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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/wink.gif

[sabotai]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[henry296]

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

They stopped using All-Star crews a couple of years ago. This crew worked together all year.

[ChiMatt]

To me this was the same call they made in the Tampa game last week when the guy clearly caught the ball in the endzone and dropped it when he hit the ground. They called that an incomplete pass. The Steelers' play was the exact same thing except there was a flip involved.

I thought both should have been called catches but at least they were consistant. You must retain possession while on the ground after you make the catch. I don't know why the ground cant cause a fumble but can cause an incomplete pass but I guess that is the rule now.

I never remember it being called so strictly in the past but I guess with the replay the refs can see it more clearly now so they can make that determination.

[JonInMiddleGA]

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

Because the teams that loses often has to find something to whine abou ... oh ... wait a minute.

[dixieflatline]

On the bright side this padded troy's "passes defended" stats.

[Logan]

To me this was the same call they made in the Tampa game last week when the guy clearly caught the ball in the endzone and dropped it when he hit the ground. They called that an incomplete pass. The Steelers' play was the exact same thing except there was a flip involved.

I thought both should have been called catches but at least they were consistant. You must retain possession while on the ground after you make the catch. I don't know why the ground cant cause a fumble but can cause an incomplete pass but I guess that is the rule now.

I never remember it being called so strictly in the past but I guess with the replay the refs can see it more clearly now so they can make that determination.

Sorry, but those two situations were not the same. You described the Sheppard play accurately, but you missed what happened in Polamalu's case.

Yes, Sheppard lost control after he hit the ground. But it happened as he hit the ground. But the ball didn't move from Polamalu's hands when he hit the ground. He held possession as he hit the ground and rolled over. As he got up to attempt his "football move" of advancing the ball, his knee hit the ball out of his own hands.

Not the same situation.

[ChiMatt]

I think it is the same situation though. Polamalu's knee was still down when the ball came loose, albeit after he rolled over. If his knee had come up off the turf it would have been a catch and fumble. If the rule is that you have to hold possession after falling both plays were called the same.

That had to be what the ref saw yesterday on the replay too. Unless Jerry Porter is right and the league is hell bent on getting the huge Indianapolis TV market in the Super Bowl.

[Desnudo]

They stopped using All-Star crews a couple of years ago. This crew worked together all year.

They need to get rid these regular crews and bring back the All-Star crews.

[FrogMan]

They need to get rid these regular crews and bring back the All-Star crews.
nope, they need to get rid of Jeff Triplette and his crew...

FM

[Desnudo]

NFL says Polamalu call was official's judgment; no comment on Porter remark

The NFL Comments (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Au8Sfaxo.rvSFf5nITh3IzZDubYF?slug=ap-nfl-officiating&prov=ap&type=lgns)

[Butter]

They need to sic Kimo von Oelhoffen on Porter's knees.

[WrongWay]

Could someone please post the NFL rule they are referring to?

I know it is an interpertation of the rule, but I would just like to see the actual written rule as it is in the rule book.

[Glengoyne]

...
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?...Forward progress.

[Vince]

I think it is the same situation though. Polamalu's knee was still down when the ball came loose, albeit after he rolled over. If his knee had come up off the turf it would have been a catch and fumble. If the rule is that you have to hold possession after falling both plays were called the same.

That had to be what the ref saw yesterday on the replay too. Unless Jerry Porter is right and the league is hell bent on getting the huge Indianapolis TV market in the Super Bowl.
Let me preface this with the fact that I think this was an asinine call.

But this quote is what makes the ref's argument stick. Polamalu was still on the ground when he lost possession. If a receiver makes a diving catch, but the ball pops loose as he hits the ground, or he traps it on the ground, then it's an incomplete pass. This is the same situation with the defensive player, it's just that his 'dive' took a lot longer, and he held onto the ball for the majority of it.

I think Troy clearly demonstrated possession, and that if he hadn't attempted to get up, it would have been ruled an interception (which is the STUPID part of this whole thing). Simply an asinine play.

[Kozure]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/news/story?id=2294309

NFL says that ref made mistake.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Shows what I know. :)

[Vince]

"The rule regarding the performing of an act common to the game applies when there is contact with a defensive player and the ball comes loose, which did not happen here."
I didn't realize this rule was only in regards to contact with a defensive player.

[Kozure]

According to a pittburgh post gazette article just posted on the web site, the "must make a football move" rule to establish possession is only used when a player on the other team is making contact or has made contact with the pass catcher. The NFL director of officiating said that this wasn't the case with the Troy INT.

[Kozure]

I didn't realize this rule was only in regards to contact with a defensive player.

just noticing that too, hence the post I just made after you. Shows you that officials do not know all the rules.

[ISiddiqui]

Thank God the NFL had some balls on this.

[stevew]

The question now is, what will the league actually do about this? Morelli should either be fired, or heavily sanctioned. There needs to be more of a check and balance with the replays. I think that there should be a booth official, and a field official, and if they both dont agree, then the call should stand.

[sabotai]

I didn't realize this rule was only in regards to contact with a defensive player.
Me neither. I thought it was if the player was in stride or otherwise moving when catching the ball. Didn't know ti required contact.

Well there you go. Bad call.

[Maple Leafs]

The question now is, what will the league actually do about this? Morelli should either be fired, or heavily sanctioned. There needs to be more of a check and balance with the replays. I think that there should be a booth official, and a field official, and if they both dont agree, then the call should stand.
But there is a booth official, and he helps the on-field guy make the call. The on-field ref makes the final call (which is as it should be), but the booth guy is telling him "OK, watch this, when I freeze it here you can see his leg..." etc.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

All I can say is that with the game on the line in the final 5 minutes,needing a desperate score, Manning threw a pick to Polamalu to end the game.

Now, they have instant replay to avoid bad calls that cause teams to lose championships. Getting back to my original post, how do you blow this call after taking 3 minutes and several slo-mo replays to look at it. The reason is obvious as stated by the NFL -- Morelli didn't know the rule. He should be fired. It's one thing to see it differently in the replay, it's another to not know a pretty basic rule with everything hanging in the balance in a billion dollar industry.

Can you imagine if Pitt had lost this game? OMG.

[PilotMan]

I think that what this comes down to is that the Steeler fans and football fans in general are upset that the game came down to the last play, when clearly, if some calls had been correct the game would have been over well before then.

[Clark]

[QUOTE=Vinatieri for Prez]
Getting back to my original post, how do you blow this call after taking 3 minutes and several slo-mo replays to look at it. The reason is obvious as stated by the NFL -- Morelli didn't know the rule. He should be fired. It's one thing to see it differently in the replay, it's another to not know a pretty basic rule with everything hanging in the balance in a billion dollar industry.
QUOTE]

Good post, I agree he should be fired.

[Tigercat]

I can't believe so many can't see the refs interpretation as defenseable, even if they don't agree with it.

A football move is a move that the player intializes with the ball. The player did not intialize anything with the ball until he brought his first knee up off the ground, and in the process of, knocked the ball out of his own hands. Is the whole football move rule ridiculous? Perhaps, but the ref made a completely justifiable call, IMO.

[Desnudo]

Well the NFL disagrees.

[Tigercat]

And lord knows the NFL ALWAYS agrees with the best interpretation of the rule book after the fact.

Ever since the game, sports fans around the world have formed a collective mob against the ref and his interpretation of the play. You think the NFL wants to tell all those fans what they don't seem to want to hear/think about right now?

[Logan]

And lord knows the NFL ALWAYS agrees with the best interpretation of the rule book after the fact.

Ever since the game, sports fans around the world have formed a collective mob against the ref and his interpretation of the play. You think the NFL wants to tell all those fans what they don't seem to want to hear/think about right now?

Umm...they've done it before. See: The Tuck Rule.

[Desnudo]

And lord knows the NFL ALWAYS agrees with the best interpretation of the rule book after the fact.

Ever since the game, sports fans around the world have formed a collective mob against the ref and his interpretation of the play. You think the NFL wants to tell all those fans what they don't seem to want to hear/think about right now?

If you read their decision, it clearly describes why the call was wrong.

[Glengoyne]

I can't believe so many can't see the refs interpretation as defenseable, even if they don't agree with it.

A football move is a move that the player intializes with the ball. The player did not intialize anything with the ball until he brought his first knee up off the ground, and in the process of, knocked the ball out of his own hands. Is the whole football move rule ridiculous? Perhaps, but the ref made a completely justifiable call, IMO.I thought the Ref's stated interpretation made his call defensible...but some of the points brought up here earlier got me thinking. It became apparent that the "maintain control after contacting the ground for the duration of the play" rule was really only applicable when the play was over out of bounds or the receiver was down by contact. Since Pomalu wasn't down a different standard might apply.

However I wasn't sure what that standard would be? Are we back to where he has to complete(or is it initiate?) a football move? If that is the case, then I believe that rolling over with the ball is a football move. The league confirmed what we all felt we saw. INT.

[Tigercat]

Umm...they've done it before. See: The Tuck Rule.


There is a difference here, one that my own wording seriously screwed up with.

The "football move" isn't actually in the physical rule book. But its a guideline all pro officials are told to use. The tuck rule is supported by actual written lines. The NFL is going to be a lot quicker to defend something they have written on paper as opposed to something that they can lump on referee judgement.

The football move was put in place so that there are no cheap turnovers when a fumble occurs before a player establishes himself in the field of play by moving OF HIS OWN ACCORD with the football. In this case the defender was moving in accordance with the effort of making the INT before the fumble. His first any move of any kind with the ball was to bring up the knee and knock the ball out. It is in agreement with what these refs are taught that it was a case of losing the ball prior to completion of his first "football move," and thus an incomplete pass.

[Glengoyne]

Dola,

I don't think they should fire him. As far as I know, this was one mistake. Even if he was ultimately responsible for the no-call false start/offsides play, he shouldn't be handed his hat for a single bad day. It took several incidents, some in the playoffs, to have Phil Luckett(sp?) reassigned(has he retired now?).

Since the don't have the all-star crews anymore, I'm wondering if all crews rotate, or if the best rated crews do the playoffs. I'm guessing that since their union is involved it is a combination of the two...the best rated crews do the playoffs, but are limited to a single appearance or something. The result being that a nuber of lower rated crews are participating in the playoffs, collecting their paychecks. Making more of them money, but lowering the quality of the officiating.

[Tigercat]

Based on the NFL's response, the simple solution would be an addon to the football move guideline. Tell the referees that the football move crap doesn't matter IF a defender/reciever has secured the ball for a certain amount of time. That was the NFL's response to the matter, that the player held the ball for long enough. The problem is, time was never taught to the referees as something that impacted this type of situation.

[clintl]

I think you would have to see the exact words in the rulebook and the specific details of the training the refs get before you could conclude that Morelli even made a serious mistake, let alone a mistake deserving of anything more extreme than better training. The NFL's rules on what is and isn't a catch seem to have undergone an extra degree of complication the last couple of years - perhaps it's getting to the point where it's too difficult to keep track of how to apply the rules to real-life situations.

[ISiddiqui]

Frankly, the "football move" is supposed to be a guideline, not a be all and end all. The refs totally blew it. You are supposed to use a "football move" if it is not obvious that possession was established. In this case it was.

Yes, the refs call was indefensible, IMO.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I would guess that the NFL wouldn't have admitted anything if Indianapolis had won the game. They aren't under any obligation to admit anything in this case, so if the bad call had cost the Steelers the game, they would've kept quiet. Thankfully, this is all speculation because
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2945/hemissedit11zf.gifhttp://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1945/hemissedit22qs.gif
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9598/hemissedit30as.gifhttp://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2426/hemissedit44lx.gif

(I didn't make these, but I thought it was funny enough to post here)

[Desnudo]

Based on the NFL's response, the simple solution would be an addon to the football move guideline. Tell the referees that the football move crap doesn't matter IF a defender/reciever has secured the ball for a certain amount of time. That was the NFL's response to the matter, that the player held the ball for long enough. The problem is, time was never taught to the referees as something that impacted this type of situation.

"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. He never had possession with his leg up off the ground, doing an act common to the game of football. He was losing it while his other leg was 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."

Under league officiating procedure, an "act common to the game" is defined as controlling the ball long enough to hand it, pitch it or pass it. But Pereira noted that this definition only applies when there is "contact with a defensive player and the ball comes loose, which did not happen here."

Why it's the wrong call (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AtP_dQqyPAvvrVZ0O2ZoPDc5nYcB?slug=ap-steelers-colts-wrongcall&prov=ap&type=lgns)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I can't believe so many can't see the refs interpretation as defenseable, even if they don't agree with it.

A football move is a move that the player intializes with the ball. The player did not intialize anything with the ball until he brought his first knee up off the ground, and in the process of, knocked the ball out of his own hands. Is the whole football move rule ridiculous? Perhaps, but the ref made a completely justifiable call, IMO.

Did you read the NFL statement? The football move rule does NOT apply here. It only applies when a defender makes contact with a receiver. No such contact occurred here. So, Morelli applied the WRONG standard to the play. He didn't even know the rule. That is very bad and quite frankly, it is indefensible.

[Z²+]

NFL official's home vandalized after Steelers callESPN.com news services


Someone threw a rock through Pete Morelli's window in Stockton, Calif., on Sunday after the NFL official's crew made a controversial call in the Steelers' win at Indianapolis.

During the game, an apparent interception by Troy Polamalu was reversed on replay, allowing the Colts to score their second touchdown during a frantic but failed rally in the fourth quarter. The NFL issued a statement Monday that the interception should have stood.

"It's kinda suspicious because of its close proximity to the game, but he doesn't know if it was related to his duties as a referee, his job as a high school principal or if it was a random act of mischief," Stockton police Lt. Thomas Wells told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Wednesday.

Morelli, a high school principal, and his wife were upstairs getting ready for bed when they heard a loud crash and ran downstairs where they found broken glass and a rock, Wells told the paper.

Joey Porter, a Pro Bowl selection and one of the Steelers' co-captains, criticized the crew repeatedly during a series of postgame interviews following a 21-18 win in the AFC divisional round. Among other comments, Porter said, "The whole world wanted Indy to win so bad, they were going to do whatever they had to do."

NFL spokesman Steve Alic said there would be no fine for the remarks.

During his news conference Tuesday, Steelers coach Bill Cowher called Porter's remarks "ridiculous" and said, "Our officials are doing the very best that they can do."



http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2298135

[Tigercat]

Did you read the NFL statement? The football move rule does NOT apply here. It only applies when a defender makes contact with a receiver. No such contact occurred here. So, Morelli applied the WRONG standard to the play. He didn't even know the rule. That is very bad and quite frankly, it is indefensible.

Football move was instituted for one and ONLY one specific reason, you can ask any NFL ref this, to prevent cheap fumbles. One would think it would almost only apply to defender contact, because a play in which a player could so knock out the ball himself in an instance like this probably wasn't forseen. It does not mean that as a guidline to the refs it has no baring to this instance. Because it was NEVER told to the refs that it only applied to defender contact.

The NFL gave the refs a guidline to prevent cheap fumbles. The ref thought he used the guideline correctly. If you or the NFL wants it to be more than a guideline, make it a rule.

We have a family member that worked with NFL officiating crews who has told us the specifics of what and how the refs were taught these guidelines. He didn't agree with the overturning of the play, but has told us why it was consistent with the way this guideline is taught.