Refs call against Raider TD - Shaking my head.

[swest 0]

Is it just me or do the refs FIND reasons to make calls against the Raiders? I have never seen a TD so clear challenged. Then it actually gets overturned which ironically takes exactly the number of points off the board that the Raiders lose by! It seems like there should be some serious explaining on that call and I can't wait to see if they apply that standard to the rest of the league for the season.

 

Am I alone is seeing that as just pure ref manipulation of a game?

[mobb_deep 917]

Did we just enter some alternate universe, where you don't have to keep control of the ball all the way to the ground?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,592]

it was a rule put in place over 2 yrs ago, learn the rules before you ###### about em.

 

basically, if you goto the ground after a catch without making a football move, you must maintain control thru the entirity of the catch, the ball came lose at the end, easy call

[NorthDalAl 0]

Know your rules, it keeps the paranoia subduded.

 

An NFL receiver must re-establish his position after making a catch, that is defined as having two points down (foot and butt, two feet etc.)---Unless he leaves his feet to make a catch. Once he does this he must hit the ground without allowing movement of the ball upon landing in order to re-establish his position for the purpose of a catch. If the point of the ball touches the ground upon contact and moves it is judged not to be a catch--this is not open to interpretation--its the rule.

That's also the rule that Steve Young and Mike+Mike don't know.

[sameo98 0]

It's BS. He caught the damn ball. Of course an effin hater would be first to respond. Typical.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,592]

It's BS. He caught the damn ball. Of course an effin hater would be first to respond. Typical.

 

and of course someone not knowing the game would respond like this

[Kilroy 0]

It's BS. He caught the damn ball. Of course an effin hater would be first to respond. Typical.

 

A few years ago, it would have been a touchdown. Within the last few though, the NFL made the rule that a receiver must catch the pass, estabish possesion of the ball, and have both feet touch the ground before the play is even considered to be counted as a reception. The player then has to make a "football" move (a step, spin, change of direction) in order for the play to count.

 

If the player is in the process of landing on the ground as he attempts to make the catch then he needs to hold onto it all the way throughout the catch - even after he makes impact with the ground.

 

It's kind of confusing, but it is the rule. Basically, they tell you the ground can't cause a fumble in the process of someone being tackled, but it can cause an incomplete pass.

[16 and 33 0]

A few years ago, it would have been a touchdown. Within the last few though, the NFL made the rule that a receiver must catch the pass, estabish possesion of the ball, and have both feet touch the ground before the play is even considered to be counted as a reception. The player then has to make a "football" move (a step, spin, change of direction) in order for the play to count.

 

If the player is in the process of landing on the ground as he attempts to make the catch then he needs to hold onto it all the way throughout the catch - even after he makes impact with the ground.

 

It's kind of confusing, but it is the rule. Basically, they tell you the ground can't cause a fumble in the process of someone being tackled, but it can cause an incomplete pass.

 

Incorrect. They changed the "make a football move" rule in 2007.

 

A completed catch is now when a receiver gets two feet down and has control of the ball. Previously, a receiver had to make "a football move" in addition to having control of the ball for a reception.

 

Anyway, whatever the phock they want to say is a catch, as it is now written its just a bad rule. That was a TD whether the NFL rulebook recognizes it or not.

 

Bad rule that needs clarification/tweaking (again! which would make it like 3 times since 2005).

[Colt 45 0]

The ref was pretty clear in his interpretation of the rule...bad or not, it is the rule, so get over it.

 

I don't believe there is any conspiracy against the Raiders except for maybe Al Davis' intermingling.

As long as he controls the team, I think Raider nation is bound to be disappointed.

[surferskin 30]

That was a focking catch. Unbelievable that people defend the refs in the situation.

[JackARoot 2]

Agreed, that was a catch. The tip of the ball might have touched the turf, but the ball was pinned against his body. I couldn't believe it was overturned, and I don't have a horse in this race.

[swest 0]

Agreed, that was a catch. The tip of the ball might have touched the turf, but the ball was pinned against his body. I couldn't believe it was overturned, and I don't have a horse in this race.

 

It is funny how people say it is a rule. They said the same about the Tuck and all that which they now completely joke about. It just seems that refs look and create scenarios they wouldn't even question if it was the Pats or just about any team in the NFL. They actually look without challenge flags to find what rule they can bend to apply. I know the rules very well thank you. But that was so clearly a catch, it was an absolute horrible call. Yet, you get homers on here defending it which just cracks me up.

 

The rule applied was a stretch in this situation, especially considering that often times a WR comes down with the ball, both feet in the TD, and after he lands just tosses the ball aside in celebration. I can't count how many times I have seen a WR catch it, hold it up when a hit comes but it is already broken the plane and is a TD. Or how about a screen pass where they take two steps and dive across the line and the ball is stretched out and bounces out of their hands, yet TD.

 

In this case the guy caught it, landed both feet, then his butt, and then his arms at which point the tip of the ball hits the ground but he still holds it. Total BS call.

[R8RMick 242]

Is it just me or do the refs FIND reasons to make calls against the Raiders? I have never seen a TD so clear challenged. Then it actually gets overturned which ironically takes exactly the number of points off the board that the Raiders lose by! It seems like there should be some serious explaining on that call and I can't wait to see if they apply that standard to the rest of the league for the season.

 

Am I alone is seeing that as just pure ref manipulation of a game?

 

 

Did you fall asleep in 1982 and just wake back up?

[PackYourNut 47]

Personally, I think the two roughing the passer penalties against the Pats were by far the two WORST calls of the night. Since when can you not tackle the guy with ball?

[surferskin 30]

Personally, I think the two roughing the passer penalties against the Pats were by far the two WORST calls of the night. Since when can you not tackle the guy with ball?

When Thomas slammed Edwards to the ground' what the MNF crew failed to point out, was that the whistle had blown prior to the slam. Not sure about the other call you're talking about.

[PackYourNut 47]

When Thomas slammed Edwards to the ground' what the MNF crew failed to point out, was that the whistle had blown prior to the slam. Not sure about the other call you're talking about.

 

There was one of Wolfork early in the game where Edwards was trying to back up and he tackled him at the waist while he had the ball. Then the ref through a flag like he hit him low or some BS.

[swest 0]

There was one of Wolfork early in the game where Edwards was trying to back up and he tackled him at the waist while he had the ball. Then the ref through a flag like he hit him low or some BS.

 

 

Well I thought the first one was an absolutely terrible call, hands down. But taking a clear TD away from a team has much more impact. But that first sack was so clean and they called it - what a joke.

 

I am just so tired of seeing so many BS calls go against the Raiders. I know the NFL hates Davis and try to supress him via the win/loss record but it just gets old. And I am tired of Davis who has clearly lost his sanity it seems. But why take away a great TD catch and throw from two rookies like that? Just fricking terrible.

[GettnHuge 1]

this rule is way too strict and should be changed. think about it, catch the ball, 2 steps, and the body which basically makes it catching

the ball and taking 4 steps withfull control of the ball...then AFTER all that it slips slightly when he twists to the ground? ridiculous. Guys

catch the ball in the endzone, take 2 steps and spike it immediately and it's called a TD.

 

I mean, if you have the ball, take 2 steps and your azz hits the ground and you fumble it.... they are adamant that you were down, the

play is over. Why is it not the same in the endzone? Why is it when his azz hit the ground the play wasn't over dead done touchdown.

 

and i hate the raiduhs

[IMHipp 0]

While a rule is a rule, each rule should be open for interpretation. I feel the replay refs ended up making the wrong call.

 

Catch, two feet, straight down, ball touches ground, no TD

Catch, two feet, arm down, body down, roll on the ground, ball touches ground, should have been a TD.

 

I have no problem with refs sticking to the rules, but where they fail sometimes is in the interpretation of those rules. They needed to take a look at the play in regular speed, not overanalyze every move in slow motion as they probably did. The player possessed the ball long enough as he rolled on the ground for about a day and half before the ball touched the turf.

That was a touchdown.

 

Being a newer rule, I'm sure the league is looking to set a precedence for these types of calls. But from the looks of things they are setting the wrong precedent.

[phillybear 364]

I am just so tired of seeing so many BS calls go against the Raiders. I know the NFL hates Davis and try to supress him via the win/loss record but it just gets old.

 

The NFL hates the Seahawks too. Not much can be done about it.

[josh wiley 27]

here's something to think about. wonder if they would have ruled that incomplete had it been moss? i doubt it.

[surferskin 30]

It was kinda like Holmes catch that got reversed in the AFC championship game. They try to get way to technical with this rules and forget what their eyes tell them. In that game Holmes caught the ball, cradled it, took like 2 or 3 steps, then dove and extended the ball...then when he hit the ground, the ball came loose. Don't tell me it wasn't a catch. You can't do all those thing without catching the ball. Refs are missing the big picture.

[Mark_it_8_Dude 0]

Not to feed into the conspiracy non-sense, but if that is TO, Randy Moss, or Micheal Jordan catching that ball... TOUCHDOWN!

[kmbryant09 1]

Know your rules, it keeps the paranoia subduded.

 

An NFL receiver must re-establish his position after making a catch, that is defined as having two points down (foot and butt, two feet etc.)---Unless he leaves his feet to make a catch. Once he does this he must hit the ground without allowing movement of the ball upon landing in order to re-establish his position for the purpose of a catch. If the point of the ball touches the ground upon contact and moves it is judged not to be a catch--this is not open to interpretation--its the rule.

That's also the rule that Steve Young and Mike+Mike don't know.

 

So if a WR jumps, makes a catch, turns, runs 10 yards, and goes to the ground and loses the ball, its an incomplete catch??? No, the "leaving the feet" part of the rule applies to dives or falls to the ground, not jumps. The WR jumped straight up, caught the ball, had both feet on the ground, and then fell as the CB brought him to the ground...Even in real-time, the WR has the ball for a clear 1-2 seconds in possession before he goes to the ground...

 

What a terrible call

[2Dumb2Live 0]

What's even more irritating is that if that had happend outside of the last 2 minutes it wouldn't have even been reviewed because Norv wouldn't have challenged it...

[ashwiggins 0]

There was one of Wolfork early in the game where Edwards was trying to back up and he tackled him at the waist while he had the ball. Then the ref through a flag like he hit him low or some BS.

 

 

That was the worst roughing the passer call I've ever seen.

[roroco 75]

Some of you guys crack me up. Go on nfl.com and watch the replay. The ball came out as he hit the ground, and if you do not make a "football move" before you hit the ground, then the ground can cause the pass to be ruled an incompletion if you do not maintain control. It is the rules and it was cut and dry here. "Openness for interpretation" is wuss talk.

 

And yes... the two Roughing The Passer calls against the Pats were awful. Luckily they did not change the outcome of the came.

[madd futher mucker 36]

The TD should NEVER have been overturned. They showed it from every angle and I don't think it even stood up to the "inconclusive" test. it was CLEARLY a TD, and would have been called as such if it had been caught by any "name" receiver in the league. It was the review by game officials I've ever seen since they started the play review procedure.

 

The "conspiracy theorist" in me says that the NFL did that on purpose in order to cause Mr Al Davis to have a coronary.

Too bad it didn't work out that way.

[andybob15 0]

He established possession and broke the plane of the endzone. TD. Period.

 

If anything he caught it, fumbled it, recovered it, TD.

 

I too hate the Raiduhs!

[16 and 33 0]

Some of you guys crack me up. Go on nfl.com and watch the replay. The ball came out as he hit the ground, and if you do not make a "football move" before you hit the ground, then the ground can cause the pass to be ruled an incompletion if you do not maintain control. It is the rules and it was cut and dry here. "Openness for interpretation" is wuss talk.

 

Two things

1. As I previously posted, the "must execute a football move" verbiage was removed from the rule book in 2007 - this is the third NFL season since that has been the criteria
   
2. The call was correct; it may be a bad rule, but the ruling was good
   

The NFL does not allow reporters to interview the officiating crew, but they do allow one pool reporter to ask questions. Here was the explanation given:

 

transcript of pool reporter Steve Corkran's discussion with referee Carl Cheffer, whose crew overturned the TD.

 

Cheffers: OK, so what's the question?

 

Corkran: We just want the ruling on why you decided to look at the play at the end of half on when you called touchdown for Louis Murphy, then you said that you wanted to review it, and then it got overturned. What was the ruling on that?

 

Cheffers: OK, great, let me just grab the (rule) book here, and I'm going to read you what the book says. We had a situation where the receiver caught the pass in the air and as he is coming down to the ground, he is actually going to the ground. That's a defined term in our rule book, a player, a receiver who is going to the ground. The rule book says, if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, with or without contact by opponent - so that can be on his own; In this case, he got hit by an opponent - he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. That wasn't the case. What we ruled, what we saw in replay, was that he was going to the ground, as he came down the ball came loose, he lost control of the ball, the ball skidded along the ground, he eventually completely lost control of the ball. So, by rule, by what we saw in review, it's an incomplete pass.

 

Corkran: So, this has nothing to do with him having to - he got both feet down - it has nothing to do with that, it has nothing to do with making a football move? It's just what you said there?

 

Cheffers: Yeah, he was up, I think if I remember, (on) one foot, he was getting contacted prior to his second foot coming down. By definition in our rule book, he's going to the ground and has to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire act of the catch. And in this case, he lost possession and the ball hit the ground. Therefore, it's incomplete.

 

Corkran: It was pretty clear-cut?

 

Cheffers: Pretty clear-cut.

 

Corkran: Carl, thank you for your time.

 

Cheffers: My pleasure.

[andybob15 0]

He established possession and broke the plane of the endzone. TD. Period.

 

If anything he caught it, fumbled it, recovered it, TD.

 

I too hate the Raiduhs!

[madd futher mucker 36]

Two things

1. As I previously posted, the "must execute a football move" verbiage was removed from the rule book in 2007 - this is the third NFL season since that has been the criteria
   
2. The call was correct; it may be a bad rule, but the ruling was good
   

The NFL does not allow reporters to interview the officiating crew, but they do allow one pool reporter to ask questions. Here was the explanation given:

 

"If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete."

 

This is total BS. Falling forward after the catch in the endzone is not "a football move"? When you catch a ball in the endzone, what kind of "football move" do you have to make? Must you go right into your endzone dance?

 

But to refute the referree's argument, Murphy also had clear posession all the way to the ground. Yes he dropped his arm a little as he was coming down, which is natural when you are falling down, but the ball was NEVER juggled in any way nor was there any other apparent loss of control.

 

IF there was any loss of control, it happened when the ball made contact with the ground, but since he landed on the ball, and the ball really never came out that any angle that they showed in numerous angle replays, it is impossible to determine conclusively that any loss of control ever occurred. The standard for overturning a ruling on the field is that the replay must show conclusive evidence that the call was wrong.

 

The officials can explain away this "review" all they want, but I've been watching pro football for over 40 years, and "instant re-play review" only makes things clearer. This was the crappiest "review" call I've ever seen. I'm sure you guys can watch it from every angle on YouTube, and you can not help but come to the conclusion it was a TD.

[swest 0]

Two things

1. As I previously posted, the "must execute a football move" verbiage was removed from the rule book in 2007 - this is the third NFL season since that has been the criteria
   
2. The call was correct; it may be a bad rule, but the ruling was good
   

The NFL does not allow reporters to interview the officiating crew, but they do allow one pool reporter to ask questions. Here was the explanation given:

 

 

I love how the response said "as he was going to the ground". His ass hit the ground, then his arm and he CLEARLY had position. The tip of the ball, while in possession mind you, touches they ground. This call was a total joke and most likely cost them a game. And it was a hell of a reach for any ref to make this call.

 

Just like the "Tuck" rule, the refs actively look for a way to make a call against the raiders when they would never even question another team. There are lots of literal rules that are rarely called but I find it ironic that these are often applied against the Raiders when I see games. There is no way in hell that TD should of ever been taken away. I have been watching football for decades and that was a horrible call - simply put. I can't wait for a tell all book someday.

[Kilroy 0]

I love how the response said "as he was going to the ground". His ass hit the ground, then his arm and he CLEARLY had position. The tip of the ball, while in possession mind you, touches they ground. This call was a total joke and most likely cost them a game. And it was a hell of a reach for any ref to make this call.

 

It has to do with how the rule is written, and the fact a lot of attention has been paid to it by the NFL in recent years. Like I said early - one way to look at it is to say the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incomplete pass if the WR hasn't established his footing after making the catch.

 

I don't have a problem with the rule - just as long as they call it like that consistently. And ever since they changed the wording, it has been getting called consistantly.

 

Just like the "Tuck" rule, the refs actively look for a way to make a call against the raiders when they would never even question another team. There are lots of literal rules that are rarely called but I find it ironic that these are often applied against the Raiders when I see games. There is no way in hell that TD should of ever been taken away. I have been watching football for decades and that was a horrible call - simply put. I can't wait for a tell all book someday.

 

Oh... so you're one of those fans that think there is an NFL conspiracy against the Raiders.

[surferskin 30]

I think the bigger point about this rule is how poorly it's being interpreted. This rule was supposed to decide completions on diving receptions. Somebody jumping straight up, then landing with 2 feet down then landing on his ass before rolling over and having the ball move should not be compared to a receiver diving for a ball, catching it and then having the ball jarred loose when he hits the ground. But that's what's happening here.

[parrot 789]

It just seems that refs look and create scenarios they wouldn't even question if it was the Pats or just about any team in the NFL.

 

I guess you missed the part where they looked at the Watson catch for EXACTLY the same thing. The difference was Watson never lost the ball.

[The Hood 9]

I think the bigger point about this rule is how poorly it's being interpreted. This rule was supposed to decide completions on diving receptions. Somebody jumping straight up, then landing with 2 feet down then landing on his ass before rolling over and having the ball move should not be compared to a receiver diving for a ball, catching it and then having the ball jarred loose when he hits the ground. But that's what's happening here.

 

Totally agree. No way that shouldn't have been a TD other than the wording of the rule. All it needs is a simple something like "unless the receiver gets 2 feet down prior to going to the ground he needs to maintain control" or something like that. It's a catch and fumble if they only take 2 steps get hit and the ball is knocked loose in the field of play right? Just seems to me that then 2 feet down should immediately be a catch and in the endzone a TD.

[edjr 5,567]

Ben Watson had a similar catch in the game before.

 

ball hit the ground when he came down, but he had control of it.

 

TOUCHDOWN!!!!

[swest 0]

Ben Watson had a similar catch in the game before.

 

ball hit the ground when he came down, but he had control of it.

 

TOUCHDOWN!!!!

 

 

I did see that and I agree with the TD call in both cases. Remember they overturned this call. Ben Watson's ball hit the ground and it moved as well. The Raider was getting up and let the ball slide and it isn't a TD? Also, Raider had feet landing, butt, and arm before ball whereas Watson's landed more on the ball as I recall.

 

So I think it was a complete BS call and I think the majority of people realize it. I want to see this season where they take a similiar situation (ruled a TD) and reverse on some other team. Because this was a serious stretch and the replay they looked at to make this call was weak at best. Something is wrong when everyone knows it is a TD and the refs overturn it. If he landed on the ball and it jarred loose, that would make sense - but not after two feet, full control, butt, arm and then ground which BTW his hand was still clearly under the ball.

 

Cmon guys - what the heck are you smoking?

[Gepetto 988]

He WAS NOT going to the focking ground. He had two feet down and possession which should be a catch and a touchdown. Then he falls on his but, then lets go of the ball and gets up.

 

Focking refs blew it and their response means they still don't focking get it.

 

 

pathetic!