Colts/Steelers

[Blue In BC]

Was there ever a time when the CFL front office admitted that an official made a wrong call? If not, then I would have to say the NFL front office is much better for admitting a mistake by an official.

Yes. On the Stokes close line in 2004, they siad later a call should have been made.

That probably did cost us the game.

[Blue In BC]

I thought the refs blew the call because 1) he had possession/control 2) when he got up following the interception his one knee was off the ground and the second knee hit the football out of his hand...so quite simply it was an interception, beginning of a run following the intercetpion, a fumble, and a fumble recovery! He did not lose control when in contact with the ground.

Except one knee was still on the ground ( left I think ) and his right knee hit the ball as he was rising knocking it lose. If his left knee had cleared the ground, I think they would have had no choice but to call it an int and a fumble.

The grey area here is that usually the contact with the ground causes a player to lose control of the ball. That was not the case here, because it was a body part that caused him to lose the ball after he had possession.

The rule needs to be changed. Whether that is to allow a judgement by the ref or a word change in the rule, I don't know.

Hard to define that he had it " long enough " Where does a ref draw that line on a call.

Fortunately it didn't decide the outcome of the game. It could have.

Edit: If it HAD changed the outcome of the game, I wonder if the VP of officiating would have said anything. We'll never know.

Except that Palamula (sp) had a stride and a half before he went down to the ground rolled and got up. I am sure that even in the deepest of interpretations that was an INT. That was a brutal call that came close to affecting the outcome that wasn't in the NFL's favour. It is also why the conspiracy theorists have come out.

The rule says you must have control of it when you hit the ground. It's no different if a receiver catches an over the shoulder pass while running at full speed and as a result ends up on the ground, losing control when he hits the ground.

I don't watch the NFL that often, but even I've seen the same application of the rule all year. The problem here is that he did have control of it when he hit the ground and lost it while he was still on the ground.

There is nothing in the rule that says a player can roll over 27 times after looking to have gained contol and then lose it on roll 28 that it's still considered possession.

I exaggerate, but I've also seen TD's over ruled where the receiver caught the ball and while hitting the ground, the ball is stripped by the DB.

[Robbie]

Referee Pete Morelli's house was vandalized.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref in controversy has house vandalized
FOXSports.com

NFL referee Pete Morelli is having a rough week.

On Sunday, Morelli made one of the more controversial calls in NFL history, overturning what appeared to be an interception by the Steelers' Troy Polamalu. On Monday, his Stockton, Calif. home was vandalized, according to police reports.

Lieutenant Thomas Wells of the Stockton Police Department told FOXSports.com's Jay Glazer that a police report was filed after a rock was thrown through Morelli's living room window late Monday night after Morelli and his wife had gone to bed. Lt. Wells emphasized that police had no suspect and no motive in the case and could not say with any degree of certainty whether the act of vandalism was related to Sunday's call.

"We are aware of the situation and we're cooperating with police in any way we can," said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello.

On Monday, the NFL admitted that Morelli had erred when he used instant replay to overturn the interception. Mike Pereira, the league's VP of officiating, said in a statement that the call on the field should have stood.

"He maintained possession long enough to establish a catch," Pereira said. "Therefore, the replay review should have upheld the call on the field that it was a catch and fumble."

Fortunately for Morelli ? and the Steelers ? while the botched call allowed the Colts to eventually pull within a field goal, it ultimately did not play any role in the outcome of the game, which Pittsburgh won, 21-18.

[Rammer]

Except one knee was still on the ground ( left I think ) and his right knee hit the ball as he was rising knocking it lose. If his left knee had cleared the ground, I think they would have had no choice but to call it an int and a fumble.

The grey area here is that usually the contact with the ground causes a player to lose control of the ball. That was not the case here, because it was a body part that caused him to lose the ball after he had possession.

The rule needs to be changed. Whether that is to allow a judgement by the ref or a word change in the rule, I don't know.

Hard to define that he had it " long enough " Where does a ref draw that line on a call.

Fortunately it didn't decide the outcome of the game. It could have.

Edit: If it HAD changed the outcome of the game, I wonder if the VP of officiating would have said anything. We'll never know.

Except that Palamula (sp) had a stride and a half before he went down to the ground rolled and got up. I am sure that even in the deepest of interpretations that was an INT. That was a brutal call that came close to affecting the outcome that wasn't in the NFL's favour. It is also why the conspiracy theorists have come out.

The rule says you must have control of it when you hit the ground. It's no different if a receiver catches an over the shoulder pass while running at full speed and as a result ends up on the ground, losing control when he hits the ground.

I don't watch the NFL that often, but even I've seen the same application of the rule all year. The problem here is that he did have control of it when he hit the ground and lost it while he was still on the ground.

There is nothing in the rule that says a player can roll over 27 times after looking to have gained contol and then lose it on roll 28 that it's still considered possession.

I exaggerate, but I've also seen TD's over ruled where the receiver caught the ball and while hitting the ground, the ball is stripped by the DB.

Well he had possession priro to him landing on the ground and knocking the ball out of his possession, and most likely why the ruling was pointed out as an error.

[Blue In BC]

Lots of receivers have possession prior to landing on the ground and losing it.

Don't take it out on me. I agree that the refs should have been able to make a judgement that it was an INT.

He didn't lose possession because of the ground. He lost possession while still in contact with the ground. That's the error with their dumb rule.

[Rammer]

Lots of receivers have possession prior to landing on the ground and losing it.

Don't take it out on me. I agree that the refs should have been able to make a judgement that it was an INT.

He didn't lose possession because of the ground. He lost possession while still in contact with the ground. That's the error with their dumb rule.

LOL. Not taking it out on you, the refs did say it was a catch and fumble recovery. It was the replay booth that went to the extent of overturning that call. The only positive of it was the league admitting to it and that the Steelers weren't golfing this week.

[notahomer]

I am sure glad I'm not an official. The only time you seem to get noticed is when you make a mistake. One thing I have noticed recently (past 2-4 years?) that officials seem to talk things over as a group and come to a group decision. I like this. Why not all find out what each other saw and go from there??? All things considered replay seems to catch enough mistakes that I'm glad it's part of the NFL. I'm looking forward to replay overturning the odd call that seems to crop up here in the CFL.

[Blue In BC]

Lots of receivers have possession prior to landing on the ground and losing it.

Don't take it out on me. I agree that the refs should have been able to make a judgement that it was an INT.

He didn't lose possession because of the ground. He lost possession while still in contact with the ground. That's the error with their dumb rule.

LOL. Not taking it out on you, the refs did say it was a catch and fumble recovery. It was the replay booth that went to the extent of overturning that call. The only positive of it was the league admitting to it and that the Steelers weren't golfing this week.

I know you weren't. I was just making a point. I'm just saying I agree with the logic of the replay overturning it, based on the rule.

The intent of the rule isn't the same as the application of the rule.

It's obvious that the intent was loosing control because of the ground. He had possession and the ground had nothing to do with the loss of the ball with the small fact he was getting up off of the ground. It's a grey area which I hope they address.