Posted on 01/16/2006 6:48:08 AM PST by 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
**********
There's always been an element of unfairness to this rule. If the ball is on the two yard line, then any penalty against the defense is basically a one-yard penalty (and automatic first down, in many cases), while a penalty against the offense is fully enforced and marked off accordingly. This means that on a first-down play, a 5-yard offensive procedural penalty becomes a "worse" violation than a flagrant personal foul against the defense.
It would, since five yards from the 15 is LESS than half the distance to the goal line.
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.
You were almost right. The "half the distance" rule applies when the full value of the penalty takes it more than halfway to the end zone, not into the end zone.
An exception on the defensive side of the ball would be pass interference -- under which the ball is spotted at the point of the interference (or at the one yard line if the interference occurs in the end zone).
Actually, the "old" rule was mere possession (control was implied, and the ball could not touch the ground at all during the establishment of possession) with 2 feet/1 knee down inbounds or the receiver demonstrably forced out of bounds by the defender's contact. This was changed and separated roughly 2003 (which also added that the ball could touch the ground during the act of possession and control if the ground didn't aid in establishing possession/control). Without a defender's contact resulting in a knee (or equivalent "downing-by-contact" body part) hitting the ground, it became possession, control, and either a football move (which included going out of bounds), or a scoring play. With a defender's contact resulting in a "down-by-contact" situation, the possession/control had to extend through the contact with the ground.
The "football move" part of the rule had been loosely interpreted until this year, with the refs typically taking the view that the move could occur simultaneously with the establishment of possession and control. This year, however, they started saying that the "football move" was a distinct, separate move from simply getting two feet or one knee down while in possession, or even establishing control (which had further been defined in 2004 in instances where the ball eventually comes loose as being able to make, for example, a controlled lateral while in the field of play after establishing the classic 2 feet/1 knee possession). Now, in mid-playoffs, the zebras further redefined "football move" to eliminate an attempt to get up to advance the ball.
You're right in your recall. Apparently within the 20 yardline, an defensive penalty moves the ball "half the distance to the goal line."
An offensive penalty that occurs in its own end zone results in a safety scored for the defense (unless ABC orders that the penalty be treated as though it occured outside the end zone in order to prevent a blowout).
Doesn't that rule only apply in cases of intentional grounding?
"A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot."
League: Call on Polamalu interception was official's judgment
Jan. 16, 2006
CBS SportsLine.com wire reports
NEW YORK -- Referee Pete Morelli's decision to overturn an apparent interception by Pittsburgh Steelers safety Troy Polamalu late in his team's game Sunday in Indianapolis was a judgment call, the NFL said Monday.
It came with 5:26 left in Pittsburgh's 21-18 win over the Colts.
Polamalu made a diving catch. When he got up to run, he fumbled the ball, then recovered. Colts coach Tony Dungy challenged and Morelli ruled Polamalu had not completed the catch, so it was an incomplete pass.
About a dozen TV and scoreboard replays indicated otherwise.
The Colts kept the ball and went on to score, cutting Pittsburgh's lead to three points in a game that ended with a missed field goal by Indy's Mike Vanderjagt that could have sent it to overtime.
"The issue was whether he had possession. The ball came loose when he was getting up. Pete Morelli determined it wasn't a catch," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said. "That was his judgment."
Aiello added that the league's officiating department had not yet officially reviewed the call to determine if Morelli had made the right decision.
The NFL almost never makes public the result of its reviews, although it did three years ago, when supervisor of officials Mike 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.
Aiello had no comment on a remark by Pittsburgh's Joey Porter, who said of the Polamalu 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."
In the past, players who have made comments like that have been subject to fines.
From AP:
"The issue was whether he had possession. The ball came loose when he was getting up. Pete Morelli determined it wasn't a catch," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said. "That was his judgment."
In other words, the NFL is distancing themselves from the ruling while still keeping their options open when fining Joey Porter for stating that the refs were trying to influence the outcome of the game.
That's where you usually see it, but I've seen a lineman get called for holding and it resulted in a safety. Obviously, the refs are going to give a lot of leeway in not wanting to call holding in the end zone, but this was blatant.
SD
beat me by 9 seconds...
No. It applies to any offensive penalty that occurs in the end zone (defined by the spot of enforcement rules). Intentional grounding, for some reason, is separately specifically mentioned as having the safety penalty
I think it was an attempt to make clearer what officially happened when a receiver got popped immediately (or almost) after the ball got to him. The classic situation is when the defender smacks the receiver the very instant the ball gets there causing the ball to go flying and roll on the ground to be picked up by a defender. We all know that when the receiver gets hit the instant the ball gets there that's an incomplete pass, but what about when he gets hit half a heartbeat later? A whole heartbeat later? Two heartbeats later? I think the concept of the "football move" was put in for that, trying to make a clearer line of when the receiver has actually made a catch (and therefore the popped out ball is a fumble) and when he hasn't. Unfortunately since it's such a vague term with so many possible goofy interpretations (especially when coupled with the ground rule on receptions like yesterday in Indy) they actually made the situation less clear.
I see some folks have opined on the second part of your post.
To your first part:
I understand what you are saying, but there has to rules to determine was is a catch and what isn't. I know it seems simple and the majority of the plays it is black and white. With some plays, however, it can get complicated.
I have no objection to rules. I have an objection to rules that folks cannot seem to make heads or tails of - and I refer to fans when I speak of "folks". Enforcing the rule as written appears to be one of those rules that folks can't made heads or tails of. Can you imagine trying to explain such a rule to a youth team? They would be snoring by the time someone explained what a "football move" meant.
The fact that the officiating team took as long as it did to decide the call is indictment enough. They were not determining the spot of the ball - they were just trying to decide if the pass "caught" by Troy P. was a complete pass/incomplete pass. If it took the OFFICIALS that long, there's a problem...
Not necessarily inside the 20, but less than twice the distance of the penalty from the goal line, so inside the 10 on 5 yard penalties (like offsides), inside the 20 on 10 yarders, and inside the 30 on 15 yarders (like the personal foul Troy took in Cinci, the penalty was assessed at like the 25, so they went half the distance).
Sadly that's not just ABC. Two of the things that drive me nuts in the NFL is how hard the refs try not to call intentional ground or safeties. If they can find any sorry excuse why a throw as actually a "pass" or why they shouldn't spot the ball in the wrong endzone they will. And extra good luck trying to get an intentional grounding call in the endzone, the refs have many volumes of excuses against that call.
Pittsburgh doesn't ask brokers to restrict sales to homeys . We don't have too. Playoff game tickets in the Burgh are awefully hard to come by . But , $$$ talks in many situations.
BTW, Palmer was not your savior . One man does not make a team . Want Maddox?? He's yours for the taking !
'Sounds like a real good guy ... we have a lot in common.
(except for the plentiful hair and the ladies thing ;)
Not mine personally but Palmer is very much a franchise talent and a game changer.
And Kitna is NO Palmer. Winning against a Kitna led Bengals squad rather than a Palmer led Bengals squad is not the same.
nice win versus Indy, Ill give them that. But they very well could have been defeated with a 17-14 at the half with a healthy Palmer playing instead of "crazy legs" kitna.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.