Refs call against Raider TD - Shaking my head.

[Gepetto 1,368]

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.

 

yes, this is correct

[surferskin 30]

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!

 

[roroco 75]

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!

 

 

If you catch the ball on the side line tap both toes inbound and lose the ball when you hit the ground... per the new rules - even if you had complete control of the ball before you hit the ground - it is an incomplete pass. I have seen this scenery several times already.

 

By the letter of the law, the call was correct.

[JackARoot 2]

Here's a link to the video:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHldeWb83XE

 

What people are saying is correct, catch, two feet down, then down to his butt, then as he rolls over the tip of the ball hits the ground, the ball moves a little, but it is pinned against his body. Just looks like a catch to me

[madd futher mucker 36]

I reviewed YouTube...I really didn't need to do it because I saw the replay Monday night from about 6 different angles. There was never any conclusive evidence that he ever lost control. Again, in order to OVERTURN a call on the field, the rule is that there must be CONCLUSIVE evidence that the original call by the official on the field was wrong. From ALL of the angles and replays I've see, there was NOT conclusive loss of control. in fact, it wass rather obvious he has control all the way to the ground, and no conclusive evidence that he lost control even then.

 

IMO both Kilroy and 16 and 33 are dead wrong here to side with the replay official The rule that they cited is indeed true, but there sure was not clear evidence that there was loss of control.

 

You can dress it up in theoretical explanations all you like, but without conclusive evidence from the replays - that's all they are - theoretical explanations. The replay judge totally blew it...pure and simple.

[Gepetto 1,368]

If you catch the ball on the side line tap both toes inbound and lose the ball when you hit the ground... per the new rules - even if you had complete control of the ball before you hit the ground - it is an incomplete pass. I have seen this scenery several times already.

 

By the letter of the law, the call was correct.

 

That's different where the receiver is tapping his feet because he is falling out of bounds. In the Raiders game the receiver caught the ball and had both feet down and was standing upright with his feet under him, then he fell down after that. I think it's different.

[stonewall 647]

I reviewed YouTube...I really didn't need to do it because I saw the replay Monday night from about 6 different angles. There was never any conclusive evidence that he ever lost control. Again, in order to OVERTURN a call on the field, the rule is that there must be CONCLUSIVE evidence that the original call by the official on the field was wrong. From ALL of the angles and replays I've see, there was NOT conclusive loss of control. in fact, it wass rather obvious he has control all the way to the ground, and no conclusive evidence that he lost control even then.

 

 

Gotta disagree with you on this one Madd. There was only one camera angle that showed Murphy totallyand conclusively losing control of the ball when he hit the ground(actually rolled out of his hands and onto the ground, and he quickly scooped it back up). I found that angle on the attached video at .048 seconds. Indeed, according to NFL rules.....whether good rule or bad, it was an incomplete pass.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBS8tTsnWE

[sameo98 0]

Gotta disagree with you on this one Madd. There was only one camera angle that showed Murphy totallyand conclusively losing control of the ball when he hit the ground(actually rolled out of his hands and onto the ground, and he quickly scooped it back up). I found that angle on the attached video at .048 seconds. Indeed, according to NFL rules, it was an incomplete pass.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBS8tTsnWE

 

So basically this rule is stating that if a receiver catches the ball with 2 feet down with FULL CONTROL, then butt down with FULL CONTROL, and then rolls over 5 times in the end zone with FULL CONTROL and drops the ball on his sixth roll it's an incomplete pass?

 

This rule is bogus! This was a recovered fumbled. You people need to stop smoking your crack.

 

[JackARoot 2]

Isn't the reciever "all the way to the ground" when he lands on his butt? This "down" on any other play ... getdowown on da ground ...

[sameo98 0]

Check this out...

 

Yeah, I'm still annoyed by the call...

[madd futher mucker 36]

Here's the bottom line bad news for Raider fans: The reversal DID NOT give Al Davis an angina attack, so he's still firmly in control of the Raiders, which means that DHB will be a starter, and Jamarcus Russell will remain the 1st team QB.

[jaxjag 43]

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.

 

I'm more dumbfounded why somebody who has "watched football for decades" would not see upon replay the pass was incomplete. He lost control of the ball going to the ground. And it wasn't just the tip of the ball that touched the ground. More accurately, he only had the top of the balled cupped as it hit the ground and the ball clearly shifted. Then he let it roll free underneath him (rookie mistake).

 

Sorry, but that was a good call consistent with the accepted definition of a reception.

[jaxjag 43]

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?

 

What are we smoking? Two feet, butt, arm... none of that mattters according to the RULES. Why do Raider fans in particular have a hard concept with the rules? We know he had momentary control of the ball and it looked good at full speed. But He has to maintain control going to the ground and he didn't. That is the only thing that matters.

[jaxjag 43]

So basically this rule is stating that if a receiver catches the ball with 2 feet down with FULL CONTROL, then butt down with FULL CONTROL, and then rolls over 5 times in the end zone with FULL CONTROL and drops the ball on his sixth roll it's an incomplete pass?

 

This rule is bogus! This was a recovered fumbled. You people need to stop smoking your crack.

 

 

You can't fumble a ball if you never had possession.