How is that not a TD in Chicago?

[pico]

looked like a td to me. oh well, stupid rule

[8ArIvd5]

This isn't a holding call. This is a very clear look at the play in light of the rules. The rule needs to be changed. But the rule is very clear that you have to maintain the ball through the play. He lost the ball while on the ground. By the letter of the law, it is not a catch. They should just simply change the rule to make it a catch like anywhere else on the field. If that exact play had been a sideline play, it is a catch by the rules. Two feet with possession. But the rule in the endzone is different. Why? I don't see any goods reason. The refs got it right by the book and it highlights a flaw in the rulebook. But you really can't blame the refs for following the rulebook.

That's open to interpretation. If the rule was clear there wouldn't be all of this debate. Just like there wasn't debate around Galaraga's perfect game.

I just read this whole line of conversation. First - the call was right. It was right when they made the call on the field and it was right after they reviewed it. As others have said - if you don't like the call then you need to take it up with the NFL - but it was the right call. Now for the question that I had when I saw it live at the game, and again after watching the multiple replays. Why did Johnson try and catch that with one hand? He had PLENTY of time to bring that ball into his body which would have basically ensured it was a TD. He was trying to make a highlight reel catch and it cost Lions the game!!

If you want to be mad at anyone - how about him?

He didn't try to make a one-handed catch. He caught the ball with two hands, felt he had posession, and soften his fall with his hands - one of which had the ball in it.

Hate the rule not the refs that applied the rule. I do have a question for everyone: If he had made that play on the 20, and then ran after the play, would it have counted as a catch, fumble, then him regaining the ball or would it have been ruled incomplete? I'm assuming it would be ruled incomplete but just want to check myself.

It would be incomplete or down by contact. Ground can't cause a fumble.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/09000d5d81a7ddad/Should-reception-rule-be-changed

After seeing this I think the rule needs to be reworded or added to because he lost control of the ball AS the ball hit the ground. Not before the ball hit the ground.

I do have a question: Do officials get to see replays in slow-motion, or must they see it in real-time?

[DroppinDimes]

Bob Costas said it best, "If it looks like a touchdown catch, then it should be a touchdown catch". And then something to the effect of it shouldn't come down to some confusing explanation of a rule that can be so misinterpreted by the officials. I bet if that exact play happens in all 16 games, 15 of them call it a TD. Why is a catch in the end zone any different than a catch in between the goal lines? The NFL is pathetically retarded. If the ground can't cause a fumble, then it's TD all day. Ridiculous.

[KingJIM]

What about this two point conversion in the Superbowl?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J0_WL06AAc
It was ruled no catch on field but overturned in replay. What is the difference? Was it kicked out?

I do think the call in the bears game was probably correct based on a flawed rule that should be changed.

But in the end the Lions had 2 more chances to score from the 25 yard line with 24 seconds left and maybe another play or two if they got a first down.

[TexansFan]

It wasn't a catch. There's a short video here by the head of officials where he describes the play. It's only a 1:50 or so.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Arian-Foster-Houston-Texans-Indianapolis-Colts-091210

[in2thethickofit]

Bad rule (but) I'm a Bears fan so I'm tickled about it. Seriously, this should have been a Lions victory.

[BigOrangeTitans]

this rule should be changed by next year without question

[8ArIvd5]

What about this two point conversion in the Superbowl?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J0_WL06AAc
It was ruled no catch on field but overturned in replay. What is the difference? Was it kicked out?

I do think the call in the bears game was probably correct based on a flawed rule that should be changed.

But in the end the Lions had 2 more chances to score from the 25 yard line with 24 seconds left and maybe another play or two if they got a first down.

I forgot about that conversion. Begs the question if a receiver goes up to make a catch in the end zone, catches and secures the ball with two hands, lands with both feet, gets pushed by a defender, stumbles backwards taking 5 more steps, then has the ball knocked out by a different defender, is it incomplete because the "process" was not over? Hell no, it'd be ruled a touchdown. To be ruled otherwise would be ridiculous.

[Mr Windy City]

My final thought is this. If Johnson takes care of the ball, this archaic rule is not being talked about. Two hands, son. Two hands.

you final thought is stupid. He made a fantastic play and he and his team deserved the win. I'm not saying the refs made the wrong call, I'm saying the NFL is retarded for even putting in a rule like this.

[rdo37]

I don't care what the rule is, but that was a catch. Stupid rules!

[Dark Horse]

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

lol

Can't use it as a prop either.

[BarkingToad]

Lions got robbed, he came down with both feet, made a football move, then his butt and later his knee dragged the ground while in control of the football. If that wasn't a touchdown then this is almost as bad as the Brady tuck rule.

[Bigmikesm]

Bottom line is they reviewed the play. Not like the old days when there was no instant replay. They made the correct call based on the rules.

[Skidcom]

Just another bitter pill for the Lions fan.

[patswin]

tough loss indeed, had det ml +240!

[darrell74]

I've dvr'd and watched that thing over and over and according to the rule, he had the catch.

Here's why:
There was contact on Calvin's back side when they went up for the catch. Therefore, when Calvin comes down, he's down.
Play should be dead, right?
Does this mean the player is live and in play-of course not.
If their was a Chicago player that knocked it out of his hands at that time, it would have been a late hit.

[darrell74]

Us degenerate gamblers have watched a bunch of pre-season games and never heard of this new rule that changed our T.V. viewing expectations.

It was very odd.

We've seen a ton of these catches called touchdowns, before, but this was different.

Roger Goodell should be fired anyways. He's allowing this stupid shit.
Hasn't done shit for the NFL.

[poochiecollins]

Based on the wording of the rule I heard/read on ESPN, it seems there's enough wiggle room that you could've argued the receiver still made the catch legally.

[d2bets]

They need to re-think/clarify how this rule is written. The rule ought to comport with logic. I'm surprised this doesn't happen even more often. Watch, now it probably will. But every receiver needs to be shown this and become fully aware of this rule. Defenders too. I guess they could bat the ball out as the receiver goes to the ground with the ball and as he's rolling around.

[jpessene]

yep rule sucks
but they got it right
must have control when you land, so when he braced himself with the hand with ball and it popped, he lost control
rule sucks
but refs nailed it

[Joszan7]

I bet if this happened to the Colts the rule would have been changed mid-review.

[gmoney000]

gotta love being a lions fan

[oldstylecubsfan]

Why is everyone saying its a bad rule? Is it a bad rule that when a runner bowls over a catcher at homeplate and is safe because the catcher dropped when he hit the ground a bad rule? Whats the difference. It establishes some objectivity that you have to maintain possession through the ground

[stealthyburrito]

i can't remember the last time the lions won on the road.

would've been nice to see.

[Herky]

Touchdown.

Saints received 2 pts in SuperBowl last year on same play. Guy dropped ball, they reviewed and gave him the catch.

[d2bets]

Touchdown.

Saints received 2 pts in SuperBowl last year on same play. Guy dropped ball, they reviewed and gave him the catch.

A couple differences at least:

1. N.O. receiver first caught that ball short of the goal line. His body was in, but the ball wasn't. There is a different applied for catches IN the endzone and catches short of the endzone where the ball then crosses. Why? I have no idea. That's just how it is.

2. The ball was kicked out of the receiver's hands. He didn't lose it on his own. I'm actually not clear from reading the rule whether this does matter or not. I don't know. But it might.

[poochiecollins]

Why is everyone saying its a bad rule? Is it a bad rule that when a runner bowls over a catcher at homeplate and is safe because the catcher dropped when he hit the ground a bad rule? Whats the difference. It establishes some objectivity that you have to maintain possession through the ground

The Detroit receiver had both feet touch, a hip, and possibly more, all while the ball was firmly in his hands. When he then lets go of the ball, it looks intentional -_-

[Shutdown]

I don't care what the bloody rule says, that was horrible. The Lions haven't won a road game since 2 thousand freaking 7 for the love of football. 0-28 goes to 0-29 when they should have had that. Great catch by Megatron. The red tape of the NFL is getting outrageous. It's bad enough they are killing the celebrations, but now even the TD's?? Pffff

And man I don't like the Lions one bit, but justice is justice.

[infamousbacardi]

Like everyone is saying...this clearly should have been a TD regardless of the rule. If the rule 100% would have voided that reception...then the rule unquestionably needs to be changed...and not at the end of the season...upon the completion of the games this evening!!!!!!!!!!

[str]

If my job is to catch the ball, I know the rules that apply to catching the ball.

[BarkingToad]

I bet if this happened to the Colts the rule would have been changed mid-review.

That's probably true!

[odusmykal]

Roger Goodell should be fired anyways. He's allowing this stupid shit.
Hasn't done shit for the NFL.

Couldn't agree more..

[tomcast]

Bad rule plain and simple

[Smoke]

as a lions fan, this subject hurts me the most. something like this happens every year to the lions where a bad call costs them a win.. it's as if roger goodell doesn't want the lions to finally be good.

[pavyracer]

If Tom Brady threw that pass to Randy Moss in Foxboro with 10 sec left to win the game at home it would have been a TD.