Skip to main content

The NFL's "process rule" needs to be changed

For the second time in the past four years, Detroit Lions wide receiver Calvin Johnson had a touchdown catch overturned in the team's opener due to what is known as the "process rule."

The rule states that in order for a touchdown catch to be legitimate, the receiver must "complete the process of the catch in the end zone" - meaning he must control the ball throughout the entire "process." In the game today, Johnson had control of the ball as he crossed the goalline and dove into the end zone. However, since once he hit the ground, the ball came loose, the touchdown was reversed to an incomplete pass. This happened to Johnson and the Lions in their season opener in 2010 in a loss to the Chicago Bears. The catch would have resulted in a Lions victory. Fortunately for the Lions today, the call reversal didn't result in a loss, as they defeated the Minnesota Vikings 34-24.

This call makes absolutely no sense to me. When a team runs the football into the end zone, the ruling is that if any part of the football crosses the goalline, it's a touchdown. If a ball carrier fumbles the ball a split-second after it crosses the goalline, it will be ruled a touchdown. So, if a receiver has control of the ball as it crosses the goalline, like Johnson did earlier today, why is that not automatically ruled a touchdown? Whether a player is running with or catching the football, if he is in control of the ball as it crosses the goalline, it should be ruled a touchdown. Hopefully the NFL finally reverses this silly rule so we don't see any more silly call reversals like the one witnessed earlier today.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/84323/johnson-overturned-again-by-process-rule
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more