.


Lions receivers must not be used to catching many touchdowns.


Seriously, why is no one on Megatron for fucking up the game winner? Rule is clear cut.

Cris Carter - I instantly knew that wasnt a touchdown, I was arguieng with all the ESPN guys saying it would be ruled no touchdown.

Yeah, we're all aware of the rule. What most are saying is that it's a terrible rule under that circumstance. By the letter of the rule he could have sat there for ten seconds with the ball in one hand, and as long as he wasn't touched and or as long as a ref didn't blow a whistle... He could have attempted to get off the ground using the ball as leverage but then losing his grip on it while getting up, it wouldn't have been a catch. Their letter of the law interpretation of what is considered a catch is what's ridiculous...

I think defensive coaches need to start coaching their guys to not touch a receiver who catches a ball in the end zone in hopes that they will toss the ball to the crowd in celebration before a ref blows his whistle...

Here is the problem with the rule. It is entirely inconsistent with how fumbles are handled. In the case of a fumble, once the ball carrier has a part of his body other than the bottom of his feet or a hand touch the ground the play is over.

Yet when a receiver has a body part other than his feet or his hand touch the ground the play isn't over from a possession perspective?

Both are questions of possession and they should be handled in a similar way.

That's because possession hasn't yet been established. Actual possession is a prerequisite to a fumble happening.

GDPofDRC wrote:

That's because possession hasn't yet been established. Actual possession is a prerequisite to a fumble happening.

THAT is the incosistency I am talking about! If a running back takes the handoff in both hands the same way as Johnson had it, gets hit and falls exactly the same way Johnson did? It is NOT a fumble since the ground can't cause it. Yet in Johnson's case his BUTT was on the ground and he clearly controlled the ball and that wasn't enough? Bad, bad rule.

The clearly controlled the ball part is the issue though. It wasn't clear that he had possession to the officials. Hold onto that ball instead of losing it in the cumulative set of motion and the refs give him the TD I would bet.

GDPofDRC wrote:

The clearly controlled the ball part is the issue though. It wasn't clear that he had possession to the officials. Hold onto that ball instead of losing it in the cumulative set of motion and the refs give him the TD I would bet.

The guy had the ball firmly in both hands and then had enough control to transfer it to one hand where he STILL clearly had control until the ball, not his body, but the ball hit the ground. The ball was never juggled, hell it never even wobbled. He had in cemented in his hands.

It is entirely inconsistent with the fumble situation isn't it?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Here is the problem with the rule. It is entirely inconsistent with how fumbles are handled. In the case of a fumble, once the ball carrier has a part of his body other than the bottom of his feet or a hand touch the ground the play is over.

Yet when a receiver has a body part other than his feet or his hand touch the ground the play isn't over from a possession perspective?

Both are questions of possession and they should be handled in a similar way.

Cris Carter said the end zone is completely different than the playing field

since we dont see running backs fumble when there already in the end zone its the recievers job to know the rule, I thought its a screwy rule also but after hearing Carter talk about it I sided with the ref

Birdofthad wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Here is the problem with the rule. It is entirely inconsistent with how fumbles are handled. In the case of a fumble, once the ball carrier has a part of his body other than the bottom of his feet or a hand touch the ground the play is over.

Yet when a receiver has a body part other than his feet or his hand touch the ground the play isn't over from a possession perspective?

Both are questions of possession and they should be handled in a similar way.

Cris Carter said the end zone is completely different than the playing field

since we dont see running backs fumble when there already in the end zone its the recievers job to know the rule, I thought its a screwy rule also but after hearing Carter talk about it I sided with the ref

Yeah but there isn't a single good reason why that should be so. None.

My issue is NOT with the officials. They acted correctly. My issue is with the rule.

If that play happens midfield the refs make the same call, no catch. Hold the ball and that doesn't happen, especially in the end zone of all places. Jim Schwartz knows and understands this.

GDPofDRC wrote:

If that play happens midfield the refs make the same call, no catch. Hold the ball and that doesn't happen, especially in the end zone of all places. Jim Schwartz knows and understands this.

When the right call should obviously be fumble. Again the issue isn't the refs it is a horrible Rule.