# Worst call ever?



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

That BS call at the end of the Lions/bears game was about as bad as I have seen in 30+ years of watching sports.

Yet another reason why I so strongly prefer college football to the NFL.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Yepper. Wont send any of my money to support that...and I'm not even a Lions fan.

After they screwed up that pitchers perfect game, and refused to reverse the call even after the umpire admitted he blew the call, I stopped watching MLBEI too, even though I am still paying for it. 2011 will be my first year since DirecTv came out that I will not have ANY pro sports subscriptions. Replay and bad officiating and overpriced players, and druggies have taken all the fun out of it. Give me college, high school, or Little League any time.


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

Lions fan everywhere are in mourning.
Worst call ever? No.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

The rule was followed. He didn't maintain possession.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Looked like he maintained possession to me, the entire time until he got up and started celebrating after seeing the official standing 10 feet from him signal a touchdown. Guess he needs to hold on to the ball and carry it over to the official and present it to him as a gift now, with that rule... Bet next time he catches a pass in the endzone, he maintains possession until it disappears in the officials rear.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> The rule was followed. He didn't maintain possession.


It was a bad call I wish the Lions would of won but as Sigma said they went by the rule and got it right


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

JACKIEGAGA said:


> It was a bad call I wish the Lions would of win but as Sigma said they went by the rule and got it right


Agreed, it's one of those weird interpretation rules.


----------



## Castlebill (Jul 25, 2006)

I was unaware that there were no bad calls in college games.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> The rule was followed. He didn't maintain possession.


Its still crap. He has both feet in bounds and position of the ball in the end zone. It should of been a TD.


----------



## mystic7 (Dec 9, 2007)

I could care less about football in general and the Lions in particular but I did see that replay and it was a baaaaaaaad call. I also agree with the Gallaraga perfect game fiasco. Changing that last play from a hit to an out would not have changed anything else other than removing a hitless at bat from the next batter up, who ended the game.

For me personally, although I've loved baseball since 1961, I've been fed up with the prima donna overpaid a-hole athletes and the whole corporatization of the sport. I was totally disgusted to see a video put online of Mary Cary the porn slut that she shot while in Melky Cabrera's hotel room. If it wasn't for my mentally handicapped son suddenly becoming a super Yankee fan I'd have stopped watching 4 years ago. Plus the fact, and I know this sounds racist but I don't care, but I feel like I'm watching Mexican League baseball now. 80% of the players are hispanic.

I'm more than happy to go to Charlotte Knight minor league games. It's family friendly and a fun time.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

The receiver was DOWN when his ass hit the ground. Saying he needed to keep the ball when he got up is effing retarded. F*** the NFL. I hope the lock out lasts for 10 years.

And obviously I'm venting here so spare me the logic and reason.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

mystic7 said:


> ... Plus the fact, and I know this sounds racist but I don't care, but I feel like I'm watching Mexican League baseball now. 80% of the players are hispanic.
> ...


Nope, you're off.

27% = Hispanic/Latin Descent

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2009_MLB_RGRC_PR_embargoed.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

joshjr said:


> Its still crap. He has both feet in bounds and position of the ball in the end zone. It should of been a TD.


I agree. In my eyes, he had control and possession of the ball.

According to the rules though, possession must be maintained throughout the duration of the "catch" process. Falling on the ground while attempting to catch a ball is part of the catch process.

I saw this play on the Red Zone Channel on DirecTV and they had a former NFL lead official explain the definition of possession as it pertains to completing a catch, which I totally disagreed with.

By his definition, it would mean to me that if a receiver catches the ball at the ten yard line, for example, but lost his footing and stumbled ten yards across the goal line, while NOT juggling the ball in any way, yet fell to the ground, which then causes the ball to be dislodged from his hand(s), then it would be an incomplete pass.

To me, the play that happened today was similar to my above example, but instead of going ten yards, you only went a couple, while maintaining full control and possession of the football.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Article & video: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/sh...al-rule-strips-Lions-of-first-?urn=nfl-269035


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Not the worst call I've ever seen... and even though I feel for Detroit, I think the rule was probably applied technically correctly.

It is kind of a crap rule though...


----------



## jerry downing (Mar 7, 2004)

I'm a Bears fan and I still thought the call was terrible.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jerry downing said:


> I'm a Bears fan and I still thought the call was terrible.


I just finally got to see the replay (I was traveling during the game)...

It was a catch, Detroit should have been kicking the extra point for the win.

But as to the Worst call ever? Nah.. there have been many others that are probably worse then this one. This one probably wouldn't even make the top 50.

As for the "worst" call, you have to factor the impact of the call.
This was game 1 of the season, for two teams that are not expected to make the playoffs this year.

One team, that has won a total of 2 games in 2 years, and another that just can't figure out what in the world is going on..

(And yes, I pretty much bleed blue and orange)


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Very bad call on that play. Player had control of the ball while knee, thigh and buttock hit the ground. He then used his hand to hit the ground with the ball to acknowledge his touchdown and for that the mucky muck ruled he lost control of the ball! Cost the Lions the game. Very bad call.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Did anyone see NBC just now? The call was correct, by the rule in place, and interpreted correctly.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> Did anyone see NBC just now? The call was correct, by the rule in place, and interpreted correctly.


I think most folks who have heard the rule read (or read it themselves) agree the rule was interpreted correctly... though some probably don't want to admit it.

It's just one of those rules that needs some tweaking by the committee.

It's interesting how they got rid of the force-out rule a couple of seasons ago to get rid of a place where referee's unduly could affect a game with a judgment call... then they have a rule like this one in place that creates a completely unnecessary level of burden on an official to even have to make this kind of call.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> Did anyone see NBC just now? The call was correct, by the rule in place, and interpreted correctly.


But in that exact same segment, the discussion was on the "spirit" of the rule.

That was a catch.. plain and simple (and yes, I am a die-hard Bears fan).
But because a rule, was there... that has a strict interpretation area... it was rule incomplete.

And tomorrow... the Bears players should either say nothing, or honestly say what they think about the play.

Lovie is already a twitt for his comment on it. paraphrase clear, no need for a replay. Right...


----------



## tfederov (Nov 18, 2005)

Oh well, here we go again..... I'm still a Lions fan through all of this.


----------



## la24philly (Mar 9, 2010)

i didnt see the game or play yet but sounds like another great job by our officals even with replay.

But the worst call I ever saw was the umpire who did the phillies marlins about 6 weeks ago. the guy that called a fair ball foul. davidson i think is the umps name.


I'm a phillies fan and we got a huge break yes but man FLA got hosed.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

In all fairness, the refs got the call right, its the RULE that is ridiculous, and open to 100 different interpretations. They need to get rid of the rule, and a bunch of other stupid rules. As the article above reference, even a toddler know the difference between a catch and a non-catch. Apparently the NFL rulemakers want to make it a 10 minute video replay fiasco to tell. The article above has it spot on.

Watching the RZC today, I have NEVER seen so many video replays of obvious calls initiated by the "BOOTH".


----------



## la24philly (Mar 9, 2010)

dan i think thats why they invented drinks for the people on the ****ty end of a call


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Not the worst call I've ever seen... and even though I feel for Detroit, I think the rule was probably applied technically correctly.
> 
> It is kind of a crap rule though...


+1

It's a rule the NFLmay need to look at during the off season and tweak a bit.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

They keep talking about it being a bad call and what not, but I haven't heard anywhere what the actual rule is that was being enforced 'correctly'. I saw the guy catch the ball in the end zone, land on two feet in bounds with control of the ball, and that looks like a touchdown. Why exactly is this NOT a touchdown??


----------



## Sackchamp56 (Nov 10, 2006)

This rule neds to be changed immediately. This is the second time that the rule has changed the outcome of a game recently. The same call was made in last seasons opener Raiders vs Chargers against louis Murphy. It cost the Raiders that game as well.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Honestly Lovie's call to go for it on 4th and goal was much worse than the officials call. After all the officials got the call right, but only because the rule is stupid.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

n3ntj said:


> They keep talking about it being a bad call and what not, but I haven't heard anywhere what the actual rule is that was being enforced 'correctly'. I saw the guy catch the ball in the end zone, land on two feet in bounds with control of the ball, and that looks like a touchdown. Why exactly is this NOT a touchdown??


The rule, screwy as it is, says that IF you are in the air when you make the catch (as opposed to already having 2 feet on the ground) that you have to main control of the ball all the way through the catch AND landing back on the ground.

In the field of play, they have the "make a football move" rule... so you can catch, then drop, and it is incomplete unless you had possession long enough to do something else.

In the end zone, there is no "make a move" usually because breaking the plane of the goal-line makes it a score...

So the grey area comes into play in the end zone as to when the catch is complete.

In most people's eyes, the play is complete when the player controls the ball cleanly AND is 2-feet down (or knees + butt down). The hand doesn't count in this case because in the field of play a hand can be used to re-steady yourself and stay up rather than down by contact.

The problem with the rule, in this specific case, is... it requires an official to essentially judge whether the catch process was complete and player was down on the ground and the ball came loose OR it was incomplete because he didn't maintain the ball OR it was a TD and he let go of the ball as he was getting up.

The "getting up" part is the nebulous area where the ref has to decide if that release of the ball was at the end of the catch process OR when the player was getting up to celebrate.

So I think the rule was called as correctly as it could under the circumstances... but again, it is a crap rule that needs to be looked at again.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Davenlr said:


> After they screwed up that pitchers perfect game, and refused to reverse the call even


Thank *GOD *Commissioner Selig didn't reverse that call! It would have been worse than the original umpire's error.

So you think it should have been reversed, huh? Then answer this question: If that bad call was the *first *call of the game, and every succeeding batter had been retired for a near-perfect game, should it have been reversed as well? What would you have done with the extra out recorded in that inning and the rest of the guys who followed?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

DBSNewbie said:


> By his definition, it would mean to me that if a receiver catches the ball at the ten yard line, for example, but lost his footing and stumbled ten yards across the goal line, while NOT juggling the ball in any way, yet fell to the ground, which then causes the ball to be dislodged from his hand(s), then it would be an incomplete pass.


No it wouldn't, because the receiver would have then become a runner, and the rules are different for runners compared to receivers.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Sackchamp56 said:


> This rule neds to be changed immediately. This is the second time that the rule has changed the outcome of a game recently. The same call was made in last seasons opener Raiders vs Chargers against louis Murphy. It cost the Raiders that game as well.


This rule has been in place since 1999. Every season it seems it comes up at least once. I doubt they'll change it, especially considering it's been around for a while and by the time the offseason rolls around, it may be forgotten.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> Thank *GOD *Commissioner Selig didn't reverse that call! It would have been worse than the original umpire's error.
> 
> So you think it should have been reversed, huh? Then answer this question: If that bad call was the *first *call of the game, and every succeeding batter had been retired for a near-perfect game, should it have been reversed as well? What would you have done with the extra out recorded in that inning and the rest of the guys who followed?


I don't think I heard anyone argue that baseball call should have been reversed IF it had come earlier in the game or in the middle of an inning.

I think the major reason for outcry for a reversal was because it would have been the last play of the game AND the very next play resulted in an out that did end the game... so reversing that call and awarding the perfect game that had been earned would not have affected any meaningful statistics.

Errors at other points in a game really can't be redacted after the fact because of the reason you gave (and others).


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

If they cannot be changed at earlier points of a game, then they must not be changed at later points. It makes a mockery of the game and cheapens it. As much as I dislike Selig, he made the right decision. The umpires on the field are the ones responsible for making the calls. Selig isn't.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> If they cannot be changed at earlier points of a game, then they must not be changed at later points. It makes a mockery of the game and cheapens it. As much as I dislike Selig, he made the right decision. The umpires on the field are the ones responsible for making the calls. Selig isn't.


How does letting a bad call at the end of the game stand end up being less of a mockery than everyone pretending the bad call didn't happen?

If a policeman pulls you over because he was following a car just like yours... and he writes you a ticket for running a stop sign that you didn't run... That should stand, right? I mean, even if the policeman realizes he pulled over the wrong guy and you find proof that it wasn't you... you should still pay the ticket, because we can't go back and correct things?

Correcting bad calls in the middle of the game are murky because teams play differently under different circumstances... so even though a bad call is unfair, you can't say what effects it had on the rest of the game just to take that one bad call out.

But in a game that ends on the very next play after the bad call... and the same team would win either way... it's hard to argue that the bad call can't be rescinded in that case.

You can't go back and do it weeks later though... You pretty much have to do it within a few days before other teams' overall standings are affected for playoff positioning.

But more to the point... IF officials are supposed to be there to make calls and enforce the rules and make the game outcome fair and right... there's no point in having officials IF every effort isn't going to be made to back them up (replay in-game) and correct all the correctable mistakes.

A playground game without officials at all would be better than having an official make obvious bad/wrong calls that change the outcome of the game.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> How does letting a bad call at the end of the game stand end up being less of a mockery than everyone pretending the bad call didn't happen?


No one pretended it didn't happen. It did; it was a part of the game. End of story.



> If a policeman pulls you over because he was following a car just like yours... and he writes you a ticket for running a stop sign that you didn't run... That should stand, right? I mean, even if the policeman realizes he pulled over the wrong guy and you find proof that it wasn't you... you should still pay the ticket, because we can't go back and correct things?


Please. You can't even make such a comparison between a baseball game and a legal situation.



> But in a game that ends on the very next play after the bad call... and the same team would win either way... it's hard to argue that the bad call can't be rescinded in that case.


Either it is rescinded (the very term is offensive to the game) in both cases or neither. To allow for it in one case and not the other is illogical and unfair.



> You can't go back and do it weeks later though... You pretty much have to do it within a few days before other teams' overall standings are affected for playoff positioning.


A few days??? Good Lord, what a mess that would make! Even a protest of a ruling must be done before the next pitch or play, and if occurring on the final ruling of a game, before noon the next day.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> This rule has been in place since 1999. Every season it seems it comes up at least once. I doubt they'll change it, especially considering it's been around for a while and by the time the offseason rolls around, it may be forgotten.


I don't have a horse in this race but I wonder if this had been the final play of the Super Bowl and it had cause less say the Saints a repeat victory how would they have rule.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

The same way they did yesterday. I have no doubt.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> A few days??? Good Lord, what a mess that would make! Even a protest of a ruling must be done before the next pitch or play, and if occurring on the final ruling of a game, before noon the next day.


Yes, the complaint should be registered immediately following the end of the game.. I agree there.

I was just meaning (in this case MLB) that the decision to correct the mistake would need to be made by the governing body within a couple of days. You cant let it fester for a month and then go back to last month and rescind a bad call. IF they did it, it would have had to be done VERY quickly in the timeline after the end of the game.

Also... in the football game, the ref made the correct call on the incomplete catch... so while we all feel for Detroit, everyone has to recognize that it wasn't a "bad call"... it was proper enforcement of a bad rule!

In the baseball game, it was a bad call... which makes the two scenarios very different in terms of how you'd seek to resolve them.

For the NFL game, you'd hope the league would revisit and change the rule... but that wouldn't affect the past because the rule was applied correctly by the official. For the MLB game, if they'd decided in those next 24-48 hours after the game to take back that call and award the perfect game I think that would have been fine... but weeks or now months later there is really no point talking about it because they can't go back and change it now.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

The single reason they should not and cannot change the MLB call, whether we like it or not, is because the decision was made by the umpire. There is nothing in the rules that says anyone but an umpire can call a batter-runner safe or out. That's not the commissioner's job.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> No it wouldn't, because the receiver would have then become a runner, and the rules are different for runners compared to receivers.


In my example, the receiver would still be in the "process" of completing his catch. When I said stumbling, I meant falling to the ground over the course of ten yards. For further clarification, imagine the receiver jumping into the air as he catches the ball at the ten yard line and then stumbling over the goal line in exactly the same manner as the play in the OP.

In the case of the play in the OP, the receiver was falling to the ground as he was attempting to complete the process of the catch. He just only "fell" a couple of yards from the moment he made first contact with the football, rather than ten yards while all the while falling to the ground and maintaining full control of the ball.

Common sense would say (as the article a few posts up described) that a catch was indeed made. It's just the ambiguity of the definition of the "process" that screws up the rule.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

DBSNewbie said:


> In my example, the receiver would still be in the "process" of completing his catch. When I said stumbling, I meant falling to the ground over the course of ten yards. For further clarification, imagine the receiver jumping into the air as he catches the ball at the ten yard line and then stumbling over the goal line in exactly the same manner as the play in the OP.
> 
> In the case of the play in the OP, the receiver was falling to the ground as he was attempting to complete the process of the catch. He just only "fell" a couple of yards from the moment he made first contact with the football, rather than ten yards while all the while falling to the ground and maintaining full control of the ball.
> 
> Common sense would say (as the article a few posts up described) that a catch was indeed made. It's just the ambiguity of the definition of the "process" that screws up the rule.


Your example was wrong because receiving rules are completely different in the endzone then in the field.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Your example was wrong because receiving rules are completely different in the endzone then in the field.


What if the receiver were running laterally across the back of the endzone and caught the ball in exactly the same manner as Calvin Johnson did?

Furthermore, let's say that the catch process was initiated at the back of the end zone directly in front of the goal post and ended near the pylon at the back right corner of the end zone (exactly where Calvin Johnson ended up)

That's approximately 25 yards that was covered. If the receiver never bobbles the ball until the ground causes it to be dislodged from his hand while he was getting up, common sense would say he caught the ball. The result of the play, however, if interpreted exactly like the play in the OP, would then be an incomplete pass according to the rules.

The rule needs to be tweaked.

EDIT: I also wanted to add that it was the point of Common Sense vs. The Rule that I was arguing. Yes, the rules are applied differently when a receiver is in the end zone as opposed to in the field. However, I was just trying to show that that in the case of the "process" the rule should be tweaked to allow the referee to make a judgement call to determine whether or not control and possession were demonstrated and the "process" being completed prior to losing the football, regardless of where it happened. (Midfield, Goal Line, End Zone, etc)


----------



## WhoRu (Nov 27, 2008)

I think the deeper question here is why my Detroit boys keep getting the old shaft. The touchdown that wasn't a touchdown, the perfect game that wasn't a perfect game, Wings goal called off cause Tommy Holmstrom broke wind on the edge of the crease. And did you see Johnny Damon called out on strikes on a pitch at least a foot outside this year when a walk would have tied the game? 

An obvious conspiracy of gigantic proportions.

Hey Tim Bedore, how about moving on from your animal conspiracy theory and taking up this cause?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> Your example was wrong because receiving rules are completely different in the endzone then in the field.


No they're not. You're confusing the differene between a runner and a receiver. The rules of a catch are the same whether the catch is made in the end zone or on the field of play. The differences come when a receiver can't complete a catch and when a runner drops the ball. Moreover, a receiver becomes a runner when he completes the catch process and makes a "football act," such as taking steps to advance.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> No they're not. You're confusing the differene between a runner and a receiver. *The rules of a catch are the same whether the catch is made in the end zone or on the field of play. The differences come when a receiver can't complete a catch and when a runner drops the ball.* Moreover, a receiver becomes a runner when he completes the catch process and makes a "football act," such as taking steps to advance.


That's what I meant, but I was half awake. Thanks LV.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> No they're not. You're confusing the differene between a runner and a receiver. The rules of a catch are the same whether the catch is made in the end zone or on the field of play. The differences come when a receiver can't complete a catch and when a runner drops the ball. Moreover, a receiver becomes a runner when he completes the catch process and makes a "football act," such as taking steps to advance.


That's the problem of the rule as it pertains to the "process"... When does a receiver complete a catch, thus becoming a runner? Or in the case of the OP, when does the receiver complete his process of the catch and only loses the ball as he was merely getting up after the play?

That's the point I was trying to get across several posts ago. I totally agree with you, as far as the rules are concerned and the officials applying the rule in regards to the play in the OP.

I just feel that some kind of tweak needs to be made allowing an official the ability to make a judgement call on the completion of said process.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

DBSNewbie said:


> That's the problem of the rule as it pertains to the "process"... When does a receiver complete a catch, thus becoming a runner?


Asked and answered. See my post preceding this one.


----------



## DBSNewbie (Nov 3, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> Asked and answered. See my post preceding this one.


That's exactly what I mean. When is the precise moment at which the process is completed when he is falling down in an attempt to catch a ball?

Is it two feet in bounds? After a couple of steps? Being down? Etc, etc. If the answer is yes to any of those, then didn't Calvin Johnson "complete" his catch?

Would stumbling after jumping in the air to catch a ball constitute a "football move", whether he stumbles over the course of ten yards or one yard, thus being ruled a completion before the ground eventually causes the ball to be dislodged?

Or would stumbling 25 yards laterally in the endzone be enough time to constitute possession before having the ball hit the ground and coming free?

The rules as it pertains to Calvin Johnson's catch (or non-catch) can be interpreted in a numerous number of ways. But as I said earlier, common sense says that he did catch the ball, which of course would be a judgement call on the part of the official and in my opinion should be integrated into the rule.


----------

