Was Cruz's 2nd TD incomplete?

[danielofthesaints]

Did anybody else question if the 2nd Cruz TD was incomplete? I think I remember either last season or the year before that, Megatron scoring a TD @ Chicago but it was ruled incomplete because he lost control after the act of catching, controlling, and crossing the plane. Then, you have today where you have similar cases, but a disparity between calls. Any thoughts?

 

[Wheeltax]

Yeah, I didn't like that. I can't imagine that could be considered having possession, but what do I know.

 

[windward]

Good point.

 

[whynot]

Refs liked the Giants in this one, hence no holding calls on their OL all night and their CB all over Dez all night and pretty much mounting him from behind before finally drawing a PI flag (from the ref all the way over the other side of the field).

FWIW I think both plays in the video should be touchdowns though.

 

[FiveRings]

I think the refs made the right call, but I think the rules are skewed. In hockey the entire puck has to cross the goalline to be a goal, but in football, when the end zone is 10 yards deep all you need is the tip of the ball

 

[dargonking999]

I thinkt that rule only applies to Calvin Johnson

 

[bayeslife]

I think the better questions is why the referees consider tackling Ware not something that warrants a holding call.

But yes, very good point OP.

 

[Future]

I thinkt that rule only applies to Calvin Johnson

Agreed. Thats the exact same thing.

 

[LatinMind]

it was incomplete. megatron had a catch just like that and was called incomplete earlier in the day

 

[Eric_Boyer]

both should of been touchdowns, CJ was robbed.

 

[NinePointOh]

both should of been touchdowns, CJ was robbed.

It's not a ref's job to decide what the rule SHOULD be -- it's the ref's job to enforce the rules as they are. If the NFL has decided that the "Calvin Johnson Rule" should be enforced, it needs to be enforced consistently, even if we think it's a bad rule.

"If you read the rule, it’s not a catch.The reason it’s not a catch is you’ve got to control the ball when you hit the ground. It makes it easier to officiate. It’s a bright line that you can draw." -- NYG president John Mara in March 2011

 

[Eric_Boyer]

It's not a ref's job to decide what the rule SHOULD be -- it's the ref's job to enforce the rules as they are. If the NFL has decided that the "Calvin Johnson Rule" should be enforced, it needs to be enforced consistently, even if we think it's a bad rule.

"If you read the rule, it’s not a catch.The reason it’s not a catch is you’ve got to control the ball when you hit the ground. It makes it easier to officiate. It’s a bright line that you can draw." -- NYG president John Mara in March 2011

pushing the ball forward to extend beyond the goal line is a football move.

both receivers made a football move. both receivers should of been awarded the touchdown. CJ was robbed.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

pushing the ball forward to extend beyond the goal line is a football move.

both receivers made a football move. both receivers should of been awarded the touchdown. CJ was robbed.

In your opinion. the nfl, until last night, made it clear that if you catch the ball in the air, you have to control it through the entire process.

 

[NinePointOh]

pushing the ball forward to extend beyond the goal line is a football move.

both receivers made a football move. both receivers should of been awarded the touchdown. CJ was robbed.

The term "football move" does not appear anywhere in the rule.

The rule states:

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches 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, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

 

[TwentyOne]

“If a player is going to the ground in the process of making a catch, he must maintain control throughout the entire process of contacting the ground,” the narrator of the video says. “If the player does not maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, the pass is incomplete.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-non-td-in-video-explaining-rules-to-players/

I do think the refs decided that Cruz didn't go to the ground because of the catching process but because of the tackler. If you view it like that its a TD.

IMO not a TD and a bad decission. But then again a very tricky situation.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

In your opinion. the nfl, until last night, made it clear that if you catch the ball in the air, you have to control it through the entire process.

The term "football move" does not appear anywhere in the rule.

The rule states:

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches 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, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

you are right. So I am arguing against the rule. I believe in the field of play, it should be a fumble, but the end zone should made it an instant touchdown and it is not possible to fumble after a touchdown.

 

[tupperware]

I think the difference was that Cruz caught the ball and extended it beyond the goal line. Once it went beyond the goal line it was automatically a touchdown. It wasn't really part of the act of catching the ball that made him put the ball out there like that, it was just to cross the goal line. But yes, I too did wonder at first about it.

That's my take on it anyway.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Then Butch Johnson's catch for a TD in the 1977 Super Bowl against Denver is not a catch.

Once the ball carrier touches the ground with both feet he has established a catch. Turning and crossing the plane of the goal line is now considered breaking the plane and therefore a touchdown.

I'd like to agree, but cannot since this is the rules.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Then Butch Johnson's catch for a TD in the 1977 Super Bowl against Denver is not a catch.

Once the ball carrier touches the ground with both feet he has established a catch. Turning and crossing the plane of the goal line is now considered breaking the plane and therefore a touchdown.

I'd like to agree, but cannot since this is the rules.

rules have changed significantly.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Crossing the plane of the endzone has not.