Colts/Steelers

[CB123]

Well we had it for the Patriots/Broncs lol. I thought that Polamalu had the int and so did the announcers? But the ref called it an incomplete pass because his knee was down when he kicked it out of his hand or something like that. Shouldn?t that have just been a fumble though? Because he had control of it before he fell, and then also when he was rolling on the ground?

What an unbelievable game! Did any of you watch it? I only started with like 9min left in the 4th. All the twists and turns! The best part was the fumble by Bettis on like the 1 yard line with one min left! That could have cost them the game! Man I wish they returned it for a TD, or at least I wanted Vanderjagt to get the Field Goal, but w.e. It was an awesome game!

[Blue In BC]

I voted for incomplete because of the wording of the rule which states that you must make a " football move " to be considered as a completion, before losing control to create what might have been a fumble.

Because he was still on the ground ( knee ), by rule, he hasn't made a football move. The ref said as much when he explained the ruling. Keeping in mind that the review must be decisive and the decisve part was the knee still on the ground. If he cleared the knee from the ground a fraction of a second earlier, it would have been an int and then a fumble.

I do agree that there is a problem with the rule. He clearly had complete possession and lost it on the way up, but that's not what their rule requires to make a completion.

I watched most of the game and the last qtr was exciting with lots of drama.

[Blitz]

What an unbelievable game

It sure was an exciting game! And a great game plan by Pittsburg! I've always believed you can shut down the single back spread offence or the total spread offence with no back by blitzing the quarterback and creating pressure...with a change up into a lot of defenders dropping into coverage.

The pressure broke down the Colts offence! A terrible reversal of the Pittsburg Polamalu interception and Bettis fumble sure made the game exciting. Vanderjact's missed field goal was unfortunate for the best percentage field goal kicker in the league but maybe he'll keep his mouth shut in the future.

I had mixed feelings about the game. I'm a Steelers fan but my heart was also with Tony Dungey...a class act of a man who deserved something more from this season and I'm sad in one way the Colts couldn't have won this game for him. I questioned Manning not trying to pick up a few more yards to give the field goal unit a closer shot than a 46 yard field goal.

[Lions_Fan_4_Life]

I am sooooo mad the Colts lost There goes any hope of beating smphantom and JimMullin in the 13thman pool.

[nelson95]

I got up for the last 6 minutes and that was thrilling enough. I thought INT, he rolled over like 2-3 times.

[Desert Eagle]

No doubt about it in my mind that he had the int. Like come on...watch the highlights....how much clearer could it get??? That ref needs to go get an eye examination..very very poor cal on his part.

[CatsEyes]

From what I heard on Mojo today, the refs DID admit that they blew that particular call. Fat lot of difference it makes now, fellas!

[Blue In BC]

From what I heard on Mojo today, the refs DID admit that they blew that particular call. Fat lot of difference it makes now, fellas!

Now they are saying it was an error. However, by saying that, they've added in judgement into a decision which is clear by the wording. The wording says must not lose control, while in contact with the ground.

Now, I'm in favor of allowing that judgement because we all agree that he did have control and it should have been int, fumble and fumble recovery.

But the rule doesn't allow judgement. I believe the ref made the right call on the basis of the rule. I just disagree with the rule.

[Blitz]

I thought the refs blew the call because 1) he had possession/control 2) when he got up following the interception his one knee was off the ground and the second knee hit the football out of his hand...so quite simply it was an interception, beginning of a run following the intercetpion, a fumble, and a fumble recovery! He did not lose control when in contact with the ground.

[Blue In BC]

I thought the refs blew the call because 1) he had possession/control 2) when he got up following the interception his one knee was off the ground and the second knee hit the football out of his hand...so quite simply it was an interception, beginning of a run following the intercetpion, a fumble, and a fumble recovery! He did not lose control when in contact with the ground.

Except one knee was still on the ground ( left I think ) and his right knee hit the ball as he was rising knocking it lose. If his left knee had cleared the ground, I think they would have had no choice but to call it an int and a fumble.

The grey area here is that usually the contact with the ground causes a player to lose control of the ball. That was not the case here, because it was a body part that caused him to lose the ball after he had possession.

The rule needs to be changed. Whether that is to allow a judgement by the ref or a word change in the rule, I don't know.

Hard to define that he had it " long enough " Where does a ref draw that line on a call.

Fortunately it didn't decide the outcome of the game. It could have.

Edit: If it HAD changed the outcome of the game, I wonder if the VP of officiating would have said anything. We'll never know.

[Rammer]

I thought the refs blew the call because 1) he had possession/control 2) when he got up following the interception his one knee was off the ground and the second knee hit the football out of his hand...so quite simply it was an interception, beginning of a run following the intercetpion, a fumble, and a fumble recovery! He did not lose control when in contact with the ground.

Except one knee was still on the ground ( left I think ) and his right knee hit the ball as he was rising knocking it lose. If his left knee had cleared the ground, I think they would have had no choice but to call it an int and a fumble.

The grey area here is that usually the contact with the ground causes a player to lose control of the ball. That was not the case here, because it was a body part that caused him to lose the ball after he had possession.

The rule needs to be changed. Whether that is to allow a judgement by the ref or a word change in the rule, I don't know.

Hard to define that he had it " long enough " Where does a ref draw that line on a call.

Fortunately it didn't decide the outcome of the game. It could have.

Edit: If it HAD changed the outcome of the game, I wonder if the VP of officiating would have said anything. We'll never know.

Except that Palamula (sp) had a stride and a half before he went down to the ground rolled and got up. I am sure that even in the deepest of interpretations that was an INT. That was a brutal call that came close to affecting the outcome that wasn't in the NFL's favour. It is also why the conspiracy theorists have come out.

[Robbie]

I posted this on another thread, but I think it's also applicable to this thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
NFL says ref got Polamalu call wrong; no comment on Porter remark

By DAVE GOLDBERG, AP Football Writer
January 16, 2006

The NFL said the referee made a mistake: Troy Polamalu caught the ball.

The league acknowledged Monday that referee Pete Morelli erred when he overturned on replay Polamalu's interception of a Peyton Manning pass Sunday in the playoff game between Pittsburgh and Indianapolis.

Mike Pereira, the league's vice president of officiating, said in a statement that Morelli should have let the call on the field stand.

"He maintained possession long enough to establish a catch," Pereira said. "Therefore, the replay review should have upheld the call on the field that it was a catch and fumble."

After the reversal, made with 5:26 left in Pittsburgh's win over the Colts, Indianapolis went on to score a touchdown and a 2-point conversion, cutting the Steelers' 21-10 lead to 21-18. That led to a wild final few minutes, filled with unbelievable twists and turns, including Colts kicker Mike Vanderjagt's missed 46-yard field-goal attempt that clinched it for Pittsburgh.

On the play, Polamalu made a diving catch of Manning's pass, tumbled with it in his hands and got up to run. As he did, he fumbled the ball, then recovered. Colts coach Tony Dungy challenged the call, and Morelli ruled Polamalu had not completed the catch.

Had the call stood, the Steelers would have had the ball at their own 48 with an 11-point lead.

Shortly after the game, Morelli offered the following explanation:

"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. He never had possession with his leg up off the ground, doing an act common to the game of football. He was losing it while his other leg was 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."

Under league officiating procedure, an "act common to the game" is defined as controlling the ball long enough to hand it, pitch it or pass it. But Pereira noted that this definition only applies when there is "contact with a defensive player and the ball comes loose, which did not happen here."

The NFL almost never makes public the result of its reviews, although it did three years ago, when 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.

The call in Indianapolis incensed Pittsburgh linebacker Joey Porter, who said after the game: "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.

Polamalu's overturned interception wasn't the only unusual call. Earlier in the game, when the Steelers were preparing to go for a fourth-and-inches from the Pittsburgh 48, two Colts defensive lineman ran across the line of scrimmage, pointing at the Steelers as if one of the linemen moved.

The officials stopped the game, but called no penalty.

Replays appeared to show Alan Faneca barely flinched. But Steelers coach Bill Cowher argued the Colts made contact with the linemen, which would have forced an offside call and a first down. Instead, Ben Roethlisberger ran a quarterback sneak for a first down, which allowed Pittsburgh to use another 5:02 before punting.

[Blitz]

Lets look at it this way...if an offensive player had touched him when he was on the ground...before he tried to get up it would have been called an interception!!

[West Coast Blue Fan]

Is that why Edmonton beat the Lions.....cause the ref missed Mobley tackling Simon in the end zone.....and he just wouldn't admit it??

Makes sense now.......had Geroy been able to catch it....the refs would've admitted it.
Had the Colts won, i wonder if he would've been so quick to admit his "mistake"

[Robbie]

Was there ever a time when the CFL front office admitted that an official made a wrong call? If not, then I would have to say the NFL front office is much better for admitting a mistake by an official.