millbank Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 From USA today , what official Morelli says he seen in making the call on intercpetion: With the Steelers' offense and Colts' defense already on the field, referee Pete Morelli stunningly ruled an incomplete pass. Replays shown in the stadium and on CBS clearly showed Polamalu having possession as he fell, then fumbling as he got up to run. Morelli said: "I had the defender catching the ball. Before he got up, he hit it with his leg with his other leg still on the ground. Therefore, he did not complete the catch. And then he lost the ball. It came out, and so we made the play an incomplete pass." - .... who knows what will come out next USA Today Football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 From USA today , what official Morelli says he seen in making the call on intercpetion: With the Steelers' offense and Colts' defense already on the field, referee Pete Morelli stunningly ruled an incomplete pass. Replays shown in the stadium and on CBS clearly showed Polamalu having possession as he fell, then fumbling as he got up to run. Morelli said: "I had the defender catching the ball. Before he got up, he hit it with his leg with his other leg still on the ground. Therefore, he did not complete the catch. And then he lost the ball. It came out, and so we made the play an incomplete pass." - .... who knows what will come out next USA Today Football 569394[/snapback] I have no idea, but I think this call is a lot like the tuck rule and call. No matter what you saw, the rule says it is what it is, an incomplete pass, as his roll and trying to get up were all one motion, and when the ball came out during that motion, ie, befroe his second knee was off the ground, it makes it an incomplete pass. And it reminds me of the rule of having to keep control of the ball on a catch even out of bounds. That makes no sence to me, as the ball is out of bounds. Either I make a catch in the field of play, or I do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 sounds like the rules committee will be busy in march Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunTheBall Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 That BS overturned call was so similar to the BS Brady tuck crap. Both were NFL golden boys who got very fortuitous calls in playoff games. The only difference is that Brady had Viniteri and Manning had Vandercrap. RTB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 What is considered a "football move?" That might be the root of the matter... Do you have to be off the ground to make a "football move?" Anyway, it was such a stupid call. Seems they are implying you can't crawl into the endzone untouched... Then drop the ball... It is an INC pass? TP im my book, clearly made a "football move." ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 come next weekend game time we will see live from Gillette Stadium, “ The Patriots” and be told no I was hallucinating or hearing impaired, actually Teddy Bruschi made four sacks , made two fumble returns and two interceptions for touchdowns and the Patriots won convincingly on Saturday evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I have no idea, but I think this call is a lot like the tuck rule and call. No matter what you saw, the rule says it is what it is, an incomplete pass, as his roll and trying to get up were all one motion, and when the ball came out during that motion, ie, befroe his second knee was off the ground, it makes it an incomplete pass. And it reminds me of the rule of having to keep control of the ball on a catch even out of bounds. That makes no sence to me, as the ball is out of bounds. Either I make a catch in the field of play, or I do not. 569398[/snapback] Its also like the rule that took away the TB TD pass at the end of the game last weekend. The tampa WR caught the ball, had 2 feet and a knee down in the endzone with possession, but lost it when he hit the ground, and it was called incomplete. The rule says that you have to maintain possession after hitting the ground. IMO, a dumb rule, like your OB example. The WR got 2 feet and a knee down, so that should be a TD right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 What is considered a "football move?" That might be the root of the matter... Do you have to be off the ground to make a "football move?" Anyway, it was such a stupid call. Seems they are implying you can't crawl into the endzone untouched... Then drop the ball... It is an INC pass? TP im my book, clearly made a "football move." ??? 569460[/snapback] As crazy as it sounds, I believe the official got it right as I felt it would be overturned when watching the replay. If TP stays where he is and gets touched down w/out trying to be a hero, it is an INT. But since he rolled over and attempted to get up and lost the ball in the process, it's no catch under the rule that was set after NFC title game between Bucs and Rams in '99. He had a knee still on the ground and had not made a "football move" because he had not gotten up yet. If both knees were up and he loses posession, it's a fumble. Not sure why the buzz over this reversal. Over the rule perhaps as it is such a change from the previous one, but not the reversal. If you didn't posess the ball at the start of the play you must maintain posession at the end or make a "football move" before losing it. I did not feel after watching the replay that TP made a separate move before losing the ball. Blame is squarely on TP for trying to do too much. Athletic play yes, but still dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis in NC Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I think Morelli went under the hood and watched a couple of Peyton Manning commercials... "Char-lie! clap clap" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I think Morelli went under the hood and watched a couple of Peyton Manning commercials... "Char-lie! clap clap" 569711[/snapback] D-Caf! <Clap Clap!> De-Caf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 When Brady got that call, he was a nobody, with what one playoff win, or was it zero? That BS overturned call was so similar to the BS Brady tuck crap. Both were NFL golden boys who got very fortuitous calls in playoff games. The only difference is that Brady had Viniteri and Manning had Vandercrap. RTB 569455[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 it's no catch under the rule that was set after NFC title game between Bucs and Rams in '99. 569660[/snapback] This is not related to "Bert Emanuel Rule" . 'The Bert Emanuel Rule' is that if you have control of the ball when tumbling to the ground and still cleanly control it (even if part of the ball touches the ground during the process), it is a catch. Previously, if the ball touched at all, it was an incomplete pass automatically. Now, it will be up an official's judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 This is not related to "Bert Emanuel Rule" . 'The Bert Emanuel Rule' is that if you have control of the ball when tumbling to the ground and still cleanly control it (even if part of the ball touches the ground during the process), it is a catch. Previously, if the ball touched at all, it was an incomplete pass automatically. Now, it will be up an official's judgement. 569766[/snapback] Not the specific situation, but this rule change was all part of the redefining of what constitutes a "catch" brought about largely because of that game. But yes, you are correct w/ reference to Emanuels catch in that game where the ball touched the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 This is not related to "Bert Emanuel Rule" . 'The Bert Emanuel Rule' is that if you have control of the ball when tumbling to the ground and still cleanly control it (even if part of the ball touches the ground during the process), it is a catch. Previously, if the ball touched at all, it was an incomplete pass automatically. Now, it will be up an official's judgement. 569766[/snapback] That is correct. However the first interception that they took away from Polamalu was also a blown call that should have been interpreted as a catch under the Bert Emanual rule. The second interception that they took away from Polamalu was probably the worst call I have ever seen in the postseason in one of the most poorly officiated playoff games you'll ever watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 That is correct.However the first interception that they took away from Polamalu was also a blown call that should have been interpreted as a catch under the Bert Emanual rule. The second interception that they took away from Polamalu was probably the worst call I have ever seen in the postseason in one of the most poorly officiated playoff games you'll ever watch. 569776[/snapback] I also agree the second interception is one of the worst alls ever, or one of the worst definitions on "football move" by ref. But on the first interception, I remember the reply clearly showed Polamalu lost control of the ball after hitting the ground. Polamalu didn't even argue about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 worst call ever..if I was a stillers fan, I probably would have lost my mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 But on the first interception, I remember the reply clearly showed Polamalu lost control of the ball after hitting the ground. Polamalu didn't even argue about it. 569782[/snapback] I thought he got both hands/arms under it and the only time it moved was when he was securing it so he could try to get up and take it the other way. I will say that at the time I was sitting in a spot where there was a window glare on the TV and I didn't see it as well as I would have liked to. Either way, it was so close that the official should have thrown his marker and called it a catch so that they at least had the chance to take a better look at it on replay. Immediately calling incomplete on something that close/questionable only serves to prevent the opportunity to make sure the call is right. Cya worst call ever..if I was a stillers fan, I probably would have lost my mind I was in a room with a half dozen large Stiller fans and thought I was about to become the luggage tossed about by gorillas in the old Samsonite commercials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I thought he got both hands/arms under it and the only time it moved was when he was securing it so he could try to get up and take it the other way. I will say that at the time I was sitting in a spot where there was a window glare on the TV and I didn't see it as well as I would have liked to.Either way, it was so close that the official should have thrown his marker and called it a catch so that they at least had the chance to take a better look at it on replay. Immediately calling incomplete on something that close/questionable only serves to prevent the opportunity to make sure the call is right. Cya I was in a room with a half dozen large Stiller fans and thought I was about to become the luggage tossed about by gorillas in the old Samsonite commercials. 569795[/snapback] it was indeed a terrible call, but no worse than the champ bailey fumble through the end zone or the interference call on samuel. note how all these calls go against the road teams ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 it was indeed a terrible call, but no worse than the champ bailey fumble through the end zone or the interference call on samuel. note how all these calls go against the road teams ... 569891[/snapback] I don't think you can include the Bailey fumble. I agree that he probably fumbled through the endzone and it should have been a fumble. However, there is ZERO way to prove it with replay unless you have the Goodyear Blimp parked directly over the pylon when it happens. It's all about perspective and angle of viewing. Ironically, Simms idea of drawing a line between where the ball landed and where Bailey lost it and seeing if that line passes through the endzone actually has merit (even a blind squirrel....) but is infeasabile. More time and more sophisticated equipment on the sidelines would be necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Polamalu did intercept that ball. I was shocked when it was overturned. Despite the fact that I hate the Steelers, it was the wrong call. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 If Polamula continued to roll on the ground for 40 yards without being touched and then as he tries to finally get up, he knocks the ball loose, is it still no interception? If this call was the result of some obscure rule, the rule needs to be removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ1 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 That is correct.However the first interception that they took away from Polamalu was also a blown call that should have been interpreted as a catch under the Bert Emanual rule. The second interception that they took away from Polamalu was probably the worst call I have ever seen in the postseason in one of the most poorly officiated playoff games you'll ever watch. 569776[/snapback] Can I agree more than 100%?. There are some plays that demand common sense judgement. That 2nd int reversal demonstrated that the head ref has none. And, I am not a Steelers fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 From USA today , what official Morelli says he seen in making the call on intercpetion: With the Steelers' offense and Colts' defense already on the field, referee Pete Morelli stunningly ruled an incomplete pass. Replays shown in the stadium and on CBS clearly showed Polamalu having possession as he fell, then fumbling as he got up to run. Morelli said: "I had the defender catching the ball. Before he got up, he hit it with his leg with his other leg still on the ground. Therefore, he did not complete the catch. And then he lost the ball. It came out, and so we made the play an incomplete pass." - .... who knows what will come out next USA Today Football 569394[/snapback] what will come out next is them saying it was a interception..... really He did catch it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I don't think you can include the Bailey fumble. I agree that he probably fumbled through the endzone and it should have been a fumble. However, there is ZERO way to prove it with replay unless you have the Goodyear Blimp parked directly over the pylon when it happens. It's all about perspective and angle of viewing. Ironically, Simms idea of drawing a line between where the ball landed and where Bailey lost it and seeing if that line passes through the endzone actually has merit (even a blind squirrel....) but is infeasabile. More time and more sophisticated equipment on the sidelines would be necessary. 569898[/snapback] actually, they have the technology now. Remember the "3D" view of the game that CBS displayed a couple of years ago? They could have swung the angle around and showed the ball's trajectory going out of bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 If Polamula continued to roll on the ground for 40 yards without being touched and then as he tries to finally get up, he knocks the ball loose, is it still no interception? If this call was the result of some obscure rule, the rule needs to be removed. 569991[/snapback] This is exactly what I was trying to say. Maybe I am seeing things... And anyway... His right knee was down and then came up when he rolled... His left knee was up and then went down when he rolled... At SOME point... BOTH knees were in the air... It is even clearer on the replay. Kinda like a horse at full gallop...All four are in the air. IMO, TP made a "football move". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I wonder if the NFL would be acknowledging that the call was wrong if Indy had comeback to win the game? My guess is that you would have seen the NFL officials backing up the call made during the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 All the king's horses and all the king's men can't put this crap back in the king's horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts