Adam Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Hey- it happens.....QB's miss throws, WR's drop passes, officials miss calls......no more whining. Porter should be fined and suspended. and no "not during the playoffs " garbage- he CHOSE to make those comments, and he MUST pay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYGPopgun10 Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 But with replay taking as long as it does, there's no way they should mess up a call. Imagine if the Colts would have won. The NFL looks really bad right now even though they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Hey- it happens.....QB's miss throws, WR's drop passes, officials miss calls......no more whining. Porter should be fined and suspended. and no "not during the playoffs " garbage- he CHOSE to make those comments, and he MUST pay 570319[/snapback] You are talking about this: 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. So outside of being fined (which is the norm) he should be suspended during the playoffs (which isn't the norm, even during the season)? And for what? Speaking the truth! The NFL, by apologizing is trying to cover something up here... Make it "go away." Just imagine if Indy won. Remember the "Tuck rule" and Gruden's response?... Such a good little soldier! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Officials MISS CALLS... They DON'T MISINTERPRET THE RULES! They had forever to figure it out during the replay. This is gross incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Officials MISS CALLS... They DON'T MISINTERPRET THE RULES! They had forever to figure it out during the replay. This is gross incompetence. 570526[/snapback] Again, there are SO MANY little fine lines, it's impossible to keep them all straight. Simplify the rulebook. In this case, why is it different if an Indy player's left pinky touched the player while he was catching it? If that had happened, it would be incomplete BY RULE. And remember, the officials ruled it an interception on the play. If the officiating was biased, why wouldn't they have ruled it incomplete on the field? That call was NOTHING compared to the "Just Give it To 'Em" game, yet the national media barely made a peep about that one. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Again, there are SO MANY little fine lines, it's impossible to keep them all straight. Simplify the rulebook. In this case, why is it different if an Indy player's left pinky touched the player while he was catching it? If that had happened, it would be incomplete BY RULE. And remember, the officials ruled it an interception on the play. If the officiating was biased, why wouldn't they have ruled it incomplete on the field? That call was NOTHING compared to the "Just Give it To 'Em" game, yet the national media barely made a peep about that one. CW 570554[/snapback] I agree. They couldn't call it INC because the tape would have been too damning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Just as the NFL can fool people with the "tuck rule" interpretation or the NHL can fool people with the "in the crease rule/no goal rule." The NFL couldn't do it this time. Like Labatt said, it makes no logical sense... He could have crawled all the way down the field to the 1 yard line untouched and then made the pass incomplete by dropping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 You could tell from the length of time Moronic took to make the call it was going to be in favor of Indy. He needed two minutes to compose his idiotic statement supporting the call. Unconscious bias toward the home team again, IMO. 570146[/snapback] You nailed it... except I think it is CONSCIOUS bias! The NFL is similar to the legal profession in that it likes having nebulous, complicated rules so they can be conveniently interpreted to suit the situation (ie. home team/favorite team comeback to boost ratings). It sounds cynical, but I honestly believe that's what it's all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boltuprite Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 You nailed it... except I think it is CONSCIOUS bias! The NFL is similar to the legal profession in that it likes having nebulous, complicated rules so they can be conveniently interpreted to suit the situation (ie. home team/favorite team comeback to boost ratings). It sounds cynical, but I honestly believe that's what it's all about. 570564[/snapback] now if they will just admit there was no pass interference and Champ Bailey fumbled through the end zone in the Denv/N.E. game and all will be forgiven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 now if they will just admit there was no pass interference and Champ Bailey fumbled through the end zone in the Denv/N.E. game and all will be forgiven. 570610[/snapback] come you, i, and everyone else knows that there was no way you can prove that the fumble was in or out of the end zone. whatever the call on the field was would never have been overturned with the technology of today. AS for the PI call, i still think that Samuel went out of his way to cut off Lelie, because he looked for the ball and went nowhere near it, while keeping Lelie away from the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 now if they will just admit there was no pass interference and Champ Bailey fumbled through the end zone in the Denv/N.E. game and all will be forgiven. 570610[/snapback] Sorry. Any calls, good or bad, that go against the Patriettes are justified - forever!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 This is a very interesting response by the NFL. Everyone that I have talked to who officiates says Morelli's call was correct under NFL rules. Heck, even Mike and the Maddog said it was the right call. Until he gets up he's still in the act of catching the ball unless he starts moving forward. Under NCAA rules he'd have been down by contact since his knees were on the ground. Greg Aiello said earlier it was a judgement call but I guess Pereira disagrees - you'd think they'd get on the same page before coming out with statements. 570069[/snapback] The ridiculous thing is that if Palomalu didn't try to get up,...if he just laid there and a Colt player touched him it would have been an INT. So what changed so dramatically when he tried to get up?!? Nothing imo!! He caught the darn ball, got up, fumbled and recovered it. simple. Sliding on the ground with the ball firmly grasped into your chest for a second should constitute a legal catch. ANything that happens afterwards should not take away from the INT aspect. I'm glad the NFL sees that in retrospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 The ridiculous thing is that if Palomalu didn't try to get up,...if he just laid there and a Colt player touched him it would have been an INT. So what changed so dramatically when he tried to get up?!? Nothing imo!! He caught the darn ball, got up, fumbled and recovered it. simple. Sliding on the ground with the ball firmly grasped into your chest for a second should constitute a legal catch. ANything that happens afterwards should not take away from the INT aspect. I'm glad the NFL sees that in retrospect. 570915[/snapback] Yes, but if everything happened exactly the same way, except that a Colts player touched the defender with his left pinky finger, the call on the field would've been correct. Dumb rule? Maybe. But can you really fault the refs for such a fine distinction, especially since the replay officials talk to the on-field ref. Maybe they were even the ones feeding the ref the false (but nearly true) information. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Yes, but if everything happened exactly the same way, except that a Colts player touched the defender with his left pinky finger, the call on the field would've been correct. Dumb rule? Maybe. But can you really fault the refs for such a fine distinction, especially since the replay officials talk to the on-field ref. Maybe they were even the ones feeding the ref the false (but nearly true) information. CW 570938[/snapback] I don't think Mike Pereira's statement said that if a Colts player touched Polamalu, it's an incomplete pass. He basically stated two things: (1) Polamalu held the ball long enough to have the possession. (2) The "act common to the game" definition Morelli cited during the game is not suitable in this case. Pereira didn't state that the ruling would be different had Polamalu been touched by a Colts player. My view is that he used (1) to say Polamalu catched the ball and (2) to make Morelli not look too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv Levy Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I guess they figure they can admit it since it ultimately didn't cost the Steelers a win. 570030[/snapback] Exactly. Imagine if INDY won? We would hear no such apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 And for what? Speaking the truth! The NFL, by apologizing is trying to cover something up here... Make it "go away." Just imagine if Indy won. Remember the "Tuck rule" and Gruden's response?... Such a good little soldier! 570524[/snapback] Come on- your smarter than that- the refs don't care who wins- they take great pride in their job, and do the best job that can be done. What Porter did was question a ref's integrity- saying they made a mistake is one thing, but you NEVER question a ref's integrity....and as far as calling the NFL on a suspension, if it happened- he's the one who made the comment, not the NFL- the suspension would be on him, and it should happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Come on- your smarter than that- the refs don't care who wins- they take great pride in their job, and do the best job that can be done. What Porter did was question a ref's integrity- saying they made a mistake is one thing, but you NEVER question a ref's integrity....and as far as calling the NFL on a suspension, if it happened- he's the one who made the comment, not the NFL- the suspension would be on him, and it should happen. 571745[/snapback] It was such a dumbarse call that Porter had the right to question the refs like that. Such an enormous officiating blunder---after being given mucho time for review of the play--makes questioning a refs integrity A God given right. What are people supposed to say---"ooopsy!! he missed the call???" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 It was such a dumbarse call that Porter had the right to question the refs like that.Such an enormous officiating blunder---after being given mucho time for review of the play--makes questioning a refs integrity A God given right. What are people supposed to say---"ooopsy!! he missed the call???" 571849[/snapback] It was a misinterpretation of the convoluted rule, NOT an issue of integrity. As I said before, if they were truly biased towards Indy, why not rule it an incomplete pass to begin with? Why say "No foul," with the falsestart/offsides fun? Etc, etc. It was reported that if the DB was hit by a Colt player, it WOULD have been incomplete. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts