NFL  > General NFL  > "completing the process of a catch"
November 3, 2013, 03:53 PM
what is your opinion of this rule and new found emphasis on the "calvin johnson rule". Do you agree with the rule and the interpretation and enforcement of this rule? Do you think there is too much gray area? My opinion is that for years and years refs were able to use common sense to rule a pass complete or incomplete, i am watching the kc-buf game and marquise goodwin had a 40 yard catch ruled incomplete .
November 3, 2013  04:36 PM ET

I saw the non-catch on Red Zone and came in "cold" on it and felt it was NOT a catch; sorry. Super slow-mo HD really messes with our heads on what we see but at the end of the play it was on the ground. Take the Super-Bowl catch our of your minds eye a minute and then what do you see?

November 3, 2013  04:45 PM ET

Which Calvin Johnson catch...

The one against Minnesota earlier this year.
Or the one against Chicago in 2010.

He was robbed both times; both plays were touchdowns, IMO.

November 3, 2013  04:49 PM ET

The overruling vs Minnesota earlier this year was probably the worst of the two.

Because Calvin Johnson caught the ball with both hands, brought it into his body (showing control and possession of the football), and got both feet on the ground inside the field of play... then he stretched out his arms with the football and broke the "plain".

Once you break the 'plain' it's touchdown, play is over. Doesn't matter what happens after that.

Otherwise it's completely inconsistent with all the runners who lose control of the football as they stretch into the end zone. They'd be fumbles anywhere else on the field, but not at the end zone; the ball crosses the plain, touchdown, play over.

November 3, 2013  04:54 PM ET

Both those calls should've been touchdowns, in my opinion. Sucks that the NFL is so full of their legislation that they'd prefer to 'interpret' the plays instead of letting common sense rule the day.

Any fool could see those plays were touchdowns. Nobody should have overruled common sense.

November 3, 2013  04:55 PM ET

Marquise Goodwin's catch should've been a catch, too. Dude had it firmly grasped in one hand. Again, any fool could see it was a touchdown.

November 3, 2013  04:56 PM ET

catch*, not touchdown

November 3, 2013  04:58 PM ET
QUOTE(#3):

Once you break the 'plain' it's touchdown, play is over. Doesn't matter what happens after that.

Exactly. Should've been an easy ruling. I felt like the refs butchered the call by adding in nonsense about maintaining possession and all that.

IMO the ball crossed the plane in Johnson's possession and that's all you need to know. It was a touchdown.

 
November 3, 2013  08:12 PM ET

yeah once a player secures the ball and establishes himself inbounds and then the ball crosses the plane of the goaline, it's a TD, like someone else said, if it was a RB stretching the ball across and then after he broke the plane had the ball knocked free it would have still been a TD, too much inconstitency with the rules and not enough common sense

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Clippers, Warriors exchange barbs
    Views
    490
    Comments
    241
  2. 2
    Tuukka Rask takes blame for Bruins' Game 1 loss
    Views
    2487
    Comments
    231
  3. 3
    Smush Parker allegedly punches high schooler
    Views
    2104
    Comments
    140
  4. 4
    Time to penalize NHL's perennial losers?
    Views
    388
    Comments
    130
  5. 5
    Quarterback freefalling down draft boards
    Views
    7210
    Comments
    90

SI.com

SI Photos