Calvin Johnson Touchdown Catch Overturned On Controversial Call (VIDEO)

The Detroit Lions were robbed of a victory Sunday when officials ruled that a late-game catch from Calvin Johnson was not a touchdown due to an obscure rule. Trailing the Bears by five, Johnson reeled in a 25-yard catch to give Detroit the lead with under one minute to go.

While Johnson clearly appeared to have possession of the ball, officials ruled that he did not maintain control long enough. The play was ruled an incompletion, and the Lions were unable to score afterwards.

ProFootballTalk posted the relevant rule at the center of the controversy:

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."

On Twitter, smartfootball wrote, "How many body parts need to touch the ground? Two feet, his butt, his arm and his elbow... and then the ball comes out." J.A. Adande of ESPN added, "How can that not be a touchdown?"

Scroll down for video of the catch. Was it a catch, or were the referees right?

Quick Poll

Were the referees right?

Yes -- he did not maintain control of the ball.

No -- it was clearly a touchdown.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Comments

[moutonnoir]

06:58 AM on 10/12/2010

for some reason i thought this was going to be about k records...

[meganbioturner]

11:48 PM on 10/06/2010

NFL rules kill the game of football.

[takatalahala]

08:56 PM on 09/21/2010

Lions were robbed. First Gallaraga and now this:(

[bdsplash]

10:06 PM on 09/18/2010

It is a catch by the CURRENT RULE. As he catches and goes to the ground (watch it in slow motion) his feet and butt are down and he slides a bit. He pulls the ball away from his body demonstrating control. He begins to get up (on his feet butt off the ground) and starts to spin the ball but his angle is unsteady and it flops. Watch his hand as he places the ball on the ground, uses it partially to support him and flicks his wrist. He didn't drop it.

[kcnativnla]

06:00 PM on 09/15/2010

If you don't hold on to the football, completing the process of the catch, it's not a catch! When did that concept become controversial?

Spiking of a football is what's called a "second act", which occurs after the "first act" - namely, CATCHING THE BALL. You have not caught the ball until the first act is completed, which occurs after your body has ceased ...movement involving the "first act". So, if a guy catches the ball, pauses, then spikes the ball, those are two separate acts. If he "spikes" the ball while in the process of the first act (while falling, tumbling, or skidding), then yes,
that's a fumble.

[timhood]

05:21 PM on 09/16/2010

It's only controversial when people get it wrong. Look at the video again. Now, follow along: two-handed catch…one step…two steps…other hand goes down…hip/butt goes down…then the ball hand comes all the way across and hits the ground.

Exactly when is that pass not caught? The catch was over. Just because his ball hand hit the ground and then he let go doesn't mean he didn't have possession long before.

"If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete."

Well, ne never lost control. You don't one-hand a ball all the way through the air like that and not have control. Pass caught. TD. Ref that was right there saw it. Some other idiot who didn't get a clear look over-ruled it.

[kcnativnla]

07:32 PM on 09/17/2010

I've watched this "catch" many times, and I watched it again before making this comment: it was not a catch

The play is over when the "first act" is finished. He didn't start his "second act" - getting up to celebrate, until the ball was lost.

Johnson didn't use the ball to get up. The ball doesn't just "hit the ground" (which, by itself is the very definition of an incomplete catch) - the ball actually breaks his momentum, then stays on the ground as he gets up..

And finally, I'm tired of these people who want to reward Johnson because he "intended" to catch the ball. So what? You don't reward intent. The rule is the rule! No catch.

[kburlz]

04:46 PM on 09/15/2010

If you think this is a touchdown you are watching it with your heart. The rule is that you have to maintain control AFTER you hit the ground. He hit the ground as he was falling as a result of the play and the ball came out as he made contact with the ground. The rule sucks, but clearly, it was not a catch if you apply the rule as it is written.

[kcnativnla]

06:02 PM on 09/15/2010

Amen!

A running back establishes possession of the ball during hand off, so possession is not in dispute. Once he breaks the plane, then it's a touchdown, even if he fumbles after doing so. A receiver only establishes possession when the ball is caught. If he doesn't catch the ball (catch it according to the RULES), then he never establishes possession to make breaking the plane valid. Hence: No catch. No TD!

[takatalahala]

08:56 PM on 09/21/2010

CATCH!

[TILL]

02:04 PM on 09/15/2010

I can't find where the League states as to when the process is over. However, I can see why they think it's in their best interest, not to do so. It's an ego thing. We all got one.

[sonofsamphm1c]

05:20 PM on 09/15/2010

This is easy. When the Ref says it's over. It would have been over had he just pulled ball in to his chest and wrapped it up.

[Ron333wood]

11:37 AM on 09/15/2010

I'm a bears' fan...that was a touchdown. The rule needs to be changed.

[sonofsamphm1c]

12:53 PM on 09/15/2010

So you're going to give back Greg Jennings' TD catch?

The rule should remain as is. It's a black-and-white call for the refs.

[repuglycon]

09:53 AM on 09/15/2010

As a long suffering fan (Joe Schmidt days) I was disappointed the Lions didn't protest harder. Is there a rule against the Lions winning? That's what it looks like. It's hard for a fan to care when the team and the league doesn't care.

[sonofsamphm1c]

12:59 PM on 09/15/2010

Because the rule was perfectly applied, and the Lions had a voice in writing the rule.

It was their rule.

[tjpw0850]

09:51 AM on 09/15/2010

No matter how you see it, it was a TOUCHDOWN. We move on to next week.

[repuglycon]

10:20 AM on 09/15/2010

Next week we move on to soccer. At least I can understand the rules.

[Mr Pena]

02:03 AM on 09/15/2010

The poll and comments show me that only about 30% of the participants here are able to distinguish between what they in their personal opinion thinks a complete pass looks like and what the rule presented here clearly states.

The majority of posts either fail to accept or disregard out-of-hand that the NFL, it's officials, and the head coaches of both teams acknowledge that the correct call was made in accordance with the current rules. Perhaps it would help to understand that football has complex rules that change every year.

Why do 70% of you think you know better than all of the most expert people on the sporting event that they themselves devised and performed for you? Is it because it is more fun to cheer for the underdog or are we just never wrong about anything?

I can understand not liking the outcome and thinking that the rule isn't a good rule. My visceral reaction was one of dread, because superficially it appeared to be a touchdown. Although I am a Bears fan, I can agree that the Lions made a seemingly spectacular play. But it was negated by what appeared to be the receiver's overwhelming desire to celebrate prematurely.

Finally, the outcome of each play is not a democratic process. Since your opinion did not affect the result, feel free to vent here. But know that the league that invented the rules knows the rules just a tiny bit better than you do.

[RickCoMatic]

11:55 PM on 09/14/2010

That's a TOUCHDOWN!!!
The Rule says that the ball needs to "Break the Plane".
He's IN the End Zone!
Both feet In Bounds? ✔
Makes a "Football Move? ✔ (He even changes-hands with the ball.
The Play was OVER when he changed hands with the ball in the End Zone.

Highway Robbery!!!

[TILL]

11:28 PM on 09/14/2010

No, I got it wrong, it's about the ground, not airborne. They're denying he was getting up, and that the ball involuntarily left his hand. The refs have to be right on both counts to call an incomplete pass. In my opinion they are wrong on both. Denying that Johnson was getting up is where they lose their case. It's obvious the process is one of getting up not falling.

[sonofsamphm1c]

12:35 AM on 09/15/2010

It's not just falling; it's the tumble, etc. He has to maintain possession throughout. The Detroit coach has acknowledged his player failed to maintain possession and that the refs got it right.

[TILL]

10:54 PM on 09/14/2010

The more I read this rule, the more it concerns itself with losing control of the ball while the player is in the air. This being so, the ball whether Johnson pushed it out voluntarily, which is what I see, or lost control of it involuntarily makes no difference,and is moot, i.e. the rule does not cover the ball leaving the player's hand, in the fashion it left Johnson's. Commonsense tells one that he is in the process of getting up, not falling. Look at his left arm, left leg, and his right arm with ball to the ground. What happened soon after this position is seen. He gets up. As I said, how the ball comes out of Johnson's hand is not relevant re the rule, because the rule applies to the player being airborne.
The reason the rule is being misinterpreted, is because they are applying it to a player falling along the ground, instead of the player being airborne as it was meant.

[sonofsamphm1c]

11:14 PM on 09/14/2010

The rule covers a player falling to the ground.

If you let the ball touch the ground, you've lost control, whether it's intentional or unintentional. That covers what Johnson did. It is not a catch.

The rule applies to the entire process, in the air and the tumble on the ground. It was about two seconds from completing the process when the ball touches the ground: instantly incomplete.

[TILL]

12:12 AM on 09/15/2010

I like everything about your argument, except the tumble part. At some point in time, a play has to be called over, dead, complete, however, you want to say it. Johnson is not tumbling, he's getting up. He's in control of his body and the ball. Looking in slow motion it's obvious the process is one of getting up. Johnson is officially down before the ball is touched to the ground. He has already landed on his leg, hip, and butt region. He has already extended his left arm to brace his fall and start to get up. His left leg is braced and he's getting up using that. He touches the ball to the ground to get up. He's getting up, not tumbling, not falling, in fact he's in good control of his body and the ball.

[Richard Paul Hall]

07:00 PM on 09/14/2010

According to the rule, no touchdown.
He lost control of the ball, or let go of it after his knees hit the ground and when the ball hit it rolled away; no control.