T.Polamalu Interception (1 Viewer)

[Da Guru]

Boomer "I picked the Colts to win, but I am glad the Steelers won because that was the worst call I have ever seen! It was highway robbery!"Sharpe "I think the Ref Archie Manning...er I mean Moreli made the right call" "That play should have never even been reviewed"

 

[brettdj]

I think everyone agrees that #1.  You have to have possession of the ball and #2.  Make a football move for the interception to be legit, right?

Can someone explain to me how you make a football move while you are down on the ground??

NOTE:  I don't have a dog in the fight, but I am curious to hear WHY the call was the worst ever in your opinions.

Hypothetical: Polamalu makes the catch but hurts his leg and lays there holding the ball. Would it have been ruled an incomplete pass?

It would have been complete. An Indy player would need to touch him down. And at that time or a whistle he would still be in possesion of the ball.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

Can any of you voting yes read a ####ing rule book?

Morelli made the correct call within the way the rule is written.

While I personally believe his call violates the "spirit" of the rule, as it was written for plays where a guy gets hit upon catching a ball, he still adhered to the way it should be applied.

If you think it was an interception, tough. Learn what the NFL calls an interception.

That is the problem here. The ref must be a lawyer who is adding together different parts of the rulebook that were intended to "govern" situations different from this interception. He clearly caught the ball and adquately maintained possession upon hitting the ground. The ref is then trying to artificially extend the act of "hitting the ground" to "getting up" and advancing the ball. He is improperly bundling these 2 acts together and calling it one continuous act because he is looking a rulebook instead of looking visually at the play on the field.Refs need to be able to exercise reasonable human judgement and leave a play like that alone. Instead they take the rulebook and add 2 + 2 and get 5.

 

[brettdj]

Here is the definition of possession from nfl.com

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

TP had possession of the ball when his butt was on the ground. He didn't have to make a football move.

Unless the refs said he didn't have possession (which they didn't - gave us some story about his knee not being off the turf ??) than its an interception.

TP fumbled and picked up the ball - end of story.

That is the definition of possesion. But they did not list the definition for a catch. It is defined in the high school and NCAA rulebooks. I am sure it is defined in the NFL rulebook as I described earlier.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Here is the definition of possession from nfl.com

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

TP had possession of the ball when his butt was on the ground. He didn't have to make a football move.

Unless the refs said he didn't have possession (which they didn't - gave us some story about his knee not being off the turf ??) than its an interception.

TP fumbled and picked up the ball - end of story.

Finally...some evidence...Naysayers, pls respond.

 

[TheLaw]

Here is the definition of possession from nfl.com

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

TP had possession of the ball when his butt was on the ground. He didn't have to make a football move.

Unless the refs said he didn't have possession (which they didn't - gave us some story about his knee not being off the turf ??) than its an interception.

TP fumbled and picked up the ball - end of story.

That is the definition of possesion. But they did not list the definition for a catch. It is defined in the high school and NCAA rulebooks. I am sure it is defined in the NFL rulebook as I described earlier.

Receiving a forward pass and gaining possession of the ball?

 

[Macdaddy_2004]

Here is the definition of possession from nfl.com

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

TP had possession of the ball when his butt was on the ground. He didn't have to make a football move.

Unless the refs said he didn't have possession (which they didn't - gave us some story about his knee not being off the turf ??) than its an interception.

TP fumbled and picked up the ball - end of story.

That is the definition of possesion. But they did not list the definition for a catch. It is defined in the high school and NCAA rulebooks. I am sure it is defined in the NFL rulebook as I described earlier.

Doesn't matter - the refs explanation of the call had something to do with possession - not that TP didn't catch the ball.If TP didn't catch the ball they could have settled it by just saying that the ball hit the ground.

There is no evidence that the ball hit the ground so how can you overturn the call on the field ??

 

[Da Guru]

I am so glad Pitt won after those calls!! It would have been a disgrace if the Colts had that game handed to them.

 

[Keysersoze666]

Even though it will seem BITTER, someone has to at least mention the infamous Jerry Rice uncalled-fumble in the Packers/Niners playoff game in the 98' season. TO subsequently made the first big catch of his career over the middle in the end zone as he got hammered to win that game for the Niners. Holmgren was on the competition comitteee thank god and instant reply got reinstated after another year.

I found an interesting site that has a great rundown of completely STUPID calls, some have been mentioned here but many have not. Check it out, it's a Blast from Stupid Refereeing Past!

Sucky Ref Calls through History

 

[stevec]

The call on the non-safety was correct. Contact began in the field of play, and he was driven back into the end zone. We don't mark the ball at the spot as where the gang of defenders pushes a guy back to - it's where they push him back from.

 

[crushtang]

Considering it was a playoff game, the totality of the calls made it the worst officiated game I've ever seen. These have all been mentioned, so let's summarize.

1. Pass Interference never called on Colts even though it was blatant

2. Whole Colts Defensive line jumped offsides, play whistled dead, NO PENALTY ON EITHER TEAM

3. Manning sacked for a safety – yet he was ruled down at the 1

4. The Polamalu Interception that was reversed

I can live with #1, happens fairly often, no big deal. I can chalk up #2 to an anomaly; everybody got confused, refs basically covering their butts, let them have a “do-over”.

But #3 and #4 are so beyond excusable in my book, something has to be done to that crew.

I have to disagree with this ruling on #3 as well, how can a QB who is moving backwards, have "forward" progress?The officiating was so bad in the game, you'd have thought the Patriots were playing in it.

 

[jurb26]

Considering it was a playoff game, the totality of the calls made it the worst officiated game I've ever seen. These have all been mentioned, so let's summarize.

1. Pass Interference never called on Colts even though it was blatant

2. Whole Colts Defensive line jumped offsides, play whistled dead, NO PENALTY ON EITHER TEAM

3. Manning sacked for a safety – yet he was ruled down at the 1

4. The Polamalu Interception that was reversed

I can live with #1, happens fairly often, no big deal. I can chalk up #2 to an anomaly; everybody got confused, refs basically covering their butts, let them have a “do-over”.

But #3 and #4 are so beyond excusable in my book, something has to be done to that crew.

I'm a Steeler fan and I don't agree with all of this.1. Yes, that was down right awful. One of the worst non calls I've seen involving PI.

2. No Indy player touched a Steeler player and there was never a snap, only a whistle blown stopping any action. It was the correct call to not penalize Indy in this case. Pitt would have had to get the snap off with an Indy player in the nuetral zone. Seeing that the whistle was blown, that was impossible.

3. Contact was made about 6 inches prior to the GL, again I agree with the call the refs made here.

4. Yes, this was one fo the most asinine things I have ever seen happen on a football field. Ref with no common sense should not be left to interpret rule books.

 

[Da Guru]

The call on the non-safety was correct. Contact began in the field of play, and he was driven back into the end zone. We don't mark the ball at the spot as where the gang of defenders pushes a guy back to - it's where they push him back from.

I am not sure on that. They just showed the reply on the NFL Network and the ball was over the end stripe when Manning was hit, although his feet were still in play.Given the letter of the rule it should have been a safety.

 

[zadok]

The call on the non-safety was correct. Contact began in the field of play, and he was driven back into the end zone. We don't mark the ball at the spot as where the gang of defenders pushes a guy back to - it's where they push him back from.

I am not sure on that. They just showed the reply on the NFL Network and the ball was over the end stripe when Manning was hit, although his feet were still in play.Given the letter of the rule it should have been a safety.

Exactly. When Manning was first touched, the ball was in the end zone. His feet weren't, but that is irrelevant, similar to a TD.

 

[zadok]

2.  No Indy player touched a Steeler player and there was never a snap, only a whistle blown stopping any action.  It was the correct call to not penalize Indy in this case.  Pitt would have had to get the snap off with an Indy player in the nuetral zone.  Seeing that the whistle was blown, that was impossible.

Why was the whistle blown? That's my whole point. If there was no penalty, no timeout called, no delay of game, etc. why stop the play? Because the Colts players were POINTING at the Steelers line???

3.  Contact was made about 6 inches prior to the GL, again I agree with the call the refs made here.

But at the time of that contact, the ball itself was in the end zone. Therefore, a safety.

 

[jurb26]

2. No Indy player touched a Steeler player and there was never a snap, only a whistle blown stopping any action. It was the correct call to not penalize Indy in this case. Pitt would have had to get the snap off with an Indy player in the nuetral zone. Seeing that the whistle was blown, that was impossible.

Why was the whistle blown? That's my whole point. If there was no penalty, no timeout called, no delay of game, etc. why stop the play? Because the Colts players were POINTING at the Steelers line???

3. Contact was made about 6 inches prior to the GL, again I agree with the call the refs made here.

But at the time of that contact, the ball itself was in the end zone. Therefore, a saftey.

The refs made a mistake by blowing the whistle. I am glad they didn't compound that mistake by "forcing" a call that shoudn't have been made. Should they have blown the whislte? No (well yes but on Fanica, lol), but they did. Indy would have had to touch a Steelers player or Pitt snap the ball with them in the NZ for it to be a pentalty. Neither happened, so the right thing was done. Swallow your pride and admit that there was no foul.As for the safety, it was close but from seeing the review of it, it looked as though the ball was a few inches outside the GL when contact was made. It was close, but I think they made the right call there.

 

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

24 people have voted that they have seen worse - can anyone elaborate? I've been watching football for 20+ years, and nothing is coming to mind...especially with respect to the magnitude of the call - in the playoffs - potientially game changing call...

1.) The "Music City Miracle"2.) Yadayadayada

Both were worse calls, IMO, and both directly effected the outcome of their respective games.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, SWC. Unfortunately, your opinion is completely contrary to the NFL rulebook on this one. Not like it? I understand. Say it is the wrong call according to the rulebook? Can't do that.

I think it was a forward pass, thereby making it an illegal play. If you disagree, and think it was a pure lateral or backwards pass, then you are correct. I'm not here to argue with you about the play -- I merely listed it in response to the question about which calls were possibly worse than the no-interception call at issue here.

All I am asking is HOW you can think it was a forward pass after looking at the replays.

 

[Godsbrother]

2.  No Indy player touched a Steeler player and there was never a snap, only a whistle blown stopping any action.  It was the correct call to not penalize Indy in this case.  Pitt would have had to get the snap off with an Indy player in the nuetral zone.  Seeing that the whistle was blown, that was impossible.

Why was the whistle blown? That's my whole point. If there was no penalty, no timeout called, no delay of game, etc. why stop the play? Because the Colts players were POINTING at the Steelers line???

3.  Contact was made about 6 inches prior to the GL, again I agree with the call the refs made here.

But at the time of that contact, the ball itself was in the end zone. Therefore, a saftey.

The refs made a mistake by blowing the whistle. I am glad they didn't compound that mistake by "forcing" a call that shoudn't have been made. Should they have blown the whislte? No (well yes but on Fanica, lol), but they did. Indy would have had to touch a Steelers player or Pitt snap the ball with them in the NZ for it to be a pentalty. Neither happened, so the right thing was done. Swallow your pride and admit that there was no foul.As for the safety, it was close but from seeing the review of it, it looked as though the ball was a few inches outside the GL when contact was made. It was close, but I think they made the right call there.

I agree that the safety call could have gone either way. I am a Steelers fan so of course I wanted a safety but I don't think that was a bad call.The three calls that got under my skin was the non-call for pass interference on Randel El (would love to ask that ref what his definition of PI is), the non-call when 1/2 of the Colts defense was on the Steelers line of scrimmage, and finally the Polamalu interception which was total BS.

Actually there was another possible interception by Polamalu earlier in the game where it clearly showed that he had his hands under the ball. I won't say it was a bad call because another angle may have shown the ball touched the ground but it was not reviewed and we only got one look at it. I was surprised the Steelers didn't challenge it though.

 

[stubby]

I have never watched a game before and thought the referees were clearly favoring one team over the other, intentionally or not. However, by the end of this game I was actually cheering FOR the Steelers, which says a lot considering I'm a life-long Cowboys fan.

 

[AcousticNut]

Considering it was a playoff game, the totality of the calls made it the worst officiated game I've ever seen. These have all been mentioned, so let's summarize.

1. Pass Interference never called on Colts even though it was blatant

2. Whole Colts Defensive line jumped offsides, play whistled dead, NO PENALTY ON EITHER TEAM

3. Manning sacked for a safety – yet he was ruled down at the 1

4. The Polamalu Interception that was reversed

I can live with #1, happens fairly often, no big deal. I can chalk up #2 to an anomaly; everybody got confused, refs basically covering their butts, let them have a “do-over”.

But #3 and #4 are so beyond excusable in my book, something has to be done to that crew.

I'm a Steeler fan and I don't agree with all of this.1. Yes, that was down right awful. One of the worst non calls I've seen involving PI.

2. No Indy player touched a Steeler player and there was never a snap, only a whistle blown stopping any action. It was the correct call to not penalize Indy in this case. Pitt would have had to get the snap off with an Indy player in the nuetral zone. Seeing that the whistle was blown, that was impossible.

3. Contact was made about 6 inches prior to the GL, again I agree with the call the refs made here.

4. Yes, this was one fo the most asinine things I have ever seen happen on a football field. Ref with no common sense should not be left to interpret rule books.

I too am a Steeler fan, yet always try to watch the games with an objective eye. Couldn't agree more on all points.

1) Very bad no-call on the PI on ARE

2) Great analysis

3) This could have gone either way. From the angle they were showing on TV, it was difficult to tell whether or not the ball was over the goal line. While dissapointed, I can see how this call was made

4) :X

I have seen a lot of other places (mostly the Steelers message board) about conspiracy theories involving the refs and the NFL wanting the Colts to reach the playoffs. If that was the case, the refs would have called a PI on McFadden during the Wayne TD attempt at the end of the game. While it was a tremendous, and legal, play by McFadden, it was a play that could have been called if the refs "Had It In" for the Steelers.

No conspiracy, just a poorly called game.

 

[LGOA]

I'm a Colts fan, and I have to say it was almost embarrassing how badly the refs seemed to want to give the game to the Colts. If the Colts had actually won the game because of any of those terrible calls, I think it would have been a travesty. The Steelers won, and they very much deserved too. I am glad the refs were not able to control the outcome.

 

[diesel7982]

Here is the definition of possession from nfl.com

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

TP had possession of the ball when his butt was on the ground. He didn't have to make a football move.

Unless the refs said he didn't have possession (which they didn't - gave us some story about his knee not being off the turf ??) than its an interception.

TP fumbled and picked up the ball - end of story.

Finally...some evidence...Naysayers, pls respond.

This is just pitiful.

The above posting has NOTHING to do with what Poalamu did yesterday. Had he stayed down, and not tried to get back up, it would have been an interception, and the above post would be relevant.

When he tried to get back up, before he got off the ground, he lost possession. That makes it an incomplete catch.

Is this silly? YES.

Is this the way the rule is written. YES

 

[rhawkins68]

Browsed the whole thread and found no actual rules. Sure I found the brief digest/dummies list posted for possesion but that does not tell the whole story. I agree with the GUT feeling that it was an interception. Until I see the posted rules I would vote for the right call being made since the refs generally know the rules far better than we do. I'm sure he didn't pull it out of a hat just to make a play for Indy. Not sure if there is a complete rules guide on-line that can be accessed other than the digest for fans. Here's the NCAA rule (the ones I need to know). I'd like to see the same rules and any others that would pertain to that play from the NFL rule book.Catch, Interception, RecoveryARTICLE 7. A catch is an act of establishing player possession of a live ballin flight.a. A catch of an opponent’s fumble or pass is an interception.b. Securing player possession of a live ball after it strikes the ground is“recovering it.’’c. To catch, intercept or recover a ball, a player who leaves his feet to makea catch, interception or recovery must have the ball in his possessionwhen he first returns to the ground inbounds or is so held that the dead-ball provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply (A.R. 2-2-7-I-V and A.R. 7-3-6-IV).1. If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession andcontrol of the ball, it is a catch or interception even though a subse-quent step or fall takes the receiver out of bounds.2. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch,interception or recovery.RULE 2-2/DEFINITIONSPage 42FR-41d. A catch by any kneeling or prone inbounds player is a completion orinterception (Rules 7-3-1 and 2 and 7-3-6 and 7).e. When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed.Simultaneous Catch or Recovery

 

[pghrob]

Can any of you voting yes read a ####ing rule book?

Morelli made the correct call within the way the rule is written.

While I personally believe his call violates the "spirit" of the rule, as it was written for plays where a guy gets hit upon catching a ball, he still adhered to the way it should be applied.

If you think it was an interception, tough.  Learn what the NFL calls an interception.

That is the problem here. The ref must be a lawyer who is adding together different parts of the rulebook that were intended to "govern" situations different from this interception. He clearly caught the ball and adquately maintained possession upon hitting the ground. The ref is then trying to artificially extend the act of "hitting the ground" to "getting up" and advancing the ball. He is improperly bundling these 2 acts together and calling it one continuous act because he is looking a rulebook instead of looking visually at the play on the field.Refs need to be able to exercise reasonable human judgement and leave a play like that alone. Instead they take the rulebook and add 2 + 2 and get 5.

Your statement is why I say the referee was negligent. What call would other reasonably prudent referees make if they were in that situation?Morelli clearly convoluted different rules considerations rather than looking at the play and applying the singular rule that applied to this situation. To do so in this playoff situation is reprehenisble and unconscionable.

 

[Gargoylez]

Here is the definition of possession from nfl.com

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

TP had possession of the ball when his butt was on the ground. He didn't have to make a football move.

Unless the refs said he didn't have possession (which they didn't - gave us some story about his knee not being off the turf ??) than its an interception.

TP fumbled and picked up the ball - end of story.

Finally...some evidence...Naysayers, pls respond.

This is just pitiful.

The above posting has NOTHING to do with what Poalamu did yesterday. Had he stayed down, and not tried to get back up, it would have been an interception, and the above post would be relevant.

When he tried to get back up, before he got off the ground, he lost possession. That makes it an incomplete catch.

Is this silly? YES.

Is this the way the rule is written. YES

No its not. If you look at the possession rule, it is EXACTLY what Troy did. Why should it change when it is an INT or a Catch???Please come on down of your high horse, and read what we are writing.

 

[rhawkins68]

Can any of you voting yes read a ####ing rule book?

Morelli made the correct call within the way the rule is written.

While I personally believe his call violates the "spirit" of the rule, as it was written for plays where a guy gets hit upon catching a ball, he still adhered to the way it should be applied.

If you think it was an interception, tough. Learn what the NFL calls an interception.

That is the problem here. The ref must be a lawyer who is adding together different parts of the rulebook that were intended to "govern" situations different from this interception. He clearly caught the ball and adquately maintained possession upon hitting the ground. The ref is then trying to artificially extend the act of "hitting the ground" to "getting up" and advancing the ball. He is improperly bundling these 2 acts together and calling it one continuous act because he is looking a rulebook instead of looking visually at the play on the field.Refs need to be able to exercise reasonable human judgement and leave a play like that alone. Instead they take the rulebook and add 2 + 2 and get 5.

Your statement is why I say the referee was negligent. What call would other reasonably prudent referees make if they were in that situation?Morelli clearly convoluted different rules considerations rather than looking at the play and applying the singular rule that applied to this situation. To do so in this playoff situation is reprehenisble and unconscionable.

I'd like to know what rules those were. If they were clearly convoluted could you not post or link to them for us?The best you can say is he applied a rule that most are unfamiliar with since the given play does not occur very often.

 

[rhawkins68]

Here is the definition of possession from nfl.com

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

TP had possession of the ball when his butt was on the ground. He didn't have to make a football move.

Unless the refs said he didn't have possession (which they didn't - gave us some story about his knee not being off the turf ??) than its an interception.

TP fumbled and picked up the ball - end of story.

Finally...some evidence...Naysayers, pls respond.

This is just pitiful.

The above posting has NOTHING to do with what Poalamu did yesterday. Had he stayed down, and not tried to get back up, it would have been an interception, and the above post would be relevant.

When he tried to get back up, before he got off the ground, he lost possession. That makes it an incomplete catch.

Is this silly? YES.

Is this the way the rule is written. YES

No its not. If you look at the possession rule, it is EXACTLY what Troy did. Why should it change when it is an INT or a Catch???Please come on down of your high horse, and read what we are writing.

I'm still waiting to see the actual rule from the rulebook versus the digest.

 

[brettdj]

I'd like to know what rules those were. If they were clearly convoluted could you not post or link to them for us?

The best you can say is he applied a rule that most are unfamiliar with since the given play does not occur very often.

What unfamiliar rule? It is the same rule as the TB incompletion last week. When you dive for a catch you must maintain possesion until coming to a rest. A receiver a couple of years ago did the same thing. Dove, rolling, came up held the ball out with one hand to show the ref he caught it and it popped out of his hand, Incomplete.

 

[Memphis Foundry]

Actually there was another possible interception by Polamalu earlier in the game where it clearly showed that he had his hands under the ball. I won't say it was a bad call because another angle may have shown the ball touched the ground but it was not reviewed and we only got one look at it. I was surprised the Steelers didn't challenge it though.

I was going to mention this one, too. I think because Polamalu rolled forward toward his shoulders and both of his hands were on the bottom half of the ball, it probably would not have been overturned, but I thought it was worth a try at the time.

 

[jurb26]

The three calls that got under my skin was the non-call for pass interference on Randel El (would love to ask that ref what his definition of PI is), the non-call when 1/2 of the Colts defense was on the Steelers line of scrimmage, and finally the Polamalu interception which was total BS.

Man that nonPI call had me bouncing off the walls. After watching the BS calls that Den was getting the very night before on PI, then seeing this blatent mugging of El.... my lord! PI is called far too often by NFL refs IMO. For them to "miss" that one was like a total slap in the face.

 

[rhawkins68]

I'd like to know what rules those were. If they were clearly convoluted could you not post or link to them for us?

The best you can say is he applied a rule that most are unfamiliar with since the given play does not occur very often.

What unfamiliar rule? It is the same rule as the TB incompletion last week. When you dive for a catch you must maintain possesion until coming to a rest. A receiver a couple of years ago did the same thing. Dove, rolling, came up held the ball out with one hand to show the ref he caught it and it popped out of his hand, Incomplete.

Once again. Where's the actual rule? Why would it not have been a completion and a fumble in that case? So it happened in another game makes it the right call?I see everyone commenting on the rule(s) but no rule posted to make the decesion.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

For all you brainiacs out there disputing the OBVIOUS interception...I heard on Sirius NFL radio a half hour ago that the NFL had said IT WAS THE WRONG FRIGGIN CALL! THE INTERCEPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED.Give it a break, OK?

 

[jonessed]

For all you brainiacs out there disputing the OBVIOUS interception...I heard on Sirius NFL radio a half hour ago that the NFL had said IT WAS THE WRONG FRIGGIN CALL! THE INTERCEPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED.

Give it a break, OK?

If they indeed announced that then we should see a link for the announcement soon enough.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

For all you brainiacs out there disputing the OBVIOUS interception...I heard on Sirius NFL radio a half hour ago that the NFL had said IT WAS THE WRONG FRIGGIN CALL! THE INTERCEPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED.

Give it a break, OK?

If they indeed announced that then we should see a link for the announcement soon enough.

No I'm lying

 

[Tecumseh]

For all you brainiacs out there disputing the OBVIOUS interception...I heard on Sirius NFL radio a half hour ago that the NFL had said IT WAS THE WRONG FRIGGIN CALL! THE INTERCEPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED.

Give it a break, OK?

Um, no. They said it was a judgement call. Linky.

 

[jonessed]

For all you brainiacs out there disputing the OBVIOUS interception...I heard on Sirius NFL radio a half hour ago that the NFL had said IT WAS THE WRONG FRIGGIN CALL! THE INTERCEPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED.

Give it a break, OK?

If they indeed announced that then we should see a link for the announcement soon enough.

No I'm lying

Don't get your panties in a wad. Talking heads spout stuff all the time. If it's an official announcement then it will be listed some time soon. I'm not doubting that you heard it. I want to make sure it's their official ruling and I want to see the explanation.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

For all you brainiacs out there disputing the OBVIOUS interception...I heard on Sirius NFL radio a half hour ago that the NFL had said IT WAS THE WRONG FRIGGIN CALL! THE INTERCEPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED.

Give it a break, OK?

If they indeed announced that then we should see a link for the announcement soon enough.

No I'm lying

Don't get your panties in a wad. Talking heads spout stuff all the time. If it's an official announcement then it will be listed some time soon. I'm not doubting that you heard it. I want to make sure it's their official ruling and I want to see the explanation.

Fair enough, my apologies.

 

[pghrob]

I'd like to know what rules those were.  If they were clearly convoluted could you not post or link to them for us?

The best you can say is he applied a rule that most are unfamiliar with since the given play does not occur very often.

What unfamiliar rule? It is the same rule as the TB incompletion last week. When you dive for a catch you must maintain possesion until coming to a rest. A receiver a couple of years ago did the same thing. Dove, rolling, came up held the ball out with one hand to show the ref he caught it and it popped out of his hand, Incomplete.

Once again. Where's the actual rule? Why would it not have been a completion and a fumble in that case? So it happened in another game makes it the right call?I see everyone commenting on the rule(s) but no rule posted to make the decesion.

I can't find the rule either. My post was based on the preceding posts' definition of possesion, which was found from the nfl.com website.

 

[jason12vb]

For all you brainiacs out there disputing the OBVIOUS interception...I heard on Sirius NFL radio a half hour ago that the NFL had said IT WAS THE WRONG FRIGGIN CALL! THE INTERCEPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED.

Give it a break, OK?

Um, no. They said it was a judgement call. Linky.

Actaully they said they hadn't reviewed the call yet."Aiello added that the league's officiating department had not yet officially reviewed the call to determine if Morelli had made the right decision."

Aiello's statement does not even reflect what the call was. Morelli said that the reason it was not an interception was because his knee was down, not becuase he didn't catch the ball. This was a rule (miss)interpretation, not judgement.

 

[pinequick]

Also, what was up with the 4th and inches false start debacle?  Since no flags were thrown, it would seem that after all the commotion someone would get penalized if not just for everyone standing up and pointing with no penalty called.

I was wondering the same thing. At the very least it should be delay of game offense. If they claim nobody moved then the play claock eventually had to expire. Of course they will claim that it can't be delay of game because the whistle blew. Well who blew their friggin whistle if you claiim nobody moved or there was no contact. Yeah pretty poor officiating.

It can't be delay of game on the offense. It was one of two things:1. A Steeler player moved early. I didn't see anybody jump on the replay.

2. With the entire Indy d-line on the Pit side of the line of scrimmage, the first movement by any o-linemen creates a neutral zone infraction on the defense.

It seemed like (2) was the obvious call.

Totally dead issue by now, but Faneca flinched (Dierdorf even called it during the game). That caused the Indy D-line to move. But as for the call, if the refs missed Faneca, then the D-line moved, *then* the O-line moved--you're right, the call should have been neutral zone infraction (even though the *correct* call would have been offsides on Pitt).

 

[Evilgrin 72]

For all you brainiacs out there disputing the OBVIOUS interception...I heard on Sirius NFL radio a half hour ago that the NFL had said IT WAS THE WRONG FRIGGIN CALL! THE INTERCEPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED.

Give it a break, OK?

Um, no. They said it was a judgement call. Linky.

Actaully they said they hadn't reviewed the call yet."Aiello added that the league's officiating department had not yet officially reviewed the call to determine if Morelli had made the right decision."

Aiello's statement does not even reflect what the call was. Morelli said that the reason it was not an interception was because his knee was down, not becuase he didn't catch the ball. This was a rule (miss)interpretation, not judgement.

What Aiello is saying is that it is up to Morelli to judge whether or not possession was established prior to losing the ball. As Polamalu's knee hit the ground, came up, then hit the ground again prior to getting up and losing the ball, the only way that should not have been an interception is if Morelli determined that Polamalu was juggling the ball or failed to establish possession prior to getting up. Anyone with two eyes knows that he did - this was just a horrible call. This guy should never work another playoff game in his life.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Interception.

 

[brettdj]

What Aiello is saying is that it is up to Morelli to judge whether or not possession was established prior to losing the ball. As Polamalu's knee hit the ground, came up, then hit the ground again prior to getting up and losing the ball, the only way that should not have been an interception is if Morelli determined that Polamalu was juggling the ball or failed to establish possession prior to getting up. Anyone with two eyes knows that he did - this was just a horrible call. This guy should never work another playoff game in his life.

If we kept officials from working another playoff game or regular game again. We would not have any good officials for any games. These guys are the top 5%, probably top 0.5% of all football officials.

 

[jason12vb]

For all you brainiacs out there disputing the OBVIOUS interception...I heard on Sirius NFL radio a half hour ago that the NFL had said IT WAS THE WRONG FRIGGIN CALL! THE INTERCEPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED.

Give it a break, OK?

Um, no. They said it was a judgement call. Linky.

Actaully they said they hadn't reviewed the call yet."Aiello added that the league's officiating department had not yet officially reviewed the call to determine if Morelli had made the right decision."

Aiello's statement does not even reflect what the call was. Morelli said that the reason it was not an interception was because his knee was down, not becuase he didn't catch the ball. This was a rule (miss)interpretation, not judgement.

What Aiello is saying is that it is up to Morelli to judge whether or not possession was established prior to losing the ball. As Polamalu's knee hit the ground, came up, then hit the ground again prior to getting up and losing the ball, the only way that should not have been an interception is if Morelli determined that Polamalu was juggling the ball or failed to establish possession prior to getting up. Anyone with two eyes knows that he did - this was just a horrible call. This guy should never work another playoff game in his life.

I don't remember Morelli saying anything about possission...it just sounded to me like he thought by rule that if the ball came out while his knee was down it was not a catch. Am I wrong...did he say something about having posession before it got knowcked out?From memory I hear "Because the ball came came out while the players knee was still touching the ground it is not an interception." That is the part that is "on trial" here, not a judgment that he actaully caught the ball.

 

[Macdaddy_2004]

IF TP rolled over 10 times after catching that ball the refs would not have overturned it - it would have been called a fumble and a recovery.Why should it be any different if he rolls over two times ??Possession was clearly established - this is not the issue - the issue is the refs called it incomplete when TP got up and his knee kicked the ball outBS call that could have cost the steelers the game - the league should look into this

 

[PsychoMan]

Slightly off-topic but that Pomalu guy sure is a class act. After one of worst calls ever (and a pivotal one in the game) he didnt ##### at all. He just put his helmet back on, got back on the field and broke up the next play.

I noticed that too. Definitely a class act. Good for him they held on to win.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

For all you brainiacs out there disputing the OBVIOUS interception...I heard on Sirius NFL radio a half hour ago that the NFL had said IT WAS THE WRONG FRIGGIN CALL! THE INTERCEPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED.

Give it a break, OK?

Um, no. They said it was a judgement call. Linky.

Actaully they said they hadn't reviewed the call yet."Aiello added that the league's officiating department had not yet officially reviewed the call to determine if Morelli had made the right decision."

Aiello's statement does not even reflect what the call was. Morelli said that the reason it was not an interception was because his knee was down, not becuase he didn't catch the ball. This was a rule (miss)interpretation, not judgement.

What Aiello is saying is that it is up to Morelli to judge whether or not possession was established prior to losing the ball. As Polamalu's knee hit the ground, came up, then hit the ground again prior to getting up and losing the ball, the only way that should not have been an interception is if Morelli determined that Polamalu was juggling the ball or failed to establish possession prior to getting up. Anyone with two eyes knows that he did - this was just a horrible call. This guy should never work another playoff game in his life.

I don't remember Morelli saying anything about possission...it just sounded to me like he thought by rule that if the ball came out while his knee was down it was not a catch. Am I wrong...did he say something about having posession before it got knowcked out?From memory I hear "Because the ball came came out while the players knee was still touching the ground it is not an interception." That is the part that is "on trial" here, not a judgment that he actaully caught the ball.

If the rule applied directly to this play, the league would have said - "According to the rules, if a player makes an interception, goes to the ground, then loses the ball before getting up, the pass is, by rule, incomplete." They didn't say that - they said it was a judgment call, which means the official reviewing the play had to determine whether or not possession was established prior to the loss of the ball.

 

[John 14:6]

Slightly off-topic but that Pomalu guy sure is a class act.  After one of worst calls ever (and a pivotal one in the game) he didnt ##### at all.  He just put his helmet back on, got back on the field and broke up the next play.   

I noticed that too. Definitely a class act. Good for him they held on to win.

IIRC he was Carson Palmer's roommate. They were talking about it during a Bengals-Steelers game and Palmer said Polamalu is the nicest, most mild-mannered guy you'll ever meet.

 

[jonessed]

For all you brainiacs out there disputing the OBVIOUS interception...I heard on Sirius NFL radio a half hour ago that the NFL had said IT WAS THE WRONG FRIGGIN CALL! THE INTERCEPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED.

Give it a break, OK?

If they indeed announced that then we should see a link for the announcement soon enough.

No I'm lying

Don't get your panties in a wad. Talking heads spout stuff all the time. If it's an official announcement then it will be listed some time soon. I'm not doubting that you heard it. I want to make sure it's their official ruling and I want to see the explanation.

Fair enough, my apologies.

I understand that Steelers fans are a bit charged about the whole thing. I would be as well if it was my team. But I'm only interested because I'm honestly curious about the official ruling. I don't have a dog in this fight. I can see the refs reasoning, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. I just don't think it's as obvious as everyone is making it out to be. They had time to review it so there must be some kind of odd mix of rules that make this out to be something more complex than it seems on the face. At least I hope so because the fair ruling would have been an interception.

 

[Gargoylez]

IF TP rolled over 10 times after catching that ball the refs would not have overturned it - it would have been called a fumble and a recovery.

Why should it be any different if he rolls over two times ??

Possession was clearly established - this is not the issue - the issue is the refs called it incomplete when TP got up and his knee kicked the ball out

BS call that could have cost the steelers the game - the league should look into this

This is EXACTLY what happened. Good interpretation.