I have no idea how that's not a catch. That would be considered a catch in every other game of football I've seen or played in.

I thought the ground cannot cause a fumble after possession has been maintained. I thought he also made a footballing move, But I'm a Brit so what do I know.


If the game had been in Detroit the TD would have stood simple.

---

The ground cannot cause a fumble, but it can cause an incomplete pass.

"process"

"second move"

Goddamn legalism.

---

The question remains unanswered: How long must one maintain possession of the ball? What is the point of demarcation after which one can relinquish control of the ball?

So basically, the lesson we are to take away from this play is that if Johnson had simply not touched the ground with the ball, had he not performed the action of what looked to me like spiking the ball, this play would have counted? At what point was the play deemed to have ended, considering he brought his feet and legs in contact with the ground?

---

The action Johnson made was nothing of the sort of spiking the ball. The ball clearly was knocked out of his hand by the ground as his hand/arm swung south into the ground.

The rule is silly and is exactly what could be considered wrong with the NFL. This is supposed to be football, it shouldn't be overcomplicated with moronic rules like this. Things need to be more clear, but when you are talking about catching, possession, etc unfortunately that's going to have some judgment in the matter. I still think you can tell if the ball is being bobbled or not and with that, having two feet or knee or butt touching the ground while you are not bobbling the ball should constitute a catch.

I "understand" why it wasn't ruled a catch, I just have a partial disagreement with it.

I'd agree with the ruling if he was bobbling the ball, or didn't have two feet inbounds.

---

Hate that rule. I get that it's the rule, and I buy that it was correctly enforced. But it's a stupid rule, especially when you consider that if they start out with possession outside the endzone all they have to do is cross the plane of the goal line w/ the ball. Two completely different standards. Dumb.

Worst thing was, it absolutely cost the Lions that game. I'm no Lions fan, but shit - they did what they had to do to win that game, but for a stupid rule.

Also, I thought Stafford looked pretty decent out there - the Lions were easily outplaying the Bears before he went out.

---

What judgment was there? He caught said ball. two feet down.. his ass his the ground.. he was down and the play was dead at that moment.

What I hate.. is modifying a nearly perfect game with this nonsense.

It is a bullshit call.. upholding a bullshit rule.

---

I also think the rule is okay, and for the same reason: It's easier to enforce.

Although Zero doesn't like the rule, props to him for pointing out that Johnson did not drop the ball on purpose. It was jarred loose when he hit the ground.

With this rule, I don't think there is a question of how long the player has to hang onto the ball after he hits the ground. The point is whether the ball was dislodged by the impact of the receiver hitting the ground, which it clearly was in this case.

Players know that they need to hang onto the ball when they hit the ground. Johnson had it jarred loose when he came down and then tried to make it look like he dropped it on purpose. I can't fault him for that, because that's the only thing he could do at that point.

I grudgingly accepted this ruling when it happened to Greg Jennings last year, so I'm not going to complain about it when it's just the Lions. They're cursed anyway.

---

You gotta figure if shit like that is going to happen it's going to happen to the lions.
Like Greg said, they are cursed.