The Calvin Johnson Rule Does Not Apply

[percyhoward]

Looked to me like he was falling while running.

He wasn't falling until he was tripped.

 

[TimHortons]

You like to ignore the 'process of the catch' for whatever reason.

The process of the catch was completed. He could advance the ball and he tried to after he caught the ball. He didn't maintain control of the ball *when he was trying to advance the ball.* But, the ground can't cause a fumble.





YR

People who argue against it being a catch don't seem to understand that the catch was already completed before the ball hit the ground. In the CJ play, he was still in the process of completing the catch when the ball hit the ground.

 

[MikMak]

You can't say 'well, the league is favored towards offense so we'll give him this call.'

I'm *not* disagreeing with the rule. I'm saying the rule doesn't apply here.

Stetatore even said that he was looking for a move common to a football act, but didn't see it.

I have no problem with a rule that says that if a player doesn't make a football move and they go to the ground and the ball comes out...it's incomplete.

But Dez made a football move and then the ball came out. Stetatore just ignored that it was a football move.

If you want to curb the advantages offenses have due to the rules, re-enforce the intentional grounding and 'in the grasp' penalties. Re-enforce illegal blocking on pick plays.




YR

I gotcha but to me it didn't look like he was in control. Looked like he was stumbling when he caught it. He wasn't tackled, he fell because he wasn't in control of his body. If he was in control he'd have simply run it into the end zone.

 

[wick]

Wrong. The rule is the same whether in the end zone or out of the end zone -- it states that explicitly.

A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting 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, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.

The entire issue is whether Dez was going to the ground in the process of making the catch.

That and whether the ball actually hits the ground. Is there conclusive evidence that the ball contacted the ground and that it was not secondary contact with Dez' forearm that caused the ball to pop into the air?

 

[percyhoward]

It didn't look like he was in control. Looked like he was stumbling when he caught it. He wasn't tackled, he fell because he wasn't in control of his body. If he was in control he'd have simply run it into the end zone.

He was in more than enough control to get from the 4-yard line into the end zone if he hadn't been tripped.

Shields trips Bryant

But what you're describing is also what the replay official saw. Or didn't see.

 

[davey999]

Blandino is on NFL network saying the rule was applied correctly.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I gotcha but to me it didn't look like he was in control. Looked like he was stumbling when he caught it. He wasn't tackled, he fell because he wasn't in control of his body. If he was in control he'd have simply run it into the end zone.

I think it is pretty clear. He was falling and stepping. He controlled the ball and as he was trying to keep his balance, he did the following:

1. His body went from flexion to extension (biomechanical terms)

2. He extended his left arm forward with the ball cupped around his hand/wrist

3. He made a lunging motion towards the end zone.

He obviously was falling towards the ground, but he tried to balance himself and then made that move which is an act 'common to football'

For example, Irvin's catch against the Bills in our first Super Bowl against them. He catches the ball and he's going down, but he spins around and lunges towards the end zone before he falls to the ground. By the logic the league is trying to use, it would have been ruled an incomplete pass if the ball had come loose when it hit the ground.





YR

 

[MikMak]

I think it is pretty clear. He was falling and stepping. He controlled the ball and as he was trying to keep his balance, he did the following:

1. His body went from flexion to extension (biomechanical terms)

2. He extended his left arm forward with the ball cupped around his hand/wrist

3. He made a lunging motion towards the end zone.

He obviously was falling towards the ground, but he tried to balance himself and then made that move which is an act 'common to football'

For example, Irvin's catch against the Bills in our first Super Bowl against them. He catches the ball and he's going down, but he spins around and lunges towards the end zone before he falls to the ground. By the logic the league is trying to use, it would have been ruled an incomplete pass if the ball had come loose when it hit the ground.





YR

This rule didn't apply when Irvin was playing. When Dez caught the ball at no point was he not stumbling.

 

[percyhoward]

I think it is pretty clear. He was falling and stepping. He controlled the ball and as he was trying to keep his balance, he did the following:

1. His body went from flexion to extension (biomechanical terms)

2. He extended his left arm forward with the ball cupped around his hand/wrist

3. He made a lunging motion towards the end zone.

He obviously was falling towards the ground, but he tried to balance himself and then made that move which is an act 'common to football'

He was also obviously tripped by the defender, which is why he didn't score. Great angle of it in this video.

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2015...ed-is-the-play-in-cowboys-26-21#comment_tease

Note how his right leg takes a full stride, then his next stride is abruptly halted and he goes down immediately.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Blandino is on NFL network saying the rule was applied correctly.

I know.

But nobody is challenging him on it the way I have challenged it.

Stetatore says it with his own exact words...he was looking for a football move. Why? Because if there is a football move that means the pass has been caught and it cannot be deemed incomplete. You can only fumble the ball from that point on.

What Blandino needs to answer is:

1. How is the rule correctly applied when Gene Stetatore says that he was looking for a football move?

2. Do you believe that a player going from flexion to extension in their body, extending the left arm with the ball cupped around their hand/wrist and making a lunging motion is 'not a move common to a football act?'

3. If so on #2, can you explain what the difference in terms to these 'football moves' and Dez's move?

There's nothing we can do about the call, but it's always best for the league to man up and say 'we made a mistake and we'll focus on not making the same mistake, again' rather than having a closed mind.

At best, the NFL is getting people saying 'it's a bad rule' (I don't think it is) and if you explain that the incorrect ruling was used and Dez made a football move, that prevents the league from erroneously having to change it thru the rules committee and all of that process.




YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

This rule didn't apply when Irvin was playing. When Dez caught the ball at no point was he not stumbling.

I'm not saying that it did apply to Irvin.

I'm just saying that by the same logic that if we were to use it on the Irvin play (hypothetically) then it would have not been a catch. And everybody would *know* that is ridiculous because falling down/stumbling doesn't negate somebody making a football move (as shown in the Irvin play where nobody would ever bother to not call that a catch as he was falling down, but was able to turn around and leap towards the end zone).




YR

 

[MikMak]

He was also obviously tripped by the defender, which is why he didn't score. Great angle of it in this video.

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2015...ed-is-the-play-in-cowboys-26-21#comment_tease

Note how his right leg takes a full stride, then his next stride is abruptly halted and he goes down immediately.

Looks like he was falling even if there was no defender there and even if he was tripped it wouldn't matter. The rule says he has to maintain control while he's catching it, getting tackled or feet tangled would mean he would have had to have shown
clear possession before that happened which clearly wasn't the case.

 

[percyhoward]

Looks like he was falling even if there was no defender there and even if he was tripped it wouldn't matter. The rule says he has to maintain control while he's catching it, getting tackled or feet tangled would mean he would have had to have shown
clear possession before that happened which clearly wasn't the case.

It was clear to the nearest official on the field. That rule you're talking about only applies if the process of the catch hasn't been completed. The field judge ruled Dez made a catch, was tackled, and down by contact. He didn't give the "catch" signal, he just spotted the ball.

The review official ruled Dez was falling down in the process of making a catch.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The only reason we are even discussing the rule is because Dez stretched the ball out intentionally to try and reach the goal line. He wouldn't have bobbled it if not for the lunge and extension of the ball. But somehow that's not enough of a football move. Amazing logic.

 

[AdamJT13]

Blandino is on NFL network saying the rule was applied correctly.

Did they ask him about the Cobb "catch" that clearly bounced off the ground and was upheld on review?

 

[plymkr]

Why would they ask about the Cobb non-catch, that doesn't fit their agenda. Just like throwing the flag for late hits on Romo and hits to the lower legs on Romo.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Here's why...

The CJ Rule is really about the receiver being in end zone when they catch the ball.

The reason is basically twofold:

1. A lot of catches in the end zone are ones where the receiver catches the ball and falls to the ground in some fashion.

2. When you catch the ball in the end zone, you cannot physically try and advance the ball to the end zone.

Rules are often based on intent and logic.

#2 is very important to understand why the CJ rule does not apply.

If the receiver is in the end zone, then *logically* they have no reason to try and turn themselves into a runner nor try to advance the ball to the end zone. Essentially, if they complete the catch it's a TD. Unlike if you catch a pass at the 5-yard line where you need to catch the ball and then try and advance the ball towards the end zone.

The rule states the pass must be completed 'throughout the process of the catch.'

So if the receiver is in the end zone and falls to the ground, that is the entire process of the catch. You are not going to see a receiver in the end zone catch the ball and either start running or reaching out with their arm because they don't need to advance the ball. It's already a score.

When the receiver is *not* in the end zone, the 'process of the catch' is different. Using logic, the process of the catch with the receiver *not* in the end zone should be when the receiver has control of the ball and then the receiver has the right to try and advance the ball. Otherwise, we could argue that WR's could not fumble the ball after a reception because they did not control the ball thru the process of the catch.

Since Dez extended his arm (and the ball was not coming loose as he extended his arm), the process of the catch had been completed and now he was turning himself from a receiver to a player trying to advance the ball. In the CJ case, the receiver would have no logical reason to extend their arm because they are already in the end zone.

I'm sure we all know this and understand this...I just think that the people pointing to the rule book are being a bit obtuse about how to read the rules and don't see how their interpretation contradicts the rules and don't understand the original intent of the rule.





YR

Been stating this fact that this has nothing to do with the CJ rule. He already maintained possession and has taken almost 4 steps. The truth is that if he didn't maintain possession how can he extend the ball to the endzone? Thus the ruling on the field should have stayed as a catch. Shame of the NFL for blowing this call big time.

 

[plymkr]

I love Pereira and Blandino saying Dez didn't lunge enough to consider it a football move. I feel like I'm in a Seinfeld episode. He either lunged or didn't. And he did.

This is like when your daughter comes home and says she's a little pregnant. Well there's no degrees of pregnancy. Either you are pregnant or your not. Well there's no degrees of lunging. Either it's a lunge or not. If it's a lunge then it's a football more, or a move consistent with football. Cuz last time I checked football players tend to lunge. So I hope Pereira and Blandino's daughters announce they are a little pregnant. Then maybe Stetatore can watch an instant replay to see if she's a little pregnant or a lot of pregnant or not pregnant enough to be a problem.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Who in their right mind would switch the ball to their opposite hand if they didn't have control?

This.

 

[ohiocowboysfan25]

If Dez had enough control to switch the ball into his other hand then he had possession of the ball in the first place. If he was fumbling the ball around I could see the leagues point but he cleanly switched the ball into the other hand. So to me he had possession and it was a catch and ball at the 1 yard line.