Was Cruz's 2nd TD incomplete?

[Eric_Boyer]

None of that matters. If he was going to the ground during the catch (which I believe he was), then he has to maintain possession all the way through going down: doesn't matter at all when or where his body touches down. I was screaming at the TV to have that one reviewed. Thought it was pretty clearly a no-catch.

if the league says that isn't a catch, the game is ruined. he had control, his elbow touched down. he is down.

in the field of play, it would of been a catch and not a fumble. so why should it be anything different around the goal line?

 

[NinePointOh]

his elbow hit the ground while he still had control and the ball was past the goal line.

Johnson's knee and elbow hit the ground while he had control and the ball was past the goal line. So by your logic, it should have been a touchdown. By the NFL's logic, that didn't matter because he still had to maintain possession after his hands hit the ground.

if the league says that isn't a catch, the game is ruined.

Which is exactly what Lions fans say about Johnson's non-TDs.

in the field of play, it would of been a catch and not a fumble.

You're begging the question. The argument that the Cruz catch should have been ruled incomplete works exactly the same way in the field of play.

 

[Nova]

This one is an easier ruling than you would think... at least if what I'm thinking is correct.

The difference is that Cruz was clearly being taken to the ground by contact. If no one touched him, than it would've been incomplete... but if no one touched him he likely would have waltzed in.

I'm not too worried about it. They may have still scored.

As others have mentioned, what's more ridiculous is how often their offensive line and defensive backs held and got away with it.

"Yeah refs. Aaron Ross can suddnely cover Dez Bryant... he's not interfering at all."

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Johnson's knee and elbow hit the ground while he had control and the ball was past the goal line. So by your logic, it should have been a touchdown. By the NFL's logic, that didn't matter because he still had to maintain possession after his hands hit the ground.

Cruz was obviously touched by a defender. Was CJ?

 

[NinePointOh]

Cruz was obviously touched by a defender. Was CJ?

Clearly yes, at 0:13 - 0:15 of the video in the OP.

Of course, the rule also explicitly states that that makes no difference, so I'm not sure what your point would have been anyway.

 

[JD_KaPow]

if the league says that isn't a catch, the game is ruined. he had control, his elbow touched down. he is down.

in the field of play, it would of been a catch and not a fumble. so why should it be anything different around the goal line?

There's no difference. It's exactly the same rule in the field of play. To establish possession, you must either:
1. Catch the ball, get both feet down in-bounds and make some sort of "football move", or
2. If going to the ground in the process of making the catch, you must catch it, come down in-bounds, and maintain possession throughout the entire process.

Them's the rules, and I've seen things like that called no-catches many times in the last few seasons since those rules went into effect.

And we're talking about whether it was complete or incomplete: it's not a fumble in any case.

 

[NinePointOh]

This one is an easier ruling than you would think... at least if what I'm thinking is correct.

The difference is that Cruz was clearly being taken to the ground by contact. If no one touched him, than it would've been incomplete... but if no one touched him he likely would have waltzed in.

1) Johnson was clearly contacted by a defender on his way to the ground

2) The rule explicitly states, "with or without contact by an opponent."

 

[NinePointOh]

This is what Pereira had to say. I'm not sure I'm buying it. If Cruz's stretch meant he completed the catch then Johnson's stretch should have as well.

Pereira should watch from 0:26 to 0:30 of the video and explain how Cruz "became a runner" before his second foot ever touched the ground (which is supposedly a requirement for establishing possession).

 

[pugilist]

if by runner he actually meant making a football move, then okay I get that. stretching out apparently constitutes a football move and the TD should stand

if he literally meant runner as in jump, catch, land, turn and run then I don't know *** he saw on that play because that is not at all what happened

 

[TwoDeep3]

Pereira should watch from 0:26 to 0:30 of the video and explain how Cruz "became a runner" before his second foot ever touched the ground (which is supposedly a requirement for establishing possession).

I guess I am confused now. What is your point about this?

I am not being snarky, but your point has been obscured somehow. Are you suggesting Cruz should not have been awarded the TD, or CJ should have, or both should not have?

 

[Kevinicus]

if by runner he actually meant making a football move, then okay I get that. stretching out apparently constitutes a football move and the TD should stand

if he literally meant runner as in jump, catch, land, turn and run then I don't know *** he saw on that play because that is not at all what happened

Extending while going to the ground does not remove the requirement to maintain possession when you get there.

 

[ChooChoo73]

Personally I loved that beautiful horse collar tackle on Tanner's fumble.

 

[pugilist]

Extending while going to the ground does not remove the requirement to maintain possession when you get there.

agreed 100%. but he was ruled as a "runner" which is where the confusion comes in.. how does anything Cruz did on that play constitute running?

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Personally I loved that beautiful horse collar tackle on Tanner's fumble.

I think that is legal between the tackles?

 

[NinePointOh]

I guess I am confused now. What is your point about this?

I am not being snarky, but your point has been obscured somehow. Are you suggesting Cruz should not have been awarded the TD, or CJ should have, or both should not have?

Either way. I'm saying the two rulings are inconsistent with one another.

At the time I saw it live, I thought CJ should have gotten the TD (as well as the one in 2010 against the Bears). But after seeing the officials and the NFL decide otherwise, and then stand by and explain their decisions, I at least expected the same standard to be applied to Cruz. Silly, I know.

 

[Nova]

1) Johnson was clearly contacted by a defender on his way to the ground

2) The rule explicitly states, "with or without contact by an opponent."

In that case, then I've got no defense for the call on Cruz.

It's different than the Calvin Johnson example provided for the thread, but pretty much exactly the same as the one from a few years ago that should've won the game in Chicago...



I thought I remembered that being the explanation for why Calvin's TD didn't count here... he's got literally all the same check marks as Cruz does (2 feet down, football move... just didn't maintain possession to the ground), but it was ruled incomplete for him. They should've been ruled no differently.

IMO, both are TD catches. But if we're going by the rule set by Calvin's non TD, Cruz' TD probably shouldn't have counted either.

 

[blindzebra]

To me it is simple.

Would either have been a catch in the field of play or OOB? It should not be different for the EZ UNLESS they have taken a step with the ball, after both feet are down, to clearly show they are a runner.

 

[BrassCowboy]

I think if a WR has clear possession of the ball before he hits the turf, then it should be a catch, in this case both WRs caught the ball and both should of been TDs instead of just Cruz's. CJ got robbed. I think it is a stupid rule and is ok if the refs miss those.

to me, I would consider that a TD the second the tip of the ball crossed the white line as long as the WR establishes possession as Cruz did IMO before hitting the turf. what happened on the turf is nothing more than the ground causing a fumble (which would not be considered a fumble due to the ground cannot cause a fumble rule) and it would be established as maintaining possession hence a TD.

Maybe that is what the interpretation of the refs was was that he already established possession before falling

 

[BrassCowboy]

I watched the old CJ call from a couple years ago and these two videos, I really think those were all TDs....

Hate the guy or not, my philosophy is if you wanna stop the opponent from scoring then stop them, don't use bogus rules that take away from the game to do it for you.