There's lots of talk here about the "second act." It doesn't matter in this case because another rule takes precedence: the one about the receiver having to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground.

Also, there is some confusion about the rules for staying inbounds vs. the rules for making a catch. Calvin Johnson clearly met criteria for being inbounds, but not for making the catch.

mi_keys makes a very good point in his last paragraph. That's a good explanation of why the rule does not make intuitive sense. The league has decided to draw the line where they did in order to minimize gray areas, but they may have gone too far this time.

I don't understand Nonstop's point. If the ball pops out when the receiver hits the ground, it's not a catch. It doesn't matter if the ball is just in the receiver's hand, away from his body, or tucked against his chest. I'm pretty sure that Jennings had it tucked against his chest on that play last year when it popped out and it was ruled a non-catch.

---

My point wasn't about physical contact between the ball and the receiver's body. My point was that had he tucked the ball tight to his body (thereby reducing the chances of its popping out), and his body had otherwise followed the exact same trajectory, the play would have been ruled a catch rather than an incompletion. I think it's goofy that it's ruled an incompletion despite the fact his entire body made contact with the ground and his downward momentum was fully stopped. My objection stems partly from the fact that in the eyes of everyone watching that play, it was a catch, and only the most pedantic interpretation of that rule overturns the play. Mostly, though, my objection stems from the inconsistency of the definitions. Had Johnson completed that catch outside the endzone and then lost control of it after the tiniest fraction of the ball broke the plane, it would have been rule a touchdown. In my opinion, if the barest breaking of the plane makes it a touchdown, even if followed by loss of possession, then establishing possession of the ball within the endzone, for no matter how brief a time, should also be ruled a touchdown.

---

In three days, Lions will be 1 - 2.

---

Not if he was falling to the ground as he made the catch, and the ball popped out as he hit the ground. The rule about having to maintain control of the ball until after hitting the ground supersedes all other rules. I'm not crazy about this rule, but I understand it, and I think it is enforced consistently.

I think the reason for the rule is not only to reduce gray areas and judgment calls, but to eliminate "cheap" fumbles. So usually it works in favor of the offense. But not when it happens in the end zone.

They should review this rule in the off season and maybe change it.

(P.S. I'm just about to leave town, and I won't be back till Monday afternoon. I'll be on an island in Lake Superior, but I should be back in time for the game. I look forward to getting back in touch with everyone then.)

---

Bah, I know that. That's why I said had he "completed the catch" -- meaning, in accordance with NFL rule. If he had completed the pass, advanced the ball -- no matter how little -- across the line, and then lost control of it -- no matter how instantaneously -- the ruling would be touchdown. Yet if he obtains possession of the ball in the end zone, no matter for how long, yet loses it upon contact from the ground, it's an incompletion. The inconsistency is absurd, in my opinion.

---

My point is that "in the process of making the catch, if they player goes to the ground, he must maintain possession." Once the player makes the catch and puts both feet down, that process is over. If he lands on his butt or anything, that is the start of a new process. The flaw, in my opinion, is how long the process of making a catch is. If there are any actions after the first two steps, it is a new process. If his butt hits the ground after the two steps, it is a new process.
If instead of hitting the ground, a DB strips the ball after 2 steps, it is a catch. The process is over after the 2 feet are down. If he doesn't get both feet down before hitting the ground, I agree. The process is not finished, no catch.

I dispute their definition of "in the process of". It should be completed the same in every situation. Control and 2 feet down.

---