Ursa Majoris Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 You obviously haven't spoken with Ursa on the subject today 1269894[/snapback] Yeah, I've been a bit vocal on the whole deal. I'd like it to be known that I think an interception should be the (moral) result, clearly, but I've been looking for WHY the ref decided what he did. Even though the NFL has now declared an error as far as the catch goes, what about this: 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. According to this, when Polamalu fumbled, he could have just ignored the ball, technically, because it was not in play. Obviously he's not going to do that, but the ball isn't live when he dropped it with one knee still down Is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finger Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 i think that's wrong. I couldn't find a site on how they pick them, but I've heard, rather recently on Sirius NFL Radio, the coaches and players award points to officials and at the end of the season, the officials with the best scores do the playoffs, and ultimately the super bowl. 1270104[/snapback] the point system may still be used. however the crews are kept together rather than the individual officials receiving the highest scores at each position going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Yeah, I've been a bit vocal on the whole deal. I'd like it to be known that I think an interception should be the (moral) result, clearly, but I've been looking for WHY the ref decided what he did. Even though the NFL has now declared an error as far as the catch goes, what about this: According to this, when Polamalu fumbled, he could have just ignored the ball, technically, because it was not in play. Obviously he's not going to do that, but the ball isn't live when he dropped it with one knee still down Is it? 1270136[/snapback] I'm betting that if you compare that with the rules for establishing possession, what you have is conflicting language in 2 rules. That is where the ambiguity creeps in, and in this case the rules for possession should have clearly trumped this interception clause. That's all I'm sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 The only reason that the Ref overturned the call was because he wanted Indy to win. There is no other explanation that he could offer to convince the majority of the public otherwise. If the NFL had any balls, then Morelli (I think that's his name) should be unemployed, effective immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 There is no other explanation that he could offer to convince the majority of the public otherwise. 1270173[/snapback] You could try reading this thread....... Polamalu ad nauseam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Edited January 16, 2006 by budlitebrad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Yeah, I've been a bit vocal on the whole deal. I'd like it to be known that I think an interception should be the (moral) result, clearly, but I've been looking for WHY the ref decided what he did. Even though the NFL has now declared an error as far as the catch goes, what about this: According to this, when Polamalu fumbled, he could have just ignored the ball, technically, because it was not in play. Obviously he's not going to do that, but the ball isn't live when he dropped it with one knee still down Is it? 1270136[/snapback] Don't you feel silly now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 i dont think they would have made that announcement if indy had won the game. 1269882[/snapback] That would've been interesting. I agree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpholmes Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 wha wha what!!!???!!!???I totally expected him to find some way of protecting his guys ass on this one. I guess it was SOOOO obvious that even he couldn't stand up for him. Kudos to him. 1269881[/snapback] From what I've noticed, is that if the team the officiating call hurts, ends up winning the game, head of officials will come back and explain what went wrong, and why it should have been called differently. This is a good example, and the two TDs given to New York in the NYG/Seatle Game they came back and explained were wrong as well.. However, If Indy had won, or the Giants had won earlier this season, I don't think we'd be hearing much from the officials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugs Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 There was not a game this weekend that did not have problematic officiating calls... These are the best they have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 what about this: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. According to this, when Polamalu fumbled, he could have just ignored the ball, technically, because it was not in play. Obviously he's not going to do that, but the ball isn't live when he dropped it with one knee still down Is it? 1270136[/snapback] I don't think that is a real rule. I think someone made that up in that other thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Don't you feel silly now? 1270213[/snapback] Not at all. Like I said, I was just looking for the reason why the ref gave the decision he did. I said before I was playing devil's advocate. The main point is that the rules contain too much crap and need sorting out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 According to this, when Polamalu fumbled, he could have just ignored the ball, technically, because it was not in play. Obviously he's not going to do that, but the ball isn't live when he dropped it with one knee still down Is it? 1270136[/snapback] Ursa... that rule was a joke. I was making it up because it was so implausible. I thought it was obviously a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooGie Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 From what I've noticed, is that if the team the officiating call hurts, ends up winning the game, head of officials will come back and explain what went wrong, and why it should have been called differently. This is a good example, and the two TDs given to New York in the NYG/Seatle Game they came back and explained were wrong as well.. However, If Indy had won, or the Giants had won earlier this season, I don't think we'd be hearing much from the officials. 1270264[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunther Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Not at all. Like I said, I was just looking for the reason why the ref gave the decision he did. I said before I was playing devil's advocate. The main point is that the rules contain too much crap and need sorting out. 1270379[/snapback] I was seeing it your way as well in trying to figure out what the hell the ref thought he was interpreting. But at least the NFL admitted to the mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I have been on Mars for a couple of days. Does anyone have a link to a clip of the play? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilwoman Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 i dont think they would have made that announcement if indy had won the game. 1269882[/snapback] Actually I think they would have which would have made the matter worse...they appologized to Seattle for missing a couple calls in a game with NYG. Seattle won but they admitted they were wrong. Those calls were so close, nothing compared to that call against Pittsburg. That official should be held accountable, and fired, IMO. 1269885[/snapback] I agree, someone needs to be held accountable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpig Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 From what I've noticed, is that if the team the officiating call hurts, ends up winning the game, head of officials will come back and explain what went wrong, and why it should have been called differently. This is a good example, and the two TDs given to New York in the NYG/Seatle Game they came back and explained were wrong as well.. However, If Indy had won, or the Giants had won earlier this season, I don't think we'd be hearing much from the officials. 1270264[/snapback] Good info here... Also notice the lack of an explaination of the bogus Asante Samuel interference call that turned that game for Denver... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Also notice the lack of an explaination of the bogus Asante Samuel interference call that turned that game for Denver... 1272548[/snapback] Meh. I've seen worse PI calls. Technically... it's against the rules for a DB to cut off the route of the receiver. From my point of view... Samuel started leaning into Lelie and running him toward the sideline away from the ball. Could have been a no call, because the DB had good position... but at least you can see the way the ref saw it, if you put on sufficiently orange glasses. Nobody could have justified the Polamalu play. Not even Indy fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 That Referee has bigger problems ..He owes his bookie so much money now after Indy lost he may have to join the witness protection prgram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 (edited) The NFL competition commitee should have a competion before membership is permitted. Like, for instance, put a screwdriver on the table in front of them. If they pick it up by the handle, they're in. These possession rules suck. The way I read the rules, there is this undefined "football move". What the H is that? I long for the good old days.... two feet or a knee or elbow down, with possession is a catch. The football has to go over the pylon. The NFL brings this crap down on it's own head, and makes the ref's job impossible. That Washington game? That was a TD. How can you get two feet down, a knee, and call it incomplete? Horse manure. I'd like to get some third graders together to rewrite the rule book. It would HAVE to be an improvement. Now, they hang this poor ref out to dry because their rules stink. What a surprise! :doah: I have to add this... all this nonsense about the poor Steelers and the bad calls.... the refs completely blew that illegal procdure non-call on 4th and 1, and called a "do over"? That Polamu play never happens if they don't blow that call. Pitt would have had to punt, and that would have changed the whole game. Edited January 18, 2006 by Rovers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blips Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 The NFL competition commitee should have a competion before membership is permitted. Like, for instance, put a screwdriver on the table in front of them. If they pick it up by the handle, they're in. These possession rules suck. The way I read the rules, there is this undefined "football move". What the H is that? I long for the good old days.... two feet or a knee or elbow down, with possession is a catch. The football has to go over the pylon. The NFL brings this crap down on it's own head, and makes the ref's job impossible. That Washington game? That was a TD. How can you get two feet down, a knee, and call it incomplete? Horse manure. I'd like to get some third graders together to rewrite the rule book. It would HAVE to be an improvement. Now, they hang this poor ref out to dry because their rules stink. What a surprise! :doah: 1272666[/snapback] Way to nail it on the head. The possession rules sucks and needs to be changed. They are hanging their refs out to dry. This is what my friends and I have been bitchin' about all year, they need to change the possession rule. 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.