OT: Controversial ending to Lions/Bears game.

[Cbus cardsfan]

Right call, horrible rule. He clearly made the catch. For those blasting CJ, how can you blame the guy for being excited over catching the GW TD on the road, against their biggest rival, from Shaun Hill . He wasn't showboating, he was getting up and used the ball. That call had nothing to do with the play, just the stupid rule.

 

[Cardiac]

Right call, horrible rule. He clearly made the catch. For those blasting CJ, how can you blame the guy for being excited over catching the GW TD on the road, against their biggest rival, from Shaun Hill . He wasn't showboating, he was getting up and used the ball. That call had nothing to do with the play, just the stupid rule.

That's why I called it premature celebration. He didn't catch the ball yet according to the rules. I agree with the getting up and used the ball but that wasn't the best choice, was it.

To be clear I don't think he was showboating. He got caught up in the moment and assumed he had made the catch.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

But he caught the ball according to common sense ....... it's just a damn shame that common sense and the rules don't coincide

 

[Cardiac]

I can't see any valid reason. If you are a runner, the ground can't cause a fumble. If you are catching the ball, you can gain possession with two feet firmly on the ground, but if the ball comes out when you hit the ground, it is an incomplete pass. These two lines of thought completely contradict each other.

I understand the rule. You don't have to explain it to me. I feel the rule is unjust and against the spirit of the game.

I'm truly not trying to be a jerk, obviously I should try harder. I was trying to repond to why these rules don't contradict each other IMHO.

 

[TJ]

Here's the $64 question: would that same ruling have been made in the game if he was wearing a Steelers jersey? I would have to say unlikely. IMO much of that call came from the fact that they are the Lions. Any franchise with a history of success would have received the benefit of the doubt.

 

[JeffGollin]

If the rules state something along the lines of: "The ball is 'live' until the player is down", the fact that both the knee and the other hand of the receiver touched the ground in the end zone should have rendered the player as "down" and ended the play before the ball touched the ground.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I'm truly not trying to be a jerk, obviously I should try harder. I was trying to repond to why these rules don't contradict each other IMHO.

I wasn't taking offense. I just don't agree that they don't contradict.

 

[Cardiac]

I wasn't taking offense. I just don't agree that they don't contradict.

Okay, agree to disagree.

 

[NoelPHX]

I agree DCR. He was in for a TD. I may not know all the rules etc but that play sure passed the eye test of a TD.