Re: The Green Bay Packers
Posted: Sun January 11, 2015 9:03 pm
I disagree with that call but whatever. I thought once his elbow hit the ground he's down by contact and the ground can't cause a fumble?
Horrible call. He had both feet down after the catch and well before he hit the ground.Green Habit wrote:Calvin Johnson rule.Kaius wrote:What a catch.
I don't particularly like the rule myself but if you took away Megatron's TD that got the rule named after him you have to take that one away as well.surfndestroy wrote:Horrible call. He had both feet down after the catch and well before he hit the ground.Green Habit wrote:Calvin Johnson rule.Kaius wrote:What a catch.
Green Habit wrote:I don't particularly like the rule myself but if you took away Megatron's TD that got the rule named after him you have to take that one away as well.surfndestroy wrote:Horrible call. He had both feet down after the catch and well before he hit the ground.Green Habit wrote:Calvin Johnson rule.Kaius wrote:What a catch.
It's just a bad call. That exact same catch with him then landing out out of bounds would have been good. It would have been ruled two feet down with ball in possession while in bounds.Green Habit wrote:I don't particularly like the rule myself but if you took away Megatron's TD that got the rule named after him you have to take that one away as well.surfndestroy wrote:Horrible call. He had both feet down after the catch and well before he hit the ground.Green Habit wrote:Calvin Johnson rule.Kaius wrote:What a catch.
yepMonkey_Driven wrote:Right call according to the rule. Idiotic rule.
There's a difference between a bad call and a bad rule. I see this as a (very) bad rule called correctly. FWIW, here's Mike Pereira:A player that is going to the ground on his own, which Calvin was on that play, must possess and maintain the possession of the football through the entire act of the catch. The catch did not end in that scenario. When the ball hit the end zone, the ball moved. It rotated. So he didn’t maintain possession of the football.
The ball moved without control. If he would have maintained control of the football throughout the entire process, it’s a touchdown. But when the ball hit in the end zone, the ball moved. He did not have complete control of the football, which is why it's incomplete.
I think he did finish the process of the catch. If the rule is called the way they seemed to today, a player could make a catch run ten yards down the field and if he goes down on his own and fumbles the ball, it's not a fumble but no catch.Green Habit wrote:Guys, the Calvin Johnson rule doesn't have to do with a football move or two feet/one elbow down, it has to do with maintaining possession all the way to the ground.
http://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2013/09/ ... -not-alone
There's a difference between a bad call and a bad rule. I see this as a (very) bad rule called correctly.A player that is going to the ground on his own, which Calvin was on that play, must possess and maintain the possession of the football through the entire act of the catch. The catch did not end in that scenario. When the ball hit the end zone, the ball moved. It rotated. So he didn’t maintain possession of the football.
The ball moved without control. If he would have maintained control of the football throughout the entire process, it’s a touchdown. But when the ball hit in the end zone, the ball moved. He did not have complete control of the football, which is why it's incomplete.
Ha. Live by the bullshit call die by the bullshit call.Green Habit wrote: