dear god that call

[footballdad]

Come on, It's called the Calvin Johnson Rule. Only logical explanation is karmic payback for last week.

Even if the refs would have tried to conspire with the Cowboys again, ignored the correct call, and the Cowboys score there......They still would have ended up losing because Rogers had found his groove in the second half and would have taken them to the winning score anyways.

Game irrelevant as Seattle would have crushed either next week.

[H-E-B Mustang]

Game irrelevant as Seattle would have crushed either next week.

So why bother even playing games like these? Just go ahead and send Seattle to the Super Bowl.

[Lebanese4Life]

footballdad how about you take an unbiased view and not let your cowboys hate influence you

[No Quarter]

Someday perhaps the shade of Garrett will hear the ghosts of Landry and Schramm remember Superbowl V.

[Nacho]

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/dez-bry ... -steratore

[ponyte]

So by rule, a guy catches a ball, takes four steps and is barely touched but lunges fr a few extra inches. The ball comes loose and its not a catch? I do think that is a way to restrictive rule. I could understand with just two or one or no steps. But three and a lunge is the basis for a Key and Peele skit.

[Rebel_Pony]

There's been a lot of talk here and elsewhere about what "the rule" says - however, what is being cited to is actually a subpart ("Item 1") of the catch rule itself. I don't think I've seen any source anywhere actually quote the NFL's completed pass rule (Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3), which states:

COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

In order for a catch to be deemed a completion, therefore, the rule does not require a "football move" [i.e., an "act common to the game"] be made, but instead simply that the receiver (a) secure control of the ball before it touches the ground, (b) touch the ground with both feet or any body part other than hands, and (c) maintain control long enough to perform a "football move." That is the catch rule.

The "Item 1" being cited everywhere is a subpart to the rule that requires that the receiver "maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground." It doesn't say anything about a "football move" needing to be made in order for the catch to be complete. It has been applied in such a manner, in my opinion, to change the common understanding of what a football "catch" is, or what is required to make such a "catch."

[Nacho]

so your are saying if i may parapharase, dez got hosed.

[Rebel_Pony]

so your are saying if i may parapharase, dez got hosed.

In a word, yes.

[mrydel]

You have omitted the Calvin Johnson rule of control to the ground. That is the basis for the overturn. Had he never left his feet then what you posted above would apply. When you jump, the "to the ground" rule takes over, he must maintain control through the fall to the ground. Stupid rule but it is in effect until changed.

[Rebel_Pony]

You have omitted the Calvin Johnson rule of control to the ground. That is the basis for the overturn. Had he never left his feet then what you posted above would apply. When you jump, the "to the ground" rule takes over, he must maintain control through the fall to the ground. Stupid rule but it is in effect until changed.

The "Calvin Johnson rule" is the "Item 1" subpart I reference and quote: I agree with what it says, but the question is, do you even get to that subpart of the catch rule if you have already made a completion? I would argue based upon the way the catch rule reads, Dez had already made a completed catch (i.e., he took three steps, touched the ground with his knee, and then touched the ground with his elbow [probably even both elbows]). But in any event, after this I think there is no doubt the whole rule needs to be revised by the NFL.

[mrydel]

Listening to the officials on the network, they said elbow and knee were not considerations of being down on the Johnson rule. Need to go completely to the ground. I think it is all very ridiculous and serious changes need to be made. Perhaps putting some logic into the decision.

[Nacho]

what if he ran 50 yards, jumped over 3 tacklers, went sideways, waved to his mom, jumped up and down, ran in a circle and then fell down. what does the rule say about that?

[Rebel_Pony]

what if he ran 50 yards, jumped over 3 tacklers, went sideways, waved to his mom, jumped up and down, ran in a circle and then fell down. what does the rule say about that?

Incomplete pass.

[couch 'em]

I believe Dez touched the ball, turned and came down on his feet to establish possession, immediately tripped on the other player while attempting to over forward, transferred and extended ball on way down, and ground knocked the already possessed extended ball away as he fell. Down by contact, Cowboy's ball on the 1 yard line.