PDA

View Full Version : Non TD for Lions



macdowa
09-12-2010, 05:38 PM
Can someone please explain why TD not given. Every year the officiating seems to get worse this was reviewed and still not given. I know it is harsh but do we need to sack some of the officiating teams to get them back to reality.

dol_fan_81
09-12-2010, 06:09 PM
Shame for the Lions =( they needed an early boost. I thought it was a TD when I saw it

Sirspud
09-12-2010, 06:49 PM
I saw it live and thought there was no way that it was a TD. The ball clearly came out of his hand as he went to the ground. The problem is that most every replay they've shown is slowed down. This highlights the time he had the ball while it doesn't really show that the ball coming out of his hand as he hit the ground was part of a single motion. He failed to hold the ball through that entire motion and it is almost obvious at real-life speed, almost un-noticeable at slow speed.

scubaman13
09-12-2010, 11:22 PM
But it wasn't really a diving catch. RB's dive for the pylon, and fumble the ball after it crosses the plane, and it's a TD. This rule was used incorrectly, as it applies for diving catches, especially with respect to diving out of bounds. Both hands, two feet down. That was the first motion, and it was complete. He then jumped backwards, away from the defender. This was a football move. He had possession, and both feet down with both hands on the ball.

Define when the "process" of catching the ball ends? Does he have to take it to the bench with him? The problem is that its a completely subjective rule, and needs to go away. The play was officially done when he had both hands on the ball, and both feet in bounds. He did not fall out of bounds; which is what started this "process" rule crap.

Dogbone34
09-12-2010, 11:42 PM
the lions have the worst luck in the nfl

normaldude
09-12-2010, 11:43 PM
It was clearly a catch.

Calvin Johnson had full possession, both feet down in the end zone, and the impact of the ground did not jar the ball loose.

He put the ball on the ground as he got up off the ground.

If the impact of the ground doesn't jar the ball loose, a catch should be awarded.

tylerdolphin
09-13-2010, 01:36 AM
He caught the ball, had possession, went down, slid a little, went to GET UP FROM THE GROUND and lost the ball in the process. If you need to do more than that to have something considered a catch then I just dont know what to say.

Clipse
09-13-2010, 05:43 AM
They got hosed, no doubt about.

vafins
09-13-2010, 09:57 AM
he was robbed its calvin johnson we are talking about he knows what hes doing he got that ball and won that game its a shame

nyjunc
09-13-2010, 11:09 AM
It was the correct call, that is the rule. The same thing happened against you guys in '02 on the Chmabers TD against us on that Sunday Night. You have to maintain complete possession after you hit the ground, if the ball moves an inch it's incomplete. It may not be the best rule but it is a rule and it was called correctly.

Clipse
09-13-2010, 01:17 PM
It was the correct call, that is the rule. The same thing happened against you guys in '02 on the Chmabers TD against us on that Sunday Night. You have to maintain complete possession after you hit the ground, if the ball moves an inch it's incomplete. It may not be the best rule but it is a rule and it was called correctly.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J0_WL06AAc

Look familiar? Lions got screwed, end of discussion.

WISfinfan13
09-13-2010, 01:21 PM
Lion's got hosed. And so did my fantasy team.

nyjunc
09-13-2010, 01:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J0_WL06AAc

Look familiar? Lions got screwed, end of discussion.

The correct call was made.

tylerdolphin
09-13-2010, 01:40 PM
The correct call was made.
I have to disagree with you here. Him putting his arm down to get back up is a second act. He caught the ball, clearly maintained possession even after hitting the ground. A knee and a elbow were already down before he reached his arm out to push himself up, which forced the ball out.

By the logic presented by the officials here, one could jump for a catch, come down and lay there for 30 minutes, then let the ball go and it would be incomplete, correct?

nyjunc
09-13-2010, 01:47 PM
I have to disagree with you here. Him putting his arm down to get back up is a second act. He caught the ball, clearly maintained possession even after hitting the ground. A knee and a elbow were already down before he reached his arm out to push himself up, which forced the ball out.

By the logic presented by the officials here, one could jump for a catch, come down and lay there for 30 minutes, then let the ball go and it would be incomplete, correct?

He never had the chance to hit the ground that's why it wasn't considered the second act. I think it should be a catch but by the rules it's not.

Uruguayfinfan
09-14-2010, 01:54 AM
It was the correct call, that is the rule. The same thing happened against you guys in '02 on the Chmabers TD against us on that Sunday Night. You have to maintain complete possession after you hit the ground, if the ball moves an inch it's incomplete. It may not be the best rule but it is a rule and it was called correctly.

Calvin hit the ground with both feet, then his knee, his full @ss and had full control of the bal!! Lions just got robbed there, and there's no doubt about it.
However if you see it at normal speed you may have the doubt yes, but at slow speed i think there's no doubt he had control.

nyjunc
09-14-2010, 08:24 AM
Calvin hit the ground with both feet, then his knee, his full @ss and had full control of the bal!! Lions just got robbed there, and there's no doubt about it.
However if you see it at normal speed you may have the doubt yes, but at slow speed i think there's no doubt he had control.

He has to complete the atch when he goes to the ground, when he went to the ground he used the ball to brace himself for some reason and it squirted free. I don't love the rule but it was the correct call.

emeraldfin
09-14-2010, 08:29 AM
According to the rule book, its the correct call. But something has to be done about because to any one watching that play will tell it was a catch. He maintained possession of the ball and his leg hit the ground while he still had possession of the ball. That should be the end of it right there for me

where's th'fish
09-14-2010, 01:32 PM
Can someone please explain why TD not given. Every year the officiating seems to get worse this was reviewed and still not given. I know it is harsh but do we need to sack some of the officiating teams to get them back to reality.

For once I agree with nyjunc.

Let me explain the rule as clearly and simply as I can: the WR has to hold on to the ball until the momentum of his fall ends.

Example: a guy catches a ball falls to the ground and rolls 8 times. If he loses the ball on the the 7th roll while he's trying to spring to his feet, it's not a catch.

In this case, CJ clearly tried to use the momentum from his fall to spring back up (a bit like a guy hitting the ground and somersaulting back up) and lost the ball in the process.

I loled at what Pereira had to say about it today:

"This is gonna happen 15 more time this year," Pereira said. "Maybe this play on top of the big play last year -- maybe this tips the scale." Though he expressed concern that it may be too difficult to improve a complicated rule, he recognized that "50 guys in a bar" would likely conclude the Johnson play should have been ruled a touchdown.