spain Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 That was the worst call that I have seen since the refs blew the Mike Renfro catch in the endzone against the Steelers back in about 1979... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeler Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 If by staying down he had the interception, how could additional action after that negate the interception? How could it not be a fumble?1267988[/snapback] These are exactly my thoughts..... are you reading my mind Squeegiebo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeler Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 That was the worst call that I have seen since the refs blew the Mike Renfro catch in the endzone against the Steelers back in about 1979... 1268651[/snapback] That bait is too old to be effective.... even on Menudo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 These are exactly my thoughts..... are you reading my mind Squeegiebo 1268672[/snapback] Great minds think alike, or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilwoman Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I think the NFL needs to make a statement about that call and either admit that it was blown, or clarify the "rule" that was being referenced. Rule 85.1.1 Interceptions: If a player intercepts a ball, demonstrates control, the ball does not touch the ground, and the player makes an attempt to get up off the ground, both knees must be off the ground before the ball can be legally fumbled. 1268201[/snapback] If a player intercepts a ball, (which he did) demonstrates control, (which he did) the ball does not touch the ground, (which it didn't ) and the player makes an attempt to get up off the ground, (which he did) both knees must be off the ground before the ball can be legally fumbled. Ok so one knee was down and the ball came out...and it is not considered a fumble according to the rules...what the hell is it then? This rule talks about an intercepted ball that consitutes a fumble. The fact of the matter is that it was intercepted according to this rule...just not fumbled...so I still dont understand the ruling. May be we should look up the defination of a interception. Terrible call, terrible call...talking about stretching the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 If a player intercepts a ball, (which he did) demonstrates control, (which he did) the ball does not touch the ground, (which it didn't ) and the player makes an attempt to get up off the ground, (which he did) both knees must be off the ground before the ball can be legally fumbled. Ok so one knee was down and the ball came out...and it is not considered a fumble according to the rules...what the hell is it then? This rule talks about an intercepted ball that consitutes a fumble. The fact of the matter is that it was intercepted according to this rule...just not fumbled...so I still dont understand the ruling. May be we should look up the defination of a interception. Terrible call, terrible call...talking about stretching the rules. 1268701[/snapback] I think the act of getting off the ground extends the act of interception. In other words, if he'd laid still, he'd have given himself up and therefore the play is over. Since he got up, he has opted for a different ending to the play and until both knees are off the ground the act of interception continues. At the point of the knees leaving the ground, the next play begins. At least, that's what I think. You can say all you like about the officials, the problem is the rules, not them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I can't remember a worse replay reversal,ever.Not even the infamous "tuck" rule. The guys picks the ball,rolls several times,and it's an incompletion?Worse case is it's an INT and a fumble,which Polamalu recovered. Just an absolutely horrible call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I can't remember a worse replay reversal,ever.Not even the infamous "tuck" rule. The guys picks the ball,rolls several times,and it's an incompletion?Worse case is it's an INT and a fumble,which Polamalu recovered. Just an absolutely horrible call. 1268924[/snapback] Refs can only call the rules. If the rule is written badly, the call still has to be made on it. Has anyone yet proved the call was definitively wrong based on the rule as it is, not based on what the rule OUGHT to be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 If a player intercepts a ball, (which he did) demonstrates control, (which he did) the ball does not touch the ground, (which it didn't ) and the player makes an attempt to get up off the ground, (which he did) both knees must be off the ground before the ball can be legally fumbled. Ok so one knee was down and the ball came out...and it is not considered a fumble according to the rules...what the hell is it then? This rule talks about an intercepted ball that consitutes a fumble. The fact of the matter is that it was intercepted according to this rule...just not fumbled...so I still dont understand the ruling. May be we should look up the defination of a interception. Terrible call, terrible call...talking about stretching the rules. 1268701[/snapback] From this post it doesn't look to be a rule problem at all. It looks more like the refs over turning a call on the field and being pretty liberal in the rule interpretation to me. I don't think being able to hide behind the NFL rulebook is gonna fly on that one. It appears as the rule reads to be an INT, and NOT fumbled. How in the world they can call it incomplete is beyond ridiculous. They flat out blew it, and I sincerely hope there was no underlying Colts bias that was a factor. Bottom line is- that play effectively ENDED the game. So, to me it was more than just a blown call- It was REVERSED to give the Colts life- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 From this post it doesn't look to be a rule problem at all. It looks more like the refs over turning a call on the field and being pretty liberal in the rule interpretation to me. I don't think being able to hide behind the NFL rulebook is gonna fly on that one. It appears as the rule reads to be an INT, and NOT fumbled. How in the world they can call it incomplete is beyond ridiculous. They flat out blew it, and I sincerely hope there was no underlying Colts bias that was a factor. Bottom line is- that play effectively ENDED the game. So, to me it was more than just a blown call- It was REVERSED to give the Colts life- 1268998[/snapback] If, as you say, it was not fumbled because his knee was still down then the interception play was incomplete when the ball came loose. The interception play presumably ends when: 1. He gives himself up by lying still 2. He is successfully tackled while holding the ball and retains possession 3. He gets both knees off the ground and begins moving while retaining possession None of those three things occurred, thus the interception play is incomplete. I may be playing devil's advocate here, but no-one has proved that the refs blew the call according to the existing rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Refs can only call the rules. If the rule is written badly, the call still has to be made on it. Has anyone yet proved the call was definitively wrong based on the rule as it is, not based on what the rule OUGHT to be? 1268943[/snapback] Which call are you referring to? All I know is what I saw.I saw an INT,and refs grasping at straws to reverse the call.Certainly not "indisputable proof". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Which call are you referring to? All I know is what I saw.I saw an INT,and refs grasping at straws to reverse the call.Certainly not "indisputable proof". 1269045[/snapback] See my two posts above. There is a gap in the rules for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I see your point- but to me, as soon as CONTROL is established- that rule is moot. Whether your on offense or defense- catching and controlling the football over rides any following rule. I mean, the rule states he did not fumble- but the catch and control rule was clearly met, so the correct ruling would have to have been a) INT, and fumble recovered by Pitt. INT, no fumble c) incomplete just does not fly b/c the catch and control was clearly met. I understand your point, I just think with all these games and calls- the catch and control is used and analalyzed so much, that it was clear beyond any reasonable doubt- and initially called as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Wings Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Seriously. It was either a false start or encroachment. Those were the only two options. 1268642[/snapback] The refs didn't see who moved, so they decided to say, "Let's pretend this didn't happen and do the play over again." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Wings Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I think the NFL needs to make a statement about that call and either admit that it was blown, or clarify the "rule" that was being referenced. Rule 85.1.1 Interceptions: If a player intercepts a ball, demonstrates control, the ball does not touch the ground, and the player makes an attempt to get up off the ground, both knees must be off the ground before the ball can be legally fumbled. 1268201[/snapback] Based on that rule, I think the refs actually got this call correct. I think it is a bogus call notheless (more like bogus rule). you would think that a player catching the ball, rolling over, while the entire time clearly showing control of the ball would constitute a catch. So what that his one knee was still on the ground when his other knee knocked the ball out. If an Indy player had been near him, even if his kneee had caused the ball to pop out, it would have been ruled an INT because the play would have been dead the moment he rolled over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Based on that rule, I think the refs actually got this call correct. I think it is a bogus call notheless (more like bogus rule). you would think that a player catching the ball, rolling over, while the entire time clearly showing control of the ball would constitute a catch. So what that his one knee was still on the ground when his other knee knocked the ball out. If an Indy player had been near him, even if his kneee had caused the ball to pop out, it would have been ruled an INT because the play would have been dead the moment he rolled over. 1269074[/snapback] \ What are you looking at?? He Clearly had control- which takes presidence over fumbling/not fumbling. Catch and control is the same for O or D- does not matter. So, if he "demonstarates control" the rule is talking about what constitutes a fumble, not control of the football. No way they got this correct in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I see your point- but to me, as soon as CONTROL is established- that rule is moot. Whether your on offense or defense- catching and controlling the football over rides any following rule. I mean, the rule states he did not fumble- but the catch and control rule was clearly met, so the correct ruling would have to have been a) INT, and fumble recovered by Pitt. INT, no fumble c) incomplete just does not fly b/c the catch and control was clearly met. I understand your point, I just think with all these games and calls- the catch and control is used and analalyzed so much, that it was clear beyond any reasonable doubt- and initially called as such. 1269062[/snapback] Anybody got a link to the official rulebook - not the digest on NFL.COM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunther Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 \ What are you looking at?? He Clearly had control- which takes presidence over fumbling/not fumbling. Catch and control is the same for O or D- does not matter. So, if he "demonstarates control" the rule is talking about what constitutes a fumble, not control of the football. No way they got this correct in any way. 1269085[/snapback] Ursa has made me understand why the call is right according to the rules and the way the ref interpreted it. Because Polamalu attempted to get up after he fell, it was a continuation of the play and he fumbled it before his knee left the ground. If Polamalu would have just stayed on the ground, he gives himself up and thus it is the end of the play and he gets the INT. So, it does not appear to be the ref's fault, he was just interpreting the rules. As Ursa said, the rule needs to be fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Well, Ursa can make you undestand whatever he wants. BUT that rule is interpreting a fumble, which is not the same thing as catch and control. I don't think it is correct interpratation of anything. Rulebook, common sense- anything at all. And no, I don't agree with you, how does Troy staying on the ground, or trying to get up have anything to do with catching and controlling the football?? It doesn't- it only applies to ruling whether the ball was fumbled or not. Well, thank god it did not matter in the end- The better team won, and overcame one of the most suspect, truly horrible calls ever in an NFL playoff game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunther Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Well, Ursa can make you undestand whatever he wants. BUT that rule is interpreting a fumble, which is not the same thing as catch and control. I don't think it is correct interpratation of anything. Rulebook, common sense- anything at all. And no, I don't agree with you, how does Troy staying on the ground, or trying to get up have anything to do with catching and controlling the football?? It doesn't- it only applies to ruling whether the ball was fumbled or not. Well, thank god it did not matter in the end- The better team won, and overcame one of the most suspect, truly horrible calls ever in an NFL playoff game. 1269124[/snapback] Well, I will post this statement the ref gave after the game, so one can assume he interpreted the rule in the sense that Polamalu was getting back up: "I had the defender catching the ball," Morelli said in a statement. "Before he got up, he hit it with his leg, with his other leg still on the ground. Therefore, he did not complete the catch." As for my opinion, the call was BS. It is not whether you agree with me, because you and I believe the same thing...it was an INT. But I can see, if the rules are written in such a way that him trying to get up was a continuation of the play, then it needs to be changed or clarified. I certainly do not want people thinking that I whole-heartedly agree with the rule and how the ref interpreted it. It will be interesting to see how Perrera spins this one on Total Access this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Row Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 The refs should have just come out and said, "Although it was clearly an interception, the VEGAS front office told us before the game that they would like to see Manning and the Colts advance to the next round." fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Well, I will post this statement the ref gave after the game, so one can assume he interpreted the rule in the sense that Polamalu was getting back up:As for my opinion, the call was BS. It is not whether you agree with me, because you and I believe the same thing...it was an INT. But I can see, if the rules are written in such a way that him trying to get up was a continuation of the play, then it needs to be changed or clarified. I certainly do not want people thinking that I whole-heartedly agree with the rule and how the ref interpreted it. It will be interesting to see how Perrera spins this one on Total Access this week. 1269136[/snapback] Exactly. I don't agree with the rule either but the ref merely followed it, which is what he is paid to do. He can't just make $hit up as he goes along. To whale on the ref is to miss the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Well, Ursa can make you undestand whatever he wants. BUT that rule is interpreting a fumble, which is not the same thing as catch and control. I don't think it is correct interpratation of anything. Rulebook, common sense- anything at all. And no, I don't agree with you, how does Troy staying on the ground, or trying to get up have anything to do with catching and controlling the football?? It doesn't- it only applies to ruling whether the ball was fumbled or not. Well, thank god it did not matter in the end- The better team won, and overcame one of the most suspect, truly horrible calls ever in an NFL playoff game. 1269124[/snapback] Not true. That rule is saying what constitutes a fumble after an interception. The problem is that the rule does not properly define where one play ends and the next begins, except to imply that the act of getting up is included in the original act of interception, since a fumble cannot take place until after both knees are off the ground. If you would care to post the rules you think should have been followed, including all the facets of the entire play from the moment it hit his chest to the moment of recovering the ball and laying still, have at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoBeast Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 i thought that was a BS call, he clearly had possesion rolling over, the ball didn't come out until he started coming back up. If he stays on the ground, that is an INT. Interesting, the tipped pass earlier that he dove for. I think that would of been an INT if he just stayed on the ground with his hands underneath the ball! Can't blame the guy for looking to score, the desire to score a defensive TD is his kryptonite. Didn't last week, he almost gave away an INT trying to lateral the ball! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoBeast Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 the only thing I could think of was rolling over on the ground didn't count as a 'football move' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.