Troy Polamalu-(A Football Move)-The Zebra's 9th Circuit

Free Republic ^ | 1/16/06 | beyond the sea

[beyond the sea]

This is going to be less than pretty, but someone had to do it.

Yesterday's Steeler/Indy game was .............. well, you fill that in.

I'm a Steeler fan of 55 years or so, and the game yesterday was, to say the least, quite bizarre --- as the concept of "a football move" brought back visions of Elroy 'Crazy Legs' Hirsh. The LIVE THREAD yesterday including this incredible game was as lively as the game itself. This morning I gathered some of your comments on the Troy Polamalu interception.

Let's be honest............. he caught the damn ball and the refs blew the call. But FReepers' humor and insights were pretty darn funny as all this was happening. I'm a crappy typist, so this may be a quite ugly presentation. I am just going to present some of the posts from all of you who were transfixed by yesterday's game and the bizarre officiating. It all was unreal, and your comments were fabulous.

Yoi!

*****

I'm glad its not my team, I would have a heart attack!

932 posted on 01/15/2006 4:15:57 PM EST by scott says

***

He had one knee and a head of hair down .... Interception — mikrofon (ROFL)

***

What the HELL is a "Football Move" all of a sudden??

***

Damn I hate the way LIBS have to try and start new verbiage.

675 posted on 01/15/2006 3:53:56 PM EST by ThreePuttinDude

***

After further review, and a review of security provisions, we reverse the call.

677 posted on 01/15/2006 3:54:14 PM EST by steveegg

***

HORRIBLE CALL by the Blind Zebra

689 posted on 01/15/2006 3:54:38 PM EST by GRRRRR

***

I'm glad the NFL rule book is a living, breathing document! The 9th circuit is officiating today ;) (A CLASSIC !!)

714 posted on 01/15/2006 3:56:12 PM EST by cgk

***

CBS considers the money slipped to the refs to make that reversal the best investment it could make. 715 posted on 01/15/2006 3:56:15 PM EST by steveegg

***

Peyton Manning and Head Referee Caught in Uncompromising Position. 721 posted on 01/15/2006 3:56:45 PM EST by LdSentinal

***

this ref will not be working the playoffs next year. Worst call i have ever seen.

734 posted on 01/15/2006 3:57:40 PM EST by connectthedots

***

I'm a Colts fan, and that INT call was horrible. Seemed like TV wanted an interesting finish.

738 posted on 01/15/2006 3:58:12 PM EST by Teacher317

***

That was an 8-point call. 745 posted on 01/15/2006 3:58:49 PM EST by steveegg

***

The true 12th man in the game, The zebras..

794 posted on 01/15/2006 4:04:18 PM EST by NormsRevenge

***

If the Colts win, this will be the biggest robbery since Brinks.

812 posted on 01/15/2006 4:07:15 PM EST by dfwgator

***

Bettis is the happiest guy in 2 cities!

967 posted on 01/15/2006 4:17:54 PM EST by freedumb2003

***

Ok Cowher, this time can you just take a knee?

974 posted on 01/15/2006 4:18:09 PM EST by dfwgator

**********

[beyond the sea]

Polomalu had at least "3 knees" down before he attempted to get up. How many knees constitutes a football move?

He had one knee and a head of hair down .... Interception — mikrofon

LOL

[SoothingDave]

They should make the tuck rule for the receivers and DBs and the football move for the QBs.

They should define "football move" to include getting off the turf to try to advance the ball. As called yesterday, a receiver could fall to his knees on the 1 yard line, catch the ball and fall into the end zone, and it would be an incomplete pass cause he didn't get off his knees.

SD

[Alberta's Child]

It's worth noting that the whole issue of what exactly constitutes a legal reception (or interception) of a pass was the inspiration for the title of one of John Madden's books -- One Knee Equals Two Feet.

[beyond the sea]

but apparently the rule dictate that a football move cannot be made while he receiver is still on the ground

That then is one absurd rule!

***

Is the act of catching a pass a "football move"? Is the act of tackling a guy a "football move"?

Well, if they are, and they sure seem like real genuine football moves, both of them can be done from on the ground.

Hmmmmm

[beyond the sea]

Let's apply that to a slight-hypothetical from yesterday's game. Had Fletcher touched Polamalu as he flashed by and caught the ball, the play would have been over before Polamalu attempted to get up. That process of attempting to get up, while not a "football move" in the eyes of that ref, is a distinctly-different process than that of contacting the ground.

Sounds right to me.

[beyond the sea]

They should make the tuck rule for the receivers and DBs and the football move for the QBs.

This is starting to sound like Jerry and George on Seinfeld talking over their "moves".

[JeffAtlanta]

It seems like the "football move" criteria needs to be cleaned up if not eliminated. I am not sure what was wrong with the old rules.

If steveegg is correct and the old rule dictated that the receiver must hold on to the ball through the collision with the ground then that seems like it was sufficient. I'm not sure what the "football move" language is disambiguating.

[beyond the sea]

After drinking that swill/liquid exlax, I'm surprised you didn't fall asleep on the john.

LOL................. I should have. I would have been better off.

;-)

[beyond the sea]

good point ........... I think.

[TomHarkinIsNotFromIowa]

Catching the ball, tucking it, rolling to get yourself in position to run, was a football move. If he would have fumbled and the Colts would have fallen on the ball they would have been farther down the field with possession And I bet that ruling wouldn't have been overturned.

[JeffAtlanta]

As called yesterday, a receiver could fall to his knees on the 1 yard line, catch the ball and fall into the end zone, and it would be an incomplete pass cause he didn't get off his knees.

In that case I believe it would be a touchdown. I know it seems screwy which is exactly why the rules need to be simplified a bit.

If a receiver catches a ball on his knees and then falls out of bounds, it is a catch. The same would apply to crossing the goal line.

What I'm not sure about is if a football move is necessary in all receptions or only in certain situations.

[beyond the sea]

John Madden's books -- One Knee Equals Two Feet.

Hmmm. Three Knees Equals Two Yards

[beyond the sea]

I'm not sure what the "football move" language is disambiguating.

Let's just say the refs are "misunderestimated"........... and the whole matter is "deconclusified".

[beyond the sea]

I agree.

[beyond the sea]

2006 --- The Year of The Football Move

[JeffAtlanta]

Could shed some light on this situation yesterday? The Colts had the ball on the Steelers' 1 yard line and was flagged for for false start or illegal procedure penalty which backed them up to the 6 yard line.

Then on the next play, the Steelers were flagged for offside but the ball was only moved up the the 3 yard line instead of back to the 1.

I believe I have the teams right, but I did watch a lot of football this weekend.

[SoothingDave]

I'm not sure what the "football move" language is disambiguating.

I think it was meant for situations where the receiver went up for the ball, landed, and then got hit and lost the ball. He got two feet down and held on to the ball momentarily. So is it a catch and fumble, or incomplete?

The rule seems to be saying that merely holding the ball and putting two feet (or the equivalent) down isn't enough. You have to come down with the ball and do something with it before it is a catch.

It is what "do something" means that is in question. Clearly, the "football sense" of nearly all who have commented on the play is that getting up off the turf to try to advance the ball is "doing something."

If the rulebook says otherwise, it should be changed. If the rulebook is unclear, it should be clarified.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Could shed some light on this situation yesterday? The Colts had the ball on the Steelers' 1 yard line and was flagged for for false start or illegal procedure penalty which backed them up to the 6 yard line. Then on the next play, the Steelers were flagged for offside but the ball was only moved up the the 3 yard line instead of back to the 1.

This is an easy one. Penalties assessed inside the 20 in the direction of the goal line are not assessed at face value, but are instead assessed at "half the distance to the goal."

So when the Colts, on offense at the 1 got a false start, they were penalized 5 yards to the 6. When the Steelers reciprocated, because they were inside the 20, they went half way to the goal, from the 6 to the 3.

(As usual, there may be other subtleties and exceptions to the rule, but that is the basic rule.)

SD

[JeffAtlanta]

This is an easy one. Penalties assessed inside the 20 in the direction of the goal line are not assessed at face value, but are instead assessed at "half the distance to the goal."

Really? That is something that I guess I just missed even after years of football. I always thought the half the distance rule was for situations where the full value of the penalty would take the ball into the endzone.

For example, I thought 5 yard penalty on the 15 would take the ball to the 10 while a 5 yard penalty on the 4 would take the ball to the 2.

You learn something everyday.

[JeffAtlanta]

(As usual, there may be other subtleties and exceptions to the rule, but that is the basic rule.)

This may qualify...

When do penalties switch from five-, 10- and 15-yard varieties to half the distance from the goal line? If the offense was already on their goal line, would penalties have no real effect on their distance to first down? --Hank Jones, Joliet

If a distance penalty, enforced from a specific spot between the goal lines would place the ball more than half the distance to the offender's goal line, the penalty is half the distance from that spot to the goal line. This general rule supercedes any other general or specific rule with regard to enforcement of penalties. An exception would be intentional grounding, which is penalized at the spot of the foul if that spot is more than 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage.