FARK.com: (6752876) When is a touchdown not a touchdown? When you have posession of the ball in the endzone and you're the Bengals

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		When is a touchdown not a touchdown? When you have posession of the ball in the endzone and you're the Bengals (nfl.com)		122
		More: Video

• • •

9369 clicks; posted to Video » on 22 Nov 2011 at 8:31 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/6752876

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

122 Comments (+0 »)

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

Theaetetus

2011-11-22 08:35:43 AM

When is a touchdown not a touchdown?

When the ball moves in your hand when you hit the ground.

treecologist

2011-11-22 08:35:45 AM

That's BS. Cross the plane of the endzone with possession of the ball and it should be a touchdown.

Of course, the fact that it happened to the Bengals makes it delicious.

ihatedumbpeople

2011-11-22 08:36:06 AM

Calvin Johnson rule...went to the ground and didn't maintain possession.

Not saying I agree with it, if you ask me it's a TD. But that's how the rule is written. You basically have to score and run back to the bench with the ball in tow to avoid the call being reversed. Don't even THINK about tossing that ball to the ref early, even if he's signaled a TD, they may review it and take the call back.

treecologist

2011-11-22 08:38:50 AM

Lost Thought 00

2011-11-22 08:39:13 AM

They should make the rule that you must maintain possession of the ball for 5 minutes in the end zone, while your opponents get to take penalty-exempt shots at you to try and dislodge the ball.

uncoveror

2011-11-22 08:40:28 AM

That would be a touchdown for a favored team like Dallas, Pittsburgh or New England, but not an unfavored team.

AdmirableSnackbar

2011-11-22 08:45:56 AM

At this point, how can players not know the rule about this? It's not as if it wasn't a big farking deal for the entire season last year and in various instances so far this year. Why would you ever, ever use the ball to break your fall when you're going to the ground after/during a catch?

PghThermal

2011-11-22 08:53:49 AM

50 year Steeler fan here: I think the difference between the Johnson and Gresham plays is that Johnson caught the ball in the end zone while Gresham carried it in. Forget the pass and think of a running back handling the ball like Gresham. In possesion as you "break the plane" = TD.

ihatedumbpeople

2011-11-22 08:57:11 AM

treecologist: That's BS. Cross the plane of the endzone with possession of the ball and it should be a touchdown.

Of course, the fact that it happened to the Bengals makes it delicious.

Yeah...if during a QB sneak the QB's hands and the ball cross the goal line, but he's pushed back or fumbles shortly after, it's still a TD because he crossed the goal line. Granted, a pass you have to 'complete', but I think it's gotten silly with the definition of 'complete'.

ihatedumbpeople

2011-11-22 08:58:51 AM

mynameisdouglas

2011-11-22 08:59:10 AM

PghThermal: 50 year Steeler fan here: I think the difference between the Johnson and Gresham plays is that Johnson caught the ball in the end zone while Gresham carried it in. Forget the pass and think of a running back handling the ball like Gresham. In possesion as you "break the plane" = TD.

This is an important distiction, or at least it should be. Video is choppy at work but it looked like he might have been bobbling as he broke the plane, so that would then be completing the catch in the endzone.
Rule should be clarified anyway.

Bruce Campbell

2011-11-22 09:09:33 AM

Bobbled ball and didn't have 2 feet down until foot #2 was in the end zone and the receiver was falling down. So the process of completing the catch was not done outside of the end zone and the receiver failed to maintain possession when making contact with the ground. Incomplete.

MugzyBrown

2011-11-22 09:14:52 AM

nfl rules try to be too scientific, and this is the biggest example. allow the refs to just make a judgement call. if it looks like a catch then it's a catch.

same with fubmles.. oooh his knee touched a blade of grass, he's down. no make the rule: player needs to complete the play with possesion. let the ref decide when the play is complete

stebain

2011-11-22 09:25:48 AM

What determines falling? How many steps allow to offset whether the player is or isn't falling? The purpose of the "follow through", I thought, was to address players who are catching the ball in near horizontal positions. Gresham had two feet in with the ball held in his right hand. Not bobbled. Then he stepped out of bounds.
It's not like he tippytoed the left-right foot while falling. He was running forward.

What if he had run three steps out of bounds and then fell? What is the demarcation?
Was it indisputable as to whether he was a receiver or a runner as he crossed the plane?

Terrible rule. Terrible overturn.

ChrisDe

2011-11-22 09:26:31 AM

ihatedumbpeople: treecologist: That's BS. Cross the plane of the endzone with possession of the ball and it should be a touchdown.

Of course, the fact that it happened to the Bengals makes it delicious.

Yeah...if during a QB sneak the QB's hands and the ball cross the goal line, but he's pushed back or fumbles shortly after, it's still a TD because he crossed the goal line. Granted, a pass you have to 'complete', but I think it's gotten silly with the definition of 'complete'.

This. If they had video replay all along, most of the great catches in NFL history would have been overturned.

stebain

2011-11-22 09:28:03 AM

PghThermal

2011-11-22 09:28:48 AM

mynameisdouglas: PghThermal: 50 year Steeler fan here: I think the difference between the Johnson and Gresham plays is that Johnson caught the ball in the end zone while Gresham carried it in. Forget the pass and think of a running back handling the ball like Gresham. In possesion as you "break the plane" = TD.

This is an important distiction, or at least it should be. Video is choppy at work but it looked like he might have been bobbling as he broke the plane, so that would then be completing the catch in the endzone.
Rule should be clarified anyway.

mynameisdouglas: PghThermal: 50 year Steeler fan here: I think the difference between the Johnson and Gresham plays is that Johnson caught the ball in the end zone while Gresham carried it in. Forget the pass and think of a running back handling the ball like Gresham. In possesion as you "break the plane" = TD.

This is an important distiction, or at least it should be. Video is choppy at work but it looked like he might have been bobbling as he broke the plane, so that would then be completing the catch in the endzone.
Rule should be clarified anyway.

I watched that game and saw multiple replays. It seemed to me that he juggled the catch, shifted the ball to his right hand, extended it across the goal line, put his right (second) foot down in the end zone, and had the ball dislodged when it hit the gound.

That is my drunken memory. Any comments ??

mrtoadswildride

2011-11-22 09:32:16 AM

ihatedumbpeople: Calvin Johnson rule...went to the ground and didn't maintain possession.

Not saying I agree with it, if you ask me it's a TD. But that's how the rule is written. You basically have to score and run back to the bench with the ball in tow to avoid the call being reversed. Don't even THINK about tossing that ball to the ref early, even if he's signaled a TD, they may review it and take the call back.

I don't necessarily agree with the call, but I don't disagree either.

IIRC (more or less), players must maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground...and the ball is allowed to touch the ground if the player has the ball under control....

Here, the player is jugginge the ball...and for a split second, as he's going to the ground, he has the ball in his hand...but he uses the ball the break his fall...and you if watch the video (starting at about 1:30) you see that when the ball hits the ground, his hand comes of the ball just a little bit as he hits the ground....then he brings it inclose to his chest....

personally, I don't think ref is wrong...

/Let's put it this way...suppose this catch was made by your favorite team's arch rival or it it was made by one of the other team's cornerback....would you call it a catch/pick or not?

MugzyBrown

2011-11-22 09:32:32 AM

You don't think that a knee down is a good demarcation of end of play? If the guy is down, does he have to hold on to the ball while players attempt to strip?

I'm sick of looking at super slow replays to see if the ball juuuuusst started to rotate as the players knee, which is being hidden by several players mayyyybe touches the ground.

You should have to hold onto the ball until you're down. Why can't the ground cause a fumble? If you dive, you should have to hold onto the ball when you hit the ground.

stebain

2011-11-22 09:39:20 AM

PghThermal: I watched that game and saw multiple replays. It seemed to me that he juggled the catch, shifted the ball to his right hand, extended it across the goal line, put his right (second) foot down in the end zone, and had the ball dislodged when it hit the gound.

Sounds like an accurate recollection. How many of those count as "football moves", which means he wasn't in the act of falling.
I walked down the stairs and tripped on the rug at the bottom of the stairs. That now, it seems, means I fell down the stairs.

stebain

2011-11-22 09:43:46 AM

MugzyBrown: You don't think that a knee down is a good demarcation of end of play? If the guy is down, does he have to hold on to the ball while players attempt to strip?

I'm sick of looking at super slow replays to see if the ball juuuuusst started to rotate as the players knee, which is being hidden by several players mayyyybe touches the ground.

If you have to go to super slow mo, then it should be considered "not indisputable". Go with the original call.

You should have to hold onto the ball until you're down. Why can't the ground cause a fumble? If you dive, you should have to hold onto the ball when you hit the ground.
If you dive and lose the ball while hitting the ground, that's a fumble. You are still a live runner.
If you are tackled and the knee hits the ground, the play is dead. What happens after that doesn't matter.

chuckufarlie

2011-11-22 09:46:56 AM

The rule is quite clear. If at any point between bringing the ball into the receivers hands and the receiver taking a post game shower, the ball leaves the players hands, it is not a catch.

It is a stupid rule - football is full of stupid rules. Excessive celebration???? fark off. Taunting an opposing player?? fark off

DoBeDoBeDo

2011-11-22 09:49:29 AM

If he had possession before the Raven's DB makes contact it's a TD. But he gained possession after contact, said contact was making him fall to the ground. If you take possession while going to the ground you have to maintain possession all the way through the action of going to the ground. He didn't.

What the fark happened to putting 2 hands on the ball? If it's a TD, take the ball and give it to a hot cheerleader.

MugzyBrown

2011-11-22 09:50:24 AM

stebain: If you have to go to super slow mo, then it should be considered "not indisputable". Go with the original call.

That's not the current state of the NFL.

If you dive and lose the ball while hitting the ground, that's a fumble. You are still a live runner.

Not if when you dive you happen to be brushed by a defender then you're down.

So if a players knee hits the ground at the one but then he falls forward and breaks the plain then you'd rule that a TD?

Spotting the ball and fumbles are two separate issues. Obviously in today's NFL you can catch, get two feet, fall to the ground inside the endzone, drop the ball and it's incomplete.

mynameisdouglas

2011-11-22 09:52:58 AM

GimpyNip: Bruce Campbell: Bobbled ball and didn't have 2 feet down until foot #2 was in the end zone and the receiver was falling down. So the process of completing the catch was not done outside of the end zone and the receiver failed to maintain possession when making contact with the ground. Incomplete.

Yeah, I'm not sure what people are talking about with 'clarify the rule'. I don't agree with the rule but it is clear and that play was within the rule. What do people want clarified?

If a player is falling while catching it is one thing, but if he catches the ball and then is knocked down this is another. But it all comes down to how a completion is defined anywhere on the field, so I understand your point.
Nobody likes to see something that looks like a touchdown called off, though. (Unless its against your team).

stebain

2011-11-22 09:54:07 AM

MugzyBrown: Spotting the ball and fumbles are two separate issues.

Not at all. They are both relating to when the action of the runner no longer impact the game.

Theaetetus

2011-11-22 10:03:35 AM

MugzyBrown: Spotting the ball and fumbles are two separate issues. Obviously in today's NFL you can ~~catch~~ bobble, get two feet, fall to the ground inside the endzone, drop the ball and it's incomplete.

FTFY

Malcolm_Sex

2011-11-22 10:05:35 AM

bionicjoe

2011-11-22 10:08:24 AM

As a Bengals fan I would have to say the call is correct. I was not surprised it was overturned.
The NFL has been surprisingly consistent on this rule.

The lack of fumbles pisses me off though. Tiki Barber would've been cut if he played in the 90s or earlier. You have to outright drop the ball anymore.

Also I can't stand the QB sneak at the goal line BS. Tip of the ball, forward progress is fine, but maintain control of the ball until down.

MugzyBrown

2011-11-22 10:09:38 AM

Not at all. They are both relating to when the action of the runner no longer impact the game.

With the current rules:

A runner diving into the endzone crosses the plain and and the looses control before hitting the ground = TD.

A runner diving for a first down reaches the line to gain and looses control before hitting the ground = Fumble.

Spotting the ball and fumbles are treated differently.

Just like if a RB leaps over a defender, his legs are clipped and he looses the ball as he braces his fall with the ball, and when a WR reaches for a catch, gets his feet down, twists as he's coming down and looses the ball as he hits. The rules are already all over the place and stupid.

A WR can be in the air and pushed out of bounds, but the defense can't push back a RB who leaps over the pile.

Deneb81

2011-11-22 10:12:38 AM

If you are being tackled while catching a ball, you have to hold on to it while you hit the ground. That's the rule. He was being tackled while catching the ball and didn't hold on when he hit the ground. No catch. The plane doesn't matter if it's not a catch.

Stupid rule, proper application.

Schmee

2011-11-22 10:15:19 AM

By the time he gained possession of the ball in the end zone, he only got one foot down in bounds. No catch.

Senor Spielbergo

2011-11-22 10:23:47 AM

An important distinction is that the CJ rule applies when the receiver is being contacted by a defender in the process of the catch.

StRalphTheLiar

2011-11-22 10:32:56 AM

This and the NBA's restricted area are the 2 dumbest rules in sports (yes, dumber than the DH even).

Apples01

2011-11-22 10:35:12 AM

A running back dives over the offensive line, breaks the goalline, gets hit on the way down and loses the ball. TOUCHDOWN

Gresham catches the ball with two feet inbounds, breaks the goalline, gets hit and loses the ball when he hits the ground. NO TOUCHDOWN

I don't understand...

MugzyBrown

2011-11-22 10:35:24 AM

GimpyNip: and if they are judgements how would the replay booth overturn anything? You'd have what? A conflict of opinion?

I'd be fine without replay in most situations.

Most replays are pretty inconclusive anyway.

Feet down inbounds is usually a good replay.. did the ball hit before being caught usually pretty good, but the rest are all nonsense.

How many times do you hear the announcers unsure of what the result will be? Ohh this is a close one!

rickythepenguin

2011-11-22 10:39:53 AM

MugzyBrown: nfl rules try to be too scientific, and this is the biggest example. allow the refs to just make a judgement call. if it looks like a catch then it's a catch.

same with fubmles.. oooh his knee touched a blade of grass, he's down. no make the rule: player needs to complete the play with possesion. let the ref decide when the play is complete

I will never get over Victor Cruz (circa Week 4) stumbling on his own feet, bracing his body off the ground with his hand, then trying to crawl forward THEN the ball coming out and having that ruled that he "gave himself up". Cards recovered the ball, arguably go into victory formation, win.

but no. play ruled over when he "gave himself up", no fumble, Eli throws TD pass, ballgame.

HE WAS SCRAMBLING FORWARD.

fucmouths.

AdmirableSnackbar

2011-11-22 10:41:31 AM

rickythepenguin

2011-11-22 10:44:07 AM

MugzyBrown: o you hear the announcers unsure of what the result will be? Ohh this is a close one!

I simultaneously love and loathe how often Cris Collinsworth does the "I'm not so sure". He doesn't do it as much as he used to, but he used to load his "analysis" with double and triple negatives, akin to "guys, I'm not so sure that he didn't get his feet not inbounds!"

huh?

you're not so sure (they got it wrong?)
he did NOT get his feet inbounds?
but then you said *not* inbounds?

dude. WAHT ARE YOU SAYING.

MouserMusing

2011-11-22 10:45:02 AM

GimpyNip: MugzyBrown: You don't think that a knee down is a good demarcation of end of play? If the guy is down, does he have to hold on to the ball while players attempt to strip?

I'm sick of looking at super slow replays to see if the ball juuuuusst started to rotate as the players knee, which is being hidden by several players mayyyybe touches the ground.

You should have to hold onto the ball until you're down. Why can't the ground cause a fumble? If you dive, you should have to hold onto the ball when you hit the ground.

So if a players knee hits the ground at the one but then he falls forward and breaks the plain then you'd rule that a TD?

As long as no opposing player touches him when the knee hits the ground, that would be ruled a touchdown.

You could crawl down the field as long as the opposing team doesn't touch you, it is considered a live ball.

PunchDrunkPanda

2011-11-22 10:46:06 AM

Also when you are DeSean Jackson:

sportsbonehead.com

VvonderJesus

2011-11-22 10:46:08 AM

Apples01: A running back dives over the offensive line, breaks the goalline, gets hit on the way down and loses the ball. TOUCHDOWN

Gresham catches the ball with two feet inbounds, breaks the goalline, gets hit and loses the ball when he hits the ground. NO TOUCHDOWN

I don't understand...

The running back has established possession of the football well before crossing the goal line. Gresham is in the process of making a catch and had yet to establish full possession. Had he gotten two feet in bounds before crossing the goal line, it would be a touchdown. But he got one foot in before and one foot after, therefore he must maintain possession of the football all the way to the ground. The exact same application of the "Calvin Johnson Rule" as Johnson's no catch last year. Whether that rule should be modified is another story, but in this case, the refs are being consistent with that application of the rule.

/at least, that's how I view the play

Karma Curmudgeon

2011-11-22 10:47:52 AM

How is it conceivably more possible to demonstrate control of the ball than by holding it with one hand on top of the ball?

Don't care about the Bungles and That's so Ravens, but asinine rule is asinine.

rickythepenguin

2011-11-22 10:49:38 AM

MouserMusing: You could crawl down the field as long as the opposing team doesn't touch you, it is considered a live ball.

that's the problem with the Cruz play; he was literally crawling forward, but then once the ball popped out, the cards recovered it but the refs said since he dove to the ground (he tripped on his own feet), he "gave himself up". notwithstanding the fact HE'S CRAWLING FORWARD.

dammit.

Gulper Eel

2011-11-22 10:50:08 AM

Just let the receivers and DBs use stickum again. Problem solved.

dartben

2011-11-22 10:50:33 AM

MugzyBrown: Not at all. They are both relating to when the action of the runner no longer impact the game.
...
A WR can be in the air and pushed out of bounds, but the defense can't push back a RB who leaps over the pile.

The play is over as soon as the running back breaks the plane of the endzone. What happens after that is inconsequential.

A wide receiver who has already caught the ball ends the play as soon as he breaks the plane, too. In this case, however, he had not completed the catch before crossing the plane. Therefore the play wasn't over until he completed the catch, which involved him falling to the ground.

Likewise, a play ends as soon as a tackled runner touches the ground with anything other than his hand or his foot. The reason "the ground cannot cause a fumble" is that the play ends as soon as he hits the ground (again, assuming he is being tackled - I've got no explanation for the call in the Giants-Cardinals game).

An analagous play is the rare occurance in hockey where a player closes his hand on the puck in the crease while a delayed penalty is also being called. Normally, a defenseman freezing the puck in the crease would result in a penalty shot. But the delayed penalty means the play ends as soon as the defenseman "controls" the puck, which will happen before he can complete the freezing of the puck. As a result, there is no penalty shot, and only the delayed penalty gets called.

Tophersky

2011-11-22 10:56:42 AM

Ugh...this is why I watch hockey.

NKURyan

2011-11-22 11:00:41 AM

I just can't believe that the refs actually overturned the call. He showed he had possession by palming the ball upside down, and then it *maybe* moved an itsy bit when he hit the ground and that's enough to overturn the call? People keep quoting the rules... well that doesn't look like irrefutable evidence to me to over turn the call.

It's a stupid rule and a stupid call, and it definitely hampered my team's comback attempt, but it didn't cost them the game. The three INTs, giving up long pass plays, and the inability to block a 3 man rush at the end of the game had more to do with that.

/Still a crappy way to lose.
//Still in the driver's seat for a playoff birth.
///Future's bright.

eas81

2011-11-22 11:00:47 AM

treecologist: ihatedumbpeople: Calvin Johnson rule...went to the ground and didn't maintain possession.

Not saying I agree with it, if you ask me it's a TD. But that's how the rule is written. You basically have to score and run back to the bench with the ball in tow to avoid the call being reversed. Don't even THINK about tossing that ball to the ref early, even if he's signaled a TD, they may review it and take the call back.

So, if you score and spike the ball, no TD?

The rule in question states, "If a player goes to the 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. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

go back and look at the replay and you will see he uses the ball to maintain balance thus its incomplete.

Super Chronic

2011-11-22 11:02:25 AM

stebain: What determines falling? How many steps allow to offset whether the player is or isn't falling? The purpose of the "follow through", I thought, was to address players who are catching the ball in near horizontal positions. Gresham had two feet in with the ball held in his right hand. Not bobbled. Then he stepped out of bounds.
It's not like he tippytoed the left-right foot while falling. He was running forward.

What if he had run three steps out of bounds and then fell? What is the demarcation?
Was it indisputable as to whether he was a receiver or a runner as he crossed the plane?

Terrible rule. Terrible overturn.

This was my take as well. I thought that taking a step with possession of the ball would have satisfied the "maintaining possession" requirement.

Displayed 50 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Submit a Link »

Like Fark!

+1 Fark!

Follow @fark on Twitter

Video via RSS

Headlines of the Week

From the Fark Shop:

More from the Fark Shop »