T.Polamalu Interception (1 Viewer)

[BoulderBob]

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

Probably the best catch I have witnessed in my time watching football. Good posting...

 

[Franknbeans]

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.

 

[Rhino]

Where's the option for "It doesn't matter, Pittsburgh won anyway."Sure it was a terrible call. Anyone who honestly saw the play knows it was a terrible call. But you won the game. Get over it.It's surely not the first bad call, it surely won't be the last, and IMO it's not the worst call ever made because it didn't change the outcome of the game. Had Indy come back to win the game, then I think Steeler fans would have a right to yell and scream. But you won. Be thankfull you dodged the bullet and get ready for Denver - because their refs sucked last weekend too.

 

[jurb26]

Be thankfull you dodged the bullet and get ready for Denver - because their refs sucked last weekend too.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

Where's the option for "It doesn't matter, Pittsburgh won anyway."

Sure it was a terrible call. Anyone who honestly saw the play knows it was a terrible call. But you won the game. Get over it.

It's surely not the first bad call, it surely won't be the last, and IMO it's not the worst call ever made because it didn't change the outcome of the game. Had Indy come back to win the game, then I think Steeler fans would have a right to yell and scream. But you won. Be thankfull you dodged the bullet and get ready for Denver - because their refs sucked last weekend too.

The official needs to be fired. It could have changed the game.

Let's be happy it didn't and make sure this guy never works another game again.

 

[David Yudkin]

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.

As I mentioned 3 pages ago, if the refs interpretted the play as TP not having possession PRIOR to entering his roll, then the rule apparently is that you either need to stay down on the ground to be granted possession OR you need to stand up and get both feet on the ground to gain possession WITHOUT DROPPING IT.As I recall, TP did not have control of the ball AND 2 feet on the ground before he rolled over. He lost the ball on the way out of the roll trying to stand up and he dropped the ball. If that is the rule, you can't blame the refs for calling it.

I believe that is the distinction trying to be made in the explanation--that he had his knee on the ground but NOT his feet. Since by definition he never had full control of the ball AND both feet on the ground at the same time, it's not a catch (or in this case an interception).

 

[Godsbrother]

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.

As I mentioned 3 pages ago, if the refs interpretted the play as TP not having possession PRIOR to entering his roll, then the rule apparently is that you either need to stay down on the ground to be granted possession OR you need to stand up and get both feet on the ground to gain possession WITHOUT DROPPING IT.As I recall, TP did not have control of the ball AND 2 feet on the ground before he rolled over. He lost the ball on the way out of the roll trying to stand up and he dropped the ball. If that is the rule, you can't blame the refs for calling it.

I believe that is the distinction trying to be made in the explanation--that he had his knee on the ground but NOT his feet. Since by definition he never had full control of the ball AND both feet on the ground at the same time, it's not a catch (or in this case an interception).

I think you need to watch the play again. Polamalu had control of the ball until he tried to get up and run.

 

[David Yudkin]

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.

As I mentioned 3 pages ago, if the refs interpretted the play as TP not having possession PRIOR to entering his roll, then the rule apparently is that you either need to stay down on the ground to be granted possession OR you need to stand up and get both feet on the ground to gain possession WITHOUT DROPPING IT.As I recall, TP did not have control of the ball AND 2 feet on the ground before he rolled over. He lost the ball on the way out of the roll trying to stand up and he dropped the ball. If that is the rule, you can't blame the refs for calling it.

I believe that is the distinction trying to be made in the explanation--that he had his knee on the ground but NOT his feet. Since by definition he never had full control of the ball AND both feet on the ground at the same time, it's not a catch (or in this case an interception).

I think you need to watch the play again. Polamalu had control of the ball until he tried to get up and run.

Possession = control of the ball and two feet on the ground at the same time. Did he have two feet down before he rolled?

 

[Evilgrin 72]

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.

As I mentioned 3 pages ago, if the refs interpretted the play as TP not having possession PRIOR to entering his roll, then the rule apparently is that you either need to stay down on the ground to be granted possession OR you need to stand up and get both feet on the ground to gain possession WITHOUT DROPPING IT.As I recall, TP did not have control of the ball AND 2 feet on the ground before he rolled over. He lost the ball on the way out of the roll trying to stand up and he dropped the ball. If that is the rule, you can't blame the refs for calling it.

I believe that is the distinction trying to be made in the explanation--that he had his knee on the ground but NOT his feet. Since by definition he never had full control of the ball AND both feet on the ground at the same time, it's not a catch (or in this case an interception).

I think you need to watch the play again. Polamalu had control of the ball until he tried to get up and run.

Possession = control of the ball and two feet on the ground at the same time. Did he have two feet down before he rolled?

Does he not have possession if his entire body is on the ground? If a receiver lays out for a sideline pass, catches it, lands on his back in bounds, and slides 3 yards towards the sideline, only then going out of bounds, but his feet were in the air the whole time, is it not still a catch?

 

[David Yudkin]

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.

As I mentioned 3 pages ago, if the refs interpretted the play as TP not having possession PRIOR to entering his roll, then the rule apparently is that you either need to stay down on the ground to be granted possession OR you need to stand up and get both feet on the ground to gain possession WITHOUT DROPPING IT.As I recall, TP did not have control of the ball AND 2 feet on the ground before he rolled over. He lost the ball on the way out of the roll trying to stand up and he dropped the ball. If that is the rule, you can't blame the refs for calling it.

I believe that is the distinction trying to be made in the explanation--that he had his knee on the ground but NOT his feet. Since by definition he never had full control of the ball AND both feet on the ground at the same time, it's not a catch (or in this case an interception).

I think you need to watch the play again. Polamalu had control of the ball until he tried to get up and run.

Possession = control of the ball and two feet on the ground at the same time. Did he have two feet down before he rolled?

Does he not have possession if his entire body is on the ground? If a receiver lays out for a sideline pass, catches it, lands on his back in bounds, and slides 3 yards towards the sideline, only then going out of bounds, but his feet were in the air the whole time, is it not still a catch?

In your example, did the receiver try to get up and run? That's the difference. If TP didn't try to get up = possession.

 

[jonessed]

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).

None of the Colts actually touched a Pitt O-Lineman and the ball was never snapped. The refs just blew the play dead. There was no neutral zone infraction since neither of these two things occurred. The blowing of the whistle was botched, but the subsequent ruling was correct. There was no foul on the play (aside from the falst start they didn't see). Evilgrin pointed this out earlier in the thread I believe and he is correct.

 

[Rhino]

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.

As I mentioned 3 pages ago, if the refs interpretted the play as TP not having possession PRIOR to entering his roll, then the rule apparently is that you either need to stay down on the ground to be granted possession OR you need to stand up and get both feet on the ground to gain possession WITHOUT DROPPING IT.As I recall, TP did not have control of the ball AND 2 feet on the ground before he rolled over. He lost the ball on the way out of the roll trying to stand up and he dropped the ball. If that is the rule, you can't blame the refs for calling it.

I believe that is the distinction trying to be made in the explanation--that he had his knee on the ground but NOT his feet. Since by definition he never had full control of the ball AND both feet on the ground at the same time, it's not a catch (or in this case an interception).

I think you need to watch the play again. Polamalu had control of the ball until he tried to get up and run.

Possession = control of the ball and two feet on the ground at the same time. Did he have two feet down before he rolled?

Does he not have possession if his entire body is on the ground? If a receiver lays out for a sideline pass, catches it, lands on his back in bounds, and slides 3 yards towards the sideline, only then going out of bounds, but his feet were in the air the whole time, is it not still a catch?

Yes it is a catch - but that's because going out of bounds constitutes him being "Down". Being on the gorund with your knees down does not automatically make you "down" - until you are touched by an opposing player you are still free to get back on your feet and keep running.It was the process of getting back up to run that caused TP to lose possesion of the football and caused the incomplete pass. He was never "down", and never had the ball in his possesion with two feet on the ground. No catch.

(or at least that's the way the refs are reasoning it... personally I think it's a BS rule - but apparently it is the rule...)

 

[Pnishthm]

Possession = control of the ball and two feet on the ground at the same time. Did he have two feet down before he rolled?

One elbow= two feet= possesion

One butt= two feet= possesion

 

[AB in DC]

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.

 

[AB in DC]

I see everyone commenting on the rule(s) but no rule posted to make the decesion.

Bears repeating.

 

[AB in DC]

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

Not to beat a dead horse, but

 

[TheLaw]

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.

As I mentioned 3 pages ago, if the refs interpretted the play as TP not having possession PRIOR to entering his roll, then the rule apparently is that you either need to stay down on the ground to be granted possession OR you need to stand up and get both feet on the ground to gain possession WITHOUT DROPPING IT.As I recall, TP did not have control of the ball AND 2 feet on the ground before he rolled over. He lost the ball on the way out of the roll trying to stand up and he dropped the ball. If that is the rule, you can't blame the refs for calling it.

I believe that is the distinction trying to be made in the explanation--that he had his knee on the ground but NOT his feet. Since by definition he never had full control of the ball AND both feet on the ground at the same time, it's not a catch (or in this case an interception).

I think you need to watch the play again. Polamalu had control of the ball until he tried to get up and run.

Possession = control of the ball and two feet on the ground at the same time. Did he have two feet down before he rolled?

That is simply incorrect. Somebody already posted the definition of possession from NFL.com Rulebook:

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.

 

[AB in DC]

BTW, what's on NFL.com isn't the actual rulebook; it's a summary, which isn't 100% accurate.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

I think morelli should have his pants pulled down and be spanked with moon rocks!

 

[David Yudkin]

One elbow= two feet= possesionOne butt= two feet= possesion

That's only true in terms of no further action happening and the player going out of bounds. There are apparently different rules when a player rolls and tries to get up. If he stayed down, it's a catch, but since he didn't, he needed to get both feet in bounds and have control of the ball.The refs are saying at no point did he have control of the ball and two feet in bounds at the same time = incomplete. That apparently is the rule, so the refs seem to have gotten it right (if that is indeed the rule).In this scenario, TP hurt himself by trying to get up and run.

 

[Ghost Rider]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/n...tory?id=2294309

NFL: Polamalu overturned interception the wrong call

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- The NFL said the referee made a mistake: Troy Polamalu caught the ball.

The league acknowledged Monday that referee Pete Morelli erred when he overturned on replay Polamalu's interception of a Peyton Manning pass Sunday in the playoff game between Pittsburgh and Indianapolis.

Mike Pereira, the league's vice president of officiating, said in a statement that Morelli should have upheld the call, made with 5:26 left in Pittsburgh's win over the Colts.

After the reversal, the Colts went on to score a touchdown and a 2-point conversion, cutting the Steelers' 21-10 lead to 21-18. That led to a wild final few minutes and Pittsburgh clinched its win only when the Colts' Mike Vanderjagt missed a 46-yard field-goal attempt.

On the play, Polamalu made a diving catch of Manning's pass, tumbled with it in his hands and got up to run. When he did, he fumbled the ball, then recovered. Colts coach Tony Dungy challenged and Morelli ruled Polamalu had not completed the catch.

About a dozen TV and scoreboard replays indicated otherwise. Had the call stood, the Steelers would have had the ball at their own 48 with an 11-point lead.

"The definition of a catch -- or in this case an interception -- states that in the process of making a catch a player must maintain possession of the ball after he contacts the ground," Pereira said.

"The initial call on the field was that Troy Polamalu intercepted the pass because he maintained possession of the ball after hitting the ground. The replay showed that Polamalu had rolled over and was rising to his feet when the ball came loose. He maintained possession long enough to establish a catch. Therefore, the replay review should have upheld the call on the field that it was a catch and fumble.

"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."

The NFL almost never makes public the result of its reviews, although it did three years ago, when Pereira said officials should have called pass interference against San Francisco on the final play of a wild-card game with the New York Giants. The correct call would have given New York a second chance to kick a game-winning field goal in a 39-38 loss.

After the game, Pittsburgh linebacker Joey Porter said of the ruling:

"I know they wanted Indy to win this game; the whole world loves Peyton Manning. But come on, man, don't take the game away from us like that."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello had no comment on Porter's statement.

In the past, players who have made such statements have been subject to fines.

 

[TheLaw]

BTW, what's on NFL.com isn't the actual rulebook; it's a summary, which isn't 100% accurate.

It is much more than anyone has found thus far to support the "incomplete pass" call.

 

[TheLaw]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/n...tory?id=2294309

NFL: Polamalu overturned interception the wrong call

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- The NFL said the referee made a mistake: Troy Polamalu caught the ball.

The league acknowledged Monday that referee Pete Morelli erred when he overturned on replay Polamalu's interception of a Peyton Manning pass Sunday in the playoff game between Pittsburgh and Indianapolis.

Mike Pereira, the league's vice president of officiating, said in a statement that Morelli should have upheld the call, made with 5:26 left in Pittsburgh's win over the Colts.

After the reversal, the Colts went on to score a touchdown and a 2-point conversion, cutting the Steelers' 21-10 lead to 21-18. That led to a wild final few minutes and Pittsburgh clinched its win only when the Colts' Mike Vanderjagt missed a 46-yard field-goal attempt.

On the play, Polamalu made a diving catch of Manning's pass, tumbled with it in his hands and got up to run. When he did, he fumbled the ball, then recovered. Colts coach Tony Dungy challenged and Morelli ruled Polamalu had not completed the catch.

About a dozen TV and scoreboard replays indicated otherwise. Had the call stood, the Steelers would have had the ball at their own 48 with an 11-point lead.

"The definition of a catch -- or in this case an interception -- states that in the process of making a catch a player must maintain possession of the ball after he contacts the ground," Pereira said.

"The initial call on the field was that Troy Polamalu intercepted the pass because he maintained possession of the ball after hitting the ground. The replay showed that Polamalu had rolled over and was rising to his feet when the ball came loose. He maintained possession long enough to establish a catch. Therefore, the replay review should have upheld the call on the field that it was a catch and fumble.

"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."

The NFL almost never makes public the result of its reviews, although it did three years ago, when Pereira said officials should have called pass interference against San Francisco on the final play of a wild-card game with the New York Giants. The correct call would have given New York a second chance to kick a game-winning field goal in a 39-38 loss.

After the game, Pittsburgh linebacker Joey Porter said of the ruling:

"I know they wanted Indy to win this game; the whole world loves Peyton Manning. But come on, man, don't take the game away from us like that."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello had no comment on Porter's statement.

In the past, players who have made such statements have been subject to fines.

 

[pghrob]

One elbow= two feet= possesion

One butt= two feet= possesion

That's only true in terms of no further action happening and the player going out of bounds. There are apparently different rules when a player rolls and tries to get up. If he stayed down, it's a catch, but since he didn't, he needed to get both feet in bounds and have control of the ball.The refs are saying at no point did he have control of the ball and two feet in bounds at the same time = incomplete. That apparently is the rule, so the refs seem to have gotten it right (if that is indeed the rule).

In this scenario, TP hurt himself by trying to get up and run.

I guess it is better not to make a football move when one has firm possession of a catch and / or interception when one is down on the field Sounds like college football at that point.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/n...tory?id=2294309

NFL: Polamalu overturned interception the wrong call

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- The NFL said the referee made a mistake: Troy Polamalu caught the ball.

The league acknowledged Monday that referee Pete Morelli erred when he overturned on replay Polamalu's interception of a Peyton Manning pass Sunday in the playoff game between Pittsburgh and Indianapolis.

Mike Pereira, the league's vice president of officiating, said in a statement that Morelli should have upheld the call, made with 5:26 left in Pittsburgh's win over the Colts.

After the reversal, the Colts went on to score a touchdown and a 2-point conversion, cutting the Steelers' 21-10 lead to 21-18. That led to a wild final few minutes and Pittsburgh clinched its win only when the Colts' Mike Vanderjagt missed a 46-yard field-goal attempt.

On the play, Polamalu made a diving catch of Manning's pass, tumbled with it in his hands and got up to run. When he did, he fumbled the ball, then recovered. Colts coach Tony Dungy challenged and Morelli ruled Polamalu had not completed the catch.

About a dozen TV and scoreboard replays indicated otherwise. Had the call stood, the Steelers would have had the ball at their own 48 with an 11-point lead.

"The definition of a catch -- or in this case an interception -- states that in the process of making a catch a player must maintain possession of the ball after he contacts the ground," Pereira said.

"The initial call on the field was that Troy Polamalu intercepted the pass because he maintained possession of the ball after hitting the ground. The replay showed that Polamalu had rolled over and was rising to his feet when the ball came loose. He maintained possession long enough to establish a catch. Therefore, the replay review should have upheld the call on the field that it was a catch and fumble.

"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."

The NFL almost never makes public the result of its reviews, although it did three years ago, when Pereira said officials should have called pass interference against San Francisco on the final play of a wild-card game with the New York Giants. The correct call would have given New York a second chance to kick a game-winning field goal in a 39-38 loss.

After the game, Pittsburgh linebacker Joey Porter said of the ruling:

"I know they wanted Indy to win this game; the whole world loves Peyton Manning. But come on, man, don't take the game away from us like that."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello had no comment on Porter's statement.

In the past, players who have made such statements have been subject to fines.

But, but, but...I still think the ref was right.

 

[Steel City]

So much for Diesel's playbook.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

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.

This is the key. What Morelli was saying is that since Polamalu lost the football as he got up, he did not demonstrate control the ball throught the act of gaining possession. There's no "special rule" as people keep alluding to, like the tuck rule. Morelli is simply saying that Polamalu did not establish possession by controlling the ball throughout the act of going down and getting back up. In many cases, I could see that call being correct, but not here. Polamalu clearly had control of the ball and was down on the ground. If he'd been touched in that split second before he tried to get up, he'd be down and it would be an interception. Thus, possession is established. When he then attempts to get up, he loses the ball. As the league said - it was a judgment call and the ref should have used his eyes and common sense to make the right call.

Someone mentioned earlier, if this is the precedent, and the "rule" is going to be followed to the letter at the expense of better judgment, anytime someone intercepts a ball and goes to the ground, the offense shouldn't touch him. They should surround him and wait for him to try to get up, then pop him as he gets to a knee, because then if the ball comes loose, it's incomplete and they retain possession. Ridiculous.

 

[David Yudkin]

If nothing else, the NFL needs to have a better standard for what it uses to determine certain calls. Inthe minds of the ref at the game, he was following the rule as he say fit. Now the league has come out that in their estimation TP had control of the ball and established possession.Not a great weekend for officiating . . .

 

[Wilbur Wood]

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

Memo to self: This is not a credible source of information.

 

[Pnishthm]

So much for Diesel's playbook.

Now was this a surprise?

 

[Stillers Jr.]

This kinda stuff makes me laugh...some people cannot help but disagree on any subject...and invent reasons to make them sound "credible"."I don't know the NFL rulebook, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.."

 

[AcousticNut]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/n...tory?id=2294309

NFL: Polamalu overturned interception the wrong call

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- The NFL said the referee made a mistake: Troy Polamalu caught the ball.

The league acknowledged Monday that referee Pete Morelli erred when he overturned on replay Polamalu's interception of a Peyton Manning pass Sunday in the playoff game between Pittsburgh and Indianapolis.

Mike Pereira, the league's vice president of officiating, said in a statement that Morelli should have upheld the call, made with 5:26 left in Pittsburgh's win over the Colts.

After the reversal, the Colts went on to score a touchdown and a 2-point conversion, cutting the Steelers' 21-10 lead to 21-18. That led to a wild final few minutes and Pittsburgh clinched its win only when the Colts' Mike Vanderjagt missed a 46-yard field-goal attempt.

On the play, Polamalu made a diving catch of Manning's pass, tumbled with it in his hands and got up to run. When he did, he fumbled the ball, then recovered. Colts coach Tony Dungy challenged and Morelli ruled Polamalu had not completed the catch.

About a dozen TV and scoreboard replays indicated otherwise. Had the call stood, the Steelers would have had the ball at their own 48 with an 11-point lead.

"The definition of a catch -- or in this case an interception -- states that in the process of making a catch a player must maintain possession of the ball after he contacts the ground," Pereira said.

"The initial call on the field was that Troy Polamalu intercepted the pass because he maintained possession of the ball after hitting the ground. The replay showed that Polamalu had rolled over and was rising to his feet when the ball came loose. He maintained possession long enough to establish a catch. Therefore, the replay review should have upheld the call on the field that it was a catch and fumble.

"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."

The NFL almost never makes public the result of its reviews, although it did three years ago, when Pereira said officials should have called pass interference against San Francisco on the final play of a wild-card game with the New York Giants. The correct call would have given New York a second chance to kick a game-winning field goal in a 39-38 loss.

After the game, Pittsburgh linebacker Joey Porter said of the ruling:

"I know they wanted Indy to win this game; the whole world loves Peyton Manning. But come on, man, don't take the game away from us like that."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello had no comment on Porter's statement.

In the past, players who have made such statements have been subject to fines.

Case closed.... Thanks.I still can't believe the NFL came public with this.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

If nothing else, the NFL needs to have a better standard for what it uses to determine certain calls. Inthe minds of the ref at the game, he was following the rule as he say fit. Now the league has come out that in their estimation TP had control of the ball and established possession.

Not a great weekend for officiating . . .

That's why the officials need to use common sense. Anyone could see that was an interception - why Morelli decided to try to extrapolate meaning from a rule in order to overturn a correct call is anyone's guess."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."

Morelli either didn't know the correct rule or displayed horrible judgment. Either way, he sucks.

 

[TheLaw]

If nothing else, the NFL needs to have a better standard for what it uses to determine certain calls.  Inthe minds of the ref at the game, he was following the rule as he say fit.  Now the league has come out that in their estimation TP had control of the ball and established possession.

Not a great weekend for officiating . . .

That's why the officials need to use common sense. Anyone could see that was an interception - why Morelli decided to try to extrapolate meaning from a rule in order to overturn a correct call is anyone's guess."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."

Morelli either didn't know the correct rule or displayed horrible judgment. Either way, he sucks.

They'll demote him to linejudge or something like the coin flip guy.

 

[LuckyOne]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/n...tory?id=2294309

NFL: Polamalu overturned interception the wrong call

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- The NFL said the referee made a mistake: Troy Polamalu caught the ball.

The league acknowledged Monday that referee Pete Morelli erred when he overturned on replay Polamalu's interception of a Peyton Manning pass Sunday in the playoff game between Pittsburgh and Indianapolis.

Mike Pereira, the league's vice president of officiating, said in a statement that Morelli should have upheld the call, made with 5:26 left in Pittsburgh's win over the Colts.

After the reversal, the Colts went on to score a touchdown and a 2-point conversion, cutting the Steelers' 21-10 lead to 21-18. That led to a wild final few minutes and Pittsburgh clinched its win only when the Colts' Mike Vanderjagt missed a 46-yard field-goal attempt.

On the play, Polamalu made a diving catch of Manning's pass, tumbled with it in his hands and got up to run. When he did, he fumbled the ball, then recovered. Colts coach Tony Dungy challenged and Morelli ruled Polamalu had not completed the catch.

About a dozen TV and scoreboard replays indicated otherwise. Had the call stood, the Steelers would have had the ball at their own 48 with an 11-point lead.

"The definition of a catch -- or in this case an interception -- states that in the process of making a catch a player must maintain possession of the ball after he contacts the ground," Pereira said.

"The initial call on the field was that Troy Polamalu intercepted the pass because he maintained possession of the ball after hitting the ground. The replay showed that Polamalu had rolled over and was rising to his feet when the ball came loose. He maintained possession long enough to establish a catch. Therefore, the replay review should have upheld the call on the field that it was a catch and fumble.

"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."

The NFL almost never makes public the result of its reviews, although it did three years ago, when Pereira said officials should have called pass interference against San Francisco on the final play of a wild-card game with the New York Giants. The correct call would have given New York a second chance to kick a game-winning field goal in a 39-38 loss.

After the game, Pittsburgh linebacker Joey Porter said of the ruling:

"I know they wanted Indy to win this game; the whole world loves Peyton Manning. But come on, man, don't take the game away from us like that."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello had no comment on Porter's statement.

In the past, players who have made such statements have been subject to fines.

Diesel, sounds like the NFL VP of officating doesn't know of any rule that would make it an incomplete pass. I guess the rule doesn't exist.

 

[zadok]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/n...tory?id=2294309

NFL: Polamalu overturned interception the wrong call

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- The NFL said the referee made a mistake: Troy Polamalu caught the ball.

The league acknowledged Monday that referee Pete Morelli erred when he overturned on replay Polamalu's interception of a Peyton Manning pass Sunday in the playoff game between Pittsburgh and Indianapolis.

Mike Pereira, the league's vice president of officiating, said in a statement that Morelli should have upheld the call, made with 5:26 left in Pittsburgh's win over the Colts.

After the reversal, the Colts went on to score a touchdown and a 2-point conversion, cutting the Steelers' 21-10 lead to 21-18. That led to a wild final few minutes and Pittsburgh clinched its win only when the Colts' Mike Vanderjagt missed a 46-yard field-goal attempt.

On the play, Polamalu made a diving catch of Manning's pass, tumbled with it in his hands and got up to run. When he did, he fumbled the ball, then recovered. Colts coach Tony Dungy challenged and Morelli ruled Polamalu had not completed the catch.

About a dozen TV and scoreboard replays indicated otherwise. Had the call stood, the Steelers would have had the ball at their own 48 with an 11-point lead.

"The definition of a catch -- or in this case an interception -- states that in the process of making a catch a player must maintain possession of the ball after he contacts the ground," Pereira said.

"The initial call on the field was that Troy Polamalu intercepted the pass because he maintained possession of the ball after hitting the ground. The replay showed that Polamalu had rolled over and was rising to his feet when the ball came loose. He maintained possession long enough to establish a catch. Therefore, the replay review should have upheld the call on the field that it was a catch and fumble.

"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."

The NFL almost never makes public the result of its reviews, although it did three years ago, when Pereira said officials should have called pass interference against San Francisco on the final play of a wild-card game with the New York Giants. The correct call would have given New York a second chance to kick a game-winning field goal in a 39-38 loss.

After the game, Pittsburgh linebacker Joey Porter said of the ruling:

"I know they wanted Indy to win this game; the whole world loves Peyton Manning. But come on, man, don't take the game away from us like that."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello had no comment on Porter's statement.

In the past, players who have made such statements have been subject to fines.

Case closed.... Thanks.I still can't believe the NFL came public with this.

What about the 43 people in our poll who thought it was the correct call? I say we need a personal "I was wrong" from each of them.

 

[Sub Dude]

47 now.How is THAT sensible?

 

[brettdj]

I was wrong, but I still want to hear what he has to say on wednesday. My thoughts are with the ruling/rule that he used for the TB incompletion. The same rule he quotes about every 3rd week on the show.It is still not the worst call ever.

 

[Gargoylez]

This kinda stuff makes me laugh...some people cannot help but disagree on any subject...and invent reasons to make them sound "credible".

"I don't know the NFL rulebook, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.."

LOL!True, what a friggen crock. It amazes me how many people just dont "get it"

 

[stugnut]

I was wrong, but I still want to hear what he has to say on wednesday. My thoughts are with the ruling/rule that he used for the TB incompletion. The same rule he quotes about every 3rd week on the show.

It is still not the worst call ever.

When is this show on? I can't find it on the NFL channel website.

 

[brettdj]

I was wrong, but I still want to hear what he has to say on wednesday.  My thoughts are with the ruling/rule that he used for the TB incompletion.  The same rule he quotes about every 3rd week on the show.

It is still not the worst call ever.

When is this show on? I can't find it on the NFL channel website.

Wednesday from 7-8:30. Sometime during NFL Total Access.And NFL.com replays it on demand(I have been told)

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I was wrong, but I still want to hear what he has to say on wednesday.  My thoughts are with the ruling/rule that he used for the TB incompletion.  The same rule he quotes about every 3rd week on the show.

It is still not the worst call ever.

When is this show on? I can't find it on the NFL channel website.

Wednesday from 7-8:30. Sometime during NFL Total Access.And NFL.com replays it on demand(I have been told)

Yep. LINK. The video is on the upper right hand corner.

 

[CrossEyed]

So when is the NFL going to finally go to full-time officials?

 

[pizzatyme]

Not to hijack, but it was priceless to see the Steelers players facing the fans and waving goodbye to them just as Bettis was fumbling the ball at the goalline. And it wasn't just 1 or 2, there were more than 15 guys doing it. Win with class.For the record, I voted that I've seen worse, but, upon further review...lol

 

[yellowdog]

Diesel, please pick up the white courtesy phone. Thank you.

 

[Godsbrother]

Not to hijack, but it was priceless to see the Steelers players facing the fans and waving goodbye to them just as Bettis was fumbling the ball at the goalline. And it wasn't just 1 or 2, there were more than 15 guys doing it. Win with class.

For the record, I voted that I've seen worse, but, upon further review...lol

Puhlease. They had just won (or so they thought) the biggest game of their career, a game that virtually NO ONE thought they could win in a very hostile environment.

So they were celebrating a little and waved goodbye to the 50,000+ fans that had been screaming at them for the last 60 minutes. Big friggin' deal.

 

[CrossEyed]

Not to hijack, but it was priceless to see the Steelers players facing the fans and waving goodbye to them just as Bettis was fumbling the ball at the goalline. And it wasn't just 1 or 2, there were more than 15 guys doing it. Win with class.

For the record, I voted that I've seen worse, but, upon further review...lol

Was it as good as the looks on the Colts faces when the Idiot Kicker shanked the field goal?

 

[Genester]

The real question is, lets assume for one brief moment Pitt loses that game. Would the NFL have come out publically and said the call was incorrect?

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Not to hijack, but it was priceless to see the Steelers players facing the fans and waving goodbye to them just as Bettis was fumbling the ball at the goalline. And it wasn't just 1 or 2, there were more than 15 guys doing it. Win with class.

For the record, I voted that I've seen worse, but, upon further review...lol

Puhlease. They had just won (or so they thought) the biggest game of their career, a game that virtually NO ONE thought they could win in a very hostile environment.

So they were celebrating a little and waved goodbye to the 50,000+ fans that had been screaming at them for the last 60 minutes. Big friggin' deal.

Let him go, he's still stinging from that quasi-humiliating loss.You can tell when fans are grasping at straws when the best they can do is call the team that just steam-rolled them "classless". It's ok, we've all been there...

 

[Pnishthm]

Diesel, please pick up the white courtesy phone. Thank you.

Something tells me we won't be hearing from him for a while