Fifteen years ago Friday, ahead of the Detroit Lions‘ Week 2 matchup against the Chicago Bears, another matchup between the two division rivals took place that changed the landscape of the entire sport.
If one were to spend an entire NFL Sunday at a bar, it would be unlikely to go through the whole slate of games without hearing some form of the phrase, “What even is a catch anymore?”
That phrase was essentially invented on that day, Sept. 12, 2010, when, by way of a late go-ahead touchdown by Calvin Johnson — or at least, what appeared to be a go-ahead touchdown — our collective, fundamental understanding of what a catch is changed forever. Johnson used the ball to lift himself off the ground after hauling in the pass from quarterback Shaun Hill, and lost control of the football on his way to celebrate. He was deemed not to have completed the “process” of the catch, an outcome that was inconceivable to everybody watching on television.
Everybody except for Fox’s in-studio rules analyst Mike Pereira, at least.
What many don’t realize is that the Calvin Johnson Rule also fundamentally changed sports broadcasting forever, possibly in an even more dramatic way than the shockwaves caused by the non-catch itself impacted the game of football.
On that day, in the 1 o’clock window of games, Fox became the first sports network to carry an in-studio rules analyst, someone who could bridge a gap of knowledge that some color analysts simply do not have. It turned out to be a revolutionary idea, because sure enough, one of the most controversial plays of the entire 21st century happened within three hours of Pereira’s Fox debut.
“Fox (employees) came running in and said, ‘This is the greatest,’ after the play, and Jay Glazer came running over and saying, ‘You just hit a grand slam in your first at-bat,’” Pereira recalled to The Detroit News.
While it’s true the “Calvin Johnson Rule” was the start of a long and confusing battle with the concept of a catch that remains to this day, it also was the birth of a trend that’s synonymous with sports broadcasting in 2025. You can’t make it through a full cornhole match without a rules analyst coming on to talk about the legality of a beanbag toss.
Pereira, who previously held posts as the NFL’s director of officiating and vice president of officiating, presided over many a controversy during his time in the league. The other big one that comes to mind is the “Tuck Rule,” a controversial ruling in the 2002 divisional round that preceded Tom Brady’s first Super Bowl.
Despite the stakes of that game, the Calvin Johnson incident sticks even further in his mind.
NFL rules analyst
Fox Sports rules analyst Mike Pereira on the sideline before warm ups prior to an NFL football game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Baltimore Ravens, Sunday, Sept. 22, 2024, in Arlington, Texas. The Ravens defeated the Cowboys 28-25. (GARETH PATTERSON — AP Photo, file)
For NFL fans who weren’t partial to the Lions that day, Pereira proved helpful as an explainer of a rule that had, as he said, “gone through a transition.” For the Lions and their fans, Pereira’s explanation simply amplified the insanity of the catch being up in the air in the first place.
For the 15-year anniversary of the “Calvin Johnson Rule,” The News had a virtual sitdown with Pereira to discuss the surreal nature of his debut on Fox, and how it changed the game — both on the field and in the booth — forever.
Questions and answers have been edited for length and clarity.
Q: It’s been 15 years since that infamous day. What do you remember about starting that journey in your new role?
A: (Former Fox Sports president) David Hill said he wanted to have the best announcers in terms of rules knowledge. In a poll that was taken, rules knowledge was number two of what the people expected from announcers. So originally, that was kind of my number one task in the eyes of Fox. Really, we haven’t even talked about TV, and then before the first game that first week, they said, “Well, maybe they ought to put him in an area where there’s a camera, just in case.”
To me, I could compare it to my first year as head of officiating, when we had the tuck play in New England. That was my first play. So I mean, I got thrown to the wolves … and then there was this one. Honestly, I think about the Calvin Johnson play far more than I think about the tuck play, because it was that critical in my last 15 years, because I could have been wrong, and then I could have been on Route 66 after one week. … Whenever I talk about my career, that’s the play I talk most about.
Q: Why do you think that play had such an impression on you?
A: I just think because I was so nervous and it was such a big play, and I was kind of trying to feel my way around on that, and I just remember the impact that it had, negatively, in the eyes of people certainly with Detroit, positive-wise in the eyes of the NFL, who called me afterward and said, “This is the greatest thing in the world. Your role is great. This took the heat off of the officials and put it on the rule. We love this.” By the way, that lasted for a week, because the next week, I disagreed with a pass interference call that was made, and they told me I was full of crap.
… It probably was the longest I’ve been involved with a play, with how long it took to actually make the decision … and honest to God, I sweated bullets and I remember … I kept saying, “I know, but the rule says,” and in the meantime, I’m like shaking, because it’s one of those that looks like it should have been a catch, and yet, in my mind, if you go through the literal interpretation of the rule … that element was there that it would be an incomplete pass.
Q: The Lions just finished with six wins that year, so this ultimately didn’t have that much of an impact on their season. Is it surprising to you that this game has stood the test of time anyway?
A: I never even think back about it that way, that it wasn’t that big of a play in terms of the standings of the teams, but that’s how big it was to me. I may spend two more years doing this job, but when it’s over, my number one — I wouldn’t call it a highlight … I would certainly call it the biggest play that I was involved with that meant so much to me personally, because really, that was the first time. That was my first week.
At the beginning, there was no talk about me being on camera. I was gonna be a guy that just was (writing for the website) and doing a digital rule book. Then, I had that play, and my whole role with Fox changed immediately.
Q: Could you have imagined what the rules analyst role would become?
A: Never. Never thought of that, never saw myself in this role before I got into it, never really recognized the value until really — even beyond the play with Calvin, because then you saw it, and it made some sense to me of how it would expand into football, because this was a football play and how popular the sport is. But I’m a golfer, I like to turn on and watch golf, and the next thing I gotta hear about is an improper drop from the rules analyst.
Q: Did the NFL know that you were doing it before that slate of games started?
A: I think they did. I can’t speak for them, but I don’t know if they were happy about it. The league, for so many years, has always taken the approach of — when it comes to the officiating — the less said, the better. “Let’s just sweep it under the carpet and let it go, it’ll die down at some point.” And I think that really began to change when I went into the office of the head of officiating and had to deal with the Tuck Rule. … So, I think the league liked that I could present it in such a way, even though I worked with the league, that I had the credibility that I could explain it to make people understand it.
Q: Have you ever met Calvin Johnson?
A: Calvin Johnson has been a huge part of my life in terms of my role with Fox, and as much as he is obviously thought about as part of it, I was part of it too, and I still talk about it so often. I would love to meet him and shake his hand and say, “It changed my life dramatically, so there was a good part of it, Calvin. You really helped me keep my job for 15 years.” Yeah, he’d really like to hear that.
Q: Have you thought at all about how your presence on TV and your explanation might’ve made Lions fans even madder in that moment?
A: Oh, I do. Look, here’s the thing, and I said this afterward. … If there’s 50 drunk guys in a bar and they watch that play and go, “That’s a catch and a touchdown,” it ought to be a catch and a touchdown. … The problem is the rule sometimes pigeonholes you into a position that common sense gets thrown out the window, and I think you saw that.
You could say … even if he gets two feet and a knee down, if he reaches forward with the ball, you could say, “That completes the process of the catch,” which is basically where we are now. But in those times, they didn’t match up with the way the rule was written or interpreted. When you change it years down the road, it doesn’t help make anybody feel better.
Q: Are you fully over the pushback from your commentary on the Calvin Johnson play?
A: My psychologist (has) tried to get me through it … and he’s still working to try to get through all the hate that has come from Detroit — who, by the way, I love Detroit, love the Lions. I think that’s one of the things I love about this game is the passion that the fans have and the people have for their team. Hell, I had the same passion growing up as a 49er fan.
Originally Published: September 14, 2025 at 8:10 AM EDT