Troy's Non-Int

[st.cronin]

Has anybody come across an explanation for why it was overturned? Any odd phrase in the rule book that justifies that call?

[NoMyths]

Only thing I can think of is that the ref was looking for an excuse to get fired.

He'd tried before on the "there is no foul" penalty when clearly something had to be called, but when no call from the league office came I guess he needed something more clearly inflammatory.

[miami_fan]

This would be one of those times when I wish the officials were required to face the press after the game.

[st.cronin]

I'm asking because I remember when everybody flipped out over Brady's fumble/incomplete pass, and then it turned out that the ref's had correctly interpreted the rule - I'm just wondering if this is a similiar situation.

[Easy Mac]

i think it was an nba ref calling continuation when palamalu was fouled at the midcourt line but still drove the lane and shot.

[NoMyths]

Seriously, I almost called my uncle (who's an SEC ref) to find out his take, to see if there was something obscure I was missing. Then I realized that it was pretty clear. :P

[RPI-Fan]

Here's how I can see it being interpreted (kind of a thought-sequence of the play):

1) Polamolu "catches" the ball, needs to establish possession.
2) In the process of catching the ball, he goes to the ground, but still maintains control (like a receiver diving in the endzone, he needs to continue control through the catch)
3) Had he been touched while on the ground, the play ends as he maintained control through the catch.
4) Since he was not touched, he attempts to make a football move to continue the play (note: possession has still not been established).
5) In the process of making a football move (i.e. before it's finished), he loses control, and therefore incomplete pass.


That's the thinking I think the referee had.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

Here's how I can see it being interpreted (kind of a thought-sequence of the play):

1) Polamolu "catches" the ball, needs to establish possession.
2) In the process of catching the ball, he goes to the ground, but still maintains control (like a receiver diving in the endzone, he needs to continue control through the catch)
3) Had he been touched while on the ground, the play ends as he maintained control through the catch.
4) Since he was not touched, he attempts to make a football move to continue the play (note: possession has still not been established).
5) In the process of making a football move (i.e. before it's finished), he loses control, and therefore incomplete pass.


That's the thinking I think the referee had.

So, catching the ball and rolling on the ground with it for at least a second doesn't count as a 'football move'?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

Here's how I can see it being interpreted (kind of a thought-sequence of the play):

1) Polamolu "catches" the ball, needs to establish possession.
2) In the process of catching the ball, he goes to the ground, but still maintains control (like a receiver diving in the endzone, he needs to continue control through the catch)
3) Had he been touched while on the ground, the play ends as he maintained control through the catch.
4) Since he was not touched, he attempts to make a football move to continue the play (note: possession has still not been established).
5) In the process of making a football move (i.e. before it's finished), he loses control, and therefore incomplete pass.


That's the thinking I think the referee had.

That was the explaination. It is a stupid rule and needs to be tossed.

[st.cronin]

It's point 3 that my brain objects to - if he has not established possesion, then shouldn't the pass be incomplete in that situation? The implication is that you can make a catch after being tackled, which seems nonsensical.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The implication is that you can make a catch after being tackled, which seems nonsensical.

Without regard to the play today (which I haven't seen so I'm not commenting on it specifically at this point), that may not be as far from reality as it first appears.

Consider this scenario -- receiver on the ground, say in a seated position after falling down ... he's in physical contact with a DB who also fell down, let's put the DB lying behind the WR, right up against him ... QB under pressure see the receiver & zips the ball to him ... WR leans to the side & catches the ball with his knee on the ground & while still in contact with the DB ... he is, in effect, making the catch & being tackled simultaneously.

Not quite "after being tackled", but pretty close to what I think you were describing in the quote above.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Without regard to the play today (which I haven't seen so I'm not commenting on it specifically at this point), that may not be as far from reality as it first appears.

Consider this scenario -- receiver on the ground, say in a seated position after falling down ... he's in physical contact with a DB who also fell down, let's put the DB lying behind the WR, right up against him ... QB under pressure see the receiver & zips the ball to him ... WR leans to the side & catches the ball with his knee on the ground & while still in contact with the DB ... he is, in effect, making the catch & being tackled simultaneously.

Not quite "after being tackled", but pretty close to what I think you were describing in the quote above.

But if the rule is he has to make a "football move" then it should be an incomplete pass. It is the inconsistancy of the rule that is so ridiculous. If one is incomplete, both should be or vis-versa.

[st.cronin]

JimGa, I don't have a cognitive problem with that scenario. That's not at all what happened here, though. What happened here was he dove, caught the ball, and in getting up to run, knocked the ball loose. It was a strange play, and if it had been called an incomplete pass on the field, I would have understood not wanting to overturn the call. But it was ruled an interception, so there must have been some reason why the replay ref went against the call on the field - and the explanation given didn't make any sense to me.

[Desnudo]

The one sure thing will be that I wouldn't expect to see them refereeing Pit home games anytime in the near future.

[PilotMan]

It was a blown call. After Brady's Tuck, the pundits were able to maintain the explanation, and most generally went along with it, and called it good.

In this situation, everyone, I mean every single pundit that I have heard called it a bad call. That shows you how the situations are different.

It was a BS call, plain and simple. Along with the interference call that should have been called earlier in the game.

[ShovelMonkey]

Maybe Cowher will get a written apology from the league. He already has enough of them to stuff a pillow.

[Ksyrup]

He did make a football move. He started to get up after he clearly made a catch. At the moment he began to do anything other than complete the catch of the ball, the catch was no longer at issue. At best, it was an incorrect interpretation of the rule. At worst, it was a completely blown call.

[Ksyrup]

I used the baseball analogy in the other thread, and I think it fits. If either an OF catches a fly ball, or a 2B/SS catches a ball while trying to turn a DP, the subsequent loss of the ball does not mean the initial catch doesn't count. If there never was a catch (i.e., bobbling the ball or it hits the ground), then yes, in either football or baseball, none of those plays count. But where there is clearly possession followed by a move beyond the act of making the catch, there's no doubt that the catch stands.

[Craptacular]

I said the same thing in an earlier thread (Rose Bowl?), but my main problem with the "football move" is this example. A receiver is standing still, and catches the ball. He stands there like a statue for a few seconds, gets drilled, and loses the ball. Fumble or incomplete pass?

[mauchow]

If Polamolu doesn't recover his own fumble you can be sure the refs would have called it a complete pass and a fumble.

[Desnudo]

What also comes into play that was ignored is the indisputable evidence rule. I don't see how you can say he absolutely didn't have the INT when that was the original call.

[Maple Leafs]

The ref made it sound like the rules says that he has to get up with the ball, which he didn't -- his knee was still down.

That seems like a silly rule to me, but if that's the rule then the call was right and the visual evidence was indisputable. If that's not the rule, then the ref blew it about as badly as you could.

[henry296]

The ref said it was incomplete because the ball game loose while his knee was still on the ground. I have no idea what he meant by that statement. It seem to imply that if the knee wasn't on the ground it would have been complete and a fumble.

[aran]

Perhaps the "next football action" he could legally take would be getting up, and the fact that his knee was still down indicates that he never got up, which means that he never performed another "football action" while in possession of the ball.... *gasps for breath* therefore it's incomplete, and just the same as if he had caught the ball, then someone punched it out before he had a chance to move.

[Brillig]

Originally Posted by Craptacular

I said the same thing in an earlier thread (Rose Bowl?), but my main problem with the "football move" is this example. A receiver is standing still, and catches the ball. He stands there like a statue for a few seconds, gets drilled, and loses the ball. Fumble or incomplete pass?

"Deer in headlights" is a valid football move. See Exhibit A, Alex Smith.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

Here's how I can see it being interpreted (kind of a thought-sequence of the play):

1) Polamolu "catches" the ball, needs to establish possession.
2) In the process of catching the ball, he goes to the ground, but still maintains control (like a receiver diving in the endzone, he needs to continue control through the catch)
3) Had he been touched while on the ground, the play ends as he maintained control through the catch.
4) Since he was not touched, he attempts to make a football move to continue the play (note: possession has still not been established).
5) In the process of making a football move (i.e. before it's finished), he loses control, and therefore incomplete pass.


That's the thinking I think the referee had.

Well I think that is about the only interpretation that makes any sense at all. Apparently this ref has, what I'll term a "high bar" for what constitutes a "football move".


The whole "football move" thing seems disengenuous to me any way. It seems like they were looking for a way to make the ruling subjective, but still allow for replay review.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by henry296

The ref said it was incomplete because the ball game loose while his knee was still on the ground. I have no idea what he meant by that statement. It seem to imply that if the knee wasn't on the ground it would have been complete and a fumble.

I missed that statement. So what he is saying is that since the receiver has to maintain continuous control while making contact with the ground...just like a receiver in the end zone...and since Polamalu lost control just before his knee left the ground he technically didn't maintain control throughout his contact with the ground.

That actually sort of carries water with me.

Could it be the ref was technically correct?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Could it be the ref was technically correct?

It's all in how you interpret the "football move" part of the rule. The ref here was saying that he lays out ot make the catch and that his roll to get to his feet is the football move. Since he lost control of the ball while he was still getting up (his knee was down), he lost control of the ball before he completed his "football move" and therefore, it was incomplete.

Technically, you could say the ref is correct because "football move" is subjective, and he rules that his roll to get to his feet is the "football move".

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I missed that statement. So what he is saying is that since the receiver has to maintain continuous control while making contact with the ground...just like a receiver in the end zone...and since Polamalu lost control just before his knee left the ground he technically didn't maintain control throughout his contact with the ground.

That actually sort of carries water with me.

Could it be the ref was technically correct?

But how many times does a guy make a diving catch out of bounds, roll onto his back, and then toss the ball away before getting up? Isn't that the same thing? Those are always catches, so why is it different just because he was still in bounds when he lost the ball? Shouldn't the only difference be that the ball is still live?

[Desnudo]

So basically that ref was saying that he could roll ten yards with the ball, but if he gets up and drops it on the way up, it's an incomplete pass?

[mauchow]

"The player never made a football move...well, that I know of anyways, since I'm just an overweight loser who's never played a down in my life so I have no idea what an actual football move looks like. Incomplete...

psst.. I'm a Colts fan"

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

But how many times does a guy make a diving catch out of bounds, roll onto his back, and then toss the ball away before getting up? Isn't that the same thing? Those are always catches, so why is it different just because he was still in bounds when he lost the ball? Shouldn't the only difference be that the ball is still live?

I'm guessing yeah...those guys are down by definition..and once they come to a stop they've maintained possession through the end of the play.

I don't want to put myself into a position where I'm defending the call...It's just that the bit about his knee still being in contact with the ground is the first notion that I've had that the referee could possibly defend his decision.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

So basically that ref was saying that he could roll ten yards with the ball, but if he gets up and drops it on the way up, it's an incomplete pass?

I think he might agree with that statement.

Ohh OOOhhh.!!!!! What if he rolled through the endzone?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

But how many times does a guy make a diving catch out of bounds, roll onto his back, and then toss the ball away before getting up? Isn't that the same thing?

No.

Those are always catches, so why is it different just because he was still in bounds when he lost the ball? Shouldn't the only difference be that the ball is still live?

That's the reason it is different. The player is still in the field of play and moving while making the catch, therefore the "football move" applies. The football move does not apply to a receiver catching the ball while going out of bounds.

Originally Posted by Desnudo

So basically that ref was saying that he could roll ten yards with the ball, but if he gets up and drops it on the way up, it's an incomplete pass?

No. I think just one roll would be enough for the one football move.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

So basically that ref was saying that he could roll ten yards with the ball, but if he gets up and drops it on the way up, it's an incomplete pass?

That's my problem with the call. The act of getting up in and of itself was a completely separate move from the catch. I'd buy this call if he lost the ball while rolling on the ground as part of his attempt to catch it. But that's not what happened here. And to pretend that because his knee was still on the ground that the catch was not completed, just blows my mind. That might be a possible interpretation of the rule, but that can't be the intent of the rule.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

So basically that ref was saying that he could roll ten yards with the ball, ...

Again, I'm just commenting in general here but I suspect that's quite possible ... IF the roll was judged to be caused by the momentum of a previous action (think diving for a catch then sliding 10 yards on a rain-soaked field) instead of a deliberate act (i.e. a football move).

[Mr. Wednesday]

If I were ruling on it, the knee being down wouldn't have entered into it -- I would have considered the dive and roll part of the original catch, with the ball lost as he attempted a football move (getting up to run). Mind you, I'm not a real football official, and I have only a layman's understanding of the rules in question. But I'm definitely not a Colts fan.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

If I were ruling on it, the knee being down wouldn't have entered into it -- I would have considered the dive and roll part of the original catch, with the ball lost as he attempted a football move (getting up to run). Mind you, I'm not a real football official, and I have only a layman's understanding of the rules in question. But I'm definitely not a Colts fan.

I would have considered the roll itself a football move.

I apparently have a low bar for what I believe constitutes a football move.

[Travis]

As was said earlier, if it would have been considered an interception had he been touched before attempting to regain his feet, I simply can't understand how it couldn't have been considered a fumble when he kneed it out of his own hands.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Under this ref, I believe Polamalu was required to catch it, roll on the ground, get up, carry it to the sidelines, hang onto it for at least 8 seconds while sitting on the bench, and then hand it to the equipment manager without it hitting the ground for it to be an INT. I am still a big fan of instant replay, but calls like this and some others just boggle the mind, really.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Under this ref, I believe Polamalu was required to catch it, roll on the ground, get up, carry it to the sidelines, hang onto it for at least 8 seconds while sitting on the bench, and then hand it to the equipment manager without it hitting the ground for it to be an INT. I am still a big fan of instant replay, but calls like this and some others just boggle the mind, really.

I was yelling at the Colts for "wasting" the time out, that's how ridiculous I thought the challenge was. My father and I then agreed there was absolutely NO way the call could possibly be overturned.

I think it's easily one of the worst calls I've ever seen, it defied all common sense.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Travis

As was said earlier, if it would have been considered an interception had he been touched before attempting to regain his feet, I simply can't understand how it couldn't have been considered a fumble when he kneed it out of his own hands.

Yea, that was my whole argument too. I just do not see how this ref rationalized this call in his head.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I was yelling at the Colts for "wasting" the time out, that's how ridiculous I thought the challenge was. My father and I then agreed there was absolutely NO way the call could possibly be overturned.

I think it's easily one of the worst calls I've ever seen, it defied all common sense.

Yes, and unbelievably the guy had about 3 minutes to look at from every angle in slo-mo and still blew it!

[KeyserSoze]

If Troy play is not an interception, half of the TD are incomplete, since the players drop the ball when they are in the ground.

Stupid call, very stupid call.

[WrongWay]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I think it's easily one of the worst calls I've ever seen, it defied all common sense.

No, I think the "No Call" was worse. You have to call something. You can not have players hitting eachother before a play starts.

What about the play clock? No team or ref called timeout, so did the play clock expire?




BTW--- If you look at the replay of Troy's Int you will see his other knee come up and knock the ball out. The ball doesn't squirt out on its own it is actually kick out of his hands.

[stevew]

Morelli said: "I had the defender catching the ball. 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. And then he lost the ball. It came out, and so we made the play an incomplete pass."


Okay, that call was bad.

How can there be a "no-call?" Its either False start, Offsides or delay of game.

Randel El got mugged on a pass interference that didnt get called.

Before the last colts td, one of their lineman was at least a half second ahead of the snap with movement, the right tackle. I'll rewatch again to be sure, but i clearly saw it, and others mentioned it on some message boards.

Also, I dont understand the non-safety ruling. The ball appeared to be on the plane of the goal-line when mannings forward progress was stopped. I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but I just wonder why in every other situation, where the ball is, is what matters, EXCEPT for a safety?

Anyways, I'm glad the Steelers won, as otherwise I think I'd have gone crazy.

[MJ4H]

To me this is quite simple. If the rules say this is an incomplete pass, the rules need to be changed. Immediately.

[Butter]

File this thread under the "what's the point of talking about this any more?" forum.

[hoosiergoody]

Originally Posted by stevew

Before the last colts td, one of their lineman was at least a half second ahead of the snap with movement, the right tackle. I'll rewatch again to be sure, but i clearly saw it, and others mentioned it on some message boards.

.5 second is tough to see when there is so much going on. Yes, their job is to make sure these things are seen, but in this case it is a bang-bang call. Similar to out or safe at 1st in baseball.

Clearly the game was not one of the best officiating efforts. Everyone else is supposed to bring their "A" game- next time maybe the officiating crew should have the same requirements...

[rkmsuf]

they need to stop this all star officiating crew nonsense in the playoffs. Stick to the best regular crews during the season.