Couldn’t Calvin Johnson’s non-touchdown-catch been ruled, in fact, a catch by virtue of his being tackled immediately while in possession of the ball in the endzone?
The ball didn’t come out until well after he was down. In any other circumstance I can think of a play is ruled a touchdown and the play is over immediately. So if the ball crosses the goal line while in an offensive players possession, it’s a touchdown and their can be no fumble- even if there is no tackle. If the player is going out of bounds but is able to get the ball across the goal line prior to touching down out of bounds, it is a touchdown.
Some may object on “football move” grounds, which is the standard for field-of-play catches. But I don’t see how this can apply in the endzone since there is no football move- the offensive player is in the endzone with the ball which is a touchdown. Period. And anyways, in this case, Johnson was tackled immediately after catching it- so even if this was the normal field-of-play, there was no opportunity for a football move. He was down by contact.
Seems like an arbitrary change from the standard end zone possession rule interpretations.
5 replies on “Football Question”
There are special rules specifically for endzone plays that differ from in-field plays. At the end of the day, Johnson got screwed and so did the Lions, it does not take a genius to determine that he clearly caught the ball in-bounds and had complete control of both his body and the ball.
Like I said- they appear to be arbitrary.
For instance, checkout this article where someone does a little rule book diving and comes up with some rules that contradict the ruling.
Ultimately, I don’t really care. Neither team is going to the Super Bowl and mistakes happen. The irony here is that the letter of the law produced a result counter to the purpose of the law- ie, you’re right- any bonehead it was a catch and they would have been correct, but nit-picky rule following dictated it couldn’t be a catch. At least the kids in the backyard get that one right…
Following the rule to the letter of the law, the resulting call was accurate. If the ball is to touch the ground, during the first act of making the catch, the player must maintain possession of the ball all the way to the ground. Once a second act is started, like the motion necessary to spike the ball, the player can let go of the ball as he has completed the first act of making the catch. As the rule is written now, there is no leeway for interpretation by the referees, and that is why this was ruled incomplete. It sucks, I don’t care for either team at all, but Detroit won the game and yet they start the season 0-1. That is not fair and it is not right and it will stand to ultimately change the rule after the season. This was exactly the situation that was not thought of when the rule was changed after first time it happened two years ago in the Oakland game with Lewis Murphy. Murphy caught the ball, landed and was tackled instantly, before really taking a step, and when he hit the ground in the endzone the ball moved. It was ruled a touchdown at the time, I think, and hence the competition committee ruled that it no longer should be down the line and they wrote the rule the way they did for endzone catches. Mainly because in the middle of the field, the ruling would have been clear, incomplete pass because the ball moved when he hit the ground. But in the endzone, he caught the ball across the plane and therefore the play was thought to be over; however, the rule now requires the player to complete the catch.
The problem with that website article is that it eliminates the priority of the rules in the rule book and it pulls them out to prove his point. The other rules all come in to pay if the first rule is completed to satisfaction, which, by definition, it did not in the case of Calvin Johnson. Therefore, the other rules no longer matter anymore.
At the end of the day, it is going to be changed and there will be some type of adjustment to allow it to no longer cause the issues that it has now. Unfortunately, Detroit will still not get credit for winning a game that they won in fantastic fashion. That is the problem that the solution will never properly solve.
Add http://www.profootballtalk.com to your blog list and keep an eye on it, it will give you a solid perspective of what is going on in and around the league and help you get an insider’s perspective. There is currently an article on there about the ruling and the fact that the head of officials does not want to make a change. However, the article gives the example that if the exact same thing would have happened to Calvin Johnson, but instead of catching the ball in the endzone, he caught it at the one yardline and then reached the ball over the goal line, it would have been ruled a touchdown. Consistency is the issue, not the rule, and the rule was created for the purpose of consistency, and now it is an even bigger issue!
As I said before- this was my point in stating the arbitrariness of the call. Anywhere else on the field that’s a catch because he was down by contact. Except here, in the endzone- where the rules are different.
I’ll bookmark the site.