One More Case of the Improperly Applied "Calvin Johnson Rule"

[Thanatos 2,847]

No... if they changed it that play would have been a touchdown, not a fumble.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Those types of plays aren't limited to the end zone. I wasn't speaking of the Freeman play specifically but the rule in general.

[oochymp 2,393]

but most of these plays that don't involve the endzone would still either be down by contact or the receiver would have the best chance to recover the fumble

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

And then you'd have the one play a year where it is a fumble and people create threads on football forums aghast at how unfair the rule is and how obvious it was that the Wr didn't have control before losing it. It's something that will never go away one way or another.

[Mentch 42]

In both the cases of Eifert and Freeman, they caught the ball outside of the end zone and then lunged over and broke the plain. The play should have been over at that point in time. The problem is the rule has been written to make us interpret stupid shit that normally wouldnt apply

 

When the Calvin Johnson catch initially happened 5 years ago, I remember a lot of the argument being "if CJ had caught the ball on the 1 yard line and then dove in he would have been fine and wouldnt need to control the ball all the way to the ground!" Well now theyve changed the rule to where that's no longer an option apparently. There is no specific way to tell what is a catch and what isnt. You basically have to go by the guess and check method

 

The ruling over what constitutes a catch and what doesnt is about as consistent as the NFL's rulings on domestic violence

[oochymp 2,393]

https://vine.co/v/izgBpUjeZpU

 

To me, this one's a huge a issue, the refs determined he was "going to the ground" but he wasn't going to the ground until he was hit out of bounds. So calling this one incomplete (regardless of what rule you're applying) is encouraging hits out of bounds. This was a fairly innocuous hit out of bounds, but you're making receivers even more of a target on sideline catches when you call a play like this incomplete.

 

EDIT: original vine was taken down, found a new one but the play was a Michael Crabtree 'catch' against Detroit

Edited December 8, 2015 by oochymp

[Vin+ 3,121]

Joe Buck said on the Rich Eisen podcast last week that he thinks the NFL is going to re-write the rulebook within the next couple years. I hope he's right.

[Thanatos 2,847]

https://vine.co/v/izqdDdA77eh

 

To me, this one's a huge a issue, the refs determined he was "going to the ground" but he wasn't going to the ground until he was hit out of bounds. So calling this one incomplete (regardless of what rule you're applying) is encouraging hits out of bounds. This was a fairly innocuous hit out of bounds, but you're making receivers even more of a target on sideline catches when you call a play like this incomplete.

 

They called that incomplete? What the fuck. This is so fucking dumb.

[BwareDWare94 723]

The main issue with the rule is its vagueness which turns it into a rule that's open to interpretation, and therefore each white hat thinks it means something different

[oochymp 2,393]

The main issue with the rule is its vagueness which turns it into a rule that's open to interpretation, and therefore each white hat thinks it means something different

the problem is they're trying to make it a strict rule that's enforceable in all situations, but every play is a little different, I'd actually like it if they gave a little more vagueness because I think we all agree with the Justice Stewart definition: "I know it when I see it" unfortunately that would be damn near impossible to enforce

[BwareDWare94 723]

The Calvin Johnson Johnson Rule and the term "indisputable evidence" are hurting the NFL a lot this season. Not only is the CJ Rule being applied in some game almost every week, officials are ignoring "indisputable evidence" on replay almost constantly. At some point, I'd just like to see touchdowns and turnovers reviewed and just get rid of the coach's challenges.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The Calvin Johnson Johnson Rule and the term "indisputable evidence" are hurting the NFL a lot this season. Not only is the CJ Rule being applied in some game almost every week, officials are ignoring "indisputable evidence" on replay almost constantly. At some point, I'd just like to see touchdowns and turnovers reviewed and just get rid of the coach's challenges.

Would that really help the issue by cutting back on reviews? Then we would just get a bunch of... "That should have been reviewed" complaints, wouldn't we? Or do you just say... Hey, this is human error. It's gonna happen, deal with it?

 

I don't like the ambiguity either, but.... I am not sure there is a hard wire fix for it.

[oochymp 2,393]

I'd just like to see touchdowns and turnovers reviewed and just get rid of the coach's challenges.

I hate coach's challenges with a passion, it takes replay reviews, which should be used to get calls right, and makes them a point of strategy, coaches have to ask themselves "do I want to make sure they get this call right or do I think they'll make a bigger screwup later?" and that's just wrong IMO, I like the idea of a replay official (I think that's what they do in college) who buzzes the head ref when a play needs a second look

[BwareDWare94 723]

Quite frankly, there should be a review official many miles away for each game and he or she should make the call and relay it to the white hat. No more of this 5 minute pause bullshit. If they want the games to last as long as possible, lengthen halftime and quarter breaks. I'd rather have that than this nonsense of reviews where we see what the correct call is but can't trust that the guy coming out to make it will do the right thing.

Carl Cheffers is terrible for this. He ignores irrefutable/indisputable evidence at any chance he gets.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I've got another one.

 

To me, this is a catch and a fumble. Based on how the NFL is calling it, I feel like this is incomplete:

 

[oochymp 2,393]

Could you give us a worse angle?

[Thanatos 2,847]

If someone's got All-22 film they could find a better one, that's the best one I got.

[FartWaffles 1,857]

I've got another one.

 

To me, this is a catch and a fumble. Based on how the NFL is calling it, I feel like this is incomplete:

 

That's incomplete IMO. Doesn't look like he ever has complete control of the football.

[BigBen07 285]

Yeah I think that's incomplete. I agree with FW about the control of the ball.

Edited December 9, 2015 by BigBen07

[Thanatos 2,847]

I think so too re-watching it. I don't think the Saints guy ever touches the ball, Olsen loses control trying to put it away, and/or never had it at ll.

 

They didn't even bother to review it. The announcers didn't say anything about it at all. Just so inconsistent.

[BigBen07 285]

I think so too re-watching it. I don't think the Saints guy ever touches the ball, Olsen loses control trying to put it away, and/or never had it at ll.

 

They didn't even bother to review it. The announcers didn't say anything about it at all. Just so inconsistent.

I agree. I've been watching older games lately, and it was refreshing to see a catch be just that. The rule changes have been so bad lately.

[oochymp 2,393]

The biggest, and possibly insurmountable, obstacle in fixing NFL’s catch rule - The Washington Post

 

The NFL’s catch rule is confounding. It is overly complicated and counterintuitive. It tells fans they didn’t see what they were certain they just saw. It has changed the outcome of games, and it makes for a number of head-scratching officiating decisions and instant-replay rulings per season.

It also is quite possibly here to stay, with the NFL’s rule-making competition committee poised to go another offseason without making major changes to the rule governing what is — and what is not — a legal catch.

The biggest reason some knowledgeable observers say the sport’s leaders are unlikely to rewrite the catch rule is that doing so would have a pronounced effect on rules pertaining to illegal hits on defenseless receivers. Those rules were installed to help protect players against injuries, particularly concussions, and the league has no intention of rolling back those regulations and igniting what could be a bigger firestorm than any outrage over an incomplete pass.

It's a pretty long article, but interesting nonetheless. It takes them a while to get to the root of the matter so to summarize: as soon as you consider a catch "completed" the receiver will no longer be a "defenseless player" and all of the rules against hits to the head disappear, so what it comes down to is would you rather debate whether a catch was completed to determine field position or potentially the outcome of a game, or would you rather have the same debate over a concussed player?