Calvin Johnson and the Lions were ROBBED

[King69]

see you've still got the rule wrong

ANYTIME a reveiver goes to the ground he must maintain possession throughout the "act" of catching the ball (not just the endzone)

argue away that it's a dumb rule.......but the lions didnt get hosed, they didnt get screwed, the refs didnt make a terrible call, the replay review by the ref wanst terrible........as per the rule, he didnt maintain possession throughout his hitting of the ground and subesequent roll.....end of story.

as for the ref that was right there....he did signal td....the backjudge came in and ruled inc as the ball popped out of johnsons hand on the roll....so the ruling on the field was inc, the replay confirmed......if the ruling on the field was td, it would have been over-turned as the replay was clear he didnt maintain possessions.

these types of calls happen ALL the time...usually just not on the game winning catch.....time to move on.

I have now seen in 25x. He caught. He landed on his ass. Ass down ball in his control. TD. Period. The rule is bullshit and the call in no way shape or form should have ever been overturned. He didnt land on ass and the ball came loose. Done with this topic.

 

[smurphy]

It may have been technically an accurate call, but the rule is obviously crap in a case like this. The TV announcer said it best - "That's a touchdown catch if I ever saw one."

 

[gjn23]

I have now seen in 25x. He caught. He landed on his ass. Ass down ball in his control. TD. Period. The rule is bullshit and the call in no way shape or form should have ever been overturned. He didnt land on ass and the ball came loose. Done with this topic.

the call wasnt overturned...the ruling on the field was upheld...incomplete.

landing on his ass isnt the end of his catch....he continued and rolled over and subsequently lost the ball.

its a stupid rule, but that's the rule......as someone who knew this rule, i thought it was a no brainer.

it looked and felt like a catch......but according to the rules, its wasnt.......change the rule instead of bitching about how det got screwed and/or how the call wasnt correct (it was)

 

[LonghornMM]

Its a stupid rule that needs to be changed. One foot down, second foot down, butt down, left hand down. What else did he need to do, have lunch in the end zone for an hour? The Lions gots screwed. That was a touchdown. PERIOD!

The Lions should be 1-0 and the Bears should be 0-1.

 

[LordofBalls]

Following the game, referee Gene Steratore explained the call of incomplete.

"The ruling is that in order for the catch to be completed he has got to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch," Steratore explained. "He's catching the football, as he goes to the ground, he must maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process. So, as he continues to fall, if he fell with two feet and his elbow hit the ground and came out it would be incomplete.

"The process was not finished until he finished that roll and the entire process of that catch."

If that's how they interpret it, then they need a rule change...
stupid rules get changed and improved all the time, and this certainly needs addressing as it cost the Lions the victory.

It was obvious he had complete control of the ball in both hands, landed, and switched to one hand, put the hand w/ball on ground and it came loose after maybe a full second of possession w/ball in the end zone...

running backs often barely break the plane of the goal line then have the ball knocked loose (or even drop it) and on review it's called a touchdown...

receivers along the sideline dive and stretch their arm w/ball inside the pilon, land and drop the ball and that's a touchdown too...

I think most people that will weigh his catch and landing and compare it to those other 'iffy' situations would agree that his catch should be a touchdown too...

just my 2 cents... GL tonite~

LoB
:SIB

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

The Lions should be 1-0 and the Bears should be 0-1.

Agreed. . . .










. . . . . if you ignore the rules

 

[gjn23]

Agreed. . . .










. . . . . if you ignore the rules

agreed; and al gore should have been president and dustin johnson should have won the pga......



.......if you ingore the rules

 

[LonghornMM]

What makes no sense is the you can barely penetrate the goal line with the ball and its a TD, and then according to the "rules" you have to hold the ball for a month in the end zone after a catch. It makes no sense. This is the worst so called rule I've seen in the NFL. The tuck rule runs a close second though.

Lions 1-0; Bears 0-1

 

[Emersonboozer]

The NFL has all kinds of ticky tack worded rules in thier arsenal just for situations like this so that the refs can decide the winner of a game. This is not the first time theyve played with words to decide a game and its not the last. It is what it is. Crooked

 

[gk51]

Detroit got hosed that is all there is too it. What if the player instead of releasing the ball (after he had both feet down and total control which did happen) would have fllipped it to the ref standing near by, would they still say no TD. One ref closest too ball signaled TD until the other came over and said do see all these idiot fans here, we have to say incomplete and let them send it upstairs so we can get out of here alive.

One thing I did process: THE BEARS STILL SUCK.

 

[grandpa]

I am the world's worst ( or unluckiest ) Survivor Pool player.

I had Chicago. Maybe it is all changing.

 

[King69]

I am the world's worst ( or unluckiest ) Survivor Pool player.

I had Chicago. Maybe it is all changing.

:toast:
:0008

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

When I first saw the play, I thought Detroit got screwed, too. But that's because I didn't know about the rule. After reading up on the rule, the referees implemented it correctly. I don't agree with the rule and think it needs to be changed, but the referees were simply applying the rule as it exists, which is their JOB.

Personally, I'd rather see the refs call the game based on the rules in the rulebook, no matter how flawed those rules might be. I think we'd be in a word of hurt if we had refs making decisions based on whether or not they agree with certain rules. I can only imagine how much complaining there would be then.