League now admits Polamalu reversal was incorrect

[Red Hawk]

Thought this deserved a thread of its own!

NEW YORK (AP) -- The NFL said the referee made a mistake: Troy Polamalu caught the ball.

The league acknowledged Monday that referee Pete Morelli erred when he overturned on replay Polamalu's interception of a Peyton Manning pass Sunday in the playoff game between Pittsburgh and Indianapolis.


Mike Pereira, the league's vice president of officiating, said in a statement that Morelli should have upheld the call, made with 5:26 left in Pittsburgh's win over the Colts.

After the reversal, the Colts went on to score a touchdown and a 2-point conversion, cutting the Steelers' 21-10 lead to 21-18. That led to a wild final few minutes and Pittsburgh clinched its win only when the Colts' Mike Vanderjagt missed a 46-yard field-goal attempt.

On the play, Polamalu made a diving catch of Manning's pass, tumbled with it in his hands and got up to run. When he did, he fumbled the ball, then recovered. Colts coach Tony Dungy challenged and Morelli ruled Polamalu had not completed the catch.

About a dozen TV and scoreboard replays indicated otherwise. Had the call stood, the Steelers would have had the ball at their own 48 with an 11-point lead.

"The definition of a catch -- or in this case an interception -- states that in the process of making a catch a player must maintain possession of the ball after he contacts the ground," Pereira said.

"The initial call on the field was that Troy Polamalu intercepted the pass because he maintained possession of the ball after hitting the ground. The replay showed that Polamalu had rolled over and was rising to his feet when the ball came loose. He maintained possession long enough to establish a catch. Therefore, the replay review should have upheld the call on the field that it was a catch and fumble.

"The rule regarding the performing of an act common to the game applies when there is contact with a defensive player and the ball comes loose, which did not happen here."

The NFL almost never makes public the result of its reviews, although it did three years ago, when Pereira said officials should have called pass interference against San Francisco on the final play of a wild-card game with the New York Giants. The correct call would have given New York a second chance to kick a game-winning field goal in a 39-38 loss.

After the game, Pittsburgh linebacker Joey Porter said of the ruling:

"I know they wanted Indy to win this game; the whole world loves Peyton Manning. But come on, man, don't take the game away from us like that."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello had no comment on Porter's statement.

In the past, players who have made such statements have been subject to fines.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published

 

[Billy Flynt]

I disagree.

The rule states that the player must maintain control of the ball to the ground or conversely, he needs to make a "football move" which would be the getting to his feet. I really think that the ref got it right according to the interpretation of the rule. Now, they may need to change the rule... but that is another issue.

 

[NEZCardsfan]

I think rolling over and over about 50 times constitutes a football move. Plus the getting up, nobody had downed him yet.

I would have loved to see what would have happened if Indy would have recovered that fumble.

 

[Duckjake]

I've never liked the different rules for what constitutes a "catch".

If a runner can get credit for a TD or a first down without ever touching the ground at the spot necessary for either of those then a receiver ought to be credited with a catch if he has control of the ball anywhere on the football field. Both in the air and on the ground.

No two feet in. No "make a football move".

If the ground can't cause a fumble then it shouldn't cause an incompletion either.

Especially since one of the great moments of Cardinal football, Mel Gray's TD catch against Wash., on Monday Night Football would be ruled incomplete today.

 

[Scott MS]

If Indy had won the game, the league office would never had admitted their mistake. Too bad.

 

[WisconsinCard]

I've never liked the different rules for what constitutes a "catch".

If a runner can get credit for a TD or a first down without ever touching the ground at the spot necessary for either of those then a receiver ought to be credited with a catch if he has control of the ball anywhere on the football field. Both in the air and on the ground.

No two feet in. No "make a football move".

If the ground can't cause a fumble then it shouldn't cause an incompletion either.

Especially since one of the great moments of Cardinal football, Mel Gray's TD catch against Wash., on Monday Night Football would be ruled incomplete today.

Solid, I agree totally. The football move thing leaves to much grey area.

 

[phillycard]

If Indy had won the game, the league office would never had admitted their mistake. Too bad.

No, I think they would have Scott, which would have made it a lot worse. I remember a few incidents where the refs admitted blowing it after the game was lost.

 

[CardLogic]

The rule states that the player must maintain control of the ball to the ground or conversely, he needs to make a "football move" which would be the getting to his feet. I really think that the ref got it right according to the interpretation of the rule. Now, they may need to change the rule... but that is another issue.

Do you see that "little" two letter word in there...

 

[Russ Smith]

Especially since one of the great moments of Cardinal football, Mel Gray's TD catch against Wash., on Monday Night Football would be ruled incomplete today.

That wasn't on MNF was it? I remember the play but for some reason I thought it was a Sunday game, I seem to recall CBS(they did the NFC back then) cutting in to show us the play, and then later to show us the result.

Referees huddle for what seems like 10 minutes, Fred Silva finally signals TD, and I go nuts. Always thought it was a bad call but I hated Washington and that dirty CB Pat Fischer so I was happy they blew the call. I know they changed the rule precisely because of that play.

 

[Billy Flynt]

Do you see that "little" two letter word in there...

Exactly. He technically did neither. The ref made an interpretation of the "crappy" rule that they have in place. There is no definition of "football move". Since his knee was still down when the ball came out he is technically still on the ground.

I'm not apologizing for the ref or the Colts. And either way, this play has nothing to do with Bettis' fumble 5 minutes later. I don't like the rule as it is now and maybe they will come up with something now to fix it.

IMO, the ref interpreted the rule correctly. It just goes to show how the current rule can negate what we all can agree was an interception. To me, the NFL threw the ref under the bus (no pun intended).

 

[Billy Flynt]

This reminds me of the Bryant Johnson catch against the Steelers two seasons ago, which we got hosed on. Again, the correct interpretation of a crappy rule negated a legal catch.

 

[Duckjake]

That wasn't on MNF was it? I remember the play but for some reason I thought it was a Sunday game, I seem to recall CBS(they did the NFC back then) cutting in to show us the play, and then later to show us the result.

Referees huddle for what seems like 10 minutes, Fred Silva finally signals TD, and I go nuts. Always thought it was a bad call but I hated Washington and that dirty CB Pat Fischer so I was happy they blew the call. I know they changed the rule precisely because of that play.

You are right it was a Sunday game. Cards won in OT.

I remembered seeing the game on TV and since we seldom ever saw the Cards unless they were playing Dallas assumed it must have been a MNight game. Getting old and after 30 years all the games are starting to run together I guess.

 

[CardLogic]

Exactly. He technically did neither.

Huh??

"The rule states that the player must maintain control of the ball to the ground OR conversely, he needs to make a "football move".​

He caught and "maintained control of the ball to the ground".

That's a catch!

The OR part (not AND) means when the player DOES NOT go to the ground following the reception of the ball, he must maintain possesion while making a "football move" for it to be a catch.

The ref was incorrect with his review and the NFL has said so.

 

[WisconsinCard]

Huh??

"The rule states that the player must maintain control of the ball to the ground OR conversely, he needs to make a "football move".​

He caught and "maintained control of the ball to the ground".

That's a catch!

The OR part (not AND) means when the player DOES NOT go to the ground following the reception of the ball, he must maintain possesion while making a "football move" for it to be a catch.

The ref was incorrect with his review and the NFL has said so.

The player only needs to make a "football move" if there is contact with a defensive player. If theres no contact all the player has to do is maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground which is what happened. That's why they are saying they made a mistake.

 

[CardLogic]

The player only needs to make a "football move" if there is contact with a defensive player. If theres no contact all the player has to do is maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground which is what happened. That's why they are saying they made a mistake.

Isn't that what I said???

 

[CardinalChris]

seriously, that was a freaking INT. The only reason the NFL said this was a mistake is it didn't cost Pit the game. Imagine if they lost the game?

 

[WisconsinCard]

Isn't that what I said???

Yes, thats why I agreed with you.