Football ruling on Receptions

If you saw the Lions game yesterday.....you know what I'm talking about.

When did this rule come into existence? I remember a time when all a player had to do was be in posession of the ball when it crossed the plane of the goal line.....and it was automatic TD. I remember seeing players leave their feet (dive) for a ball......catch it....and the ball come out when they hit the ground.

Touchdown.

When did this change? I'm not disputing it did. That's obvious. I think it stinks. I liked the old way a lot better. "Ground can't cause a fumble". Well....it can cause an incomplete pass. I can see the new rule applying ........prior to the end zone. In the end zone....yesterday proved the new way is silly. Is there anyone that thinks the Lions player didn't catch that ball?

 

That had to be the stupidest "rule" I have seen in sports in a long time.

 

Yesterday was the first I had heard of this and I was totally shocked.
Any such thing has home cookin? lol

 

I saw a comment about that (non)catch that I liked and will repeat it here. "A catch is like pornography. I may not be able to define it, but I sure know what it is when I see it."

 

RIDICULOUS!

A guy can run and jump out of bounds with the football stretched inside the pylon but a guy landing in the endzone and then falling can be ruled incomplete. The only reason I watched yesterday is that it has been almost 20 years since I got to watch football with Grandpa and trying to explain the rule to a guy that can't hear for beans was painful

 

I "think" this always was the rule. I don't believe that actual written rule ever changed. The interpretation and how it's officiated changed IMO.

He caught the ball and lost it while starting his celebration plain and simple.

 

I've yet to hear anyone( other than the officials ) say that he didn't catch that pass. This rule has to be corrected, it will take much of the excitement out of the game IMO.

 

i just made a copy of the NFL rules on possession and catches. PM me with your email's and i'll send you a copy.

OR

if anyone knows how to post a pdf file on here i can do that too, just cant figure out how to cut and paste the doc... sorry

 

the bears were given that game, pure and simple...

 

That's how we roll in Detroit, we're givers

 

I would like to know if he were to have kept possession of the ball, would they have ruled it incomplete because he "trapped" the ball on the ground. To me it was a bad call.

 

Sorry it should have been no issue ..obviously not a catch!

Just like Dallas' deal... if not for "the hold" Romo would have been sacked. He'd have never made the throw!

 

Here is one guy that agrees with the call.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/...ll-in-Detroit-Lions-Chicago-Bears-game-091210

 

I hated the call.

 

Something like this might surprise me if it didn't happen to the Lions. They lose their starting QB and get hosed by that call. Only the Lions...perennial losers.

 

How that is not a reception is beyond me. Even if I were to buy into "the rule", I still think it was a catch. He had 2 feet down, clearly in control of the ball, then his body hits and rolls (still with the ball). As he just started to get up he actually (i'm pretty sure) let go of the ball. How the heck long do you have to hang onto the thing? BS call. Bigger BS rule.

 

The thing that gets me is.....it's a judgement call on the ref.. If he'd called it a catch, there isn't a person in the stands that would have argued with him. And, he'd been just as supported by the rule as he was not ruling it a catch.

I've heard the emphasis, this year, is for the refs to require OVERWHELMING evidence of the ruling on the field being incorrect, before they'll change it (when challenged). This is a shining example.

 

what kills me is that the ref that was right on top of the play got over ruled by another ref that wasn't in NEARLY as good a position to make the call as he was... shoulda been ruled a TD and then bears could have challenged for 'overwhelming' evidence... lions 'won' that game in my eyes

 

Does it really matter if it was a catch or not?

The Lions losing that game will now just give them a better chance of having the #1 pick. So in reality, I think the Lions are the winners, because now the Bears will probably have the #3 pick.

 

That was the biggest load of BS I have seen since the great 'fumble' a few years ago in New England.

Calvin Johnson caught that ball. Period.

I don't need a paragraph explaining to me the dynamics of a catch.

The process.. give me a break.

Too bad for the Lions.