Steelers/Colts: Eating Some Crow?

[ochre]

Due to his resemblence to the actor that played Jango Fett, I've taken to calling him Kimo Fett. I think its apropos.

[Johnny Footstool]

The refs were bad, but it did go both ways. They gave the Steelers some extremely generous spots on two consecutive 4th down plays in the 4th quarter. They also screwed up by not calling a false start on Faneca.

We've seen some very inconsistent officiating in every playoff game thusfar.

[Caveat Emperor]

Just heard an interesting interview by Mark Manske (sp?) on the Tony Kornheiser show. He compared the Polamalu INT to the Tom Brady "tuck rule" ruling in that when looking at the play everything about the call looks wrong, but when you actually read the rules to the letter the call was correct. When a receiver catches a ball, goes down to the ground untouched and gets back up, he has to retain possession of the ball the entire time he's down. When Polamalu started to get up, he knocked the ball out of his hand while his right knee was down. Since his knee was down he was technically still on the ground when he lost possession, therefore it's no catch. Totally funky the way everything worked out on that play, but it turned out the ref actually got it right on review according to the rules. Curious what the conspiracy theorists have to say on this one.

Dude, you don't have to get defensive about this -- it's just an aside to the game. Nobody's going to die or award prizes to the winner of this discussion!

My point is that when the official spends as much time under the hodd as was the case on the Polamalu interception, he's looking for some -- any reason -- reason to overturn the call. It's akin to a judge deciding who he wants to win in a court case, and then going and scouring the law to find some or ANY technicality that he can cite just to give that side a victory.

If you want to make comparisons to the tuck rule, that's actually a good place to go. The "tuck" rule may have been in the NFL rulebook, but it was never enforced (in that manner) prior to that playoff game between New England and Oakland. There had been countless situations (I'm sure) where a quarterback lost control of the football as he was bringing the ball back into his body, but never had we come up with a "tuck" rule before. Similarly here -- the standard for a reception/interception has always been possession with two feet or a knee on the ground and some sort of football move. Anything loss of possession following that is a fumble. This rule might exist, but I've watched a LOT of football, and I've never once seen it enforced in such a manner. That's suspicious to me, when the refs dig as deep into the rulebook as they can to find a reason to make sure an outcome goes one way or the other.

Heck, it need not even be an anti-Steelers/pro-Colts conspiracy -- it could be as simple as the league instructing officials to "keep the game close" so that audiance numbers stay high (akin to the way the computer in a Madden game starts making phenomenol catches when it gets behind).

[Danny Serafini]

CE,

Not defensive at all, or really sure where you got that. Just heard the interview while I was typing my last response so I kept on typing. I'm not a fan of either team so I really have no dog in this fight.

I just don't buy any conspiracy nonsense. People (and I'm talking in general here, not calling you out specifically) just tend to try and put too much behind the scenes of events. I'm not the type to see black helicopters hovering in the background.

So he took a long time with the call? Maybe, just maybe, he was having a difficult time making a call and wanted to make sure he got it right. There's nothing sinister about that.

And God forbid an official actually enforce a rule as written in the rulebook. If it wasn't enforced before that's the fault of the officials in earlier games, not these officials in this game. And the whole possession issue has been tricky all year. I absolutely despise this whole "football related move" business that's crept in over the past year or two, it's made the whole issue of possession much more ambiguous and leads to situations like this. There have been oddball possession calls all year because of this, and I do think it's something that needs to be addressed.

Like I said, there's nothing I saw yesterday to imply that the league was trying to manipulate the game in any way.

[traderumor]

I agree with the lefty from the Mexican League on the complication that have been added to possession rules, which I assume were derived to remove ambiguity that arose from looking at a play in slow motion.

Here's a radical thought. Make the replay officials observe the play at regular speed. Then, the primary aim is getting an improved angle rather than looking at stills, which obviously leads to another kind of ambiguity, like creating terms such as "football move" to account for issues that were raised from seeing a play in slow motion.

[SteelSD]

Just heard an interesting interview by Mark Manske (sp?) on the Tony Kornheiser show. He compared the Polamalu INT to the Tom Brady "tuck rule" ruling in that when looking at the play everything about the call looks wrong, but when you actually read the rules to the letter the call was correct. When a receiver catches a ball, goes down to the ground untouched and gets back up, he has to retain possession of the ball the entire time he's down. When Polamalu started to get up, he knocked the ball out of his hand while his right knee was down. Since his knee was down he was technically still on the ground when he lost possession, therefore it's no catch. Totally funky the way everything worked out on that play, but it turned out the ref actually got it right on review according to the rules. Curious what the conspiracy theorists have to say on this one.

Only relevant if the receiver/defender hadn't already established possession by rule. Polamalu had clearly established possession. To rule that pass an incompletion, the official had to twist the rulebook in such a way that it created an entirely new rule on-the-fly as to when possession is established.

The fact that someone would go on the radio to defend the call is simply another demonstration that there'll always be someone who's willing to defend the indefensible.

[traderumor]

Only relevant if the receiver/defender hadn't already established possession by rule. Polamalu had clearly established possession. To rule that pass an incompletion, the official had to twist the rulebook in such a way that it created an entirely new rule on-the-fly as to when possession is established.

The fact that someone would go on the radio to defend the call is simply another demonstration that there'll always be someone who's willing to defend the indefensible.

I haven't seen the rule in question. Do you have a link to the actual rule?

[SteelSD]

I haven't seen the rule in question. Do you have a link to the actual rule?

Good luck on that. The NFL considers their rulebook a matter of national security. Makes it easier to add things in the day after they screw something up that way.

The closest you're going to get online is:

8. 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.

And yes, that applies to the defenders as well (they're considered "Eligible Receivers"). Polamalu had clearly established possession before the ball popped out by any credible interpretation of the rules. To overturn the call, the official had to spend considerable time searching for some way to re-define the point at which possession is actually established.

The Steelers won so I'm expecting the NFL to sweep this one under the rug rather than actually address it. But maybe they'll surprise me.

[savafan]

I also noticed that Kimo had hit on Manning that was very similar to the hit on Palmer. The big difference was that Manning had his back to Kimo, so his knee wasn't bent sideways...and Manning was still holding the ball.

Kimo the assassin.

I noticed that hit too NJReds. I turned to my dad when it happened and said I sure hope Manning's leg is okay.

[deltachi8]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06016/639008.stm

NFL says Polamalu call was official's judgment
No comment on Porter remark
Monday, January 16, 2006

By The Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Referee Pete Morelli's decision to overturn an apparent interception by Pittsburgh's Troy Polamalu late in the Steelers game Sunday in Indianapolis was a judgment call, the NFL said Monday.


Matt Freed, Post-Gazette
Troy Polamalu sees the ball drop to the ground after an apparent interception. However, the play was ruled an incomplete pass after Indianapolis challenged the call.
Click photo for larger image.

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.

[Reds Fanatic]

Now the NFL is saying the official made the wrong call in reversing that call and it should have been an interception.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playof...ory?id=2294309

NEW YORK -- 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 upheld the call, made with 5:26 left in Pittsburgh's win over the Colts.

After the reversal, the Colts 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 and Pittsburgh clinched its win only when the Colts' Mike Vanderjagt missed a 46-yard field-goal attempt.

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

About a dozen TV and scoreboard replays indicated otherwise. Had the call stood, the Steelers would have had the ball at their own 48 with an 11-point lead.

"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," Pereira said.

"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."

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.

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.

[SteelSD]

Thanks for posting that, RF.

Good for the NFL that they responded to the obvious officiating error. But I'm tired of it. If they want to make that crap stop, they need to make an example of Morelli, if not the whole crew- who, between them, couldn't figure out that a "do-over" isn't an option on a false start, encroachment, or neutral zone infraction before the snap.

I'm sick of apology letters from the league office. Time for some pink slips to be sent instead.

[GAC]

Basically, it was an INT (possession), and then a fumble.

[SteelSD]

Basically, it was an INT (possession), and then a fumble.

Yep.

Like I said, only an official who was actively trying to find a way to re-define "possession" could have overturned the correct ruling on the field. Kudos to the NFL for quickly addressing the issue (which only happens on the most egregious of errors). And nice to see that the dolt who appeared on the "Tony Kornheiser Show" was exposed as nothing more than an attention-grabbing apologist.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to the Encroachment "do-over". I don't know if we'll ever get a reason for that stupidity. But if Morelli's name is on the list of active officals for next season, I'll consider the issues from that game still not properly addressed because Morelli is a guy who shouldn't be officiating Pop Warner games much less NFL playoff contests.

And God forbid an official actually enforce a rule as written in the rulebook. If it wasn't enforced before that's the fault of the officials in earlier games, not these officials in this game.

The officials didn't actually enforce a rule as it was written in the rulebook. The officials tried to make up a new rule on-the-fly. I would hope that's completely clear to you now- particularly being that it's the first call that was addressed by the league officiating office in three years. And it's the first call I can think of that was publicly addressed that went against the team that actually won the game.

This was an even more egregious officiating error than at the end of the January 6th, 2003 Wild Card game between the NY Giants and SF 49'ers. There weren't multiple potential penalties to be sorted through. In that game, there was a Pass Interference (a "judgement" call as you erroneously define it) that wasn't called, even though it was as obvious as the PI non-call in the Pitt/Indy game. But there was no end-of-game timing issue in Sunday's game. There was no "offsetting penalty" issue to be considered when Polamalu rightly picked that ball off.

There was nothing to muddle the mix on the Polamalu Interception. It was a clear case of possession. A clear fumble. And a clear recovery. The reversal of the call on the field goes beyond incompetence. In short, an NFL official can't be dumb enough to screw that up. He has to be looking for a way how to, regardless of what your favorite Tony Kornheiser guest opined in error.