The Calvin Johnson Rule Does Not Apply

[JD_KaPow]

But it was continuous with the catch. If he had caught the pass, secured it, stops and then starts running towards the end zone, then if the ball comes out it's still a catch, assuming he recovers it.

But that's not what happens. Almost immediately after catching it, his motion carries him to the ground. You can't tell whether he's stretching out or whether he's falling as a result of the catch.

It was ruled correctly, according to the rules.

You can't tell? Really? I sure can. It's blatantly obvious that he's reaching for the end zone.

And if "you can't tell", how can you possibly overturn the call on the field?

 

[Deep_South]

Yes, I think it is pretty clear that the referee's explanation starts at the point the catch was already made according to the rules.

 

[sb220]

I think it looks different in real-time versus slow motion.

In real time speed there is nothing but forward momentum and falling. I think folks are reaching here.

 

[Deep_South]

I think it looks different in real-time versus slow motion.

In real time speed there is nothing but forward momentum and falling. I think folks are reaching here.

In real time the official ruled it was a catch, though....

 

[Ken]

Agree with this and Dez is by far my favorite player, but I'll throw anyone under the bus, and I'm throwing Dez under right now. Just catch the dang ball first, then whatever happens after that is great. But on the argument side, he probably thought he had it.

The sad part is he did catch the dang ball first. That is the reason why they ruled it a catch. There was never any doubt in his mind that he caught it.....

 

[percyhoward]

If "you can't tell", how can you possibly overturn the call on the field?

Exactly. The official who made the call on the field obviously saw the ball bounce up. If he thought Dez was still in the process of making the catch, he'd have signaled incomplete at that moment. The only way he rules the ball down at the one is if he sees it as a completion and down by contact.

Which it actually was.

 

[Alohawg1]

It's not clear and you know it.

It says 'thru the process of the catch.' But you completely ignore what constitutes 'the process of the catch.' You talk about a 'football move' and then act like a guy that extends his arm AND extends his body is not making a football move to advance the ball to the end zone.

I'm tired of people stating that it is the CJ Rule when the CJ Rule was for a player in the end zone. It's really a question of when the 'process of the catch' is completed and going from a receiver to a player that is advancing the ball..




YR

This is precisely right.

 

[tideh20heel]

What's difficult to understand about this? They clearly said he never completed the process of the catch, and that he "continued to fall." There is no mention that he "secured the ball, got both feet down, switched hands with the ball, was tackled, lunged for the goal line and extended the ball," even though all of that happened too, and all of that constitutes a catch, at least according to Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the NFL rule book.

How many steps does he have to make before lunging before he stops falling? Terrence Williams was "falling" from about the 15 yard line last week. Never actually did but was def awkward. So if you look off balance to the ref does he throw you into this category and forget about everything else that constitutes a catch including football moves, multiple steps, switching hands, reaching for the goal line and being tackled and wait to see the result of your fall. This review team decided they were going to apply rule come hell or high water. There is no mention of those things because they are a group of idiots who are given too much authority over the game. What they don't mention is much more illustrative than what they do. Telling you to ignore key components of a catch in favor of concentrating the on whether a guy is continuing to fall is beyond stupid.

 

[Frozen700]

The ball hit the ground. He should of did a better job of going down with it. Regardless not the reason we lost. We shouldn't have to rely on Dez pulling a superman move o bail us out.

Romo had all day on most plays to find a WR, nobody could get open, that hurt.

Murray wants to fumble the ball, that hurt.

We decided to stop pressuring Rodgers, that hurt.

We couldn't adjust to Cobb being in the backfield, that hurt.

Dan B and his missed field goal ect ect ect.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I think it looks different in real-time versus slow motion.

In real time speed there is nothing but forward momentum and falling. I think folks are reaching here.

Well, the ref calling it in real time called it a catch. The ref who overturned it was watching a slow-mo replay.

 

[tyke1doe]

It's not clear and you know it.

It says 'thru the process of the catch.' But you completely ignore what constitutes 'the process of the catch.' You talk about a 'football move' and then act like a guy that extends his arm AND extends his body is not making a football move to advance the ball to the end zone.

I'm tired of people stating that it is the CJ Rule when the CJ Rule was for a player in the end zone. It's really a question of when the 'process of the catch' is completed and going from a receiver to a player that is advancing the ball..


YR

I saw the play. I thought he caught the ball. But according to the rules, he catches the ball then he's starting to fall and extends the ball toward the goal line and the ball hits the ground. And according to the rules and the way that play has been called, it's not a catch.

 

[yimyammer]

So being athletically gifted screwed him. Nice.

thats what it seems to me

 

[tyke1doe]

Well, the ref calling it in real time called it a catch. The ref who overturned it was watching a slow-mo replay.

But that happens with a lot of plays.

 

[jjktkk]

Yeah, you can reply with goofy sarcasm if you want but it's the truth. Obviously it's in his nature to try and score there, but if you want to think of the play situationally, 1st down is the play that has to be made there if nothing else.

Hindsight Count, hindsight. So easy to pass judgement rather than Dez just stopping and securing the ball, etc... Hes one yeard from the end zone. I'm not going to fault Dez for trying to score on that play.

 

[sb220]

Well, the ref calling it in real time called it a catch. The ref who overturned it was watching a slow-mo replay.

You watch it in real time speed and realize that he is falling...slo mo shows that the ground dislodges the ball......what do you call it honestly

 

[JD_KaPow]

I saw the play. I thought he caught the ball. But according to the rules, he catches the ball then he's starting to fall and extends the ball toward the goal line and the ball hits the ground. And according to the rules and the way that play has been called, it's not a catch.

According to the rules, it is a catch. The way they called it, it wasn't.

 

[sbark]

Watching the NFL channel......stated fans in Detroit are having a field day. Its 2 diff things----Detroits play was a attempt at drawing a PI call by a QB who had crawled into a hole, who couldn't see open recievers once Dallas got close........... wanted to have a call given to him to get a 1st........

Dez's call was a play where the coach went for it on 4th down, the Qb went for it all on 4th down........and a receiver made a outstanding effort to go up over a well positioned defender to make a play, come down, take 3 steps, switch the ball to the other hand, extend to the goal line.......all to make a play, not expect someone to hand you via a refs call......................only for all 3 risk takers to have it taken from them......

 

[Yakuza Rich]

All that's saying is Steratore never saw a football move which negates the whole process to the ground effect. I'm not sure this really helps your cause.

It doesn't help his case. Stetatore said that there was never a 'move common to the game' (aka a football move). Dez clearly extended not only his arm but his entire body (body went from flexion to extension in biomechanical terms).

Sorta like this play by Miles Austin against the Niners in 2011:

And we've seen this move many times before. It was a 'move common to the game' (aka a football move).

Stetatore says IN PRINT that he didn't see this move and that's why he said it wasn't a catch.

Hence, if this move actually occurred then his ruling is *wrong*.

This move actually occured (and the ball was secure). Stetatore did not interpret the rule incorrectly. Either that, or the countless times we've see players like the picture were called incorrectly.




YR

 

[JD_KaPow]

You watch it in real time speed and realize that the ground dislodges the ball......what do you call it honestly

That's what I'm saying: the ref who was right there and looking at it in real time called it a catch. What are you trying to say? The only ones who called it "not a catch" are those who could see it in slo-mo (where it should have been even more obvious, by your own argument, that it was a catch).

 

[tideh20heel]

Uh, no. He wasn't running. He was in the process of catching the ball and in so doing he tries to stretch to score and, unfortunately, makes contact with the ground with the ball.
The explanation is very clear. We're just mad because it went against us.

The lunge and extension constitute advancement of the football. If you can't see that I can't help you. The explanation for Jim Crow laws were clear too and they were stupid as well. He had caught the ball two steps before he extended. That was the clear thing.