The single worst call I have ever seen.

[Paulie]

No. Its not a bobble. Its because he has to keep holding onto the ball as the ball hits the ground. If the ball and been in his hand when he stood up, then its a TD. Because it leaves his hand as it hits the ground, its an incomplete pass. That's the rule, apparently.

I was watching the game when it happened. The commentators said afterwards that it was an incomplete pass.

Frankly, I think it's a inconsistent when that is not a TD but when the ball carrier is running the ball into the end zone, all it has to do is break the plane of the goal line and the play is over, even if he fumbles it a moment later. I think the argument for the incomplete pass is that he never had possession.

That is the way I understand the rule. I don't agree with it, but that is consistent with how it has been interpreted the last two seasons.
There is a continuation of the play as you hit the ground. The old, "ground can't cause a fumble" does not apply. You have to control the ball through the entire process, not just a part of it.

Here's the rule on possession:

"Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds."

And here's the rule on a touchdown:

Touchdown: When any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, breaks the plane of the opponent's goal line, provided it is not a touchback.

Both of those were satisfied in the Johnson play.

And then you factor in this part of the rule:

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

So that part of the rule is saying that the ball CAN touch the ground, but the player must have had control of it prior to doing so.

I don't see any time during that catch where Johnson didn't have complete control of the ball, from the time he caught it until the time his ass hit the ground. It was only after catching it, having both feet down in bounds, and his ass hitting the ground, that the ball finally touched the ground.

 

[Paulie]

Nevermind, I just watched the play. I spoke too soon.

He had possession and control all the way through.

No the convoluted rule is that until you are completely down you must have the ball. He used the ball to break his fall and it squirted out. It is a bad rule but the Refs followed the rule.

If his ass hadn't touched the ground before that, I would agree with you.

But both feet were down, ball was controlled, and his ass touched the ground. All before the ball ever made contact with the ground. The play is dead at that point.

Now, had he been juggling the ball, or had the ball maybe wobbled a bit and never really been secured in his hand, I'd also agree with you. Because then he wouldn't have established possession.

 

[Sheldon]

This is probably the worst call I've seen in recent memory. Perfect game on the line, that's the one call an ump CANNOT fuck up.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS_8BbJ8eZ0]YouTube - Armando Galarraga's Perfect Game Ruined!!![/ame]

 

[Paulie]

This is probably the worst call I've seen in recent memory. Perfect game on the line, that's the one call an ump CANNOT fuck up.


YouTube - Armando Galarraga's Perfect Game Ruined!!!

Yeah but it's easy to judge that on hindsight.

The ump didn't have the benefit of reviewing the play.

In reality, that was a bang-bang play and in the heat of the moment it's reasonable to expect a human to occasionally make an error.

My only contention is that on a bang-bang play like that, it could literally go either way in the ump's mind, and he should have just erred on the side of the perfect game.

 

[rightwinger]

Quote:
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
So that part of the rule is saying that the ball CAN touch the ground, but the player must have had control of it prior to doing so.

I don't see any time during that catch where Johnson didn't have complete control of the ball, from the time he caught it until the time his ass hit the ground. It was only after catching it, having both feet down in bounds, and his ass hitting the ground, that the ball finally touched the ground.

That is where the continuation comes into play. He must control the ball even after he has established two feet in bounds. It is the complete act of the pass reception you must control the ball.

The ground cannot cause a fumble....but it can cause an incompletion

 

[Paulie]

Quote:
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
So that part of the rule is saying that the ball CAN touch the ground, but the player must have had control of it prior to doing so.

I don't see any time during that catch where Johnson didn't have complete control of the ball, from the time he caught it until the time his ass hit the ground. It was only after catching it, having both feet down in bounds, and his ass hitting the ground, that the ball finally touched the ground.

That is where the continuation comes into play. He must control the ball even after he has established two feet in bounds. It is the complete act of the pass reception you must control the ball.

The ground cannot cause a fumble....but it can cause an incompletion

So you're just going to ignore the part about regaining control prior to the ball touching the ground?

The rule is obviously stating that the ball CAN touch the ground as long as there is control, which Johnson clearly had all the way through the reception and the fall.

 

[rightwinger]

Quote:
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
So that part of the rule is saying that the ball CAN touch the ground, but the player must have had control of it prior to doing so.

I don't see any time during that catch where Johnson didn't have complete control of the ball, from the time he caught it until the time his ass hit the ground. It was only after catching it, having both feet down in bounds, and his ass hitting the ground, that the ball finally touched the ground.

That is where the continuation comes into play. He must control the ball even after he has established two feet in bounds. It is the complete act of the pass reception you must control the ball.

The ground cannot cause a fumble....but it can cause an incompletion

So you're just going to ignore the part about regaining control prior to the ball touching the ground?

The rule is obviously stating that the ball CAN touch the ground as long as there is control, which Johnson clearly had all the way through the reception and the fall.

I hate the rule. I think the instant you have control of the ball and your second foot touches it should be a touchdown. But, I have seen similar interpretations of a catch over the last two years

 

[saveliberty]

I live in Michigan. It is just a game for a team that will have no place in a division playoff. It mayt mater for another team though. Lose the rule.

 

[Paulie]

That is where the continuation comes into play. He must control the ball even after he has established two feet in bounds. It is the complete act of the pass reception you must control the ball.

The ground cannot cause a fumble....but it can cause an incompletion

So you're just going to ignore the part about regaining control prior to the ball touching the ground?

The rule is obviously stating that the ball CAN touch the ground as long as there is control, which Johnson clearly had all the way through the reception and the fall.

I hate the rule. I think the instant you have control of the ball and your second foot touches it should be a touchdown. But, I have seen similar interpretations of a catch over the last two years

I don't agree, because with a catch you should be able to maintain control all the way through the play. If your motion while catching the ball is bringing you to a fall, you should maintain that control until you've officially been downed, which would be any part of the body, besides the hands, touching the ground.

It shouldn't really be equated to a runner bringing the ball into the end zone, because if he's carrying it in during a run, he's already got control and possession established.

I'm not sure about a runner being able to just jump over the pilon and extend the ball across the line with his hands though. I don't understand why that gets to be a touchdown. If he's going out of bounds during such a play, then he shouldn't be awarded a TD. It's no different than bailing out of bounds anywhere else on the field. The body should always be considered in-bounds on a TD play, in any situation.

 

[saveliberty]

Looked like his knee was down. It is getting ridiculous. A quarterback is down under these circumstances and a pass receiver is down under different rules. The ground can't cause a fumble under one play, but apparently can on a pass into the end zone.

 

[Mini 14]

It was clearly a catch and a touchdown. Detroit should have won the game.

And the runner was clearly out at first. Galaraga's robbery of a perfect game is EASILY the worst call ever.

 

[topspin]

it was in no way a catch

 

[Charles_Main]

Their basic Idea is because he fell to the ground he must have control the whole time. they way I see it. He caught it, controlled it, Bobbled for a second. Then had control when he hit the ground. It clearly looked to me like he DELIBERATELY let it go once he hit the ground. to jump up and celebrate. So they may have followed the rule, but it was still pretty stupid.

Whats next, Receiver stays on his feet and scores, Spikes the ball, then trips and they take his TD away?

lol

If he had done the same thing, Only fell out of bounds. It would have been a TD as he had his feet down in side the end zone.

I am betting this rule will be reviewed.

 

[rightwinger]

Their basic Idea is because he fell to the ground he must have control the whole time. they way I see it. He caught it, controlled it, Bobbled for a second. Then had control when he hit the ground. It clearly looked to me like he DELIBERATELY let it go once he hit the ground. to jump up and celebrate. So they may have followed the rule, but it was still pretty stupid.

Whats next, Receiver stays on his feet and scores, Spikes the ball, then trips and they take his TD away?

lol

If he had done the same thing, Only fell out of bounds. It would have been a TD as he had his feet down in side the end zone.

I am betting this rule will be reviewed.

The rule is dumb but was applied correctly. When he slammed the ball down, he lost control.
A runner only needs to break the plane and not control the ball in the end zone. Once a receiver has control of the ball and two feet down, it should be a TD

 

[Charles_Main]

Their basic Idea is because he fell to the ground he must have control the whole time. they way I see it. He caught it, controlled it, Bobbled for a second. Then had control when he hit the ground. It clearly looked to me like he DELIBERATELY let it go once he hit the ground. to jump up and celebrate. So they may have followed the rule, but it was still pretty stupid.

Whats next, Receiver stays on his feet and scores, Spikes the ball, then trips and they take his TD away?

lol

If he had done the same thing, Only fell out of bounds. It would have been a TD as he had his feet down in side the end zone.

I am betting this rule will be reviewed.

The rule is dumb but was applied correctly. When he slammed the ball down, he lost control.
A runner only needs to break the plane and not control the ball in the end zone. Once a receiver has control of the ball and two feet down, it should be a TD

Clearly that is what they said happened. But if you look at his face as he slams the ball down. It looks to me like he deliberately let go of it. he thought it was over.

But them I am clearly biased so my opinion is prolly not the best one. hehe

 

[Mini 14]

It was a TD. That has always been a TD. Terrible call.

And if its a rule change, then stop calling the game "football" because in football, that's a TD.

 

[topspin]

not even close to a td, all passes must be completed with control of the ball all the way through the landing.

 

[Charles_Main]

not even close to a td, all passes must be completed with control of the ball all the way through the landing.

As you say Though the landing. Must of us agree unlike you, that he had landed.

 

[Toome]

Have to wonder how this rule plays "technically" whenever a player spikes the ball as soon as he breaks the plane of the end zone. Or, before OJ Simpson was slicing people, he used to drop the ball as soon as he got into the end zone. It was one of the things I admired about him: no flashy dances or silly little spikes. He'd just cruise into the end zone and without fanfare just drop the ball to the ground.

I think this is one of those situations where defenders of the rule will find ways to rationalize that the rule was right, and those who disagree with the rule will find ways to rationalize that the rule was wrong.

I think it should have been a touchdown.

 

[saveliberty]

The single worst call I have seen was the Tiger's game that should have been a no-hitter this year, save a first base umpire calling the runner safe. Detroit is just cursed this year.