How many of you think there is heavy conversation going on between the official in the camera and the officials upstairs, in regards to what the call should be? I'm not kidding. Sometimes I think they sit there and listen to the announcers and then make a decision. And I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. I think they should listen to other people while making a decision. But clearly in this case, the offical wasn't listening to anybody.
Puck said:
Well, if I'm not allowed to argue that this is exactly why it was the correct call, then you don't leave me much.
The reason I think it was the correct call, is that he fell to the ground while he was in the process of catching the football and he then lost control of it while he was still technically down. And I think the rule stipulates that you need to keep control all the way, even if you're lying flat on your back. And if you try to get up and lose the football, it's a fumble if you've cleared the ground and an incompletion if you're still down.
Puck said:
That depends on your definition of "on the field". To me "on the field" means an official making a call as it happens, without the benefit of replay.
In this instance the referee looked at the replay and changed the initial "on the field" ruling. Is that more clear?
i think the only thing the official in the booth does while online with the field zebra is to take commands on stopping and rewinding of footage
i don't think he's giving advice to the field
i don't think he's giving advice to the field
argue all you want - that's what i'm asking you forVigsted said:
see that wasn't so hard. and a good response
except for the fact that he lost the football while in the process of standing up. hence he wasn't down. i don't think it says anything about having to clear the ground (whatever that means)
here's the deal. he made a diving catch - rolled over to try and stand up - while getting to his feet he kicked the ball with his knee. This is a fumble - which he then recovered and waited to be touched as down
the only way that should have been an incomplete pass is if the tip of the ball were to have hit ground before he caught it. Troy had BOTH hands underneath the ball and tucked t into his chest.
Had that been Reggie Wayne or Marvin Harrison it would have no doubt been a complete pass
No it is not. It doesn't explain why you said "Dungy Challenged it"
"on the field ruling" can pertain to calls made before or after replay
it means that the call is made "on the field" and not "in the booth"
Either way they reviewed the play and made the right call according to the rule. Kind of a dump rule but that's how it is and thats the way they called it.
Vigsted said:
oh, I forgot ... he was never technically down
he lost control while he was technically standing up
believe me, if it were the proper call, we would not be discussing it
nor would hundreds of MB, USENET and various Sports Sites
Puck said:
He was in the process of standing up yes, but he was still down, because his knee touched the ground. The whole point being that his knee was still down when he lost control. The rule is probably formulated something along the lines of "if a receiver falls while making the catch he must retain possesion while on the ground", having a knee down means you're on the ground, thus it's incomplete.
Had it been NCAA rules it would have been an interception, because the play would be ruled dead as soon as he hits the ground.
Puck said:
Well, whatever, as I said it's a matter of definition. My point is that it was initially ruled an interception, Dungy threw the red hanky, the referee looked at the replays and overturned the call, making it an incomplete pass.
I didnt see the play myself... But when I read your (pucks) descrition of it. It sounds, to me, as it was an INT. If the ref didnt blow the whistle when the ball first popped out, then it wasnt an incompletion, especially not if the ball went out after his knee hit the ground.
but as said... I didnt see the play myself. Do anyone of you have a video clip of the play?
but as said... I didnt see the play myself. Do anyone of you have a video clip of the play?
finally, I feel like we have some closure now
to each his own I guess
i'm going to stick by my guns and say that it was a bad call
and it must have been because the ref has a review scheduled for this week
to each his own I guess
i'm going to stick by my guns and say that it was a bad call
and it must have been because the ref has a review scheduled for this week
The NFL has now said the call was blown. It was an interception (per NFL Network)
The NFL has released a statement that they made a mistake -- admitted it was an interception and the call should NOT have been reversed.
Just announced on NFL Network.
Just announced on NFL Network.
STF said:
I don't.... but it might be available online somewhere and might even be on NFL.com's website by now
I'm sure you'll be able to see it several times on ESPN's Sportscenter or PrimeTime
and thanks for the support - you're right
if it were an incomplete pass, then where was the whistle ?
watching it over and over on replay should have supported the original call. somehow the ref got the wording in the rule confused
I can imagine him saying " hmmm,.... the ball came out when his knee was still down" , but what he failed to account for was that the player had already made a 'football move' while having possession
the argument Vig is making is that the ball came loose while he was on the ground. and while I respect his opinion thats just ridiculous
You mean to tell me that if a play catches the ball (CLEARLY), then gets on his knees (while possessing it) sits there for a few seconds (while possessing it) ..... THEN tosses it away (while still kneeled) that it's an incomplete pass ?
Vigsted said:
Did you take the time to read the article that Puck posted? The referee did not cite some obscure rule(ie. tuck). Now, as far as reading the Official Rulebook. No, I have not. But, I feel that any fan that watches football week in and week out is familiar enough with the Official Rule in regards to "having possession" of the football. Since it comes into question almost every game. Here is the definition from that abbreviated, easy-reading, glossed-over version at NFL.com
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.
Seems somewhat vague. But, at the same time. Seems pretty clear! Now, don't forget this is the version that the NFL put out for the fans, media, and so on to interpret the rules. So, IMO Polamalu met the criteria set forth to establish possession. If he lost the ball after establishing that possession. Then he "Fumbled" the ball afterwards. In no way does that take away that Possession that he had already established.
TitanFan62702 said:
Thank You
I wonder how this would play out had the Colts scored the winning TD off of that play. What if the Colts HAD won and then the league comes out and claims that the play that gave them the ball that resulted in the score that won the game should not have been ruled in that particular manner, so in essence the Colts should not have had the ball nor the opportunity to score?
:stars:
Talk about a freaking mess
Puck said:
The whistle didn't blow because they originally called it an interception. And the play didn't stop until Polamalu was touched down.
And no, that's where I think the part about it being a judgement call comes into play. The same could be argued about a receiver catching the football, while standing still and not moving for 5 seconds, would that be an incompletion considering he didn't move at all? Besides if a players makes no effort to get off the ground I'm pretty sure the officials will call the play dead, for safety reasons, but that's another discussion.
Nice debate Vig
had fun with it while it lasted
i believe it's over:
had fun with it while it lasted
i believe it's over:
KobeChaz said:
But as I already stated, that rule description doesn't cover all the technicalities that goes into what is a catch.
Puck said:
Depends. I still maintain the official had the "legal" foundation to make that call and that it's an interpretation issue, where the official and NFL disagreed. What I was trying to tell KobeChaz was that the rules are complex and open to interpretation and in this case the official made the wrong one (and so did I), however I understand where his line of thinking comes from.
Btw, I'm a little annoyed that Pereira doesn't go into more detail than just say "He maintained possession long enough to establish a catch.", because "long enough" is to me a very subjective term.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
