The Calvin Johnson Rule Does Not Apply

[DogFace]

Dean Blandino knows better.

 

[loublue22]

No. I keep seeing this posted regarding the DB. Dez did not lose control due to the DB contact. At best, all the DB does is weaken his grasp on the ball to a less effective one only because it moves the ball away from his right hand. The thumb and other fingers don't move; it is palmed by his left hand from the top until he brings it down to get the 2nd hand involved to establish a more effective grip. That initial grip or control of the ball is not eliminated. It's also not the first time I've seen Dez palm a ball and not be given the benefit of the doubt regarding control.

Keep note of how that hand moves with the ball through the DB contact. What is assumed to be a bobble from another angle is not one, it's just a palmed ball with forces applied to it as expected.

great post, all that happens is his right hand comes off the ball, it stays firmly in his left for 0.2 seconds until his other hand rejoins the party

 

[TwoDeep3]

No. I keep seeing this posted regarding the DB. Dez did not lose control due to the DB contact. At best, all the DB does is weaken his grasp on the ball to a less effective one only because it moves the ball away from his right hand. The thumb and other fingers don't move; it is palmed by his left hand from the top until he brings it down to get the 2nd hand involved to establish a more effective grip. That initial grip or control of the ball is not eliminated. It's also not the first time I've seen Dez palm a ball and not be given the benefit of the doubt regarding control.

Keep note of how that hand moves with the ball through the DB contact. What is assumed to be a bobble from another angle is not one, it's just a palmed ball with forces applied to it as expected.

It's done. I don't agree with you. I believe they saw what I see here.

The DB with his hand on the underside of the ball.
Dez losing control and trapping the ball against his forearm.
Securing the ball, but at this point it now is required to hold control.
Dez going to the ground - not in this video.

Evidently they thought Dez was out of control and falling as all in one move. The steps not factoring in at this point.

And once he hit the ground he lost control of the ball.

That is the only explanation.

So we can all view the video and these shots, but it is done.

And now so am I. You guys can argue this until next August.

 

[Nightman]

How leaping 3 feet straight up into the air to out jump the DB turns into going to the ground to complete the catch is what bugs me

If the DB isn't there and doesn't trip Dez as he comes down. Dez waltzes into the end zone. It wasn't some kind of diving catch.

 

[Kevinicus]

This says it all

Actually it doesn't. I believe the exact wording of the rule is that the receiver must possess the ball "long enough to make a move common to the game." Therefore, he doesn't even actually have to make a move, he just has to have possession long enough to do so. Otherwise a player could catch the ball, and just stand there for 5 seconds before he is hit, and if he loses possession from the hit, or going to the ground it would be incomplete. Obviously, Dez's possessed the ball plenty long enough.

I really think the NFL has confused themselves and they don't even know their rules, or the spirit of them.

 

[cowboyfan4lyfe]

Yup. We could probably go thru hundreds of examples on throughout the league this year alone.

I think the problem is that the media just wants to say 'I hate this rule, but they went by the letter of the rule.'

The problem is *not* the rule.

The problem is the refs didn't exercise the rule correctly.

It just sounds great to say 'the rule sucks, but they followed the rule.'




YR[/quo

Wasn't the refs on the field it was the NFL office

 

[Cowboy Brian]

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

Who's in for a Whitehouse Petition?

 

[BAT]

The ref standing 2 feet away and sees it all live and immediately calls it a catch including the lunge towards enzone as Dez hits the ground, no hesitation. Onus was on the the replay refs to show irrefutable evidence that there was no football move. "Not enough of a football move" because Dez did not use 2 hands or stretch out further is not irrefutable, it's subjective. The on-field reversal was bogus.

 

[richzre]

The point at which it became a "football move" was when Dez dug his left foot in the ground (you can see the dirt flying up) and dove for the end zone. That alone should have been considered in the review. Couple that with the fact it wasn't completely clear from all angles that the ball didn't hit the ground, the officials should have ruled "Not enough conclusive evidence" to overturn the call on the field.

 

[III]

Easy call. Clearly falling down. Not tripping by Packer DB in any form. He did not stay up because he could not. Else he would have.

He was stumbling off balance. Then the ground jars the ball loose and the writing is on the wall.

All Dez had to do was secure the ball with both hands and land on his hip like a lot of other guys did this weekend.

Instead, he stuck out one hand to break his fall. That same move cost him last year against the Giants when a finger on his off hand touched OB before his butt hit.

Unlike the PI flag that was picked up a week ago, it seems every expert agrees on this one.

Q: If it was not a football move what was it?

A: A falling move.

Many on this board saw it correctly and admit it. They are as classy as your coach.

Dez didn't control the ball upon imminent impact with the ground that was unavoidably part of his attempt to make a catch.

Bummer.

 

[percyhoward]

Easy call.

Easy call. Ridiculously convoluted reversal of the call.

 

[III]

Easy call. Ridiculously convoluted reversal of the call.

Nice selective quoting of Blandino in your signature - the part of his quote which does not address THIS play and contains an enormous "IF THAT'S THE CASE."

On THIS play he said this:

Dean Blandino ✔ @DeanBlandino
Follow
Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete.

4:21 PM - 11 Jan 2015

Easy call. Clearly falling down. Not tripping by Packer DB in any form. He did not stay up because he could not. Else he would have.

He was stumbling off balance. Then the ground jars the ball loose and the writing is on the wall.

All Dez had to do was secure the ball with both hands and land on his hip like a lot of other guys did this weekend.

 

[Kevinicus]

I sense a troll.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Easy call. Clearly falling down. Not tripping by Packer DB in any form. He did not stay up because he could not. Else he would have.

He was stumbling off balance. Then the ground jars the ball loose and the writing is on the wall.

All Dez had to do was secure the ball with both hands and land on his hip like a lot of other guys did this weekend.

Instead, he stuck out one hand to break his fall. That same move cost him last year against the Giants when a finger on his off hand touched OB before his butt hit.

Unlike the PI flag that was picked up a week ago, it seems every expert agrees on this one.

Q: If it was not a football move what was it?

A: A falling move.

Many on this board saw it correctly and admit it. They are as classy as your coach.

Dez didn't control the ball upon imminent impact with the ground that was unavoidably part of his attempt to make a catch.

Bummer.

I'll just nip it in the bud.

Rule 8.1.3 states precedes the Calvin Johnson rule

It rules that once the player 'make and act common to the game' it is considered a completion.

This 'act common to the game' includes any time the player makes an act to advance the ball.

Yes, Dez did fall to the ground. But, before he fell to the ground he extended his body towards the goal line, lunged his body towards the goal line and extended his left arm towards the goal line.

His act did indeed 'advance the ball.'

Therefore, it is 'an act common to the game' and therefore is a completion






YR

 

[III]

I'll just nip it in the bud.

Rule 8.1.3 states precedes the Calvin Johnson rule

It rules that once the player 'make and act common to the game' it is considered a completion.

This 'act common to the game' includes any time the player makes an act to advance the ball.

Yes, Dez did fall to the ground. But, before he fell to the ground he extended his body towards the goal line, lunged his body towards the goal line and extended his left arm towards the goal line.

His act did indeed 'advance the ball.'

Therefore, it is 'an act common to the game' and therefore is a completion






YR

He had to stop stumbling first. His act was the desperate and ill advised act of a stumbler who forgot that securing the ball is more important than lunging. He fell to the ground because he could not stay up. He also tried to break his fall with his right hand ... which he should have kept on the ball while falling.

This happens every week in practically every game and is always called this way. This just happened at a crucial juncture near the goal line against perhaps your most hated rival after a spectacular grab.

Easy call. Made it instantly from my couch live and got it right.

BTW - I HATE the Cowboys but respect them greatly. I sure wish we had your O-line.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

He had to stop stumbling first.

It doesn't say anywhere in the rule book that you have to stop stumbling.

It does say that *any* act that advances the ball forward is an 'act common to the game' and that is considered a completed catch. In fact, Blandino and Perriera have been caught saying the same thing on other plays as the Chicago Tribune has noted.

His act was the desperate and ill advised act of a stumbler who forgot that securing the ball is more important than lunging.

He did secure the ball. The ball only came lose when it hit the ground...after he extended his body AND his left arm. That's advancing the ball. That's an act common to the game (by the definition of the rule) and that's a catch.

He fell to the ground because he could not stay up. He also tried to break his fall with his right hand ... which he should have kept on the ball while falling.

Doesn't make a difference

He advanced the ball. That's an act common to the game according to the rule book. That's a catch.

Doesn't make a difference if you fall to the ground. Doesn't make a difference if you try to break your fall. Once you make a move to advance the football the falling to the ground rule (CJ Rule) does not apply.

This happens every week in practically every game and is always called this way.

Nope.

Chicago Tribune pointed out instances dating back to 2010 when they weren't called that way and Perierra and Blandino cited the rule properly...the player had made a move to advance the ball and that is a 'football move' and is a catch.

BTW - I HATE the Cowboys but respect them greatly. I sure wish we had your O-line.

It's obvious that you hate Dallas. This play was your Super Bowl. I just like to point out how wrong you are and like allowing you to contradict yourself and not know the rules. It gives us evidence of the future that you don't know anything about football and shoots down your credibility.






YR

 

[III]

Your mistakes are not too many to enumerate but why bother? It is evident I understand the applicable rule better than you. He cannot make a football move while he does not have control of his balance ... which he did not. He lunged as a last desperate part of his fall at the expense of maintaining control during his imminent impact with the ground. Too bad he didn't keep both hands on it and take his lumps.

He was falling... immediately. It was an intrinsic and unavoidable part of his attempt He could not stay up. THAT is the key to the rule. Always has been.

The rule may be objectionable but that is a different argument.

Oh well.

 

[Staubacher]

Who's in for a Whitehouse Petition?

Not with this President. He twice talked publicly about the Detroit call, even calling it "suspect". The NFL heard that loud and clear and perhaps influenced their bogus reversal decision. Suspect is a loaded word and fed the Jones bribery conspiracy garbage.

Apparently the Prez was too busy to comment on the bad call that screwed us though.

 

[AsthmaField]

It is evident I understand the applicable rule better than you.

Evident to who?

He cannot make a football move while he does not have control of his balance ... which he did not.

Can anyone show where in the NFL Rule Book it says that a football move can't be made when the ball handler is out of balance?

 

[Jenky]

It's obvious that you hate Dallas. This play was your Super Bowl. I just like to point out how wrong you are and like allowing you to contradict yourself and not know the rules. It gives us evidence of the future that you don't know anything about football and shoots down your credibility.



YR

YR, I was at their "Superbowl." It was a 44-17 *** kicking with more than half of the crowd being Dallas fans.