The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 16, 2006, 08:56am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 264
Rule

Can anyone post the NFL rule number AND the rule for the INT / IP yesterday.

Thanks
__________________
If you don't see it, don't call it.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 16, 2006, 10:28am
MJT MJT is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton, Iowa
Posts: 1,796
Re: Rule

Quote:
Originally posted by sm_bbcoach
Can anyone post the NFL rule number AND the rule for the INT / IP yesterday.

Thanks
I have an official NFL rule book from a current NFL official, and cannot find a situation which covers it exactly. I would assume they have a case book of sorts, and being that he was also talking to an official in the replay booth, who has any books they have, I'd assume that even if you didn't like it, they probably got it right. If they did not, the NFL will come out and say so, as they do when mistakes are made.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 16, 2006, 02:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,010
Offical word from the NFL so far is, "It was the Referee's judgment call."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playof...ory?id=2294309
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 16, 2006, 04:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3
That article bothered me because I don't think "judgment" and "judgment call" mean the same thing. The NFL said that was his judgment. In court, a judge passes down a judgment.

I think that ESPN is trying to change how it sounds when they manipulate the quote to say it was a judgment call.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 16, 2006, 04:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3
And now ESPN has just moved the ground underneath the reader's feet -- that link above used to point to an article headlined "it was a judgment call". Now the link leads to an article that reads the same at the bottom but reads in the headline that it was the wrong call.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 16, 2006, 05:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Wrong call: NFL issues statement on Polamalu play

New York, NY (Sports Network) - National Football League vice president of officiating Mike Pereira on Monday issued a statement regarding the controversial reversal on Troy Polamalu's interception during Pittsburgh's 21-18 win over Indianapolis in Sunday's AFC divisional playoff game at the RCA Dome.

In the statement, Pereira stated the officiating crew made the wrong call.

"The definition of a catch -- or in this case an interception -- states that in the process of making a catch a player must maintain possession of the ball after he contacts the ground," said Pereira. "The initial call on the field was that Troy Polamalu intercepted the pass because he maintained possession of the ball after hitting the ground.

"The replay showed that Polamalu had rolled over and was rising to his feet when the ball came loose. He maintained possession long enough to establish a catch. Therefore, the replay review should have upheld the call on the field that it was a catch and fumble.

"The rule regarding the performing of an act common to the game applies when there is contact with a defensive player and the ball comes loose, which did not happen here."
__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 17, 2006, 10:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 264
BBRef

Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
"In the act of making a catch, if a receiver makes a catch and goes to the ground UNTOUCHED by a defender, the receiver must have secure possession when he gets to his feet or when contacted by an opponent."
I am NOT slamming you on this. But, please explain how the NFL can double back on this. YOu say he has to have possesion when he gets to his feet OR contact, but he did NOT have possesion when he got to his feet????

Is this the NFL trying to look good?????? The rule in my mind is clear. IF it is in his opinion, then the NFL needs to say that and his opinion need NOT be contradicted.
__________________
If you don't see it, don't call it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1