Comments on: Last word on the Louis Murphy non-touchdown

By: USMC Ret.

USMC Ret. — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:05:46 +0000

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!

By: BobisGriese

BobisGriese — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:22:02 +0000

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.

By: Eli

Eli — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:43:50 +0000

@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.

By: Jampa

Jampa — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:57:04 +0000

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.

By: theTRUTHwillSETuFREE

theTRUTHwillSETuFREE — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:16:12 +0000

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

By: timmy2thej

timmy2thej — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:45:33 +0000

The NFL Officiating fails again.

By: timmy2thej

timmy2thej — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:44:54 +0000

And that is that.

By: timmy2thej

timmy2thej — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:44:14 +0000

It was a TD.

By: fugitive99

fugitive99 — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:07:59 +0000

bottom line raiders got hosed

By: Snowjob

Snowjob — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:10:51 +0000

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

By: MurphygotRobbed

MurphygotRobbed — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:43:48 +0000

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.

By: kmaiarf

kmaiarf — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:48:56 +0000

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

By: haterhater

haterhater — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:18:12 +0000

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 ?

By: IWanttoPunchFloriointheFace

IWanttoPunchFloriointheFace — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:59:25 +0000

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?

By: 24Seven

24Seven — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:48:18 +0000

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.

By: riscifiguy

riscifiguy — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:20:33 +0000

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!

By: JuicyMelon

JuicyMelon — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:07:26 +0000

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.

By: Plunketthead

Plunketthead — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:12:25 +0000

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

By: Turd_Spelunker

Turd_Spelunker — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:25:10 +0000

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!

By: TheOneYouHate

TheOneYouHate — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:44:28 +0000

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!

By: lajimmy

lajimmy — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:21:23 +0000

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.

By: LightningLucci

LightningLucci — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:40:22 +0000

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.

By: JayBackInTheBay

JayBackInTheBay — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:17:26 +0000

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.

By: Lance19

Lance19 — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:24:28 +0000

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…

By: LightningLucci

LightningLucci — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:59:07 +0000

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?

By: Bill Polian

Bill Polian — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:40:38 +0000

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?

By: AutumnWind999

AutumnWind999 — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:25:47 +0000

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.

By: sullijo

sullijo — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:50:33 +0000

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

By: lajimmy

lajimmy — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:17:44 +0000

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.

By: LightningLucci

LightningLucci — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:36:12 +0000

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?