Ursa Majoris 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. 1269160[/snapback] You just said if he stays on the ground, it's an INT, and you're right. He didn't though, he (nearly) got up, voluntarily continuing the same play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I don't want to keep going on this- I understand where you are coming from, and the rule does stink. BUT- to me, the rule is for what is a fumble or not after an INT, after an INT- which means the ball is caught and controlled. It makes no sense any way you slice it- and I am sick of these guys hiding behind the NFL rulebook. There is no difference between a WR catching a pass, or a Safety intercepting one. The officials own statement makes it even worse- he is saying he had an INT, but his leg hit the ball out, so he did not complete the catch??? What does that even mean?? Just a joke, the catch and control rule is #1- and that was clearly met, so some ambigous fumble/no fumble, knees on the ground mumbo jumbo SHOULD NOT EVEN APPLY in this situation as the rule that defines whether it was an INT or not- FUBAR. Anyway- Glad it did not end up costing Pitt eh game- OUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 You just said if he stays on the ground, it's an INT, and you're right. He didn't though, he (nearly) got up, voluntarily continuing the same play. 1269178[/snapback] Ok, Ursa, now your not making sense. Your own argument is Continuing the play ,meaning control is met, and it is an INT. Contuning the play has no bearing on whether it constittues an INT, only if the ball is fumbled or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Ok, Ursa, now your not making sense. Your own argument is Continuing the play ,meaning control is met, and it is an INT. Contuning the play has no bearing on whether it constittues an INT, only if the ball is fumbled or not. 1269193[/snapback] I was referring to a play as a single instance of something happening, a stand-alone play, in this case the act of interception. There are two sense of the word "play" - the other meaning would be a series of connected plays. Think of the Music City Miracle - that's a "play", but it's actually a series of connected individual "plays". What I meant was that there are several ways of completing an individual stand-alone play (in this case an interception). Lying down and giving oneself up is one play completion. If you decide to get up and move to the next stand-alone play, that play begins (and the previous one ends) when the knees both leave the ground. If TPs knees were both off the ground, we would have a completed interception, a fumble (ends as soon as the ball is out) and a fumble recovery (ends when possession is regained and the player stays still). That's three plays all connected into one larger play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 the nfl has come out today calling it a "judgment call". that's the clearest evidence you'll ever get from the league that the ref totally blew the call. though i'm sure if indy ended up winning the game these league Megan Foxes would be out stretching the rule book any which direction imaginable to say it was the "correct interpretation". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 "The issue was whether he had possession. The ball came loose when he was getting up. Pete Morelli determined it wasn't a catch," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said. "That was his judgment Wow- This makes it even more suspect!! judgement?? my little sister could have gottne the correct call in the replay booth. Is Morelli born and raised in Indianapolis?? Jeez, the NFL is gonna have to revisit the whole situation- how in the world can they even come out with that statement?? Unreal - is time these guys go FT, and aren't teaching history classes during the week. What an embarrassment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Take a rule from basketball here, if someone has the ball and rolls over on the ground-hence "travelling" is called, hence"had possesion of the ball". The NFL needs to tighten the Fug Up period with these calls, and interpretations of the rule. There should be no room for "interpretations"-clear cut, 1+1=2 rules, as this shizzle is getting way outta hand this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Take a rule from basketball here, if someone has the ball and rolls over on the ground-hence "travelling" is called, hence"had possesion of the ball". The NFL needs to tighten the Fug Up period with these calls, and interpretations of the rule. There should be no room for "interpretations"-clear cut, 1+1=2 rules, as this shizzle is getting way outta hand this year. 1269265[/snapback] Bingo! That's the entire problem right there. The rules have been added to in such a way (tuck, football move, etc) that the NFL really needs to sit down and rid us all of the gray areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) Bingo! That's the entire problem right there. The rules have been added to in such a way (tuck, football move, etc) that the NFL really needs to sit down and rid us all of the gray areas. 1269282[/snapback] no, the ref screwed up. big time. he incorrectly applied a rule about fumbling (which already assumes possession and control) to a situation where the question was possession and control. the rules may indeed be fubar'd, i agree with you there, but that doesn't get this idiot ref off the hook. Edited January 16, 2006 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeltown Dre Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 From the NFL Digest of Rules: 8. A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot. http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/forwardpass AND 23. Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds. http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/definitions ---- None of this says what Ursa is trying to lead you to believe - that he has to complete a single play while maintaining possession or some other interpretation that he is coming up with. When Polomalu "controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet or [knees]", it is a catch. That is exactly what occurred. The ball was possessed and stayed that way prior to his knee hitting the ground. Once the knee hits, that is a catch by definition. The only time it says that he must "maintain possession" is if he is pushed out of bounds and would have landed in bounds. It was definitely a terrible "interpretation" if you want to even call it that. The ref was just wrong. A rule is a rule. There was no "interpretation" needed. Did he control the ball? Yes. Did he touch either both feet or a knee to the ground? Yes. Then it is a catch. Everything else falls under other rules, such as rules of a fumble. Clearly, based on the rules, it was a catch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 So the rule is for a defensive player catching the ball only? Is it fair to say that possession and control is different for offensive and deffensive players? If that were Harrison is it a catch and fumble? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeltown Dre Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 So the rule is for a defensive player catching the ball only? Is it fair to say that possession and control is different for offensive and deffensive players? If that were Harrison is it a catch and fumble? 1269389[/snapback] The rule says "A forward pass is complete when a receiver...." It does not discriminate between offensive and defensive players. It applies to both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoBeast Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Troy getting off the ground trying to score didn't count as a football move? please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 It is an F ing joke. I have gone on about long enough but it makes me want to puke. And obviously, this whole thing is not an interpratation of a rule that does not even apply. I just hate the fact that the only reasonable explanation is to prolong the game and give the Colts a chance- BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MAKES SENSE. I mean, that play ENDED the flipping football game. And somehow Morelli sees enough evidence to OVERTURN the call on the field in a playoff game?? Beyond bad- he is done referring in the NFL I hope- and his bookie needs to call the NFL front office immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 It is an F ing joke. I have gone on about long enough but it makes me want to puke. And obviously, this whole thing is not an interpratation of a rule that does not even apply. I just hate the fact that the only reasonable explanation is to prolong the game and give the Colts a chance- BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MAKES SENSE. I mean, that play ENDED the flipping football game. And somehow Morelli sees enough evidence to OVERTURN the call on the field in a playoff game?? Beyond bad- he is done referring in the NFL I hope- and his bookie needs to call the NFL front office immediately. 1269449[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I'm guessing that if the Colts had ended up winning that game, that the Ref would be in serious jeopardy of losing his life today. He really is extremely lucky that the Steelers went on to win. All of this energy towards a bad call in a winning effort would be a thousand times more volatile in a losing effort. My thoughts... Ursa is right. The rules are F'd up. That does not help satisfy the need for justice when everybody watching the game really knows that he caught that ball plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 While I don't like the call, I also think it was a ref applying an obscure, f'uped rule to the best of his ability. At the same time, I have to hand it to Polamalu. When they overturned the INT, there was no kicking the bench, throwing anything, or whining and cursing. He strapped his helmet on and ran onto the field to play ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I wish they would go over the rule book and change rules(like the tuck rule) that are just dumb this off season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 While I don't like the call, I also think it was a ref applying an obscure, f'uped rule to the best of his ability. 1269572[/snapback] I"m not sure that's been proven to be the case. At the same time, I have to hand it to Polamalu. When they overturned the INT, there was no kicking the bench, throwing anything, or whining and cursing. He strapped his helmet on and ran onto the field to play ball. 1269572[/snapback] Good point on Polamalu. If it were me, i think i might have lost it, George Brett style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 The rule says "A forward pass is complete when a receiver...." It does not discriminate between offensive and defensive players. It applies to both. 1269403[/snapback] But I'm talking about the interception rule posted. Isn't an "interception" a reception for a defensive player? Why do you need a specific rule for an interception then if you can just use the reception rule? I'm confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 This rule and any rule that is governed by the "making a football move" idea is ludicrous. But the call was correct, based on the writing of the rule. Possession is not granted until you have control of the ball and make a football move. Falling down is not "making a football move" but just lying on the ground is not making a football move either so just lying there wouldn't have made it an interception either. However had he just lied there until he was touched by an opposing player then he would have been granted possession of the ball because being touched by an opposing player would have made him down by contact which is a "football move". But instead of just lying there he did try to get up but prior to getting both knees off of the ground he did drop the ball so by definition he had not completed a football move. So, no interception. Now before I get all kinds of heck for this post understand this, I think it's a stupid rule. I would bet money that the ref's in that game yesterday think it is a stupid rule also but like Ursa said, the ref's job is to enforce the rules whether he likes them or not. So let's jump on the rule not the ref's. Now for the non-call on the False Start that was all on the ref's. Somebody moved and somebody should have gotten a penalty. From where I was sitting up in the nose bleed seats it looked to me like the Steelers had jumped and made contact with a Colts lineman causing him to jump so I think it was offsides on the Steelers. But in my mind the biggest blown call of the afternoon was when somebody on the Steelers sideline called a running play after the Steelers took over possession of the ball at the Colts 2 yd line after they sacked Peyton on 4th & 16. I was convinced that they were going to kneel down 3 times and then kick the FG to make it a 6 point game. They could have made the Colts use all of their timeout's and there would have been less than 1 minute left in the game. And why in the world, once the Colts did regain possession of the ball after the Bettis fumble did they not try and get closer to the Goal Line. They had all 3 Time outs and about 30 seconds left. They should have been more interested in the 1st down than the TD. But on 2nd & 3rd they went for the Endzone instead and I think that was a mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 From the NFL Digest of Rules: 8. A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot. http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/forwardpass AND 23. Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds. http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/definitions ---- None of this says what Ursa is trying to lead you to believe - that he has to complete a single play while maintaining possession or some other interpretation that he is coming up with. When Polomalu "controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet or [knees]", it is a catch. That is exactly what occurred. The ball was possessed and stayed that way prior to his knee hitting the ground. Once the knee hits, that is a catch by definition. The only time it says that he must "maintain possession" is if he is pushed out of bounds and would have landed in bounds. It was definitely a terrible "interpretation" if you want to even call it that. The ref was just wrong. A rule is a rule. There was no "interpretation" needed. Did he control the ball? Yes. Did he touch either both feet or a knee to the ground? Yes. Then it is a catch. Everything else falls under other rules, such as rules of a fumble. Clearly, based on the rules, it was a catch. 1269386[/snapback] Pretty convincing. So, let's assume it was a catch. The very next thing he does is begin to rise, with the ball firmly in his possession. If he's slammed into by an opponent and loses his grip on the ball, it cannot be a fumble unless his knees have left the ground. If one knee is still on the ground, he must presumably be "down by contact" at the instant the opponent hit him, which is always before the ball comes loose, as the latter is a result of being hit. This must be why a fumble can't be awarded under those circumstances. The piece that's not in the rules is if the intercepting player fumbles it while on the ground without any kind of contact while carrying on playing but after a catch is confirmed. I'm gonna bet this scenario ain't common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Even Colts fans can admit that the Steelers got robbed on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooGie Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) Even Colts fans can admit that the Steelers got robbed on that one. 1270120[/snapback] Edited January 16, 2006 by LooGie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 You guys are making me want to slam my head thru my screen- . I appreciate the scenarios but he ruled it an incomplete pass- end of story. Fumble did not play a part in it- capice? Just blows my mind b/c the catch and control ruling is one of the most analyzed rules challenged in Instant Replay- How the F do they miss that?? 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.