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

[Sarge]

Am I the only Cowboys fan that wishes that call WOULD have cost the Steelers the game? Lol.

No.......

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Am I the only Cowboys fan that wishes that call WOULD have cost the Steelers the game? Lol.

No, I was torn the whole game, but the NFL media-Manning love fest overcame my deep seeded disgust for the Steelers.

I will pull against them from here on out.

 

[jimmy40]

No.......

I know this forum keeps getting younger every day but good grief, we have guys here crying about the Steelers getting a bad call. Damn, never thought I'd see the day.

 

[jimmy40]

No, I was torn the whole game, but the NFL media-Manning love fest overcame my deep seeded disgust for the Steelers.

I will pull against them from here on out.

As you should. Lol.

 

[AdamJT13]

Reverse the situation....if a WR were to do that in the same circumstance, that would be a catch because the roll would be counted as a football move as long as he had possession

If the referees went by the rules as they're written, that would have been an incompletion no matter who it was. If a wide receiver makes a diving catch and the ball comes out after he hits the ground and rolls over a few times, it's an incompletion. He must maintain possession "throughout the process" of catching the ball and establishing position. If Polamalu had stopped rolling before trying to get up, it would have been an interception because the "process" of establishing position would have ended.

 

[BigDFan5]

This is how both you and the ref got it wrong. When the ball came out then the play was already over. His knee had already hit the first time before he rolled over on the ground. He was then getting up and the ball fell out of his hands, but by that time he was already down by contact.

umm he was not down by contact since nobody was around him. He was getting up to try and advance the ball

 

[Maikeru-sama]

I know this forum keeps getting younger every day but good grief, we have guys here crying about the Steelers getting a bad call. Damn, never thought I'd see the day.

As far as I am concerned, 1995 Cowboys got revenge for the 70s Cowboys not only beating the Steelers but surpassing them in the Trophy Count.

The NFL is totally different via Free Agency.

I want the Steelers to win because I would like to see Jerome Bettis get him a ring.

And I certainly wouldnt want any team to get screeewed by the refs because players work so hard to get to the playoffs to have a Ref cheat them.

 

[burmafrd]

When COMMON sense and the badly written rule book conflict- common sense should win out. That should have been a FUMBLE. He had intercepted the ball and rolled on the ground and gotten up and lost the ball. For a rule to be written that stupidly says a lot about the rule book.

 

[arglebargle]

I know this forum keeps getting younger every day but good grief, we have guys here crying about the Steelers getting a bad call. Damn, never thought I'd see the day.

I just like games to be decided by the players, not by the refs. Sonny.....

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I agree with you.

The new rule is that there needs to be a football move.
As far as I can tell trying to get off the ground doesn't count.

He caught the pass but was rolling and the ball was loosely possessed. Before he could make any football move he knocked it out with his knee.

The rule's intent is to prevent WR's getting clocked and fumbling as the ball comes in.

If the rule is that then it is wrong(and it wasnt loosely controlled) If he stays down and is touched then that would have been it. An INT. He gets up and knee's the ball out hard. That play should have been subject to the ref's interpretation IMO and then he recovers it on top of it...

How bad is that...?
If I ever hear the question "there is 2 minutes left and the game is one the line... which QB do you want" and I hear someone say Manning or Favre... I am a coming outta shooting LMAO

 

[BigWillie]

If the referees went by the rules as they're written, that would have been an incompletion no matter who it was. If a wide receiver makes a diving catch and the ball comes out after he hits the ground and rolls over a few times, it's an incompletion. He must maintain possession "throughout the process" of catching the ball and establishing position. If Polamalu had stopped rolling before trying to get up, it would have been an interception because the "process" of establishing position would have ended.

So while planting your feet in the ground, getting up isn't stopping the process of rolling?

IIRC, the rule you are thinking of about estabilishing position throughout the entire catch only applies to the end zone.

Basically though, you can state rules, opinions, whatever you want but it is all jibberish and bunk to me. Call it politically correct, call it from the 'officials' POV, but their is no way you can call that an incompletion.

But I guess if you cannot call offsides or a false start earlier....

 

[AdamJT13]

So while planting your feet in the ground, getting up isn't stopping the process of rolling?

If the process didn't stop, then no. If he had stopped rolling before trying to stand up, then the process would have stopped. But when it's a continuous motion and the ball comes out, the rule says it's an incompletion.

IIRC, the rule you are thinking of about estabilishing position throughout the entire catch only applies to the end zone.

The rules for establishing possession never change, regardless of where you are -- the 50-yard line, the end zone, inbounds, out of bounds. It's the same everywhere.

But I guess if you cannot call offsides or a false start earlier....

That also was the correct call, if there was no contact.

 

[ddh33]

I agree. You may hate the rule, but it was the right call according to the book.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

That also was the correct call, if there was no contact.

Yes Adam, but they blew that one. If there wasn't contact ok, but they shouldn't have stopped the play and run towards the ball and basically stop play.

How can they abort a play like that and then say there wasn't a play.

 

[AdamJT13]

Yes Adam, but they blew that one. If there wasn't contact ok, but they shouldn't have stopped the play and run towards the ball and basically stop play.

How can they abort a play like that and then say there wasn't a play.

If the referee blows the whistle before the play, there is no play, so they didn't have to call anything. They just shouldn't have blown the whistle, and the play should have continued. And the Steelers' center should have snapped the ball right away when he saw the Colts come across the line.

 

[arglebargle]

If the process didn't stop, then no. If he had stopped rolling before trying to stand up, then the process would have stopped. But when it's a continuous motion and the ball comes out, the rule says it's an incompletion.



The rules for establishing possession never change, regardless of where you are -- the 50-yard line, the end zone, inbounds, out of bounds. It's the same everywhere.



That also was the correct call, if there was no contact.

A rule that can allow that to be considered a no catch, is a bad rule.
You are generally spot on on the technical aspects of the game, so I will have to consider that call as at least 'somewhat near' the rules interpretation. But it is sure bad football.....

 

[kmd24]

If the referee blows the whistle before the play, there is no play, so they didn't have to call anything. They just shouldn't have blown the whistle, and the play should have continued. And the Steelers' center should have snapped the ball right away when he saw the Colts come across the line.

When the RT moved, they should have called neutral zone infraction if the whistle hadn't already blown. The bottom line is that they missed the false start on Faneca. I think there was enough doubt about what actually happened that they did the right thing by replaying the down.

 

[Pats Fan]

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

 

[AdamJT13]

When the RT moved, they should have called neutral zone infraction if the whistle hadn't already blown. The bottom line is that they missed the false start on Faneca.

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.

 

[AdamJT13]

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

That sounds like the people who still think the NFL made up the tuck rule to help the Patriots. "It was a fumble. Period."