Skip to content

Last word on the Louis Murphy non-touchdown

We were horrified last night by the fact that the ESPN “B” team didn’t realize that the second-quarter touchdown reception by Raiders receiver Louis Murphy wasn’t really a touchdown because Murphy fell to the ground while making the catch, the ball struck the ground, and — like Costanza getting a massage from a man — it moved.

We’ve been even more amazed by the sheer number of folks who write or talk about sports for a living who think that the referee blew the call.  (As to the Raiders fans who believe they’ve been deliberately screwed — again — it’s one of those red state/blue state, hot-button, heel-digging issues.  So we don’t expect to persuade any of them that the call wasn’t part of an ongoing conspiracy to keep the silver and black down.  So we won’ try.)

Earlier today, we contacted NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira for an explanation of the rule. 

We were informed that the applicable standard comes from Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1:

Player Going to the Ground.  If a player goes to the ground in the act of
catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control
of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or 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.”

So, basically, if the player goes to the ground while catching a pass and maintains possession of the ball at all times, the ball may touch the ground.  But if the ball moves while touching the ground, the player necessarily has lost control of it.

And that’s exactly what happened to Murphy.  He went to the ground, and when he hit the ground, the ball hit the ground, and it moved.

That’s the rule, folks.  In fact, the rule used to be that if the ball touched the ground at all in the act of making the reception, the pass was incomplete.

Here, the ball struck the ground, and the ball moved.

It’s not an anti-Raiders interpretation, and it’s something that folks in the media should have known. 

If they didn’t as of last night, we hope they do now.

Permalink 167 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
167 Responses to “Last word on the Louis Murphy non-touchdown”
  1. Mullester says: Sep 15, 2009 9:43 PM

    Don’t worry DHB still sucks!!

  2. Warpath says: Sep 15, 2009 9:44 PM

    So it doesnt matter if both his feet touch the ground?

  3. Facts Domino says: Sep 15, 2009 9:45 PM

    Yes the ball hit the ground, and yes the ball moved, but the ball didn’t bobble. He still had control.

  4. Abe Froeman says: Sep 15, 2009 9:46 PM

    Yeah! You tell ‘em.

  5. Sec19Row53 says: Sep 15, 2009 9:46 PM

    Did you send the link to this post to Gregg Rosenthal?

  6. Dillpx183 says: Sep 15, 2009 9:46 PM

    “If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass” ……hmmm does this distinguish between a player falling while still catching the ball and a player catching the ball, getting two feet down, and then falling/getting knocked down? because i recall the latter…

  7. Play4Blood says: Sep 15, 2009 9:47 PM

    Had this argument with a dozen Raider fans after the play happened. It’s like they forget that this rule gets utilized every other week in the NFL somewhere, be it in the endzone or with the player falling out of bounds, or whatever. Nope. It’s a conspiracy. They insist on playing the Raider Race Card and looking as foolish as a football version of Jesse Jackson.
    And they wonder why they’re an even bigger joke than the team they cheer for. Amazing.

  8. Bob S. says: Sep 15, 2009 9:47 PM

    ” If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), …………………
    ………. “he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground

    The problem is FOR HOW LONG MUST HE CONTROL IT AFTER HE TOUCHES THE GROUND?
    if a running back after contact knee touches the ground then he fumbles it is ruled down by contact.on many plays a running back fumbles AFTER hitting the ground. there is no reason rule should be different for receivers – NO REASON!
    EXCEPT it gives the refs a way to influence the game by giving them discretion over such plays.

  9. JackThibideaux says: Sep 15, 2009 9:48 PM

    The problem with your interpretation (and that jerk Mike Pereira’s) is that Murphy did maintain control WHILE GOING TO THE GROUND.
    He lost control WHILE GETTING UP.

  10. Cj34 says: Sep 15, 2009 9:49 PM

    The problem with your view Florio is that as soon as his butt hits the ground, he touches the ground. Therefore he maintained control after hitting the ground. So after two feet hit the ground, his butt hits the ground, and his elbow hits the ground….wtf does he have to do…..snowangels on the ground for 20 secs? Also if you were so “horrified” that no one knew the rule and you so obviously did, why is this story being written almost 24 hrs later. Nice try genius.

  11. DcNinerFan says: Sep 15, 2009 9:49 PM

    Raiders fans will still scream conspiracy. Its the norm. We just ignore it. Like Al Sharpton screaming racism on every issue. Its all just white noise (so to speak).

  12. shake&bake says: Sep 15, 2009 9:49 PM

    Yea i was shocked too that they kept saying it was a catch. I agree with the call but i just dont understand what was wrong with the way the rule was before. Catch the ball two feet down and its a touchdown. I dunno Billicheat and Brady must have wanted the rule changed so the league said no problem boss Billicheat we will get right on that !

  13. doublestuffflorios says: Sep 15, 2009 9:50 PM

    Gee Florio, you said five articles ago that this was an “extremely questionable overturned call.” And your calling out everyone else.

  14. Brewster says: Sep 15, 2009 9:50 PM

    Florio, you tried to hard to placate the Raiders fans in your explanation.
    They’re still going to whine about the call, and hate you because of your anti-Raiders bias and pro-NFL rules explanation.
    Quick translation…you can’t win with the Raiders fans.

  15. Naitch says: Sep 15, 2009 9:51 PM

    It isn’t that I didn’t believe that the rule existed, it’s just that I think the rule is incredibly stupid. Both of Murphy’s feet were down in the endzone with complete control of the football. That SHOULD be all that matters. What happens afterward should be irrelevant because the play should be over at that point. If a running back crosses the plane of the endzone, it’s a touchdown at that point regardless is he bounces the ball off of the ground as he is taken to said ground, so why should this be any different? If a receiver has already established control of the ball, then a ground shouldn’t be able to cause an incompletion anymore than it can cause a fumble.

  16. leatherneck says: Sep 15, 2009 9:52 PM

    Good post. Solid information, true, and accurate.
    I enjoyed Greenie and Golic and Steve Young’s play calling last night. Sure they got that call on the “touchdown pass” wrong but they were very conversational and refreshing. That was the best-called game I’ve heard in a long time. Much better than the forced-dramatic way Joe Buck has been calling games.

  17. as big as a hat says: Sep 15, 2009 9:52 PM

    T.u.c.k….r.u.l.e…

  18. Gabrosin says: Sep 15, 2009 9:53 PM

    Count me among the fans who believe the officials made a mistake on this play, or at least that there should be further clarification of the rule.
    I’m not a Raiders fan, and I was rooting for the Chargers in this game, but I do think the Raiders got a raw deal on the play in question.
    It was pretty clear that Murphy secured the ball out of the air, no bobbles… he had it in his arm as he started to “go to the ground”.
    The next thing that happened was Murphy’s ass hitting the ground. At this point on the reply, it was pretty clear that he still had full control of the ball; it wasn’t moving in his arm, and the impact didn’t jar it loose.
    Then, he continued to “go to the ground”, landing on the arm holding the ball. At this point, the ball jostled its way out of his grasp, winding up trapped against the ground for an instant and eventually out of his control entirely, before he scooped it back up off the ground and started to celebrate.
    So my question is: what does it mean to “go to the ground”? On a normal play for a ball carrier who has secured the ball, the player would be down (assuming contact was made, which it was) the instant his ass hit. The subsequent “rest of the body lands and ball comes loose” wouldn’t have counted. Now, I understand that the rules for securing a catch out of the air are different from those for simply moving with a ball already in your possession… but at what point is the receiver “grounded”? It seems to me that if a receiver is sitting in the end zone with full control of the ball, a subsequent push that puts you on the ground even further shouldn’t affect the play.

  19. lajimmy says: Sep 15, 2009 9:54 PM

    That’s great Mike, but Murphy clearly fell on his ass with the ball tucked in his arm. The play should have been dead right there. What exactly constitutes being down if sitting on your ass doesn’t? He didn’t lose control of the ball until he rolled over on his arm. The call was ridiculous and the fact the league is still trying to pass this off as correct is gutless. That was a TD.

  20. Rex Grossman says: Sep 15, 2009 9:54 PM

    I’ll admit, I didn’t know either. Makes sense though. This is what makes this site good. Not updates on twitter updates.

  21. as big as a hat says: Sep 15, 2009 9:55 PM

    The best part of this story is that finally, someone knows who Louis Murphy is.

  22. TSE says: Sep 15, 2009 9:55 PM

    It’s really a dumb rule that is worded illogically. If the ball touches the ground even the slightest amount, then it MUST be moving at some small amount as well. Even if it is not discernible to the eye, the ball is moving from the contact in some small way reflective of the small way it touches the ground. The rule needs better wording and Mike Perreira is a weak-minded fool who does a lousy job and doens’t know how to speak up for proper changes to eliminate any confusion on these types of plays. The NFL doesn’t even really understand its own rules and what they mean.

  23. Hail2ThaRedskins says: Sep 15, 2009 9:56 PM

    There is an ongoing conspiracy to keep the Raiders down…
    It’s called Al Davis.

  24. TFBuckFutter says: Sep 15, 2009 9:57 PM

    Good thing this didn’t happen in the snow or we’d never hear the end of it.
    (I would have gone with “playoffs” instead of “snow”, but I didn’t want to ruin a bunch of computer monitors by mentioning “playoffs” and “Raiders” and having people unintentionally spit their beverage of choice)

  25. Facts Domino says: Sep 15, 2009 9:57 PM

    Mike Pereira is just a dumb ass on the Patriots payroll.

  26. Treezs says: Sep 15, 2009 10:01 PM

    Chargers fan and this is BS.
    Mr Florio, please if you are capable – imagine a player on the back or side of the endzone. If he catches the ball, and puts both feet down – it is a touchdown. If he flys out of bounds afterwards, gets hit by a semi truck or throws the ball to a fan IT IS STILL A TOUCH DOWN.

  27. g-men4life says: Sep 15, 2009 10:01 PM

    This is the stupidest explanation i’ve ever heard for a ruling. If this was the case then every single catch by a WR or RB should be reviewed to make sure that he has the ball for a reasoning amount of time. No wait i have a better idea why don’t we just have the reciever hold onto the ball until the official sees fit that he has enough control……..This is why we are all starting to hate the retarded ass backwards rules that we must see in the NFL. Oh and your stupid for agreeing with this.

  28. SaintMichael says: Sep 15, 2009 10:03 PM

    It was the worst call ever and I wonder how much the NFL is paying Florio to try and defend that nonsense.

  29. ShruggingGalt says: Sep 15, 2009 10:05 PM

    Gabrosin got it….
    Even though they only showed the best angle ONCE as I can remember watching it live last night, it’s hard to see but if you look closely from the far side camera, he hits the ground, the ball comes out, out of his control. He then tries to quickly cover it up by regaining control, but it was too late, the camera doesn’t lie.
    If it had happened outside of the endzone this wouldn’t be a discussion, it would have been an incomplete pass, since he has to make some kind of “football move” after gaining control on the ground in order for it to be a completion.
    It was worsened by the fact that his arm was underneath the ball, since the ground technically can’t cause a fumble, but since his arm was a buffer, the ground caused the failure of control.
    While I didn’t think it was going to be overturned at first, I thought it should have been once they showed that one angle.

  30. JDeezy says: Sep 15, 2009 10:07 PM

    Yeah the ESPN broadcast was AWWWWWWFULL.

  31. Treezs says: Sep 15, 2009 10:08 PM

    Florio, what about this.
    The ground cannot cause a fumble. I have never seen a ball not move when a player hits the ground with the ball underneath him. How many of those catches have you seen overturned?
    I guess Murphy after showing posession, touching 2 feet down should have just thrown the ball out of bounds. What’s the difference? Is there an advantage to catching a ball and tip toing before going out of bounds? Happens all the time. Who cares about the ball after a player catches, two feet down, and falls out of bounds and drops the ball?
    If the ground cannot cause a fumble, then who cares if it moves? He had complete control of the ball, anytime someone that weighs 200+lbs comes down on a ball, it is going to move just like when someone reaches in to strip a ball, it’s going to move a little bit.

  32. Stone says: Sep 15, 2009 10:09 PM

    Florio, you and Rosenthal need to get on the same page. This is the second post you have dedicated to the overturned TD call from last night. For a topic that you seem so adamant about, it would seem like you would want your site to present intelligent discourse. There is also a disturbing trend of Rotoworld posts and PFT posts almost being word for word the same. If you’re going to have guys posting updates for both sites, at least have them change the verbiage.
    From Rosenthal’s earlier article re Heyward-Bay:
    “Murphy had four grabs for 87 yards and a touchdown against San Diego, and he would have had more if not for an extremely questionable overturned call on a would-be 19-yard touchdown.”

  33. nato2424 says: Sep 15, 2009 10:10 PM

    the espn “B” team was painful to listen to after how good of a job jaws, tirico and chucky did.

  34. Treezs says: Sep 15, 2009 10:10 PM

    “That’s the rule, folks. In fact, the rule used to be that if the ball touched the ground at all in the act of making the reception, the pass was incomplete.”
    The problem is, a reception is defined by having posession and breaking the plane even if for a millisecond. He catches, 2 feet down, down by contact, then ball moves. Silly silly silly.

  35. Zaggs says: Sep 15, 2009 10:11 PM

    It really comes down to the subjectiveness of “control”. Other refs have called that a touchdown as Murphy had his hand underneath the ball at all times. As others have pointed out the idea that the ball cannot move when hitting the ground is ludicrous. So now ANY movement of the ball is cause for no touchdown? As well as the fact Murphy’s butt hit the ground after he had both feet down.
    I cant believe the NFL tells teams that on an onside kick 4 players have to be at one side, but leave such BS calls up to the refs.

  36. Treezs says: Sep 15, 2009 10:12 PM

    “That’s the rule, folks. In fact, the rule used to be that if the ball touched the ground at all in the act of making the reception, the pass was incomplete.”
    The problem is, a reception is defined by having posession and breaking the plane even if for a millisecond. He catches, 2 feet down, down by contact, then ball moves. Silly silly silly.

  37. Treezs says: Sep 15, 2009 10:12 PM

    Where was the rule here? This ball moves.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOfouSAAkZY

  38. WeaponX says: Sep 15, 2009 10:16 PM

    looked like a td to me… how bout when Ben Watson caught it, then tucked it, and the ball hit the ground and moved… that catch should apply more to that silly rule… Murphy caught a TD, than got screwed. F that rule!

  39. Tiki's Barber says: Sep 15, 2009 10:16 PM

    I’m no Raiders fan. But the dude had his arm under the ball. And Mike/Mike/Steve did point that out. That was the main point they were arguing during the review.

  40. LJ24 says: Sep 15, 2009 10:21 PM

    Under this awful interpretation of the rule it is comparable to a baseball player catching a fly ball to end the inning and tossing the ball in the crowd and having it ruled a homerun.
    Something many failed to pick up on was that Murphy did not ever lose control of the ball until after the ref had put his hands up to signal a TD, thus ending the play……
    Raiders got screwed…as usual
    Throw in the two man bear hug by the Chargers O-Line on the V-Jackson TD and you can really see how bad of an outcome this was

  41. Brewster says: Sep 15, 2009 10:21 PM

    Someone might want to wake Al Davis up, wipe the drool off of his chin, wipe the smile off of his face, and tell him the player who made that catch in the end zone (before losing the ball) wasn’t DHB his $20M rookie, but Louis Murphy, a fourth rounder who he probabably let someone else who actually knows something about football pick in the fourth round.

  42. mlomarine says: Sep 15, 2009 10:22 PM

    Rule or no rule, reversing that call was a travesty!

  43. INVAIDUH says: Sep 15, 2009 10:24 PM

    Whether it’s the tuck rule or this one…
    Rules are rules….No “conspiracy” theory here.
    It is what it is….
    Played tough and looking forward to the season.
    GFY..To the hating dumps….

  44. Common Sense says: Sep 15, 2009 10:26 PM

    It was a catch, Final

  45. boltfanfromwv says: Sep 15, 2009 10:26 PM

    It amazes me how many so-called fans can say the call was incorrect. Don’t you watch football? This isn’t the first time this rule has cost somebody a catch or INT for that matter… it happens weekly. It’s the rule. If louis murphy would have bobbled the ball for twenty minutes in the endzone and then the ball hit the ground it would’ve been the same call. It’s the definition of “a catch.” If it doesn’t meet the criteria it’s not a catch whether in the endzone or sideline or midfield for that matter. Get a grip. Do you believe in karma? How about that holy roller?

  46. waaaaaaaaaa says: Sep 15, 2009 10:28 PM

    waaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! waa-waaaaaaaa

  47. Mike Dunbar says: Sep 15, 2009 10:28 PM

    The generally accepted standard as I’ve heard it is if you catch the ball and go to the ground with it you need to get up with it or it isn’t a catch. You can toss it away or spike it but if it comes out of your hands unintentionally you haven’t finished the catch.

  48. Common Sense says: Sep 15, 2009 10:29 PM

    It was a catch, the rule sucks. He was getting up and the ball fell out.

  49. drbob1117 says: Sep 15, 2009 10:29 PM

    Actually, Florio, you’re missing the point , as usual. You saw the play with your own two eyes. You clearly saw that the guy had caught the ball standing up with both feet on the ground; then only lost the ball after his butt and two other body parts hit the ground. It’s not that the ref missed the call, in fact, they called it exactly the way the rule was written and underlined how asinine the rule really is. The rule was conceived by the Competition Committee , those are the people to whom the rage should be directed . The rule should be amended to say if a catch is made in the end zone, and the player has 2 feet down, the play is over, just like if he crossed the plane of the goal line on a running play. You wouldn’t be able to knock it out after he crossed and call it a fumble, similarly, it should work that way with a passing play. Of course, this should only apply to plays in the end zone; on the field of play the DB’s should have every chance to dislodge the ball before the play is dead.

  50. snnyjcbs says: Sep 15, 2009 10:30 PM

    As coach Cable stated you see that play 20 times it is a touch down, the one time it is not it is the Raiders involved.
    Murphy caught the ball had control while hitting both feet down followed by his rear end all the while controlling the ball. As he started to get up he was realeasing the ball to rise to enjoy his first NFL TD.
    As the old sying goes do not piss down my back and try to tell me it is raining. Brady did not fumble the ball, there was no Liddel Fumble or a Raider triping at the one yard line in Seattle untouched and rolling into the endzone for a TD only to have them say he was down at the one as time ran out.
    For many many years people knew a fumble when they saw one. Today we must wait until the ref decides if it is a fumble or not. Nice little way to shift a game one way or the other if one wanted.
    For years evryone knew what a TD was and now the NFL is trying to tell all these people that they did not see what they know they saw.
    The play to me had nothing to do with the Raiders winning the game, the Raiders did not just dominate the Chargers they man handled them on both sides of the ball for most of the game.
    San Diego should not have even been close in the game to try a come back, it was the Raiders that let them hang around to long without finishing them off.
    Hey do you know how you can have Jerry Jones move the board above his field? Tell Shane Lechler off the cuff to hit the board on a punt and on the “do over” hit it again and again and again on Turkey Day, Lechler could make it seem like groundhog day.
    If after 6 or 7 years 80% of the people you talk to say that Brady fumbled in the Tuck Rule Game it is a fumble. You can call a Horse a Dog to but it does not make it so.

  51. bshinkle says: Sep 15, 2009 10:31 PM

    Florio – repeating the rule over and again doesn’t change the fact that it was inappropriately applied.
    He was down (two feet in the endzone) with control. Play should have been dead there. Nonetheless, his butt then touched the ground (still he had full control).
    The play was over – he wasn’t “going to the ground” – the play was over by the time the ball “moved.”
    Again, everyone knows the rule so you can stop repeating it – it was improperly applied.

  52. jjratt says: Sep 15, 2009 10:32 PM

    I would argue that the “act of catching the pass” was clearly established prior to the ball touching the ground. The rules clearly state that a body part such as an elbow, knee or butt are the equivalent of two feet. Nobody disputes the fact that Murphy had established possession with both feet on the ground and that his butt hit prior to his rolling over and having the ball touch the ground. If a body part such as a player’s butt is equivalent to two feet then clearly by the NFL’s own rules the equivalent of four feet (two feet plus a butt) had been established. Obviously the “act of catching the pass” was completed prior to Murphy losing control of the ball. If I were to use your logic then a player catching a pass with both feet on the ground who then does a summersalt and falls on his ass and loses possession of the ball would result in an incomplete pass. That is ridiculous.

  53. fate0111 says: Sep 15, 2009 10:32 PM

    Wow, it’s so amazing how NOBODY can pay attention. The ball moved but didn’t bobble and he still had control? There was one replay angle from just inside the goal line on the right side of the endzone that CLEARLY showed not only the ball moving, but it came out, landed on the ground and he wasn’t even touching it… He reached down between his legs and picked it back up… I realize they kept showing the other 2 angles that were inconclusive, but they showed this one angle only once…

  54. ZN0rseman says: Sep 15, 2009 10:33 PM

    Holy sellout Batman!
    Florio,
    1: It was a catch.
    2: Control was established.
    3: Two feet hit the ground.
    4: Control was maintained.
    5: The player hit the ground.
    6: The ball moved slightly as the player rolled across the ground, but control was still maintained.
    7: The ball cannot cause a fumble.
    8: That was a TD.
    9: The Raiders got screwed, again.
    10: Which continues the trend of small market teams like Oakland, Buffalo, Minnesota, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Detroit, ect, getting screwed over by the NFL officials.

  55. NoFootballtalk says: Sep 15, 2009 10:38 PM

    I think it’s a stupid rule. In some cases you can clearly see that the receiver used the ground to help secure the ball. But Murphy caught it, secured it (definitely no bobble), but because of the way his arm hit the ground on impact, he lost control of the ball. There is that rule that says “the ground cannot cause a fumble,” so why should this be any different? There is definitely a distinction between trapping the ball on the ground or loosing control on the way down, and catching but geting an unlucky break because of the landing. He had 2 feet down and he clearly caught the ball, the play should end there. I think this issue should be at least considered because it really changes the complexion of games.

  56. Tomlimoss says: Sep 15, 2009 10:40 PM

    Bottom line is that it was a brutal call. Let the refs call the game, and leave the over thought, over analyzed, improper interpretations of the rules out of it. Why can’t we hear whats being said between the booth and the ref? If the head set is so the ref can hear whistles blow and things like that, then why does he need a mic? Also a brutal call in the Cleveland game where Braylon Edwards was interfered with, pushed out of bounds, got back in, made a great catch and the TD was still called back. The replay booth makes a mockery out of the game. When 90% of viewers and the 3 supposed experts in the analyst chairs all agree that it was ridiculous to even review the Murphy catch in the first place then leave it alone. Remember when picking the ball out of the air and getting 2 feet down before the ball hit the ground counted as a catch? Why over think it? Why make it so complicated? Why let the replay booth chirp in the refs ear that it wasn’t a catch, when the ref had the obvious and easy call right in the first place? Look out WWE here comes the NFL. hahaa

  57. DrBoogerLipsIsBack says: Sep 15, 2009 10:57 PM

    Horrible call. He had 128 parts of his body hit the ground IN THE ENDZONE. Breaking the plane with posession = touchdown.
    Even in playground football, I’d be ashamed to take that touchdown away from them.
    And no, I’m not a Raider fan.

  58. cleveland_DAEWOO says: Sep 15, 2009 11:02 PM

    stupid rule when applied in the endzone after the ball, while controlled, has ‘crossed the plain,’ but, uh, yeah, as has been mentioned by a few, its a bit disturbing to see such inconsistency within the site (rosenthal piece).

  59. waaaaaaaaaa says: Sep 15, 2009 11:07 PM

    waaaaa waa-waaaa waaa
    waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaa
    at least the Raiders beat the spread, thats pretty big for them

  60. GregO says: Sep 15, 2009 11:10 PM

    We know the rule and knew they were wrong in the booth but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a bullshit call.
    The rule was changed because of Riedel Anthony’s non-catch catch vs. St Louis and it needs to be reviewed and changed again after this horrendous example cost the Raiders a shot at the game.
    Now if only they could get a mulligan on Jamarcus Russell.

  61. PFTiswhatitis says: Sep 15, 2009 11:10 PM

    You too blew this one Florio. The player had control of the ball and it was not moving until it contacted the ground. Please re-read the rule you posted above. The refs blew this call.

  62. BradyQuinnsCodPiece says: Sep 15, 2009 11:11 PM

    How are the ppl commenting on this still not understanding the rule?? This type of play has been called the same way since ’99 when they changed the rule.
    IT WASN’T A CATCH!!
    Get over it and watch more football. I’m only 22 and I’ve understood the rule since they changed it (I was 12). It’s not difficult to get. As soon as the ball hit the the ground it moved far too much to say that he had control… Not to mention that he completely dropped it on the ground after that.

  63. stanjam says: Sep 15, 2009 11:11 PM

    I don’t agree with the way they do it, but the fact is it does not matter if the feet were down, knee, or hind end. When a receiver hits the ground when catching the ball, and the ball hits the ground, that ball must not move or it is incomplete. It does not matter if his feet/knee/or any other part of him touched the ground first. Under the old rule it would have been incomplete simply because the ball hit the ground.
    For the person comparing to running backs, there is a huge difference. The running back is RUNNING with the ball, and has established possession, therefore he is down as soon as his knee hits the ground. It is different with a receiver because they are in the act of catching the ball and establishing possession. Once he starts running with the ball and has established possession in that way, it is the same as a running back running the ball.
    So, read the rule again. It does not matter what part of the receiver hits the ground. If, in the act of catching the ball, he goes down, he must maintain possession. If the ball hits the ground during that act, it MUST NOT MOVE, or it is an incomplete pass. There was a play reviewed during the Pats game for the same thing, but it turned out that the ball probably didn’t touch the ground, and didn’t move at any rate. The “A” game commentators had it right on when they discussed it at the time. The “B” game commentators must not have been watching ESPN at the time.
    So get over it. Then again, most Raiders fans are still having fits about the tuck rule, another call that was made correctly, and yet the Raiders were somehow robbed.

  64. Treadstone says: Sep 15, 2009 11:13 PM

    First of all, this rule (or the wording, whatever) sucks. That being said, here’s my 2 cents worth. In the sport of football-barring rules and all the bs-that was a td; his feet and butt were down. BUT by the rules that are written he did not make it all the way to the ground while holding on to the ball; it sucks but that’s the game, move on. It happens almost every week.

  65. HarrisonHits says: Sep 15, 2009 11:14 PM

    “T.u.c.k….r.u.l.e…”
    I love the stupid Raiders fans who think they’re the only team in history that had the tuck rule enforced against them.
    Can’t remember where I saw it but I remember one article that says each team has it called against them an average of once a year. And in fact the Pats had it called against them earlier that same year when they were playing the Jets and it was as much a fault of the tuck rule that the Pats lost that game as the Raiders losing the snow game.
    Get over it. After that the Pats still had to drive down the field to score. Vinatieri still had to make arguably the greatest field goal kick in the history of the game, and that tied the game. The Pats still had to have another drive that let Adam make a 2nd shorter field goal to win.
    The tuck rule didn’t cost you the game, the Raiders defense in allowing those 2 scores and the brilliance of Tom Brady and company won the game for the Pats.

  66. SunnyD says: Sep 15, 2009 11:14 PM

    Remember the 2005 Buccaneers v.s Redskins wild card game?
    Exact same thing happened.
    Ruled incomplete
    It’s the correct call
    Get over it people…

  67. waaaaaaaaaa says: Sep 15, 2009 11:16 PM

    and i’m sure the ref is thankful he didnt get his jaw broken

  68. AutumnWind999 says: Sep 15, 2009 11:23 PM

    “If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or 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.”
    ————
    Nice try Florio. However, Murphy catches the ball. Has two feet down. Goes to the ground. His knee hits. Still has control. His hip hits. Still has control — OK, so he’s gone to the ground with two parts of his body making him officially down and hasn’t lost control of the ball. How long after he goes to the ground does he have to hold onto it?
    The rule doesn’t say.
    The common application of the rule on that play is that it’s a catch.
    Everyone in the stadium knew in their heart it was a catch. Everyone on the Charger sideline knew it was a catch. Everyone on the TV crew knew it was a catch. 90% of people at home knew it was a catch.
    If you want to apply the rule like this, it means that a receiver can’t let go of the ball on a catch where they go to the ground until they’re 100% back on their feet. They can’t flip the ball to an official while getting up and still on one knee. They can’t throw the ball aside in celebration. They have to hold onto it for however long it takes to get back on their feet. In the meantime, the defenders can hold the receiver down and rip the ball out of his hands until he can get back to his feet with full control of it.
    Explain how your interpretation of this rule is any different than this ridiculous scenario, Florio.

  69. MasterShake says: Sep 15, 2009 11:24 PM

    Great, we’re going to get another rule to clarify this rule which was supposed to clarify some other rule.
    College reviews every play! Is that where we’re headed?
    It’s bad enough we have old rich guys (fat) running around trying to officiate a game and instead of replacing them with some sort of, dare I say, smart athelete, we give them instant replay. Then to top it off, they’re given more rules then their senile minds can handle.
    Roid them up or something. Starcaps?

  70. Dan says: Sep 15, 2009 11:27 PM

    First off I’m not a Raiders or Chargers fan.
    I’m sorry Florio and NFL but by the rule saying that he must control the football to the ground the player did. His upper thigh hit the ground moments before the ball touch the ball. He was hit by a defender which in turn at that exact moment he is down by contact. Honestly I can see both ways but truthfully it was too close to overturn and he was down by contact.
    Also the referees were terrible that game how about the Chargers center who got injured on a no-play but the refs just blew the whistles hoping to stop play whatever happened to the refs running in to stop the play, seems to me that they were just lazy and a player for no reason was carted off.

  71. Humboldt420 says: Sep 15, 2009 11:33 PM

    Still high from the 49ers taking down the Cardinals, this play killed the buzz.
    (Despite what the my name says, I wasn’t on the herb).
    If you’re going by the letter of the rule, then yes, it was incomplete. But did the officials really need to make that call?
    The Chargers were as dumbfounded as the Raiders when the play went up to the booth.
    The Charger DB, Gregory, I believe, thought it was a catch, and so did Murphy.
    I’m a 49ers fan and even I’m completely shocked by the reversal.
    Spoke to several friends of mine in San Diego and they said the same thing… well… not the same.
    They began it by laughing and mocking the Raiders, but did say the team was robbed.
    It may sound like another “Raider” conspiracy and the play will add fuel to the fire.
    But I will say this, when Jerry Rice jumped over to the East Bay, even the great one, had some iffy calls against him while he was in Silver and Black.

  72. JSpicoli says: Sep 15, 2009 11:35 PM

    Florio,
    If the Raider’s fans are just delusional, as you attempt to point out, why are we here talking about the Raiders getting screwed by the same hair splitting of trivial rules interpretations each and every stinking year?
    You figure it out.

  73. darrius_heyward-bey-butterfingers says: Sep 15, 2009 11:36 PM

    Raider hater here- You need to ask Pereira to review the play in slow mo before clarifying the call. That was a catch unless Pereira says an ass counts as no feet.

  74. ParkerFly says: Sep 15, 2009 11:36 PM

    This is amazing. I’m a big Raiders fan but apparently I’m the only one intelligent enough to realize that according to the rule (as bad or stupid of a rule as it may be), that is was definitely an INCOMPLETE PASS. It doesn’t matter if every part of his body touches the ground before the ball does, if he loses control at any point of “falling” onto the ground it’s incomplete…you know, kind of like what he did…

  75. stanjam says: Sep 15, 2009 11:37 PM

    Oh, the other part of that that I did not mention should clear things up for you. IF he loses control of the ball when he hits the ground, he must maintain control of the ball. If he doesn’t, then he must regain control before the ball hits the ground. In other words, if he has control, lands on his rear or back, the ball pops out and hits the ground, it is incomplete, NOT a fumble. Just want to mention that, because it doesn’t matter what part of the player hits the ground first, the ball can’t pop out in the act of his hitting the ground. In this case though, the ball hit the ground while he was hitting the ground and it moved, case closed.

  76. AutumnWind999 says: Sep 15, 2009 11:45 PM

    So defenders can jump on a receiver who’s down in the end zone with control of the ball and rip the ball out before he stands up and it’s no catch?
    Nice interpretation of the rule!!! Jackasses!!!

  77. Oscar the Grouch says: Sep 15, 2009 11:45 PM

    It was a touchdown!!! Period.
    Lions fan here saying that and no one would lie about being a Lions fan.
    I mean give me a break…
    Across the board I am so disgusted with how the NFL operates anymore. To get a job as commentator for any of these lame networks you have to get on your knees for Brady, the Patriots, the Chargers, the Eagles, and a few others.
    Why can’t they just do simple play by play. Describe what is going on and give us some highlights of who the players are and stop being cheerleaders. Why do Mike/Mike/ and Steve Young get a shot at play by play for a Monday Night game? Is there no one else? No local guys anywhere that they could try out?
    Am I ranting? Maybe, but that call was so pathetic and too much to bare after those idiots drooling over the Patriots. And every year 90% of the “experts” pick the Chargers to win it all. Get a backbone!!!
    How could it be overturned? How?! Must be a joke.

  78. sancho13 says: Sep 15, 2009 11:46 PM

    Sure that’s the rule but the conspiracy is in the timing of the call itself. That infraction would never be called on the patriots in the last two minutes of the half, only the Raiders. Example…the tuck rule did exists before the snow bowl but it wasn’t called until the raiders were about to win the game and go to the superbowl. The ref’s can’t make up rules but chose to use obscure rules against the raiders at key times in games. There is a conspiracy against the Raiders and it has been that way since the raiders sued the NFL in the late 90’s for screwing them out of a stadium.

  79. Booze Lee says: Sep 15, 2009 11:47 PM

    hahaha, a few guys on here get it, but most of you come off as computer nerds pretending to know about football. your interpretations of the rules are worse than florio’s grammar. at least florio has the capacity to understand and properly interpret the rules of the game. the majority of the posts on here have more spin on what happened than the spiral on jamarcus russell’s DROPPED td pass to murphy. you guys are exposing yourselves and your football knowledge (or lack thereof).

  80. Junior says: Sep 15, 2009 11:47 PM

    Play4Blood, dude are you a closet Raider fan? You bash Raider fans but yet you participate in live chats on Jerry McDonald’s Raider Blog??
    You spend an awful lot of time hanging around/following the Raiders.

  81. SunnyD says: Sep 15, 2009 11:50 PM

    2005 Buccaneers v.s. Redskins Wild Card Game

  82. Dont Taze Me Bro says: Sep 16, 2009 12:06 AM

    The play should have been over when his butt hit the ground. That is the equivalent of taking a step and getting a 3rd foot down. That’s a catch.
    If the NFL sticks by this interpretation then how can they penalize defensive players for hitting a WR who catches a ball in the endzone? The DB should level him because if he hits the ground and fumbles, it’s not a catch apparently.
    Seriously, who is to say what “going to the ground” means. If the WR stubles a bit, blast him and claim he was “going to the ground” because of his stumble and he has to then maintain possession. If that’s the rule, then you’re allowed to hit the guy, right?

  83. LUNATIK RAIDER says: Sep 16, 2009 12:06 AM

    The call was wrong and this is why. I agree the ball didn’t move until he landed ontop of it but before then not only did he have two feet in but he also landed on his butt with controle now if he had controle when he landed on his but before the ball moved wouldn’t also be down by contact? The rule booke says this rule also applies to “In the field of play” and if that’s if this play happened on the field wouldn’t of SD challenge it as a fumble with the refs review as being down by contact? I’ve seen this same thing happen before. Like Shockey and the Saints on Sunday he had both feet in but as he was falling his butt landed on the out line in the back of the endzone so why was that still a touchdown? So don’t tell me that was a fair call cause those are reasons why it wasn’t! Try to answer this for me then expert?

  84. raideralex99 says: Sep 16, 2009 12:12 AM

    If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.
    Here’s the problem … he did have control with BOTH FEET on the ground and then he fell to the ground. It’s a stupid rule … a RB or QB can fumble the ball running into the endzone but if he breaks the plain by one fricken inch … it’s a TD.
    It doesn’t matter the Raiders DID NOT lose on that play … they lost because of their #1 BUST of a QB who in his 3rd year still DOES NOT know the playbook … WOW!

  85. pacstud says: Sep 16, 2009 12:28 AM

    Not only did he lose control/bobble it, in one frame the ENTIRE ball is out of his grasp…easy call made correctly.

  86. Karl says: Sep 16, 2009 12:29 AM

    It doesn’t matter. As soon as he showed possession and had two feet down, which the officials say he did, it’s a touchdown. The endzone is treated a little bit differently than the rest of the field.
    This is like a RB carrying the ball from the 1 and leaping over the pile. How many times have we seen this happen? The RB leaps over the pile, sticks the ball out across the goal line and has it knocked away by a defender before he hits the ground. What’s the ruling? Of course, the ball crossed the goal line first, which means a touchdown. Now say this happened on the 50 and it was a first down on the line. The ball carrier sticks the ball out across the 50 and loses the ball before he hits the ground. What’s the ruling? A first down? No, it’s a fumble.
    The end zone is treated differently from the rest of the field. In this case Louis had possession of the ball with two feet down in the end zone. He got robbed. The “B” team was right.

  87. ItalianArmyGuy says: Sep 16, 2009 12:29 AM

    Holy crap! I just saw the video – man did he get hosed! The dude is sitting on the ground after catching it and making a football move. What do you care what happens to the ball after he is sitting on the ground in the end zone? He can flip it in the stands for all that matters at that point. The fact that he eventually got around to rolling over and moved the ball around as he got up off the ground is beside the point.

  88. JRLC says: Sep 16, 2009 12:30 AM

    i think it was a catch but the real problem is it’s rarely ever called on a consistant basis. its been called either way by the offical under the hood lol.
    everyone knows that rules says but its still not clear enough that officals cant call it consistantly. if the NOSE of the ball BREAKS the plain of the goaline its a TD & what ever happens to the ball after that doesnt count then why is it people cant make the catch in endzone, control to the ground & soon as they land nothing else counts.
    the guy caught the ball & controlled it to the ground & brunt of the hit jars it around. thats a catch & there taking away from the game.
    change the rule we…we know what it says & its not fair. Murphey made a nice catch & a lot of people agree with B class Mike & Mike/S. Young lol…

  89. ragin40 says: Sep 16, 2009 12:44 AM

    Pierria or whatever her name is, is just the appointed head zebra. He don’t know crap and probably never played the game on any level, it was a touchdown and would be for any other team. No worries though this raider team is set to explode on the scene. It must be a sad life to be a fan not of a team but trying to hate another team so much. Grow some huevos and root for a team.

  90. Silver&Black666 says: Sep 16, 2009 12:54 AM

    Whats being missed here amidst all of the Raider hate and conspiracy theory talk is that another Pro Football games was decided by the referees.

  91. todd bennett says: Sep 16, 2009 1:02 AM

    Your supposed to be the MEDIA you ROCK and you didnt know it.

  92. DallCowboyR1 says: Sep 16, 2009 1:12 AM

    It was a TD! Two feet were down & he had control.

  93. I didn't hear no bell. says: Sep 16, 2009 1:19 AM

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

  94. Unstaibl says: Sep 16, 2009 1:39 AM

    Ok, under that interpretation…the catch made by Antonio Gates that lead to the Chargers being at the 1 yrd line of the Raiders right before the half should have been ruled accordingly then…NO CATCH! Interestingly, that call was NOT made, it was ruled a catch even though he lost control when he went to the ground and the ball spit out and went into the endzone. I dont question YOUR interpretation but rather the selective use of said rule FOR and AGAINST some teams.

  95. Dan says: Sep 16, 2009 1:40 AM

    This is more just an absolute horrible rule not a call after reviewing it some more. The reason there is so much controversy of this is the NFL contradicts itself in all rules.
    Think about it how can you clock the ball and not get an intentional grounding its practically the same thing just different rules for same action. If Murphy had caught the ball outside the endzone landed on two feet and instantly dove for the goalline and crossed it but the ball came out when he hit the ground its a touchdown.
    In the end all these rules ruin the game!

  96. TheBigPicture says: Sep 16, 2009 1:45 AM

    I think the confusion and contempt aroused by this rule stems from the phrase “in the act of catching a pass”. Is there another rule that specifies exactly what that phrase means? At what point is “the act of catching a pass” consummated? If a guys snags a pass, stumbles off balance for five seconds with the ball clearly in his possession before awkwardly falling to the ground and losing control of the ball, is that a reception? To my way of thinking, Murphy had already finished catching that pass before he went down, that should have been a TD. I’m a Charger fan, no conspiracy here, but I’ve seen any number of similar “incomplete passes” in recent years that have left me wondering how long a guy has to hold onto the ball before it’s considered a completion.

  97. Unstaibl says: Sep 16, 2009 2:03 AM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqs_8thjvsc
    Roughly 1:22 mark, end of first half, Gates to the Raider 1 yrd line, as he hits the ground he extends to get into endzone and ball moves then squirts out, yet THAT was a catch under the same rule?

  98. Unstaibl says: Sep 16, 2009 2:05 AM

    Same night, different game….NE gets the TD
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBS8tTsnWE

  99. Tdk24 says: Sep 16, 2009 2:06 AM

    He was down by contact, 2 feet in, one a$$ check down, he is being touched by the opponent, BOOM! Down by contact. Although if your name is LT and you run up the middle and trip over a Raider DLmen’s leg that was probably being held by SD OLmen, you apparently get to get back up and run for 5 more yards before you are tackled again. It’s BS, the winning teams get all the breaks and the losing teams have to play that much better to keep it a close game. It’s a double standard and we all know it.

  100. Bob Nelson says: Sep 16, 2009 2:13 AM

    The ground can’t cause a fumble
    but it can cause an incompletion,
    even if the receiver has both knees down
    in the endzone with control of the ball.

  101. Hooded swan says: Sep 16, 2009 2:13 AM

    This particular play has been debated to exhaustion so I have 3 observations to make:
    Florio quotes the rulebook & then immediately contradicts it. The rule do not, as he says, require the player to “maintain possession of the ball at all times”. It allows him to lose possession & then regain possession before the play is dead.
    The Murphy play was a “Monday Night Football” call. Meaning that there are more cameras for MNF games than most regular season games. Without that extra camera angle that was replayed during the halftime break, the replay official was unlikely, IMHO, to overturn the call on the field.
    The rules are much kinder to runners than to receivers. A ball carrier can jump in the air to score a touch and it’s a touch as soon as the tip of the ball crosses the “imaginary plane” even if he promptly fumbles the ball & he is knocked back behind the goal line.

  102. 24Seven says: Sep 16, 2009 2:15 AM

    Treezs wins the prize of the day.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOfouSAAkZY
    If this catch in the Super Bowl is a legit catch, where clearly Holmes loses control when he hits the ground and the ball hits the ground, then Murphy’s should have been catch.

  103. huh says: Sep 16, 2009 2:37 AM

    Mr. Florio – as others have pointed out, I think you are missing the point of the legitimate questioning of this call. The phrase “he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground” if taken literally, means only that immediately upon touching the ground, the player must maintain control. As long as he maintains control for an instant, it’s a catch. Murhpy maintained control for much longer than an instant. He had multiple body parts hit the ground while still maintaining control, then as he rolled over, he lost control. According to the letter of the rule you quote, this should have been a touchdown. I believe it should have been a TD according to the spirit of the rule as well. It seems ridiculous to require a player to hold the ball on the ground for an extended period of time. I have seen this rule invoked before, but it has only been invoked when a player loses the ball upon hitting the ground, not after hitting the ground with both butt, elbow and side. I would appreciate you addressing this argument. Thank you.

  104. The Centurion says: Sep 16, 2009 2:57 AM

    Its not like you to run someting into the ground like this Florio. Im a Bronco fan (I know sucks to be me) and I think if the rule says it wasnt a touchdown, its a crappy rule, and that doesnt look undisputable to me since were still talking about it the next nigh, which every call should be right? Your acting like a bratty little kid on this one Michael.

  105. raideralex99 says: Sep 16, 2009 3:23 AM

    I love all these Raiders haters it’s an incomplete pass … read the rules.
    Yes read the rules … there’s holding on every play … do they call it? Maybe they should review it?
    So every player catching a ball in the end should be smack to the turf after the catch and if the ball moves … it’s not a TD … great rule.

  106. veistran says: Sep 16, 2009 4:08 AM

    Do people just not watch football games? I’ve seen this same rule applied to have receptions in the endzone, on the boundary and in the middle of the field overturned or ruled as incomplete on the field easily 20 times just last year.

  107. CHILDPLEASE says: Sep 16, 2009 5:16 AM

    I dont care what team you root for this rule sucks! Blame instant replay for this, that they break down every movement. I don’t think this is what instant replay was intended to do, to capture the slightest movement of the ball. Instant replay was put into place to determine whether a catch was made or not. He caught the ball. Period thats what matters it was a catch. Now to break down that the ball moved and squirted loose after he fell to the ground is just BS.

  108. OscarMooseFarmer says: Sep 16, 2009 5:16 AM

    “We’ve been even more amazed by the sheer number of folks who write or talk about sports for a living who think that the referee blew the call.”
    Including ofcourse PFT itself courtesy of Gregg Rosenthall.

  109. ruben831 says: Sep 16, 2009 5:22 AM

    ALRIGHT THEN NOT A BAD CALL..
    I ALWAYS THOUGHT THOUGH THAT IF A RECIEVER HAD TWO FEET DOWN IN THE END ZONE IT WAS A TOUCHDOWN BUT I GUESS NOT MY BAD!

  110. Eli says: Sep 16, 2009 6:31 AM

    @ Mike Florio
    As I previously pointed out to you and so have quite literally DOZENS of others here he HAD CONTROL when he hit the ground!
    His butt hit the ground WHILE MAINTAINING POSSESION!
    Then his elbow was next, then this arm.
    The ENTIRE time while he was on the Ground he was being touched by the San Diego defender.
    Therefore Mike, he had control just like the rulebook states.
    Hey Florio, talk to Periera all you want pal!
    ANYBODY with a set of eyes and not lying to themselves can see what I wrote here TRULY happened.
    Also, may I remind you Mike, that it also states that their has to be INDISUPTIBLE visual evidence to overturn the original ruling on the field.
    The mere fact that we have the NFL buffoons looking at the play under a microscope is evidence enough that they did NOT have what it took to overturn it in the first place.
    HEY FLORIO, how does it feel to be a sellout NFL apologist?
    Time and time again the average fan at home can see what the officials can not.
    Spin it any way you want Florio but the VAST majority with a set of eyes can clearly see that it was a lousy call.

  111. MrSalamander says: Sep 16, 2009 6:35 AM

    @Booze Lee: Explain this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBS8tTsnWE&feature=related
    There’s a clear call one way against the Raiders and a 180˚ switch when the Precious Patriots were on the field.
    Watch the video, sheep.
    You want a little more gas for this fire? Try the TWO intentional grounding calls that were given the ol’… “Meh… who cares? We gotta stick Al for suing the 31 other bosses” treatment by those 3 dimwits in the booth. Memo to Steve Young: Keep the long, drawn out speeches out of the broadcast booth – it’s painful to listen to you struggle to find your succinct bone. And Mike & Mike – shouldn’t you have spent most of the game doing what Florio and every mediot out there shoulda been doing: Preparing an apology for Mr. Seymour? Maybe some flowers?
    And just for the record – I find it hilarious to hear all you Charger fans playing coy with our complaint on yet ANOTHER ridiculous call when every one of you Never-Was fans tears their clothing and puts ash on their head at the mention of Ed Hochuli. Short memories, short minds, short… yeah.

  112. Raiders757 says: Sep 16, 2009 7:46 AM

    Funny how some of you idiots are ripping on Raiders fans who think the call was incorrect, yet fail to realize that almost every other fan of the NFL agrees with them. I have been to several NFL forums where hardly a Raider fan is found, and the vast majority are screaming that this call was a sham. There may be two fans at each site that agree with the call. so get over yourselves. People have a right to their opinion, and the majority feel that it was a bad call.
    Myself? I could care less. I was over it by the time the third quarter started. There is nothing that can be done about it. The ref called it as how he saw it per his interpretation of the rules. Another ref may have called it different. My only issue is that the replay official admitted that they only used one angle to judge the call. That’s rather pathetic.
    The game is over. It’s time to move on to bigger and better things.

  113. Ron E says: Sep 16, 2009 8:05 AM

    I tend to agree with some of the comments here, that he did maintain control, the ball moved only because his arm and body moved when he hit the ground. But in the future Louis Murphy, protect the ball by getting 2 hands on it as you go to the ground.

  114. Mr Chris says: Sep 16, 2009 8:30 AM

    I was yelling at the TV when those three idiots in the booth were talking about that call. Mike and Mike are complete clowns.
    I was pulling for the Raiders 100% but there is no way that anyone who understands the rules, thinks that was a touchdown.
    Steve Young is also just embarrassing. The certainty in his at voice when he was explaining a completely incorrect version of the rules was comical.
    This was almost as comical as his recent appearance on Mike and Mike when he was expressing doubt about LT’s future. He said he LT was over 30 and that 30 was the “Maginot Line” line for running backs. So does he mean that LT is just going to blow through the age of 30 unabated like the Germans did into France? That is not what he meant, but he is too dumb to realize how his analogy could not have been any more wrong.
    All three of these guys are complete hacks.

  115. buckeye044 says: Sep 16, 2009 8:42 AM

    Hate the Raiders….but if a part of the body touches, isn’t the play dead at that point? I believe he landed on his hip or behind before the ball.

  116. realityonetwo says: Sep 16, 2009 8:44 AM

    9: The Raiders got screwed, again.

  117. mike says: Sep 16, 2009 8:48 AM

    Raider fans are like certain minority groups now. If you make a call against them your just anti-raiders.
    Your either with them or against them.

  118. jmoss03 says: Sep 16, 2009 9:19 AM

    not that it matters but if you watch the replay of the winning touchdown that ben watson caught, the ball moved on that reception as well, just saying be consistent.

  119. wiley16350 says: Sep 16, 2009 9:32 AM

    It’s funny how there is fans in every city that think the NFL is out to screw their team, but who is this ring leader that runs the NFL that is trying to screw over their team? In reality the NFL is run by the 32 owners. The only person you could be referring to is Goodell but what does Goodell have to gain buy having certain teams win. He gets the same pay no matter what happens. The reality is Refs can be incompetent and they make bad calls. But in this case the call was right according to the rules. The player recieved the ball and was in the process of falling to the ground while his feet hit the ground therefore he must maintain possession of the ball until his momentum is stopped. The one angle shows that he clearly lost complete possession of the ball (it didn’t just move he lost control of it) before his momentum was stopped. It used to be that once you had control of the ball it was a catch as soon as 2 feet, a butt or an elbow hit the ground. But now you have to maintain control of the ball until the momentum of the play is stopped. So according to the old rules this was a catch, but the new rule (which was adopted a few years ago) it was not a catch. And much like the tuck rule this rule is in place to keep it simple for the refs so they don’t have to make a judgment call. And yes in honesty Tom Brady fumbled the ball, but not according to the rules and this was a catch, but not according to the rules.

  120. jxb says: Sep 16, 2009 9:45 AM

    Mike, with all due respect, you are mis-reading the rule. Break down the two sentences.
    “If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.”
    (1) Did he maintain control of the ball when HE (the receiver, NOT THE BALL) hit the ground?
    Yes. check.
    (2) The second sentence appears to address a different scenario:
    “If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete.”
    Logically, this sentence applies WHEN the receiver loses control of the ball while the receiver or the ball is above the ground. (The “and” indicates a disjunctive event, “the ball touches the ground before he regains control.”If he does not lose control BEFORE he touches the ground, this is not the scenario we are talking about). This sentence did not apply, because he did not lose control of the ball. So, the general rule in the first sentence applies, and it was a catch.

  121. Absolute says: Sep 16, 2009 9:54 AM

    “It isn’t that I didn’t believe that the rule existed, it’s just that I think the rule is incredibly stupid. Both of Murphy’s feet were down in the endzone with complete control of the football. That SHOULD be all that matters. What happens afterward should be irrelevant because the play should be over at that point. If a running back crosses the plane of the endzone, it’s a touchdown at that point regardless is he bounces the ball off of the ground as he is taken to said ground, so why should this be any different? If a receiver has already established control of the ball, then a ground shouldn’t be able to cause an incompletion anymore than it can cause a fumble.”
    Because the runner has full control of the ball when he is crossing the plane. A WR still has to CATCH the ball and if he hits the ground, the ball cannot touch the ground and then move at all. Did you see Ben Watson’s TD catch? Same type of call but the ball did not move, hence the play stood as a TD! Know your rules.

  122. wiley16350 says: Sep 16, 2009 10:00 AM

    It’s funny how there is fans in every city that think the NFL is out to screw their team, but who is this ring leader that runs the NFL that is trying to screw over their team? In reality the NFL is run by the 32 owners. The only person you could be referring to is Goodell but what does Goodell have to gain buy having certain teams win. He gets the same pay no matter what happens. The reality is Refs can be incompetent and they make bad calls. But in this case the call was right according to the rules. The player recieved the ball and was in the process of falling to the ground while his feet hit the ground therefore he must maintain possession of the ball until his momentum is stopped. The one angle shows that he clearly lost complete possession of the ball (it didn’t just move he lost control of it) before his momentum was stopped. It used to be that once you had control of the ball it was a catch as soon as 2 feet, a butt or an elbow hit the ground. But now you have to maintain control of the ball until the momentum of the play is stopped. So according to the old rules this was a catch, but the new rule (which was adopted a few years ago) it was not a catch. And much like the tuck rule this rule is in place to keep it simple for the refs so they don’t have to make a judgment call. And yes in honesty Tom Brady fumbled the ball, but not according to the rules and this was a catch, but not according to the rules.

  123. CREEP says: Sep 16, 2009 10:03 AM

    Unstaibl says:
    September 16, 2009 2:03 AM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqs_8thjvsc
    Roughly 1:22 mark, end of first half, Gates to the Raider 1 yrd line, as he hits the ground he extends to get into endzone and ball moves then squirts out, yet THAT was a catch under the same rule?
    YOU*RE RIGHT…Gates “catch” was more of a drop than Murphy’s! His ass never hit the ground, the ball came out as soon as his body (and the ball) hit the ground! ROBBED!

  124. Absolute says: Sep 16, 2009 10:16 AM

    Would this call have caused this much drama if it was not for a TD.

  125. Jampa says: Sep 16, 2009 10:18 AM

    I understand what they are saying. just curious:
    How is this catch different from Santonio Holmes´super bowl winning catch? He catched the ball in the air, set both feet in the grass, then fell to the ground, ball first.
    To answer myself, the difference is one plays for the Raiders…

  126. ZombieRevolution says: Sep 16, 2009 11:03 AM

    We were horrified last night by the fact…
    I hate the royal “We” that Florios uses to state his own opinion. And given the gaffs made by this site and the gaps in Florio’s knowledge about football (which you could drive a truck through), being horrified about anything is something PFT should avoid. Somehow I’ll take Mike Golic who actually played the game, over a lawyer turned blogger….

  127. DanSnyder says: Sep 16, 2009 11:06 AM

    RAIDERS FANS, This rule is enforced on almost a weekly basis. It happened multiple times during the preseason. Even though I felt watching it it should be a touchdown as soon as I saw the review I knew IMMEDIATELY that according to the rule the was not a catch. It sucks yes, but its not the first time. It happens frequently.
    As for the superbowl catch, lol you people will look for anything, its totally different. The ball doesnt move around when he hits. He has clear possession. Stop looking for what isnt there. Holmes makes the catch with both feet in bounds and maintains possession while coming down! Thats all it is fellas.
    I want to end this rant by letting you know during the 3rd quarter I knew the chargers would win. The raiders (mainly russell) just arent good enough to win these games. That is the nfl. Hell the raiders went for it on 4th and 15 on their own 40! Russell couldnt hit any of the WRs unless they were slow or still. If russell just makes a couple throws it is a completely different game. Put this game on russell. HE IS THE REASON YOU LOST. Not the call. The call no matter how pissed you are was correct. I’ve seen it happen enough to call it immediately.

  128. Sixburgh Brandon says: Sep 16, 2009 11:19 AM

    Sorry Raider’s fans, but this is not an “obscure rule” dusted off to slight the Raidahs. This is applicable on every single pass play. It is used to define possession every time a player goes down in the act of catching the ball. In the endzone or otherwise. Besides, the dope should’ve held onto the ball instead of trying to catch himself. Quit crying all the time, it makes your mascara run you dumb make-up wearing sissies.

  129. drbob1117 says: Sep 16, 2009 11:21 AM

    I actually believe that this absurd call ( and raiders 757 is right, I’m an Eagles fan, couldn’t care less about the outcome of an AFC game, but Lou Murphy got hosed) can lead to a “teachable” moment for NFL coaches as the prez would say. The coaches should now teach the receivers that as soon as you see the ref put 2 arms up, toss the ball in his direction or spike it; this will acknowledge that you saw the call and are finishing the play before anything else can transpire, like if you roll over 3 times on your butt and it takes 20 seconds to do so and the ball touches the ground once, it’s incomplete. I believe Troy Palomalu got robbed of a pick in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago because of the same asinine rule. If you change the rule to the guy only has to control it until two feet or a butt, or elbow, knee. hits the ground , then all of the catches will look like catches and all of the drops ( traps, etc.) will still be drops.

  130. boltfanfromwv says: Sep 16, 2009 12:17 PM

    You all keep saying it was a catch and he had established control… again, read the rule. It doesn’t matter if his other body parts hit the ground… it’s about the ball. The ball touched the ground and moved… period. And he didn’t maintain control either… he eventually dropped the ball altogether. Actually watch the play on YouTube or something. Did you watch Ben Watson catch the ball? It didn’t move. Then again everyone else in the NFL drafts receivers that can catch. Maybe the Raiders should try it some time. Oh yeah, get a QB who can acurately throw the ball too.

  131. radrntn says: Sep 16, 2009 1:05 PM

    Gotta give my props to the nation who know we got bent over once again. It’s hard enough to beat another team, but nearly impossible to beat a ref.
    Fact is te NFL has a rule book thay can justify anytime they want to bend over a team….
    But for the love of the game keep the flags in the pockets.

  132. radrntn says: Sep 16, 2009 1:12 PM

    hey bolt fan from wv , I sit in the visiting team players family section. Even they (all 3 of them) siad it was a catch.
    Bottom line game is over , We will beat KC, the bolts will lose to the ravens, and it’s all even.
    Round 2 is when the raiders have another home game later this year in San Diego. (trust me more then 3 raiders fans will show up, even if the chargers refuse to sell single game tickets to that game) GO Raiders

  133. lajimmy says: Sep 16, 2009 1:48 PM

    fate0111 says:
    September 15, 2009 10:32 PM
    Wow, it’s so amazing how NOBODY can pay attention. The ball moved but didn’t bobble and he still had control? There was one replay angle from just inside the goal line on the right side of the endzone that CLEARLY showed not only the ball moving, but it came out, landed on the ground and he wasn’t even touching it… He reached down between his legs and picked it back up… I realize they kept showing the other 2 angles that were inconclusive, but they showed this one angle only once…
    No actually it’s people like you who are obviously afflicted with ADD that aren’t paying attention.
    See if you can understand this: THE PLAY WAS OVER WHEN HIS ASS HIT THE GROUND. THAT IS A RULE CALLED DOWN BY CONTACT. What happened after that is irrelevant. He had the ball secured in his arm with his butt on the ground. That should’ve ended the play right there. The fact he rolled over and the ball came loose when his elbow hit should not even have been taken into consideration.
    What does a player have to do to be considered down in this instance? Pull out a few break dancing moves while securing the ball between his legs?

  134. Bobarian says: Sep 16, 2009 2:21 PM

    I thought it was an awful call,…
    But it couldn’t have happened to a better team!
    Raiders suck!

  135. AutumnWind999 says: Sep 16, 2009 2:35 PM

    lajimmy,
    Everyone saw that angle. You’re the fool not paying attention.
    What everyone is pointing out is that Murphy caught the ball had two feet down, control of the ball, a knee down, control of the ball, his ass down, control of the ball … how much longer does he need to have complete control of the ball?
    Here’s what the rule says:
    “If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground…”
    He maintained control of the ball after he touched the ground. End of story.

  136. lajimmy says: Sep 16, 2009 2:57 PM

    Autumn Wind
    ?????
    What are you talking about? I’m arguing that he maintained control after he touched the ground as well. It was a TD.

  137. Raider B says: Sep 16, 2009 3:23 PM

    He had full control of the ball after he hit the ground! It wasnt till he was getting up after the td was awarded when he lost control of the football. that should be called the Murpheys law rule. Anything that can go wrong will! Another rule misused with the raiders!

  138. LightningLucci says: Sep 16, 2009 3:36 PM

    There needs to be some clarification here, so think of it this way:
    You need to do TWO concurrent things to complete a pass, demonstrate “possession” and be “in bounds”.
    Definition of “in bounds”:
    Two feet down, one knee, one butt, etc. In the field of play, as opposed to in the end zone, there’s the additional caveat of demonstrating “a football move.” Hopefully, we can all agree that Murphy showed plenty of evidence of this.
    Definition of “possession”:
    A lot of you are saying that having the ball in your hand(s) and in control is the definition of possession. If that were the case, then this play is a touchdown, no review necessary.
    However, the NFL exception-committee says that when “falling to the ground” you have to do a little more than just have control the ball in your hands, you have to do it even “after” you hit the ground.
    So, for of those who are saying the play is “over” the instant he gets two feet down in the end zone, that is not true. The play is “over” when “possession” is demonstrated, which wasn’t done until after the player hit the ground and rolled over.
    Having said all that, I can still buy the argument that this was still a catch, because Murphy had the ball cradled under his arm at the end. Yes, the point of the ball touched the ground, the ball might have been moving slightly, but it still looked like control. It wasn’t until he pulled the ball back to his stomach to stand when it popped out.
    Argue THAT point, thus the interpretation of the rule, but not the rule itself. The rule is a good and necessary rule.
    Consider:
    1. A receiver catches the ball and gets two feet down, but has not yet made a football move.
    2. Defender nails the receiver.
    3. Receiver hits the ground, ball pops out and lands on the ground.
    Without the “falling” rule, that play is a completion. Instead, it’s ruled down by contact. Do we want that?

  139. lajimmy says: Sep 16, 2009 4:17 PM

    LightningLucci says:
    So, for of those who are saying the play is “over” the instant he gets two feet down in the end zone, that is not true. The play is “over” when “possession” is demonstrated, which wasn’t done until after the player hit the ground and rolled over
    I’ll say this one more time I guess. The Play was over when his ass-rear end-buttocks landed on the ground and he had the ball firmly secured under his right arm. The ball did not move until he rolled over from his ass-rear end-buttocks onto his arm.
    This is not hard to figure out, although the NFL seems to think so. When a player catches a ball, secures it, and lands on his ass, he is down…PERIOD. What happened after that doesn’t matter. The officials erred in not ruling him down when he clearly was sitting down with the ball tucked under his arm. It is a complete joke and incompetence that the TD was overturned. I have never ever seen a TD called back when a player had control of the ball while sitting on the ground.

  140. sullijo says: Sep 16, 2009 5:50 PM

    Ummmm – how about finding a QB that hits more than 12 out of 30 passes??????

  141. AutumnWind999 says: Sep 16, 2009 6:25 PM

    Sorry lajimmy. I saw the post where you reposted fate0111′s comment and didn’t realize it was a repost. That was the message I was responding to.

  142. Bill Polian says: Sep 16, 2009 8:40 PM

    To me, its obvious they applied the wrong rule to the situation, to wit:
    “Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or 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.”
    The player wasn’t in the act of catching a pass, the player had already caught the pass before the he fell on his butt, etc.
    Here is the NFL definition of touchdown:
    “Touchdown: When any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, breaks the plane of the opponent’s goal line, provided it is not a touchback.”
    Here is the definition of Possession:
    Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.
    So how could it not be a touchdown?

  143. LightningLucci says: Sep 16, 2009 9:59 PM

    lajimmy,
    “When a player catches a ball, secures it, and lands on his ass, he is down…PERIOD.”
    I hear you, but the problem with having your version of the rule is you’ll eliminate the scenario I painted at the end of my post. The exact scenario that I outlined happened LATER in the SD/Oak game.
    See 3:15 mark for the following:
    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009091401/2009/REG1/chargers@raiders/analyze/box-score#tab:watch
    The receiver gets two feet down, doesn’t yet make a football move, gets nailed, hits the ground butt/hip first, and the ball pops out.
    Under the existing rule, that play is incomplete.
    You say, “When a player catches a ball, secures it, and lands on his ass, he is down…PERIOD”. With your rule, this play becomes a completed pass, down by contact, no fumble.
    Do you agree that this play should have been instead ruled a completion?

  144. Lance19 says: Sep 17, 2009 3:24 AM

    Wow!
    As much as it kills me to be on the same side as Florio,
    the sheer stupidity of most of these posts is breathtaking.
    I admit, at full speed I was initially pretty sure it was a TD.
    But reviewed over and over in slo-mo, with a detailed
    and unambiguous recitation of the rule
    (as it exists, not as some of these idiots think it SHOULD)
    there’s just no question but that the refs got it right.
    That they saw the minor movement of the ball at the
    end of the play (at full speed, no less) , and knew the rule
    well enough to initiate a review…
    and then to have the replays confirm their judgement,
    gives me much more confidence in the zebras.
    That so many in here refuse to admit the obvious,
    because, well–damn the rule book–it sure SEEMED like TD…
    jeez…un-freakin’-believable…

  145. JayBackInTheBay says: Sep 17, 2009 10:17 AM

    Hey Florio, keep your day job because you obviously suck at officiating. He had possession when his ass hit the ground, before the ball “moved” or hit the ground. The replay evidence needs to be indisputable and it wasn’t. The fact that the ref took roughly 20 minutes to reverse the call proves it was not indisputable. You know? Supposedly being a lawyer and all, familiar with the concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt”?
    Thus the idiot NFL refs got the call wrong yet again. Never mind conspiracy, NFL refs are by far the worst officials and affect the outcome of games far more than any other sport. Mike Pereira is a sanctimonious asshole who is constantly under fire for good reason.

  146. LightningLucci says: Sep 17, 2009 12:40 PM

    Jack:
    “He had possession when his ass hit the ground”
    Like a lot of folks here, you ignore that one word in the rule:
    “he must maintain control of the ball AFTER he touches the ground”
    There’s a difference.

  147. lajimmy says: Sep 17, 2009 3:21 PM

    lightning,
    The receiver gets two feet down, doesn’t yet make a football move, gets nailed, hits the ground butt/hip first, and the ball pops out.
    Under the existing rule, that play is incomplete.
    You say, “When a player catches a ball, secures it, and lands on his ass, he is down…PERIOD”. With your rule, this play becomes a completed pass, down by contact, no fumble.
    Do you agree that this play should have been instead ruled a completion
    Yes I agree it was an incompletion. It was an incompletion because the ball was dislodged when he hit the ground. When Murphy hit the ground he had the ball tucked under his arm so it’s a catch. That’s what some are missing in here. Murphy should have been ruled down when he fell on his ass with possesion of the ball. The continuing action of him rolling over and hitting his arm on the ground should have been moot, because he was already down with possession of the ball. That is where the officials erred in the use of the rule as someone pointed out above.
    The rule about mainting control of the ball is for catches that involve a player making a catch while falling or diving in which they have to maintain control of the ball when they hit the ground.
    In this instance, Murphy clearly had control of the ball with both feet down in the endzone, was hit by a defender, fell down on his ass while maintaining control of the ball, then rolled over on his arm, jarred the ball loose a little bit, then completely lost control as he went to get up with the ball.
    As I said, I have never seen a catch anywhere on the field overturned when a player has been down on his butt or a knee etc. What’s especilly disturbing about this one is it happened in the endzone where any kind of possession on or over the goalline is ruled a TD.

  148. TheOneYouHate says: Sep 17, 2009 8:44 PM

    Finally, Bill Polian summed it up the way it should be interpreted and that all you friggin’ idiots can’t seem to understand or comprehend:
    “goes to the ground in the ACT of catching a pass” – the ‘ACT’ has already been completed by having maintained possession with two feet down (plus his butt and an arm) and the ball having already crossed the plane of the goal line.
    What if he simply rolled over and let the ball go and got up to celebrate? There would have been no review and the TD would stand. And I guarantee if it wasn’t within the two minutes before the half, Norv Turner wouldn’t have challenged that call and those morons in the booth wouldn’t have had a chance to bone the Raiders once again by misinterpreting an already ridiculous rule.
    If this happened to any one of the teams you Raider haters root for, you would also be pissed off and you know it – but since it’s the Raiders getting screwed once again, you all pile on the ‘whining Raider fans’. You poll 32 coaches in this league and 32 coaches will tell you it’s a TD – so all you haters can think what you want, but deep down you all a bunch of frickin’ losers!

  149. Turd_Spelunker says: Sep 18, 2009 1:25 PM

    The main problem here is most of you have “Mike and Mike” disease.
    Those announcers were spewing so much BS during the game I could hardly stand it. If I hear one more “we completly dominated the entire game” from another Raider fan I am going to jam a stat sheet up their arse.
    I can hardly blame you, hearing time and again, oh, I don’t understand, I am so sure that was a catch, (see Steve Young)
    He even had me going!
    But, please, Raider fans, before saying “completly dominated” again, PLEASE, PLEASE look at the stats? Or watch the whole game with the sound off?
    You will see that the game was fairly even (19-19 first downs) and even the Chargers are ranked higher in both defense and offense after game one than the Raiders.
    It was clearly not a dominating performance, sure, they stuffed the ball down the Chargers throat in the first quarter, but did you see the 3rd and 4th? One lucky pass was all.
    Anyhow, on topic. With Mike and Mike disease, you simply could not accept the fact it was a catch, or not a catch, you cannot make up your own minds after listening to that drivel all game. Watch it again with THE SOUND OFF.
    They really have no idea! Please, go back to radio!

  150. Plunketthead says: Sep 18, 2009 5:12 PM

    That call was anything but conclusive.
    But the Raiders will be back.
    Bet KC!!
    BOMAYE!!!

  151. JuicyMelon says: Sep 19, 2009 1:07 PM

    The question is would’ve Florio been horrified if it were Cris Collingsworth and Al Michales calling the game? Probably not because they are from NBC. People in the Media are entitled to their intrepretation of the rule/play, which you have choosen to do here. I find it pathetic that you took a cheap shot at a crew that I believed called a good game. In fact I remember a past article that stated you only call out people if they call out you…I guess things change when you go to NBC.
    If that is in fact, the rule, why are there so many TDs were Running Backs let the ball hit the ground after the catch and jump to the Endzone?
    Or why have there been so many who catch the ball and drop it shortly after getting both feet inbounds? This is the one instance that I have ever witnessed a ref call that an incomplete pass.
    The NFL refs are very inconsistant and I can’t help but agree with the Raiders fans stating that this was only called because it was the Raiders. Colts, Pats, Packers, Giants, and Cowboys would never get this called on them if they were in that position. But the Raiders did? Is the NFL paying the Chargers back for last years blown call against them? Sure seems like it.

  152. riscifiguy says: Sep 19, 2009 5:20 PM

    1 – I am a Patriots fan
    2 – I hate the Raiders and have so since 1976
    3 – That was a touchdown
    4 – The rule in the endzone is that breaking the plane of the goalline is a touchdown – You don’t even have to land in the field of play – he had 2 feet down and did not loose the ball. – Therefore it was a touchdown.
    5 – Raider fans- if you want to stop getting screwed – lose Al Davis – someway anyway whatever way it takes – he is the reason, you get screwed every season!

  153. 24Seven says: Sep 20, 2009 12:48 AM

    From LightningLucci
    “he must maintain control of the ball AFTER he touches the ground”
    Did you not watch the play? He was already on the ground with two feet and possession. Then he fell to the ground, again with possession. He does not need to maintain control indefinitely. He clearly had control long enough after his two feet, butt and knee hit the ground. It was a touchdown. If that receiver is wearing any other color than silver and black, it doesn’t even get reviewed.
    “if you want to stop getting screwed – lose Al Davis”
    The man is made of iron. I’d love to have Al step down and I suspect that if his son does in fact take over the team, he’ll hire a GM and let him/her do all the work.

  154. IWanttoPunchFloriointheFace says: Sep 21, 2009 4:59 PM

    OK – so can any of you morons please explain to me how Jacoby Jones’ supposed catch was ruled a TD on Sunday and Murphy’s was not?
    Anyone care to elaborate on the differences between the two? Anyone? And I’m looking straight at you, Flowerio – but we all know you’re too gutless to mention anything negative about Jones’ call. Did the officials get that one right, Flowerio?

  155. haterhater says: Sep 22, 2009 12:18 AM

    Lance19 – Double-spacing your comments won’t make them true.
    Maybe you’re the idiot and not the other posters, especially since you agree with Florio, who now seems to be backtracking after the Rosario and Jones TDs this past Sunday.
    “they saw the minor movement of the ball at the end of the play”…that’s right. Minor movement at the END of the play. That’s the key. He had control upon hitting the ground until the very end. After the two feet, the hip, and the secured ball hit the ground. How long do you have to control the damn ball? He was essentially getting back up to celebrate when he lost it.
    And it was an overturned call, which meant you needed irrefutable evidence. Whatever happened to that concept ?

  156. kmaiarf says: Sep 22, 2009 2:48 PM

    Somebody at the NFL step up have cojones and tell me what the difference is.
    http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/09000d5d812c0867/WK-2-Can-t-Miss-Play-Jacoby-makes-the-catch

  157. MurphygotRobbed says: Sep 22, 2009 3:43 PM

    24Seven (4 posts ago) is COMPLETELY right and the author of this article is completely misguided. All that is required for a catch is that you have control when you “alight with the ground”. In this case, that happened when Murphy’s feet touched the ground. It is an absurd interpretation of the rule that after you hit the ground you must then maintain control indefinitely. All the refs need is a checklist:
    Did he have control of the ball? Yes
    Did he get both feet (or equivalent) inbounds? Yes
    Did he maintain control of the ball until the MOMENT after he hit the ground? YES, after hitting with his feet, he CLEARLY maintained control.
    Result = TD Murphy
    There is no rule ANYWHERE that says you have to maintain control throughout your roll on the ground. You simply have to maintain control upon hitting the ground – which he CLEARLY did.
    And no, I’m not a Raiders fan, but this absurd interpretation hurts all of us. And it hurts the NFL.

  158. Snowjob says: Sep 23, 2009 1:10 AM

    Hello Mr. Florio
    Since you are the authority could you please explain the Jones Catch. Nobody on any site can explain it. I would bet no one dares question the NFL machine.
    A bit of Irony.. the Ref who gave Jones the catch after replay… Walt Coleman :)
    Google it Florio

  159. fugitive99 says: Sep 23, 2009 8:07 PM

    bottom line raiders got hosed

  160. timmy2thej says: Sep 24, 2009 12:44 PM

    It was a TD.

  161. timmy2thej says: Sep 24, 2009 12:44 PM

    And that is that.

  162. timmy2thej says: Sep 24, 2009 12:45 PM

    The NFL Officiating fails again.

  163. theTRUTHwillSETuFREE says: Sep 24, 2009 3:16 PM

    So in case you guys missed yesterdays “Official Review” on the NFL network and since Florio has yet to talk about it. Here is the link where Mike Periera still defends his refs on why Murphy’s TD wasnt a TD and the other 2 from this past week were.
    This is complete BULLSHIT! And once again another rule will be changed at the end of the year at the Raiders expense. If you dont think the NFL has something against the Raiders…think about it. Its obvious that plays like this happen every week. Why is it just now becoming this big of an issue!
    Its because the NFL robbed the Raiders on National Television, then tried to spin it saying the whole world didn’t actually see what they thought they saw! You take a look for yourself, also notice how they only show 1 camera angle on both of these plays so Periera can put his spin on the play.(They showed every camera angle possible to discredit Murphy’s TD)
    http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d812dd884/Official-Review-Week-2-bonus-coverage

  164. Jampa says: Sep 24, 2009 5:57 PM

    I imagine it goes like this:
    If the questionable call somehow favored the raiders, change the rule at the soonest opportunity, like stickum, holy roller, etc
    If it screws the raiders, then say it was all by the book and pretend it never happened… its been years and the tuck rule was never changed.
    Im curious to see what happens with the muffed punt at texans-titans… I bet they will change it next year.

  165. Eli says: Sep 24, 2009 8:43 PM

    @Mike Florio
    Well, I have called you out THREE times now and still no response from you.
    It’s pretty obvious as to why. Because you DON’T have one Mike, perhaps this time you will have a response?
    No, you won’t.
    And why? Because you KNOW you’re WRONG.
    I figured I would give this a go one more time in hopes that you would have the guts to answer me but alas you don’t. Mike, please, explain this to me, you wrote…
    “The rule states that when you are going to the ground you must maintain possession of the ball through the ENTIRE play”
    NOT true.
    As a matter of FACT… YOU even took the time to write and post the rule at the top here in the body of YOU’RE article.
    Now, you’re backtracking, or perhaps, is it that you’re trying to purposely muddy the waters?
    What is it Mike?
    Here is the RULE again EXACTLY as it relates and appears in the rule book…
    “If the player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass he must maintain control of the ball AFTER HE TOUCHES THE GROUND”.
    NOWHERE and I mean NOWHERE does it state ANYTHING about “you must maintain possession of the ball through the ENTIRE play.”
    NOWHERE.
    If the rulebook stated THAT, then I along with the majority of others wouldn’t be on here arguing that in the first place.
    That’s what this is all about.
    So, all Murphy had to do was “maintain control of the ball AFTER HE TOUCHES THE GROUND”.
    With the key word being… “TOUCHES”.
    Here again is a slow motion video of the Murphy touchdown and the blown call by the official…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBS8tTsnWE
    A). At 1:02 you can CLEARLY see both feet and his butt are BEGINNING to “touch the ground” and he is controlling the ball.
    B). At 1:14 you can CLEARLY see that his RIGHT elbow has “touched the ground” and he is controlling the ball.
    C). At 1:15 you can CLEARLY see that his RIGHT forearm has “touched the ground” and he is controlling the ball.
    D). At 1:16 you can CLEARLY see that his LEFT hand has “touched the ground” and he is controlling the ball.
    The play SHOULD have been ruled a completed catch and a touchdown the split second after his butt INITALLY “touched the ground”.
    And it for sure should have been ruled a catch and a touchdown after the second time a part of this body “touched the ground”!
    But what makes this such a travesty is that not 1, not 2, or even 3, but in FACT 4 separate times a different part of his body “touched the ground” while he maintained control of the ball!
    Both, you Mike Florio and Mike Pereria are WRONG.
    Anybody with a pair of eyes, common sense and a conscience can CLEARLY see in the slow motion replay that was posted here that the NFL robbed that kid of a touchdown.
    And, quite possibly robbed the Oakland Raiders of a victory.

  166. BobisGriese says: Sep 24, 2009 11:22 PM

    Worst call since the tuck rule in the AFC Championship. I hate the Raiders, but conspiracy is even worse…I’m sure Vegas is happy.

  167. USMC Ret. says: Sep 25, 2009 2:05 PM

    I just don’t see how any intelligent person COULD say this call as being right.
    By all interpretations of a catch, this certainly fits the criteria.
    * Ball is caught and control is maintained.
    * Two feet on the ground, IN THE END ZONE.
    * While going to the ground, and maintaining control, he falls to the ground on his behind.
    * Elbow hits the ground.
    Question: At what point is a CATCH actually a catch?
    I do agree with the TUCK rule being one of the worst calls in NFL history, and I will not say there is a conspiracy against the Raiders, but why is it that they are alwyas invloved in themost controversial plays that ultimately decide the outcome of the game?
    One has to wonder…….
    Go Raiders!

Leave a Reply

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