"Calvin Johnson Touchdown Catch Overturned On Controversial Call" or Conspiracy

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   



The Detroit Lions were robbed of a victory Sunday when officials ruled that a late-game catch from Calvin Johnson was not a touchdown due to an obscure rule. Trailing the Bears by five, Johnson reeled in a 25-yard catch to give Detroit the lead with under one minute to go.

While Johnson clearly appeared to have possession of the ball, officials ruled that he did not maintain control long enough. The play was ruled an incompletion, and the Lions were unable to score afterwards.


Do I smell gambling conspiracy? First off, I realize that the Lions covered the spread but you can also take this game as a W/L bet. The Lions have won 2 games in the last two seasons and while the spread was only -6.5, picking a Lions win, paid out huge. A $100 bet for the Lions to win, paid out $220 and a $100 bet for the Bears to win paid out $62.50

There were only 3 teams with a 6.5 or better spread. And of those 3, this game was the only close game. Tennessee hammered Oakland and NYG whipped Carolina.

Another strange point about this call, is that during the broadcast, minutes after they made the call and decided to review it. FOX and the NFL had a

...live interview with the league’s former head of officiating, Mike Pereira, while Johnson’s touchdown was under review. As the decision dragged out, even Pereira seemed to hedge and stumble while defining the “second act.”


I have been watching football for a long time and I have never in my life seen this happen. It didnt happen in any other games today, and this was not the only challenged play. Why was Mike Pereira just hanging out waiting to comment on this? And why wasnt he called upon at any other challenge in any other NFL game today or ever before?

This just seems extremely fishy to me.

Here is the rule as written.

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.


Is this rule written with such vagueness so that they can use it influence the outcome of the game?


There was a real gambling conspiracy in the NBA, there have been gambling issues in MLB. Could one be happening in the NFL?





www.huffingtonpost.com...

sports.espn.go.com...

www.nfl.com...@bears/recap/full-story?module=HP_headlines

vegas-spreads.com...

www.belmont.com...

www.marasoft.com...




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Your questions are not without merit.

I saw this live and still can not for the life of my understand how they called this pass incomplete.

1. He catches the ball in the air.
2. Both feet land in bounds in the endzone.
3. Now here is the key according to the rules. Once he hits the ground then he's safe. As you can see he hits the ground with this butt and still has a tight grip on the ball with one hand. When he turned around to get up, that counts as a "second move". His butt hitting the ground was the first move and that should have been the end of it. Whether he chose to leave the ball on the ground or throw it against the wall or spike it in celebration is inconsequential.

This was a truly horribly blown call. The NFL has been a shady league for a long time and it doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   
That is so bad. I feel for em.

Being a Raiders fan, I saw critical calls after calls last year, blatantly going the other way. Even after the review and the stadium booing. The black box images are either altered, so the head umpire has to call "no touchdown", or...



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I as well saw this play. What a load of crap. He maintained posessesion of the ball! I feel very bad for Lions fans right now. And I thought me being a Rams fan sucked!

By the way, with the Detroit Tiger's Gallaraga getting screwed out of a Perfect Game by that blown call, it would seem that being a Detroit sports fan just sucks right now. Talk about a city getting a snow job!



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
They're basically saying the ground knocked the ball from his hand when he turned over to get up and celebrate. But to me it looked like he kindof just let it go not really thinking. I mean really, the ball shouldn't have been knocked out by the ground on that, he has to have just let it go.

edit on 13-9-2010 by Judohawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   
I do not smell conspiracy here. his forward momentum



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Roid_Rage27
 


The really strange thing to me was that Mike Pereira was on call to handle this rule and play. I'm not sure how much football you watch but I have been watching a long time and I saw several games today and no other time did MP appear live on screen to discuss a ruling on the field.

Can anyone else remember seeing Mike Pereira live on the broadcast discussing a ruling on the field for any other games today or ever? And again mind you this was not a high profile game like the Cowboys or NYG, where i might buy Mike Pereira being present.

Do the numbers on the payout for this game if you picked the Lions to win. Vegas balances odds to get more even numbers of people betting on both sides. So if we assumed that it was equal numbers of people betting on both sides, a Lions win means a big loss for vegas. Nobody thought they would win, but there are probably a lot of people who took the bet because the it was a long shot with a huge payout.

Vegas screwed up on their odds and dialed in the ruling on the call so they didnt have to pay out big time.

edit on 13-9-2010 by iamcamouflage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by Roid_Rage27
 


Do the numbers on the payout for this game if you picked the Lions to win. Vegas balances odds to get more even numbers of people betting on both sides. So if we assumed that it was equal numbers of people betting on both sides, a Lions win means a big loss for vegas. Nobody thought they would win, but there are probably a lot of people who took the bet because the it was a long shot with a huge payout.

Vegas screwed up on their odds and dialed in the ruling on the call so they didnt have to pay out big time.

edit on 13-9-2010 by iamcamouflage because: (no reason given)



You seem to have no idea how betting markets work. The whole betting industry, i.e. "Vegas" will NOT take risky positions. They are not gambiling. Some bookies might do this by accident/stupidity/greed but not the industry as a whole.

You fail to understand what the "balancing of odds" you mention yourself means. It merely means that when a bookie has an unbalanced position, they will tilt the odds to improve bet intake on the side that is getting less bets. Your "do the numbers" makes no sense. You think they count how many customers bet on each team? No, they count the dollars.

Bookies are in the business of getting paid by the overround, not by predicting winners. They offer odds that do not amount to 100% and, when with a balanced position, take home the difference no matter what the outcome is. They don't lose when underdog wins. They lose only if they make critical mistakes which they're not supposed to do.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


I, a seattleite and one-time Seahawk fan know this is a call by someone behind the scene.

How?

Simple.

My woman is from Pittsburgh and guess what.

This type of thing has been evident for decades. I was convinced absolutely when the Hawks and the Steelers met in Superbowl..well the number is not of consequence.

What is is that the Hawks lost due to blatant one-sided officiating and as we now all know, you can beat any given team on any given day, but you can't beat any given team AND the officials should you due so or not.

Of course, the un-enlightened, such as all Steeler fans, would differ in opine.

The enlightened, (I speak only for myself here), know that if a close game is determined over a bad call, two things are evident.
1) The game was bought before any players stepped on the field

and

2) The Seahawks; (I.e. farm team to the NFL), will never win a Superbowl and never keep a team together good enough to do so as the most talented (except for the one rule) are always traded, sometimes even mid-season if there is a threat of contending.

And collateral damage?

This will pre-occupy the sports fams while something sinister brews behind closed doors and obscured from the MSM, so, whine and cry about this call for the next few months as the real damage hides, most likely in the form of unnoticed - while - passed legislation, or agreement to allow foreign power (such as the UN) to strip away another layer of the already wafer-thin Constitution.

And yes, I really meant the above about Steeler fans. (No offence intended)





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join