Right, this ruling is in conflict with the "ball breaks the plane of the goalline" ruling we've heard for years. Think about this one: Saints/Dolphins, :01 second left in the first half. Drew Brees calls the QB sneak, but all he did was stick the ball out and break the plane of the goal. He didn't land in the end zone with the ball under control and then get "down'd" by a defender. Should that have been a touchdown? Not if Calvin's wasn't.
They changed the reception rule a couple of years with this maintaining control of the ball after hitting the ground. The ex head official was on a video feed with the announcers while they were doing a booth review and explained why it was not a catch according to the rules. This reception, or lack thereof, may be a catalyst to get the rule changed again. But according to this head ref, the pass was incomplete based on the way the rule reads. Now, I'd like to get rid of this rule and the tuck rule.
Yep. What's funny is, you look at a play like the Lance Moore 2 pt conversion in the Super Bowl, which was correctly called a catch and wonder how that could be but the Calvin Johnson one was not. Moore's catch looked a lot shakier than Johnson's, there is no disputing that. But Moore's catch uses a rule about crossing the plane of the endzone while Johnson's catch uses the rule about keeping control all the way through to the ground. Two totally different rules. Two totally different results. The rules committee should fix this travesty in the offseason. I just wish a little common sense could be used and discretion allowed by the officials reviewing it. The rule was meant to prevent balls that are jarred loose because of hitting the ground (still stupid, since the ground can't cause a fumble if someone is running with the ball and it tackled). But in this case, it is quite clear Johnson still had total control of the football even as he rests it on the ground. It's only after that point, does Johnson (unfortunately for him and his team) nonchalantly lets the ball go out of his hands. He never lost control of the ball on his own. That's where common sense must prevail.
I don't see how you can say that wasn't a catch, the catch was made, possession was evident, and he was trying to get up after the play was over, using the ball to push himself up. To me that was a catch, and it was obvious. The Lance Moore thing cannot be a touchdown if this isn't. With a running back, crossing the plane, or anyone running the ball into the endzone, they already have established possession, ball breaks the plane, ball is knocked loose, still touchdown. On a pass play, possession is transferred from quarterback to receiver, and to me, Calvin Johnson had just as much possesssion as Lance Moore had. Moore was actually even bobbling the ball. I don't know, just my opinion. Its sad that officials suck so bad that they had to make rules to keep them from blowing calls. If I am a defensive coordinator, I am telling my defensive players, to crush any receiver that catches the ball in the endzone, even after the play, because you never know, with this ridiculous rule, who knows you may win a game for your team like that.
the moore thing was ruled differently. moore made the catch, hit the ground, THEN reached out for goal line. by rule the "act of catching" was already done, and he was doing something else.
there was a game on opening week last year (may have been year before), Monday nighter if i remember right where something similar was called. Russell threw a TD (shocking, I know) to Louis Murphy (not positive on the receiver). Murphy caught it, went to the ground, in the process of rolling over to get up, he dropped the ball. Was very similar to this one. this rule has been used before. more than once. Personally, I think the rule is crap and need to be re-written or scrapped all together. But as long as the rule is in place, Calvin Johnson didn't score on that play.
absolutely correct call. I was sick i knew it when i saw it because it was painful. that rule has to be changed. for the sake of all that is football.
I think it was a horrible call. He had possession when he hit the ground. Johnson did not lose possession when he hit the ground but rather when he was trying to get up after the play. He had possession, both feet and buns on the ground, in the endzone. Again, he had possession of the ball across the plane of the goal line. That's a TD. Besides, Johnson is on my fantasy team and I got robbed about 8 or 9 points.
