That NON-INT Call Was A Correct Call Per The Rule...

[StanleySpadowski]

Faneca is the left guard. Is he the "RT" you meant? I watched that replay only twice, so I might have missed it, but I didn't see a false start. And offensive linemen are allowed to move before the snap, they just can't make an abrupt move or simulate the start of a play.

Faneca did move on the play. He rolled forward and his heel came off the ground. You'll clearly see it when you watch it again.

I agree with you though. The officials made the mistake when they didn't see Faneca move (which is understandable, it was that subtle) but then their real mistake occurred when they blew the play dead, not when they didn't call a penalty.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

What a bunch of baloney. It was an interception. Period.

Nice run. My condolensces.

 

[kmd24]

Faneca is the left guard. Is he the "RT" you meant? I watched that replay only twice, so I might have missed it, but I didn't see a false start. And offensive linemen are allowed to move before the snap, they just can't make an abrupt move or simulate the start of a play.

After Faneca flinched, the Colts came into the neutral zone, causing the right tackle to come out of his stance. I don't remember if the line judge had started running in from the sidelines at that point, and I didn't hear a whistle. That's a textbook neutral zone infraction if you ignore the false start on Faneca that got the whole ball rolling. Basically, it doesn't matter whether any of the Colts touched a Steeler because the Steeler RT came out of his stance while 2 or 3 Colts were in the neutral zone. The only out that the officials have in not calling a penalty on the Colts is if they ruled that the whistle had blown before the Steeler RT came out of his stance.

I agree that OL are allowed to move, but in a 4th and short situation, any flinch by an OL is often deemed to be simulating the start of the play since the officials know that the defense will be going on first movement. But since the officials obviously missed the false start, they should have called a neutral zone infraction.

 

[Smith22]

Faneca did move on the play. He rolled forward and his heel came off the ground. You'll clearly see it when you watch it again.

Agreed. I have tivo and watched the play twice, and you could see he moved without a doubt IMO. If they are calling the false start that they did much earlier in the game on Tarik Glenn of the Colts, then Faneca's was an easy call.

 

[AdamJT13]

OK, I saw the replay again and saw Faneca slightly rock in his stance. But according to the rules, that's perfectly legal, as long as he comes set again before the ball is snapped. (The ball was never snapped on that play.) If his movement is not abrupt and the ball isn't snapped while he's moving, it's not a penalty.

 

[AdamJT13]

But since the officials obviously missed the false start, they should have called a neutral zone infraction.

There can't be a neutral zone infraction if the ball is never snapped, if no contact is made and if none of the offensive linemen nearby react to the defense going into the neutral zone. The referees stopped the play before any of that happened.

 

[Sarge]

There can't be a neutral zone infraction if the ball is never snapped, if no contact is made and if none of the offensive linemen nearby react to the defense going into the neutral zone. The referees stopped the play before any of that happened.

Correct, but what is not correct is the fact that Faneca moved and I could have sworn one of the Colts DL put his hand on one of the Steelers OL shoulders.

Either way, it was a sloppy non-call.

 

[joseephuss]

After Faneca flinched, the Colts came into the neutral zone, causing the right tackle to come out of his stance. I don't remember if the line judge had started running in from the sidelines at that point, and I didn't hear a whistle. That's a textbook neutral zone infraction if you ignore the false start on Faneca that got the whole ball rolling. Basically, it doesn't matter whether any of the Colts touched a Steeler because the Steeler RT came out of his stance while 2 or 3 Colts were in the neutral zone. The only out that the officials have in not calling a penalty on the Colts is if they ruled that the whistle had blown before the Steeler RT came out of his stance.

I agree that OL are allowed to move, but in a 4th and short situation, any flinch by an OL is often deemed to be simulating the start of the play since the officials know that the defense will be going on first movement. But since the officials obviously missed the false start, they should have called a neutral zone infraction.

It would still not have been a neutral zone infraction. The Colts that came into the neutral zone were not in the immediate area of the Steelers RT. That rule is based on players being almost directly across from the offensive player.

 

[jterrell]

Just to reiterate here....

I was arguing that the call would be overturned to my buddies while the announcers were saying it was a waste of a challenge.

Every other year prior to this one that would have been a catch. This year it hasn't been.

Last week a WR caught a pass for a TD, took one step into the end zone, got tackled from behind and his knee hit down, that made 1 step and then a knee into the end zone but the ball popped loose as he hit the ground and they ruled it incomplete.

Possession rules have gotten much more hardcore now.

Not sure I agree with the rule and it may be changed but I do believe the correct call was made.

Some had a problem with my term "loosely possessed". Polamalu never had more than 1 hand on the ball and had it popped out by his own knee. To me that is the definition of loosely possessed. Possessed meaning it was controlled, loosely meaning controlled to the extent it could easily be knocked away. Had a RB carried the ball like that they would have been dog cussed. It was a safety and he controlled the ball like a defender.

 

[joseephuss]

Just to reiterate here....

I was arguing that the call would be overturned to my buddies while the announcers were saying it was a waste of a challenge.

Every other year prior to this one that would have been a catch. This year it hasn't been.

Last week a WR caught a pass for a TD, took one step into the end zone, got tackled from behind and his knee hit down, that made 1 step and then a knee into the end zone but the ball popped loose as he hit the ground and they ruled it incomplete.

Possession rules have gotten much more hardcore now.

Not sure I agree with the rule and it may be changed but I do believe the correct call was made.

Some had a problem with my term "loosely possessed". Polamalu never had more than 1 hand on the ball and had it popped out by his own knee. To me that is the definition of loosely possessed. Possessed meaning it was controlled, loosely meaning controlled to the extent it could easily be knocked away. Had a RB carried the ball like that they would have been dog cussed. It was a safety and he controlled the ball like a defender.

I was wondering about the "loosley possessed" ball. CBS as usual took forever to start showing a replay and then they only showed one angle of the play. From that angle, it looked as if the ball was secured, but what if another angle showed something different. We would never know because CBS is terrible on their coverage. It is possible that the official got to see some different views.

I don't blame the refs. I blame the rule. I had a feeling it would be overturned based on what I knew about the rule. Just seems so contradictory. If he just stays down, it is a catch, but since he trys to get up it and loses the ball it is not a catch.

 

[ghst187]

I was wondering about the "loosley possessed" ball. CBS as usual took forever to start showing a replay and then they only showed one angle of the play. From that angle, it looked as if the ball was secured, but what if another angle showed something different. We would never know because CBS is terrible on their coverage. It is possible that the official got to see some different views.
QUOTE]

He had the ball so secured when he went down initially that he only had it secured with one arm like a running back. He caught it, secured it, and was trying to keep his balance when he went down.
Whatever the rule....Troy caught the ball.
If the rule doesn't allow for that...then the rule is WRONG.
It was about as obvious a catch as one could make.