Lionbackers.com

I heard their explanation too regarding not needing to survive contact. These are the kinds of things I get confused on all the time because I do follow 'that other league'. So I guess if he'd caught it in the endzone and not survived contact it still would have been a touchdown? IIRC, in the 'other' league it doesn't matter. If you don't survive you don't get the catch. I know that is the case on some plays in the CFL too.

Rules are quirky things and sometimes they don't seem to make sense but upon reflection they do. I guess I was just as frustrated that the Lions gave up points at a point when it really hurts (late in a half). Just for a change this game ended with them doing more of the same but then getting some more points themselves.

Catching a ball outside the end zone is different than catching inside the end zone.

Think of it this way: Catching the ball outside the end zone and then having the ball break the plane is the equivalent of a quick whistle so what happens after the whistle/breaking the plane doesn't matter as the play is already over. Same as when a runner reaches with the ball in his hand and breaks the plane. If the opponent knocks the ball out in the end zone it is not a fumble. If the opponent knocks the ball out on the field of play (before the whistle) it is a fumble. At least that is the way that I understand the rules.

I haven't read the rule but it seems inconsistent. It sounds like a receiver can jump up at the one yard line, catch the ball, fall into the end zone, drop it on contact with ground and score a TD (?). That is an incomplete pass outside of the end zone. I did hear something about Garrett "taking a step with the ball" so maybe that is the key issue on this ruling. Anyway you cut it, the review seemed awfully quick.

agent2 wrote:I haven't read the rule but it seems inconsistent. It sounds like a receiver can jump up at the one yard line, catch the ball, fall into the end zone, drop it on contact with ground and score a TD (?). That is an incomplete pass outside of the end zone. I did hear something about Garrett "taking a step with the ball" so maybe that is the key issue on this ruling. Anyway you cut it, the review seemed awfully quick.

Can you imagine the uproar if a game is won on a Hail Mary throw into the arms of the receiver as he crosses the goal line only to have it knocked out immediately and get the cross the GL applied. If this is the rule, and knowing the CFL it isn't out of the realm of possibility, it is leaving way too much gray interpretation with the game in the potential balance, will cause a ton of controversy unnecessarily IMO. Much easier to be consistant with the make the catch a catch first, then worry about marking where the ball is located.

The only way I can see a touchdown is the receiver has to 'catch' the football which should mean that he has possession first. If he does not have possession when he goes to the ground then possession means that he has to survive contact with the ground. He didn't survive contact with the ground and therefore did not have possession. Therefore it should be an incompletion and not a touchdown.

Anything else is dum In my limited view.

agent2 wrote:I haven't read the rule but it seems inconsistent. It sounds like a receiver can jump up at the one yard line, catch the ball, fall into the end zone, drop it on contact with ground and score a TD (?). That is an incomplete pass outside of the end zone. I did hear something about Garrett "taking a step with the ball" so maybe that is the key issue on this ruling. Anyway you cut it, the review seemed awfully quick.

EXACTLY. Considering how long reviews can take, that particular one seemed awfully quick.

Maybe they didn't want to hold up the beer lines at Mosiac?