Was Cruz's 2nd TD incomplete?

[NinePointOh]

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.

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent) ... "

 

[NinePointOh]

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.

That's exactly what Calvin Johnson did, too.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Crossing the plane of the endzone has not.

yes, the Calvin Johnson rule has been

Crossing the plane of the endzone has not.

yes it has.

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."

as I thought, the football move, is not in the rule book, but refs are using it regardless. call it a second act, a football move, or whatever.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...son-rule-overlooks-his-responsibility-for-it/

 

[big dog cowboy]

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

Apples and oranges. 1977? Really?

 

[tupperware]

That's exactly what Calvin Johnson did, too.

Well, the difference is the catch was made OUT of the endzone with Cruz and in the endzone with Calvin. I'm guessing that's the main difference. When you catch the ball in the end zone you need to complete the full catch. Cruz completed the catch and then reached out and it was immediately signaled a touchdown. I don't think the reaching out part was seen as part of the catch. Calvin didn't reach out, he just went to the ground with the ball in his hand and it popped out.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Apples and oranges. 1977? Really?

Both crossed the plane. It's the same game and the rules for crossing the plane were the same then as now.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

freeze this video at 28 seconds. Cruz's elbow is down. the ball crossed the plane, and he has control.

the end. this has no similarity to the CJ play.

 

[NinePointOh]

freeze this video at 28 seconds. Cruz's elbow is down. the ball crossed the plane, and he has control.

the end. this has no similarity to the CJ play.

Freeze this video at 16 seconds. Johnson's knee is down. Johnson's elbow is down. The ball crossed the plane, and he has control.

The NFL, and John Mara specifically, stood by the ruling that it was not a catch.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Freeze this video at 16 seconds. Johnson's knee is down. Johnson's elbow is down. The ball crossed the plane, and he has control.

The NFL, and John Mara specifically, stood by the ruling that it was not a catch.

at 15 seconds, the ref is in front of CJ. you can't see his knee or elbow

 

[TwoDeep3]

freeze this video at 28 seconds. Cruz's elbow is down. the ball crossed the plane, and he has control.

the end. this has no similarity to the CJ play.

Exactly! Control, both feet and an elbow/hand in the playing field, crosses the plane of the goal line.

Touchdown.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Exactly! Control, both feet and an elbow/hand in the playing field, crosses the plane of the goal line.

Touchdown.

the rules have changed though Cruz's elbow was down, otherwise this would of been like the Calvin Johnson rule.

stupid rule, but it has changed.

 

[NinePointOh]

Both crossed the plane. It's the same game and the rules for crossing the plane were the same then as now.

Well, the difference is the catch was made OUT of the endzone with Cruz and in the endzone with Calvin. I'm guessing that's the main difference. When you catch the ball in the end zone you need to complete the full catch. Cruz completed the catch and then reached out and it was immediately signaled a touchdown. I don't think the reaching out part was seen as part of the catch. Calvin didn't reach out, he just went to the ground with the ball in his hand and it popped out.

You seem to be referring to Johnson's non-TD against the Bears in 2010 rather than his non-TD against the Vikings yesterday. The video in the OP clearly shows Johnson landing outside the endzone, then lunging across the goal line. The ball breaks the plane, his elbow is down, and the ball jars slightly when it hits the turf.

Besides, your logic is flawed. You need to complete the full catch no matter where you are on the field, which is why the rule explicitly states, "whether in the field of play or the end zone." There is absolutely no distinction to be made there.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Freeze this video at 16 seconds. Johnson's knee is down. Johnson's elbow is down. The ball crossed the plane, and he has control.

The NFL, and John Mara specifically, stood by the ruling that it was not a catch.

If what you say is correct, then the refs got it wrong and so did John Mara.

Cruz established possession.

Johnson got both feet down. That is a touchdown.

 

[NinePointOh]

Exactly! Control, both feet and an elbow/hand in the playing field, crosses the plane of the goal line.

Touchdown.

Please explain how that differs from Calvin Johnson's non-TDs.

 

[tupperware]

You seem to be referring to Johnson's non-TD against the Bears in 2010 rather than his non-TD against the Vikings yesterday. The video in the OP clearly shows Johnson landing outside the endzone, then lunging across the goal line. The ball breaks the plane, his elbow is down, and the ball jars slightly when it hits the turf.

Besides, your logic is flawed. You need to complete the full catch no matter where you are on the field, which is why the rule explicitly states, "whether in the field of play or the end zone." There is absolutely no distinction to be made there.

Oh, I see.

Well that explains the mixup. Cruz was a TD in my opinion and if the same happened for CJ, then he was robbed.

EDIT: Just watched the play. Yep, not much difference. Inconsistent rulings there.

 

[NinePointOh]

If what you say is correct, then the refs got it wrong and so did John Mara.

Cruz established possession.

Johnson got both feet down. That is a touchdown.

That's what I think the rule SHOULD be, but the NFL repeatedly stood by its rulings against Johnson, which means they apparently interpret the rule differently than you do. The OP's point is that IF the NFL says that's the rule, then it should have applied equally to Cruz.

 

[TwoDeep3]

That's what I think the rule SHOULD be, but the NFL repeatedly stood by its rulings against Johnson, which means they apparently interpret the rule differently than you do. The OP's point is that IF the NFL says that's the rule, then it should have applied equally to Cruz.

But the passing rules are so arbitrary that two different games can have the same issue come up and two different rulings.

This is not the fault of the refs in the Cowboy game as much as the competition committee who devises rules where there are shades of gray and interpretation.

 

[tantrix1969]

both should of been touchdowns, CJ was robbed.

this

 

[NinePointOh]

at 15 seconds, the ref is in front of CJ. you can't see his knee or elbow

Are you serious? Let the video play then. If it's not blatantly obvious to you that his knee goes down, you might need a physics lesson.

Or watch the alternate angles here: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81a77070/Controversial-call-on-Megatron-non-TD

It might be his hand instead of his elbow, but at 58 seconds the knee is very clearly down and he has full possession of the ball. The catch was nullified because he didn't "maintain possession throughout the entire act."

 

[NinePointOh]

But the passing rules are so arbitrary that two different games can have the same issue come up and two different rulings.

That doesn't mean it's arbitrary by design, or that the NFL should be content with arbitrary enforcement. It's well within the rights of fans and players to expect consistent enforcement of the rules and to question inconsistencies. Besides, Mara himself (a member of the competition committee) referred to it as a "bright line," which inherently implies that refs SHOULD be able to assess without any arbitrariness at all. Thus, it's unacceptable to just fall back on the argument that well, it's all just a judgment call and there's no real clear answer.

This is not the fault of the refs in the Cowboy game as much as the competition committee who devises rules where there are shades of gray and interpretation.

I don't particularly care whether it's the fault of the refs or the competition committee. Why should I?