Skip to content

PEREIRA PITCHES ANDERSON UNDER THE BUS

When NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira shows up for his retirement party later this year, he might want to make sure someone keeps referee Walt Anderson away from the cake.
During halftime Sunday’s NFC title game, FOX’s Curt Menefee reported that Pereira has admitted that the second-quarter kickoff by the Cardinals ruled out of bounds by Anderson’s crew “probably never was out of bounds.”
It’s amazing what an impending departure can do to loosen up a guy’s jaw.
That said, we disagree with Pereira.  The ball changed direction as it appeared to hit Victor Abiamiri’s arm.

Permalink 18 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Arizona Cardinals, Philadelphia Eagles, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
18 Responses to “PEREIRA PITCHES ANDERSON UNDER THE BUS”
  1. Vox Veritas says: Jan 18, 2009 4:46 PM

    FUMBLEAYAAAAAhahahahaha

  2. drian says: Jan 18, 2009 4:47 PM

    Yes he had his foot out of bounds as the ball hit his arm, which makes the ball out of bounds.

  3. Vox Veritas says: Jan 18, 2009 4:48 PM

    We’re taking up a collection to buy McGassed a bullet proof vest so he can go back to Philly and have a Santa’s chance of survival. To donate, go to:
    http://www.whatawasteofahundredmillionbucks.com

  4. truwarier says: Jan 18, 2009 4:55 PM

    another example of why the nfl officiating & competition committee is such a joke, now there is a rule in which you can’t even replay review out of bounds plays, the nfl has too many damn rules, no wonder players are always trying to rebel. Football is simple, you gotta block, tackle, catch, pass. Enough of these rigid rules, this referee debacle ensures tagliabue will never enter the hall of fame, it was under his watch that all these rules were in place.

  5. lionsFTW says: Jan 18, 2009 4:56 PM

    Should have been reviewed, and it should have been Arizona ball.

  6. ColdSteelerFan says: Jan 18, 2009 5:01 PM

    I think what Pereira was talking about was that the ball itself never went out of bounds, if Menefee quoted him exactly. Now yes, if it does hit the Eagle player while his foot is out of bounds, then it is dead there. But why that play isn’t reviewable is beyond me.

  7. leatherneck says: Jan 18, 2009 5:05 PM

    It’s Arizona’s ball only if (1) the ball never went out of bounds, and (2) the Eagle never touched the ball while he was out of bounds. From my comfortable chair in the living room, it looked like Arizona’s ball to me.
    They’re probably going to win anyway. Momentum is with the Cardinals.

  8. TexasStar says: Jan 18, 2009 5:13 PM

    The ball was OBVIOUSLY out of bounds, due to the fact that it touched Abiawhatever’s arm while his foot was CLEARLY on the white o.b. line. plus, the ref on the field had the perfect angle and was right there for the call.

  9. Wick says: Jan 18, 2009 5:24 PM

    Simple: the ball, regardless of whether touched by an in-bounds player at the time of touching, … the BALL on the kickoff did NOT go out of bounds.
    Translation: LIVE BALL. Should have been Cards’ ball right there.

  10. Cjd1 says: Jan 18, 2009 6:25 PM

    @Wick, you have the rule wrong. If the Eagles player has a foot out of bounds when the ball touches his arm, the ball is dead and its Eagles ball there. That was the ruling on the field. There is no evidence that shows the ball did NOT touch the Eagles player (which would be required to overturn it).
    The call was correct.

  11. elduderino says: Jan 18, 2009 6:46 PM

    The ball didn’t touch him. The ball also “reversed direction” when it hit the ground. You can clearly see daylight between the ball and him.

  12. Outsyder says: Jan 18, 2009 6:48 PM

    The rule is:
    If you establish yourself out of bounds and then touch the ball, it is equal to the ball going out of bounds on its own. Thus, a penalty. It’s not debatable. You can complain all you want about the official’s call, but he was clearly out of bounds and it touched him.
    That’s the rule. It’s happened several times in the past years, specifically, this year with Leon Washington.

  13. Wick says: Jan 18, 2009 6:49 PM

    cjd1 – thing is i never saw player touching ball WITH foot out of bounds — but if that’s the case, i can see the other side.

  14. Patscantcheatkharmabitches says: Jan 18, 2009 7:01 PM

    The call was wrong but ultimately correct. They did not call that the ball hit his arm while he was out of bounds. They said it hit him and went out of bounds. The result was the same but the call was wrong.
    The real issue is why in the F_CK isn’t it reviewable. Stupid.

  15. SouthJerseyMaulers says: Jan 18, 2009 7:53 PM

    The only way that call on the field was correct was if it hit the Eagles player TWICE. It had to hit him once while he was in bounds, and then again when he was out of bounds. If it only hit him while he was in bounds, then the Cards could recover. If it only hit him while he was standing out of bounds, then it should have been an illegal procedure call against the Cards and the Eagles should have had the ball at the 40. Or if it just went out of bounds first and then bounced back, it would be illegal procedure and the ball would be on the 40.

  16. LuckyCharms says: Jan 18, 2009 8:30 PM

    Okay, since it appears most of you guys don’t know what you saw or even what the rules are, the ball may or may not have hit Abiamiri. Assuming it did, he was in bounds during both potential touches. The ball also remained in the field of play. This maintains the balls status as in play. The play was not reviewable though it should have been. The only time a play should not be reviewable is when the outcome of that play has been altered, either by an early whistle etc. or when another play has been run.

  17. mnhit55 says: Jan 18, 2009 9:55 PM

    I think the play was unreviewable because the back judge threw a flag for free kick out of bounds (because he thought the ball hit the sideline without hitting the Eagles player) and blew it dead PRIOR to the Cardinals recovering.
    Once the officials convened and determined that it was not a penalty (because it hit the Eagles player on the way down), they picked up the flag and awarded the ball to the Eagles. This is further confirmed because the officials initially spotted the ball at the 40-yard line before spotting it correctly (or at least in accordance with their final ruling) at the 23-yard line.
    As LuckyCharms said, the officials must have determined that the erroneous whistle altered the outcome of the play, so the could not award the ball to the Cards.

  18. staffamerica74 says: Jan 19, 2009 12:47 AM

    I am glad that douche is retiring, loved see his explaination for hasselbecks low block when making a tackle during xl…. And the ingredients of a hold….

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!