Week 1 GC: Detroit @ Chicago - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Game Commentary, Cheering & Venting

Week 1 GC: Detroit @ Chicago

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: Week 1 GC: Detroit @ Chicago

Postby kingwilson22 » Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:42 pm

between this and the holding call that just ended the dallas game cost me the week
kingwilson22
Cheerleader
Cheerleader


Posts: 5
Joined: 2 Sep 2010
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Week 1 GC: Detroit @ Chicago

Postby Cowboys 4 life » Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:44 pm

It almost looked to me like Johnson was spiking the ball after he caught the TD.

Its plays like that that make me feel cheated. How that isn't a TD catch I don't know. Stupid rule if you asked me.
Image
Image
Cowboys 4 life
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 9515
(Past Year: 79)
Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Somewhere between Silicon Valley and a bunch of Fruits

Re: Week 1 GC: Detroit @ Chicago

Postby moochman » Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:44 pm

CBMGreatOne wrote:
bazzy_51 wrote:
CBMGreatOne wrote:The continuation rule is NOT preempted by the TD rules. That is where you are wrong. The continuation rule applies to every instance of going to the ground while making a catch. This is not up for dispute. It is a fact.


Where was his continuation going? To celebrate with his teammates and fans? I mean continuation can not be called in this situation because he was on the end line, there was no where else IN PLAY that he could have gone. If standing up to get off your toosh after a TD is continuation then the NFL is just about dumb, well I know it is, but still. Just another way for the guys not playing the game to control and dictate every aspect of the game.


They would have been "controlling" the outcome of the game if they had called it differently from the rulebook.


There is where you are wrong. Rules are only supposed to apply to special circumstances, to clarify questionable plays. This was not in question. The refs overlooked that he took steps and hit ground with ball under control, thus satisfying control criteria beyond reasonable doubt. they looked to find a way to uphold a bad decision by a ref and changed the outcome of a game, stole a highlight play from the NFL record book. It will sicken me to see if they make this type of call again, though I fear they will because the league is more concerned with saying that it is right than actually doing right.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Re: Week 1 GC: Detroit @ Chicago

Postby AquaMan2342 » Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:45 pm

Such is the life of a Lions fan......just a horrible call all around, and if it fits within the given rule, the given rule needs to be changed.
Image
AquaMan2342
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 267
Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Lions

Re: Week 1 GC: Detroit @ Chicago

Postby Pats4four » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:09 am

Firstly @ figeater regarding the point of momentum and falling to ground in the process of making a catch:

If the player goes to 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.

I think we can say Johnson was 'going to ground' or at least falling to ground in the process of making a catch. He may have gotten two feet down BUT his actions in making a catch meant he fell to the ground in which case the following applies:

he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground whether in the field of play or the end zone

After this I think it gets a little bit shaky. There IS a difference between this and Murphy's play yes due to the fact that Murphy had control then lost it as he hit the ground and the ball came out and touched the turf. Johnson however, didn't lose control of the ball when he hit the ground but when he pushed himself off the ground. Now, to me I think he had control and could should he have wanted to kept a hold of the ball when standing up but for some reason he didn't. Personally, in my heart I would have given this TD BUT by the letter of the law, the refs called it right. I reason is that as Johnson got up his left knee was still down as he flipped the ball out so he hadn't finished the play as it were.

The second argument arises regarding the interpretation of a player's intentions by the refs' part. I think it is agreed that Johnson had control of the ball but in the moment just didn't finish off the play whereas in Murphy's case he lost control of the ball when he hit the ground. Now, should refs take this into account when making a call, I think YES they should BUT how can they be sure whether a player has genuinely lost control (Murphy) or when he just flips the ball out in the moment of making a great catch to win their team's first away win since '06 in the last minute? It's a grey area and one that refs dare not venture.

To bazzy_51, if a player catches the ball in the endzone gets 2 feet down and in the act of catching doesn't fall to the ground it's a TD so if say Marshall catches a jump ball in the endzone and lands, gets 2 feet down and isn't falling to ground because of it, it's a TD no matter what.

As for changing the rule? I think the rule's fine it's just referees should be given more freedom to use common sense. IF the rule was change then how should it be changed? Should all those examples in the link I gave be TDs?
Image
Pats4four
Head Coach
Head Coach

Eagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 1179
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Week 1 GC: Detroit @ Chicago

Postby Dolfan19 » Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:18 am

CBMGreatOne wrote:
Metroid wrote:The sad thing is, and I know no one wants to hear this, is that by rule the call was correct. The receiver must "maintain possession." That said, even a retarded monkey could see that he caught the ball and only lost "possession" when he hurried to get up to celebrate. I think they need to seriously reevaluate the rule to allow for a little freaking common sense.


Absolutely right. See Murphy, Louis week 1 2009, late game of the Monday Night doubleheader. Exact same principle. You simply can't let the ball get away at any time during your fall if you catch in the act of going to the ground. Good call, but I don't like the rule either.


agreed with both. i just feel horrible for the lions fans. This situation is very similar to when Dustin Johnson grounded his club in a bunker on the 72 hole at the PGA Championship four weeks ago.
Dolfan19
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1372
(Past Year: 53)
Joined: 3 Sep 2010
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Miami

Re: Week 1 GC: Detroit @ Chicago

Postby Sex Panther » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:39 pm

This whole "process" thing is what's dumb.

For example, last night, Austin caught a TD pass, 1,2,3 steps drops the ball. It was obviously a TD (very much like Calvin's), but where does the process end? He (Austin) was in the endzone, was still moving, and dropped the ball. So how do refs know when the process of making a catch end? Is it all interperative? Must be.

Simple fix - anyone scoring a TD must hand the ball to an offical - now that would be comical.
Kate Upton's Husband - dead
Mr. Blonde - champ
Yo Soy Fiesta - dead
Old South - champ
Full of Fanta Tonight - champ
Sex Panther (SB) - dead
Sex Panther (FF) - dead
Sex Panther (IBL) - dead
Sex Panther (Dynasty) dead
Sex Panther
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 3029
Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Week 1 GC: Detroit @ Chicago

Postby CBMGreatOne » Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:51 pm

Sex Panther wrote:This whole "process" thing is what's dumb.

For example, last night, Austin caught a TD pass, 1,2,3 steps drops the ball. It was obviously a TD (very much like Calvin's), but where does the process end? He (Austin) was in the endzone, was still moving, and dropped the ball. So how do refs know when the process of making a catch end? Is it all interperative? Must be.

Simple fix - anyone scoring a TD must hand the ball to an offical - now that would be comical.


Very, very, very simple answer to your question. Miles Austin was NOT going to the ground in the act of making the catch. Therefore continuation rules do not apply. Not a valid comparison. This is obviously a rule that a lot of people will just never understand no matter how well it is explained to them. It's kind of like the way a lot of people will just never understand how to correctly pronounce Terrell Owens's first name, or will never be able to correctly spell the word "definitely." It's frustrating, but there's no reason to argue it anymore if people simply can't understand.
CBMGreatOne
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1845
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Week 1 GC: Detroit @ Chicago

Postby FatFoot » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:25 pm

This isn't as tricky as some are making it seem.

1). We all agree that it was a catch, and should have been a TD.
2). We all agree that it's a bad rule.
3). But it IS a rule.

It's not a fumble, and it's NOT a question of whether or not he demonstrates possession of the ball, etc. It's a specific application of a rule pertaining to a player going to the ground. Because CJ continued his fall with a roll, it was all one motion, by rule. It wasn't "he hits 2 feet and a knee, and he's down there." It's this absurd rule for the process of catching a ball while going to the ground. He rolls, and he catches himself with the hand holding the ball, the impact of which removes the ball from his hand. It's TOTALLY ABSURD that this invalidates the catch, but that's how the rule has been interpreted for some time now.

The same rule caused the Bears to LOSE to the Lions in 2004, when Bernard Berrian had a TD taken away. It's nothing scammy. It's not a bad application of the rules, and it's most certainly not a misinterpretation.

The problem some of you seem to be having is the concept of possession, and you are applying an incomplete rule to the situation. There are additional requirements on a catch when going to the ground.

There's no point in arguing this stuff. It's a bad rule. We ALL agree. Bears fans AND Lions fans. FF people and casual viewers. The rule should be revised and reconsidered, in almost everyone's opinion. But it's not an inconsistent ruling. Just a sort of rare occurrence. I admit, I appreciate the Karmic value, considering how ticked I was in 2004 when this happened to the Bears. But it's still a lame rule. Probably time to just get over it.
FatFoot
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 3259
Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: In the Belly of the Beast

Re: Week 1 GC: Detroit @ Chicago

Postby Sex Panther » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:28 pm

Not really arguing, that play, which I still think was a TD, gave my Bears a W.

Eye test says it was a TD.

I saw a catch, at least 2 steps, landing on ground, both butt checks firmly planted, 1 hand down, then he rolled to get up and celebrate - put the ball, which had not moved in his hand at all, on the ground (possibly out of bounds) when it came out of his hands after he had made at least 2 "football moves" (the 2 or 3 steps, and bracing his fall w/ his off hand).

To the letter was it called correctly? Yeah probably, but it's a dumb rule open to specualtion, and needs to be changed IMO.

In Austin's case, he caught the ball and dropped it while still moving, how is that not a fumble in the endzone - was he not still in the process of making a catch? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say Austin's wasn't a TD, because it certainly was, I just think Calvin's was as big of a no-brainer call as Austin's - Calvin knew he scored and rolled over to celebrate a game winner. Austin knew he scored and dropped his because his team was losing - nothing to celebrate.

Point being, with no real definition of when the process ends is where the referee specualtion comes in - IMO that is a problem.
Kate Upton's Husband - dead
Mr. Blonde - champ
Yo Soy Fiesta - dead
Old South - champ
Full of Fanta Tonight - champ
Sex Panther (SB) - dead
Sex Panther (FF) - dead
Sex Panther (IBL) - dead
Sex Panther (Dynasty) dead
Sex Panther
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 3029
Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Home Cafe: Football

PreviousNext

Return to Game Commentary, Cheering & Venting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 15:50 hours
(and 36 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact