There are several problems with the interpretation of the rule applicable to the notorious Calvin Johnson no-catch.
THE RULE
"N.F.L. Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1: Going to the ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."
1) "COMPLETING THE PROCESS OF THE CATCH"?
Much has been said about "completing the process of the catch." Even the head referee Gene Steratore later said, "The ruling is that in order for the catch to be completed he has got to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch.'' (see: http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2010/09/referee_gene_steratore_explain.html) Shockingly, there is no reference to such wording in the rule. It remains unclear to the public from where this wording came. And even if this were part of the definition of the rule, it would consequently make the rule circular-- using the term of a "catch," when trying to define exactly what a catch is, makes no sense at all. Moreover, even if that were the rule, it leaves the "process" (from start to end) completely undefined. Finally, the rule clearly indicates that a receiver does not have to maintain possession the entire time, but that, should he lose control at some point, he only needs to regain control before the ball touches the ground. Steratore not only misstated the rule, but he appears to have made up an entirely different one.
2) THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE
Most of the bandwagon, herd-mentality public have bought into the cop-out notion that the rule stinks, but that the interpretation of the rule by Steratore was correct. This analysis lacks depth and is not defensible. Steratore's interpretation of the rule was poor, at best.
First, we must determine from the rule when a catch-- the entire act of it-- is completed. The only part of the rule that references when the act of catching a pass (while going to the ground) is finished is near the end of the first sentence: "...after he touches the ground." Thus, it is logical to deduce that, if after a player touches the ground (presumably with his body because he is already by definition "[going] to the ground"), he still has possession, then the pass is complete. Calvin Johnson clearly had possession of the ball after touching the ground with his entire body.
Often analysts bring the notion of a "football move" or a "second act" into play in trying to define the end of the catch (see this discussion of the Lance Moore conversion in the last Super Bowl and the Louis Murphy no-catch from 2009: http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/does-the-nfls-going-to-the-ground-rule-need-to-be-changed/). Calvin Johnson made several moves/acts post-catch with full possession of the ball before the ball touched the ground. He caught the ball with two hands, and then: (1) moved the ball into his right hand, (2) sort of bunny-hopped to the ground, (3) used his left hand to break his fall, (4) rolled a half-turn to his left so that he was almost facing the ground, and most convincingly, (5) with his butt on the ground and full possession of the ball, swung his right hand in a windmill fashion to either (6) spike the ball or use it as leverage to launch himself back onto his feet. The act of intentionally putting the ball on the ground himself is painfully obvious evidence that he "maintain[ed] control of the ball after he touch[ed] the ground."
In sum, Calvin Johnson made multiple distinct acts after catching the pass and touching the ground with possession of the ball-- the most compelling of which was the last act which coincidentally resulted in the ball touching the ground.
Steratore's faulty interpretation of the rule-- that the pass was incomplete-- opens up a Pandora's Box of questions. If the catch (or "the process of the catch" in his words) was not finished by the time Calvin Johnson spiked the ball, then when does a catch finish? Is it over when someone stands up off the ground? If so, then why wasn't that written into the rule? Is it over when the ball is handed back to the referee? Given the tradition of the touchdown spike, among other things, such a rule would be absolutely silly. Does it end when everyone on the field stops moving? Again, such a Draconian rule would have to be explicitly included. My point is simple: under Steratore's interpretation of the rule, defining the end of the catch becomes borderline ludicrous, if not impossible.
3) THE INTENT OF THE RULE
If (2) above is not convincing enough, we can look at the intent of the rule to better understand how to apply it. The rule was instituted in response to the Bert Emanuel no-catch in the Rams/Bucs 1999 NFC Championship Game (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Emanuel). Most compelling, the rule was written into the books to make an otherwise good catch count even if the ball touches the ground with possession. It was not drafted with the intent to make passes that have been deemed complete since the beginning of time now incomplete. But that is exactly how Steratore applied it-- completely ignoring the intent behind the rule.
4) COMPARISONS TO PAST PLAYS
Many commentators have agreed with the Calvin Johnson call because of the infamous Louis Murphy no-catch from last year (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7QwZCIwMyc). There is one huge difference though. The Louis Murphy catch involved no additional act or movement after going to the ground. In fact, unlike Calvin Johnson, he never had possession of the ball while on the ground. Consequently, comparisons to that play are irrelevant.
Similarly, people have claimed Steratore's interpretation was correct because the Santonio Holmes play in the 2008 AFC Championship Game was similarly ruled incomplete (see: http://www.nfl.com/videos/baltimore-ravens/09000d5d80e3622b/NFL-GameDay-Ravens-Steelers-highlights). But again, there is at least one huge, critical difference. Santonio Holmes, like Louis Murphy, immediately lost control upon going to the ground-- an indisputable fact. To the contrary, Calvin Johnson maintained possession immediately after going to the ground.
5) THE RULE ITSELF AND POPULAR OPINION OF ITS WORTH
Nearly everyone believes the rule itself stinks. I would argue that the rule, when properly applied, is fine. It minimizes the need for split-second judgment calls by referees and over-analysis of the situation by a referee upon review. In most situations, it makes the call for the referee relatively easy and not controversial. Occasionally, some seemingly good catches will be deemed incomplete with proper application of the rule (like that of Louis Murphy and Santonio Holmes), but we can live with that because the application of the rule is relatively black-and-white. Never did the writers of the rule imagine Steratore's unconscionably broad interpretation of the rule (the interpretation where the act of making the catch goes on seemingly forever). With proper application of the rule, Calvin Johnson's catch would have held up and the outcome of the Lions/Bears game would not have swung the wrong way so unfairly.
6) LOSING FAITH IN STERATORE
Normally I would give a referee a free pass even for a mistake as critical as the Calvin Johnson call. But to make outcome-changing calls in consecutive games is borderline inexcusable. Steratore absolutely blew a mythical roughing-the-passer call on a critical down late in the Week 2 Ravens/Bengals game, and then he tried to defend himself while, like before, seemingly inserting his own wording into the rules: "The roughing-the-passer, as I defined it in my opinion on that play, is the defender who has driven his body weight onto the quarterback as he's tackling him," Steratore said. "He's applying his body weight on there. It's a judgment call and in my opinion, I felt like he had driven himself into the ground with the quarterback." (for the full story and video, see: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5593521) Steratore also made a highly suspect tripping call against Ray Lewis earlier in the same game.
In sum, either his judgment has been completely off for the past two weeks, or his ability to fairly and properly interpret the rules and apply them to complex game situations is sorely lacking. And ultimately, the Detroit Lions, the Baltimore Ravens, and most importantly, the true fans of the NFL, have paid the price. My vote is to bench Steratore for a couple of weeks, keep the Bert Emanuel rule, and train the league's referees to interpret it and apply it properly and fairly.
For a compelling, intelligent argument supporting a similar position, see: http://www.prideofdetroit.com/2010/9/13/1685668/why-the-nfls-rule-referees.
