The NFL rulebook states that in according for a catch to count, a player "must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground...If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete." In reference to end zones catches, the rules state, "if a player catches the ball while in the end zone, both feet must be completely on the ground before losing possession, or the pass is incomplete."
These two passages seem to contradict each other. The first part would seem to suggest that the call was the right one, that is, if you believe that when Johnson swung his arm around and lost control of the ball was part of the continuation of the catch. The referees clearly did.
On the other hand, the second quoted passage seems to suggest that it's ok for the receiver to lose the ball as long as he has established possession by getting his feet down. Johnson clearly got both feet down, then a knee, and his butt while maintaining possession, then lost the ball when it hit the ground. So which is it, did the fact that he went down in the end zone with possession make it a catch? Or is it only a catch if he follows through with every movement and still retains possession, even after being legally "down?"
Watch Johnson's (non) catch again and again like I have and determine for yourself.
Similar to the US Constitution, arguing about its interpretation usually doesn't accomplish anything. But let me comment on an aspect of Johnson's catch that no one is talking about.
It seems like everbody is disregarding the fact that Johnson made this already difficult catch a lot more difficult than he had to. Watch as Johnson grabs the ball with two hands over Bears defender Zach Bowman. He comes down on both feet and it's not until he begins to turn that he transfers the ball to his right hand. There was no reason to transfer the ball.
Obviously this all happened in less than a second, so it would have been difficult for Johnson to make a conscious decision about how to hold the ball, but holding the ball with one hand is what cost him the catch.
In no way did transferring the ball help him come down with the catch. He unnecessarily used his left arm to break his fall. Had he held on to the ball with both hands and fell to the ground he would have never lost possession. And even if he did lose possession, we've seen it called a catch before when a receiver gets both feet down with possession and the ground causes a fumble.
In my opinion, if Johnson came down the exact same way he did with both hands on the ball and lost it when the ball hit the ground, that's ruled a catch.
Whether it was a bad call or not, let's put this game into perspective. This game isn't going to be the win that catapults the Bears into the playoffs, or the loss that keeps the Lions from reaching the playoffs. Both team will be lucky to win over five games. If anything, this good/bad call gave NFL fans something to talk about in an otherwise painful game to watch.
By the way, I'm convinced that a call like this could only go against a professional franchise in Detroit or Cleveland. I feel bad for Detroit, but best believe I'm enjoying this victory. Wins won't be easy to come by this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment