How is that not a TD in Chicago?

Brock Landers · 09-12-10, 03:12 PM

That is stupidity, that is a TD 100%. Never seen such a call in a situation like that.

Detroit covers anyway

ttwarrior1 · 09-12-10, 03:13 PM

no kidding, stupid rules,

Richkas · 09-12-10, 03:13 PM

Lions got phucked........

I dont care what you say.

muldoon · 09-12-10, 03:13 PM

Have no interest in the game outside of seeing if the Lions could break the road slump. He totally had control and the play should be dead and a good TD. Had it happened on the 20 yard line it would have been a fumble.

What a stupid rule. That was a TD

goofyre · 09-12-10, 03:13 PM

I was on the Detroit ML. I feel like I just got robbed.

Emily_Haines · 09-12-10, 03:13 PM

only in the nfl

every game ends with some kinda of bull shit

Sunde91 · 09-12-10, 03:14 PM

Deuce · 09-12-10, 03:14 PM

That was robbery. Complete and utter bullshit call. Fukk that whore shit. I'm livid.

iifold · 09-12-10, 03:14 PM

NFL is a joke...

milwaukee mike · 09-12-10, 03:14 PM

calvin johnson caught that ball

dumbest rule in the nfl
guy catches it, 2 feet down
then a knee down
then the other hand down
then the hand with the ball hits and the ball comes out

dumbest rule change in the history of the nfl
what do you have to do, make love to the goddam ball?

ttwarrior1 · 09-12-10, 03:15 PM

how can you have control of the ball after the play is over if you can catch the ball with one hand??/ It should be a td

B1GER1C828 · 09-12-10, 03:15 PM

totally agree...bad call.

milwaukee mike · 09-12-10, 03:15 PM

knew it wouldn't count thanks to that dumb rule change from a couple years ago

absolutely ridiculous, if that's in the field of play it's a catch but out of bounds or in the endzone it's incomplete

BestPlay2day · 09-12-10, 03:16 PM

Lions got screwed! I didn't have any action on the game that was a catch, no question about it.

Bluehorseshoe · 09-12-10, 03:19 PM

Two steps and control. What were they claiming??

dmtrader · 09-12-10, 03:21 PM

Is there some kind of new rule? I didn't understand that.

d2bets · 09-12-10, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by dmtrader

Is there some kind of new rule? I didn't understand that.

Not a new rule, old rule. Only applies to catches in the endzone. I hate the rule, but the rule is what it is.

Bluehorseshoe · 09-12-10, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by dmtrader

Is there some kind of new rule? I didn't understand that.

The only thing it could be is, if a WR goes up in the air, catches the ball, hits the ground and the ball comes out, it's incomplete. It's a continuation rule.

Somehow they associated that with what happened and that's not close to what happened.

BeatTheJerk · 09-12-10, 03:28 PM

Why can't that dumb n***a cradle the ball and secure it for a win ?

BeatTheJerk · 09-12-10, 03:29 PM

It is a bad rule, but still the new rule clearly states that was incomplete.

jgray · 09-12-10, 03:31 PM

Tuck rule anyone?

DrStale · 09-12-10, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by BeatTheJerk

It was a bad call, but still the new rule clearly states what that was incomplete.

Then how is it a bad call? Bad rule sure, but the refs definitely made the right call.

BeatTheJerk · 09-12-10, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by DrStale

Then how is it a bad call? Bad rule sure, but the refs definitely made the right call.

I guess I misspoke. It is a bad rule excuse me.

DrStale · 09-12-10, 03:35 PM

People need to stop complaining about the call. If you're going to bitch then bitch about the rule, the refs made the right call based on the rule.

Herky · 09-12-10, 03:35 PM

Even with the new rule, it was still a catch. And how was it ruled incomplete on the field when you clearly see the goal line referee signal TD?

DrStale · 09-12-10, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Herky

Even with the new rule, it was still a catch. And how was it ruled incomplete on the field when you clearly see the goal line referee signal TD?

So you know more about the rule than NFL's head official?

mtneer1212 · 09-12-10, 03:37 PM

The rule is a good rule, I just felt it was misapplied here.

Herky · 09-12-10, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by DrStale

People need to stop complaining about the call. If you're going to bitch then bitch about the rule, the refs made the right call based on the rule.

No they didn't. It was still a catch. He controlled the ball to the ground. He was getting up when it was dropped. He got 2 feet down, then fell to the ground on his butt and still had possession. Then while getting up dropped the ball. TD.

SHADYLANKY · 09-12-10, 03:37 PM

Yeah that was a TD. They might change the rule now. But since it only screwed the Lions maybe not.

d2bets · 09-12-10, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Herky

No they didn't. It was still a catch. He controlled the ball to the ground. He was getting up when it was dropped. He got 2 feet down, then fell to the ground on his butt and still had possession. Then while getting up dropped the ball. TD.

By rule, it's all the same "process". It's a terrible rule that needs adjusting, but they have to follow the rules as written.

d2bets · 09-12-10, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by DrStale

People need to stop complaining about the call. If you're going to bitch then bitch about the rule, the refs made the right call based on the rule.

Spot on.

Brock Landers · 09-12-10, 03:56 PM

good thing it didn't impact the spread

Bluehorseshoe · 09-12-10, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by DrStale

People need to stop complaining about the call. If you're going to bitch then bitch about the rule, the refs made the right call based on the rule.

No they didn't. He caught the ball, went to the ground and was getting up. They forced the rule in that situation like a square peg going into a round hole.

It's a notch behind the Galaraga call. (Poor Detroit fans.)

jgray · 09-12-10, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Herky

No they didn't. It was still a catch. He controlled the ball to the ground. He was getting up when it was dropped. He got 2 feet down, then fell to the ground on his butt and still had possession. Then while getting up dropped the ball. TD.

The bolded part is where you are wrong. The ball touched the ground and he lost it. It was a while after the initial catch, but he must maintain possession all the way THROUGH the ground. He did not. I could be convinced it's a bad rule, though.