Skip to content

Pereira discusses Murphy non-touchdown, and other Week One calls

We missed the first 2009 edition of V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira’s segment on NFL Network’s Total Access, during which he reviews controversial calls from the prior weekend’s games.

But since many of the segments appearing on NFLN are later available within NFL.com’s extensive library of videos, you can watch the thing right here.

First, Pereira talks about the decision to overturn the touchdown awarded to the Raiders after receiver Louis Murphy lost control over the ball while landing in the end zone.

His explanation of the rule matches the one we posted the other day.  (Which is a good thing, since the explanation we posted the other day was based on information from Pereira.)

And Pereira was slightly more tactful than we were in pointing out that the Night at the Roxbury trio in the ESPN MNF “B” team booth did the audience a disservice on this one.

“Unfortunately, TV didn’t do a good job of explaining it or showing the right video,” Pereira said.

Bottom line?  “After you hit the ground, you must hold onto the ball,” Pereria said.

Pereira also discussed the premature fair catch signal in the season-opening game between the Titans and the Steelers, which really wasn’t all that controversial of a call, in our view.  (Possibly because Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth did an appropriate job of explaining the situation.  On NBC.)

In online-only bonus coverage available right here, Pereira addresses two other situations from Week One.

Pereira acknowledged that the illegal contact call against Packers cornerback Al Harris was erroneous, since it came right at the edge of the five-yard buffer within which that one chuck is permitted.  The problem, as Pereira candidly admitted, is that the official calling illegal contact often is 25 yards away from the line of scrimmage, making it difficult to know where exactly the five-yard zone ends. 

Pereira also addressed concerns raised by host Rich Eisen regarding the fact that the five-yard penalty resulting from illegal contact triggers an automatic first down.

“[I]f you make it not an automatic first down,” Pereira said, “the big concern is that if the offense gets into a situation that maybe they’re [facing] third and 12 or third and 15, now maybe if you’re a defense now maybe you’re gonna take license to contact.”

Finally, Pereira discussed the play in the Vikings-Browns game during which Minnesota corner Cedric Griffin interfered with Cleveland receiver Braylon Edwards, who was knocked out of bounds and then re-entered the field of play and caught the pass for a touchdown, which was later taken away via replay review.

All in all, it was a pretty clean week for officials.  But that next Ed Hochuli moment is always potentially only one play away.

Permalink 55 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Chicago Bears, Cleveland Browns, Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders, Pittsburgh Steelers, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Tennessee Titans, Top Stories
55 Responses to “Pereira discusses Murphy non-touchdown, and other Week One calls”
  1. zangy says: Sep 18, 2009 7:37 AM

    The type of foul that was called on Al Harris should be able to be reviewed, to see if it was within the five yard zone…I think the Braylon Edwards call was ridiculous B.S. That should have been a touchdown. I think once a player is forced out they should just have to establish them self back in the playing field with one foot to make a play on the ball.

  2. ampats says: Sep 18, 2009 7:40 AM

    Maybe he should also discuss that BS call against Vince Wilfork tackling Edwards on his thighs claiming. the “Brady Rule” keeping the Bills alive on third down which kept them in the game. Yeah he is such a dirty player,wah wah

  3. Al Davis is my Christ says: Sep 18, 2009 7:43 AM

    Of course he didn’t mention Wilfork “going low” on Trent Edwards’ groin… ummm maybe nobody should ever mention that…

  4. Patch says: Sep 18, 2009 7:46 AM

    the argument would make sense if the catch didn’t occur in the end-zone, where you only need to have possession for a moment and break the end-zone line.
    his two feet were down and he had possession, that is a TD.

  5. Bob Nelson says: Sep 18, 2009 7:52 AM

    It is nice to see the NFL willing to admit a mistake on the Al Harris call.

  6. canadalion says: Sep 18, 2009 8:01 AM

    How about the Calvin Johnson TD catch screw up? They totally blew that call – they said he stepped out of bounds, but he clearly did not (even the replays showed that to be true)….but of course due to the chellenge rule, you can’t be awarded the TD from a messed up out of bounds call. So the Lions didn’t bother to challenge (they got the ball on the 4, instead of the 1 if they had challenged and won) and promptly fumbled the ball away. Ugh.

  7. NorthRaider says: Sep 18, 2009 8:08 AM

    I still think it was a terrible call! Watch 40 seconds into the highlight clip at http://www.nfl.com/videos/san-diego-chargers/09000d5d812a35f9/WK-1-Philip-Rivers-highlights. Gates clearly didnt have control of the ball to the ground but it was ruled a catch. The only difference was it was not reviewed. But then again I though there had to be irrefutable eveidence to overturn a call.

  8. John Cittebart says: Sep 18, 2009 8:08 AM

    According to the official NFL Rule Book, Pereira is dead wrong.
    Murphy had control when his two feet touched the ground.
    According to Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7, “A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.”
    Furthermore, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 7(b)(4) covering “Incomplete Pass” states, “A pass is completed or intercepted if the player has both feet or any other part of his body, except his hands, inbounds prior to and after the catch.”
    The rule that Perreira refers to seems to be covered by Rule 8, Section 1, A.R. 8.10 that states “While in midair, a receiver firmly takes hold of a pass, but loses possession of the ball when his shoulder lands on the ground with or without being contacted by an opponent. Ruling: Incomplete pass. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights on the ground in order to complete the reception.”
    However, Murohy did not come down on a body part. He came down with two feet then was tackled and when he hit the ground, the ball popped out.

  9. Cerberus says: Sep 18, 2009 8:22 AM

    Though I’m a Raider fan and can handle Murphy’s TD being negated, what I can’t handle is NE having the same thing happen to them this past week, but their TD counted. That is the real travesty, the fact that all 32 teams don’t play by the same rules.

  10. footballfan7 says: Sep 18, 2009 8:35 AM

    Al Davis is my Christ, If you think wilfork hit him in the groin, you needs to get an eye exam, or take a class on human anatomy. Plan and simple, he received that call because of his reputation.

  11. cantgetenough says: Sep 18, 2009 8:38 AM

    Florio, we get it already. You don’t like ESPN.
    Maybe now you can get an NBC intern to send out those copies of QBF that you promised!

  12. Al Davis is my Christ says: Sep 18, 2009 8:50 AM

    Footballfan7, the groin is higher than the knees on most of you, right? my point was that it was a reputation call, sorry I was trying to be a little humorous, I forgot how serious a site this was.

  13. Bob S. says: Sep 18, 2009 8:51 AM

    Bottom line? “After you hit the ground, you must hold onto the ball,” Pereria said.
    —————–
    BOTTOM LINE is it is another rule written purposely to give the referee the right to decide whether or not to change the momentum and score of the game. Just like they fought to not have down by contact reviewable once.
    Makes no sense that down by contact canNOT cause a fumble on a RUN play but CAN cause an incompletion of a PASS play. Especially when a player by going down or out of bounds before he reaches the endzone merely stretches out his arm and the tip of the ball breaks the plane of the goaline when it simultaneously is knocked loose by a defender ,YET the touchdown COUNTS! Totally absurd!

  14. PFTiswhatitis says: Sep 18, 2009 8:52 AM

    Yeah I disagreed with your description of the non-TD Florio but when they showed the other angle it was clear that he had lost control of the ball as it went between his legs he scooped it up. No TD was the right call. Sorry Raiders.
    I noticed there was no discussion of the two lame roughing the passer calls NE had called against them. The league is killing the game with these cant touch the QB calls.

  15. rolltide says: Sep 18, 2009 8:52 AM

    If I’m running with the ball, I can dive haphazardly towards the front corner of the endzone, have most of my body out of bounds, and barely touch the ball against the front pylon as it flies out of my hands, and it’s a touchdown. And rightfully so.
    Touchdowns have always been treated as if you’re completing an electrical circuit. Murphy had both feet down and the ball in his hands for several “football seconds” before he was hit and the ball popped out. Pereira is just protecting the league, which he does in every single case that’s not an epic Hoculean bungle that is too obvious to spin. As previous posters have pointed out, the exact same type of plays result in touchdowns happen every fall Sunday. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy against the Raiders, but it is a bad call.

  16. packerssuck says: Sep 18, 2009 8:55 AM

    If a certain poster here thinks that Ben Watson’s and Luis Murphy’s catches were the same that said poster is an idiot. Watch them both again guy. That said. Murphy’s should have been a catch according to the “if everyone in the bar thinks it’s a catch than it’s catch” rule. Poor Raiders, the NFL is out to get you. That is why your team is bad. It has nothing to do with personnel decisions.

  17. EdgarSnyder says: Sep 18, 2009 9:03 AM

    Peirea always jerks Eisen around and never directly answers the questions raised by the play they analyze. That segment could be so much better if Peiria wasn’t such a tool.

  18. LawDog says: Sep 18, 2009 9:12 AM

    I would like to see the actual rule in the rule book that states “if a player makes a clear and obvious catch in the end zone and has both feet firmly planted on the ground it is not necessarily a touchdown depending on what the ref thinks”
    If Murphy had made the exact same catch and simply tossed the ball in the air after his feet hit the ground it would have been a TD.
    The rule they are attempting to use to justify the blown call refers to a player that makes a diving catch forcing him to land on something other than his feet. In that instance the player must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of going to the ground.

  19. gojets24 says: Sep 18, 2009 9:20 AM

    i have no idea why he didnt mention the taunting penalty right before halftime at the jets game where they were supposed to get a free play but hochuli didnt know the rule & said that the half is over & on nfl.com play-by-play they write that the jets declined the penalty which makes no sense & wasnt mentioned by hochuli
    i guess thats the new “hochuli rule”

  20. gojets24 says: Sep 18, 2009 9:26 AM

    im shocked that nobody mentioned the taunting penalty before halftime of the jets game where hochuli didnt know the rule & said that the half is over & on nfl.com it says that the penalty was declined which makes no sense & wasnt mentioned

  21. EShine says: Sep 18, 2009 9:37 AM

    Did ESPN’s PR team send Pereira nasty emails stating that their B team did not question the TD call, rather their conversation was referring to catches in general?

  22. Bob S. says: Sep 18, 2009 9:49 AM

    http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/on_further_review_rule_stinks_BJzrRNAVvfd5DvCvsabiLL
    On further review, the rule stinks

  23. Jumbotron84 says: Sep 18, 2009 9:59 AM

    Canadalion – I agree with you about the call, but they couldn’t challenge it because he was out of bounds. They can’t challenge that he was in bounds and give him back the td. Once the whistle blows its a dead ball.
    Thats okay, though the lions do a good enough job screwing themselves over, but the refs help pile it on.

  24. wiley16350 says: Sep 18, 2009 10:08 AM

    It seems like some of you are not watching the same play as everybody else. Louis Murphy didn’t catch the ball get 2 feet down and then get hit which put him to the ground. In that case he would not have had to maintain possession. But what happened was Murphy caught the ball WHILE falling to the ground and in this case he must maintain possession of the ball until the momentum of the play is over. He clearly lost possession of the ball when he hit the ground, therefore it is not a catch. You may not like the rule (and it has only been this way for the past few years), but that is the rule and the call was correct. The difference with the Watson catch is that Watson never lost possession of the ball. Just like the tuck play, you can hate the rule all you want (and I wouldn’t argue that it is a stupid rule) but the refs didn’t cheat you and there is no conspiracy against the Raiders.

  25. ZN0rseman says: Sep 18, 2009 10:17 AM

    ———————–
    [i]According to the official NFL Rule Book, Pereira is dead wrong.
    Murphy had control when his two feet touched the ground.
    According to Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7, “A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.”
    Furthermore, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 7(b)(4) covering “Incomplete Pass” states, “A pass is completed or intercepted if the player has both feet or any other part of his body, except his hands, inbounds prior to and after the catch.”
    The rule that Perreira refers to seems to be covered by Rule 8, Section 1, A.R. 8.10 that states “While in midair, a receiver firmly takes hold of a pass, but loses possession of the ball when his shoulder lands on the ground with or without being contacted by an opponent. Ruling: Incomplete pass. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights on the ground in order to complete the reception.”
    However, Murohy did not come down on a body part. He came down with two feet then was tackled and when he hit the ground, the ball popped out.[/i]
    ———————–
    Agree wholeheartedly.
    The refs blew this call completely, and Florio is just nodding and smiling about it while cashing his check from the NFL.

  26. Obnoxio says: Sep 18, 2009 10:21 AM

    The phantom call on Al Harris was egregious since it changed the momentum of the game at the time. The refs need to be sure when they make a call like that. The announcers also pointed out the WR had lined up illegally behind the line of scrimage when he needed to cover the tackle. Should have been illegal formation there.
    For Watson’s catch the ball didn’t move on the ground, that rule came in when Tampa got robbed of a catch in the playoffs several years ago.

  27. SlaughterMan9565 says: Sep 18, 2009 10:25 AM

    Raidernation ridiculousness again.
    The ground can’t cause a FUMBLE on a run because the runner from handoff to ground always had positive control of the ball.
    The ground can cause an INCOMPLETION because the reciever has to control the ball all the way to the ground. Murphy’s ball hit the ground and came dislodged. It happens all the time. But if it happens to the Raiders it is conspiracy.
    Referees control the flow, momentum, and outcome of every game. DUH! The fact that they have to come out and justify every call because people can’t deal with games not going their way makes no sense to me.
    Enjoy the game and when your team doesn’t win based on “questionable calls” they shouldnt have won in the first place. sucks to be a fan of a bunch of losers, but your team is a bunch of losers.

  28. Merlin6593 says: Sep 18, 2009 10:26 AM

    I am no Raider fan but that was definately a catch…that said. Trent Edwards needs a skirt for his next game.

  29. JayBackInTheBay says: Sep 18, 2009 10:31 AM

    Bottom line, that moron Mike P is never going to admit when refs screw up, like they did with the Louis Murphy catch. People attempting do split hair s to defend this moronic decision are tools. The man had possession when his ass hit the ground and the defender was touching him. The play is dead at that point. Any attempts by idiot boy Mike P to undermine this fact by stating something weak like “”After you hit the ground, you must hold onto the ball,” demonstrates he is a clueless asshole trying to save face.

  30. JayBackInTheBay says: Sep 18, 2009 10:34 AM

    By the way, do you know any other sport where the head of officiating needs to justify his and his colleague’s activity for the past week? Neither do I. It’s because NFL refs suck.

  31. Bob S. says: Sep 18, 2009 10:54 AM

    SlaughterMan9565 says:
    Raidernation ridiculousness again.
    The ground can’t cause a FUMBLE on a run because the runner from handoff to ground always had positive control of the ball.
    The ground can cause an INCOMPLETION because the reciever has to control the ball all the way to the ground. Murphy’s ball hit the ground and came dislodged. It happens all the time. But if it happens to the Raiders it is conspiracy.
    Referees control the flow, momentum, and outcome of every game. DUH! The fact that they have to come out and justify every call because people can’t deal with games not going their way makes no sense to me.

    I am not a Raider or a Chargers fan or a Broncos fan either nor did I bet these games of Hochuli and Cheffers. This week’s rules were:
    bayareaonline
    … The NFL tries to augment replay by constructing a rubric for every possible action on a football field. It can’t be done, but that hasn’t stopped the league from making several efforts to define the act of catching a forward pass. First one foot had to be down to qualify. Then two feet had to be down. Then there had to be a football move. Then the player had to click his heels while singing “Some Enchanted Evening.” Now? Listen to the explanation of referee Carl Cheffers and try not to laugh.
    “By definition in our rule book, he’s going to the ground and has to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire act of the catch. And in this case, he lost possession and the ball hit the ground. Therefore, it’s incomplete.”
    If only Louis Murphy had known, he might have been able to resist the forces of gravity that led to his touchdown morphing into an incomplete pass. He knows better now — if you give NFL officials half a chance, they’ll rule that piece of Godiva chocolate is really a lard omelet.

  32. DanSnyder says: Sep 18, 2009 10:59 AM

    What you fools do not seem to understand that has been said a thousand times for the catch in the raiders game is this. 2 feet and possession in bounds is a touchdown IF IF IF a player doesnt go to the ground. IF IF IF a player goes to the ground after making the catch regardless of feet down and is in bounds and maintains possession throughout the catch then its a catch! IF the ball comes loose at anytime and touches the ground or he goes out of bounds before repossessing then it is not a catch.

  33. Dirk says: Sep 18, 2009 10:59 AM

    > i have no idea why he didnt mention the taunting penalty right before halftime at the jets game where they were supposed to get a free play but hochuli didnt know the rule & said that the half is over & on nfl.com play-by-play they write that the jets declined the penalty which makes no sense & wasnt mentioned by hochuli
    i guess thats the new “hochuli rule”
    Taunting happened after the play and after time expired. It’s a dead ball foul during halftime. There is no extra down. TV commentators are misleading you when saying “a half cannot end on a defensive penalty.” The half ended prior to the penalty.
    I do not understand declining it, though. To my knowledge it should be enforced on the kickoff?

  34. Eli says: Sep 18, 2009 11:01 AM

    @ Mike Florio (A.K.A NFL head apologist and official in the making)
    Are you and Mike Pereria just both plain inept or are you both NFL apologist?
    Pereria states in the video you posted…
    “After you hit the ground, you must hold onto the ball,” to be precise the rule states…
    “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, whether in the field of play or in the end zone.
    IF HE LOSES CONTOL OF THE BALL and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete.”
    He did maintain and control possession AFTER hitting the ground, AND, he never lost control of the ball until well AFTER coming in contact with the ground.
    Q: The second his butt comes in contact with the ground is he not considered “hitting the ground”?
    A: The logical and correct answer to that is YES.
    Q: Now, the split second AFTER it has been established he has come in contact with the ground does he have control of the ball?
    A: Yes!
    Therefore, completed pass and a TOUCHDOWN.
    So the split second his butt hit the ground he is in contact with the ground and the split second afterwards he needs to have control of the ball.
    NOWHERE, did he need to have control of that ball after turning over.
    He had control of the ball WHEN his butt first started to touch the ground, THEN his elbow, THEN his forearm and all of those events took place AFTER he FIRST contacted the ground.
    This can’t even be argued.
    Please, (watch?) re-watch the video.
    The only time you see the ball is out of his possession and on the ground is from the reverse angle and it’s well AFTER he had ALREADY TOUCHED THE GROUND.
    Come on Florio, I challenge you to come back at me.
    Pereria makes 6 digit’s a year, fly’s first class, five star hotels, steak and lobster, swanky office in NY, field passes to all the games, Super Bowls, player autographs, you name it.
    And what do we get as fans?!
    A segment on T.V. where Rich Eisen tosses up softballs and Mike Pereria apologies ALL YEAR LONG for HIS officials screwing up.
    They brought in instant replay because the officials where messing up and what has been the end result?
    They can’t even make the correct call looking into a monitor with MULTIPLE angle slow motion replays that your average fan can just seeing it a couple times at home.
    Mike Pereria SUCKS and, sadly, so do you Florio for backing him up.

  35. LightningLucci says: Sep 18, 2009 11:13 AM

    “the argument would make sense if the catch didn’t occur in the end-zone, where you only need to have possession for a moment and break the end-zone line.”
    Throwing aside the whole falling-to-the-ground part of the argument, I’ll explain why this statement does not apply.
    Yes, you only need possession for a moment, break the end-zone line, and it’s a touchdown.
    However, by application of the falling-to-the-ground rule, rightly or wrongly, the receiver NEVER had possession in the first place. Thus, a ruling of an incomplete pass. Thus, no possession in the end zone. Thus, no touchdown.
    There are always borderlines with these rules. A poster above brings up the Gates play, ruled a completion. I’ve previously brought up the Weddle play in the same game, ruled an incompletion. The Murphy touchdown play fell right into that middle between the two. If we move that line, we’ll also affect those other plays. And you might not like the result.

  36. Eli says: Sep 18, 2009 11:15 AM

    Wiley16350 writes…
    “and in this case he must maintain possession of the ball until the MOMENTUM of the play is over.”
    ==========================================================
    Really?!
    Please, not being a smart ass here at all, PLEASE point out to me where it says “MOMENTUM of the play is over”.
    Also, please point out to me in the video where Pereria says “MOMENTUM of the play is over”.
    Guess what?
    You can’t because it doesn’t.
    It DOES however state AFTER he touches the ground.
    He had control of the ball AFTER he touched the ground with his butt, THEN his elbow, THEN his arm.
    To bad, all the NFL managed to do was take away an OBVIOUS touchdown from that kid.

  37. Sixburgh Brandon says: Sep 18, 2009 11:30 AM

    How about the pass interference call against Troy Polamalu when Justin Gage ran him over? I thought that call was bogus too. Maybe I’m alone on this one but Polamalu didn’t pull an Asante Samuel and change his route to cut Gage off. Gage just ran him over. If anything it should’ve been ruled OFFENSIVE P.I. or incidental contact. Garbage!

  38. Facts Domino says: Sep 18, 2009 11:36 AM

    All that segment did was confirm that Pererria, a Patriots Exec VP in training is nothing more than a dumb ass.

  39. jeffjewell says: Sep 18, 2009 11:58 AM

    These people who apparently have access to full rule books (link to that, please?) need to keep digging.
    It happened several years ago, the rule for a completed pass in the end zone is, in fact, different from the rule on the rest of the field (which I’ve always thought was systemically incorrect, but that’s part of the reason why I remember the rule change so well).
    You can argue it’s a bad rule all you want (I agree), but arguing the call did not follow the current rules is wrong.

  40. buzzbissinger says: Sep 18, 2009 12:00 PM

    Pereira’s a douche, Murphy got robbed.

  41. AutumnWind999 says: Sep 18, 2009 12:39 PM

    Florio,
    None of Pereria’s explanations solve the key question: what does “after you hit the ground” mean?
    Murphy had control of the ball after his knee hit the ground. He had control of the ball after his butt hit the ground. His arm was under the ball after his elbow hit the ground and he seemed to control it momentarily after that but then the ball slipped out just before he got up.
    Do you have to hold onto the ball until you’re back on your feet?
    At what point is the “to the ground” process complete?
    This is a horrendously defined rule and leads to obvious catches — like Murphy’s — being overturned while in many other instances the same play is ruled a catch. Pereria should spend less time on TV covering his officials’ tracks and more time using a situation like this to truly clarify a poorly written rule.
    And Pereria saying a call like that was a good call is like listening to Dick Cheney say the Bush/Cheney administration is one of the best this country’s ever had. It’s just not a credible source to decide the question at hand.

  42. LightningLucci says: Sep 18, 2009 12:49 PM

    Eli:
    “Q: Now, the split second AFTER it has been established he has come in contact with the ground does he have control of the ball?
    A: Yes!
    Therefore, completed pass and a TOUCHDOWN.
    So the split second his butt hit the ground he is in contact with the ground and the split second afterwards he needs to have control of the ball.”
    In my best Clinton voice:
    That depends on what your definition of “AFTER” is.
    You define as “AFTER” as the split second the after touching the ground. Under your interpretation, it’s a touchdown.
    The NFL apparently defines “AFTER” as more than just a split second. They include all that bouncing around as part of the act of catching the pass.
    In other words, the NFL takes time completely out of the equation. So, there is not split second to worry about. It’s all about when he stops. They could have done a better job defining it in that way.
    Consider, all of this happens in a mere second, very quickly:
    A player dives for the ball. While completely in the air, he gets both hands around the ball and establishes control. He then lands on both knees in bounds, flips over with butt and feet touching, flips again with knees hitting, and ball finally pops out.
    If we try applying “split-seconds” measurements to this, that would be impossible. We could apply completion on first hit (knees) or second hit (butt/feet) or third (knees again) or infinity. NFL says infinity, thus, it only counts when all the hits are done.

  43. footballrulz says: Sep 18, 2009 12:56 PM

    @ Al Davis is my Christ
    I thought it was pretty funny
    BTW, u know your’e going to hell, right? JK

  44. yeahbut says: Sep 18, 2009 1:34 PM

    Curious if anyone asked Norv if he would have challenged that TD if it weren’t in the last 2 mins (i.e. no automatic booth review). He’ll probably say yes now, but seemed to me that when the review was announced players/staff on both sidelines were surprised. That would be one data point to suggest the frame-by-frame deconstruction and over-analysis that seems to happen with these replays sometimes.

  45. Bob S. says: Sep 18, 2009 2:39 PM

    Eli
    You are 100% correct!

  46. TFBuckFutter says: Sep 18, 2009 4:23 PM

    “footballrulz says:
    September 18, 2009 12:56 PM
    @ Al Davis is my Christ
    I thought it was pretty funny
    BTW, u know your’e going to hell, right? JK”
    Why? Because even Jesus is jealous of the Raiders and their fans?
    Man, that franchise can’t catch a break.

  47. Tdk24 says: Sep 18, 2009 4:52 PM

    Mike Pereira=Mob Boss

  48. Eli says: Sep 18, 2009 6:37 PM

    LightingLucci writes…
    “NFL says infinity, thus, it only counts when all the hits are done.”
    LightingLucci also writes… “If we try applying “split-seconds” measurements to this, that would be impossible.”
    ================================================
    Is that you Mike Pereria?!
    Sure sounds like you.
    NOWHERE, and I mean NOWHERE does it say to infinity! And nowhere but nowhere did Pereria say to infinity.
    Additionally, you MUST apply “split-second” measurements to it. This is football for crying out loud, where things happen in and instant because, you know, players are flying all over the place and plays happen in a BAM-BAM fashion.
    The MAJORITY of replays that the officials try to discern are of the “split -second” type of play!
    To make things even more comical in your PREVIOUS post, you stated, unbelievably… “the receiver NEVER had possession in the first place.”
    How utterly OBTUSE can a person be!?!
    As I stated in my post, he possessed the ball WELL AFTER he initially TOUCHED the ground.
    If you take the rule at it’s word “after he touches the ground”, it most certainly was a catch.
    The rule states NOTHING about momentum or until the continuation of the play or until infinity.
    NOTHING!
    As a matter of fact as I wrote in my previous post, FIRST his butt touched the ground, SECOND his elbow touched the ground, THIRD his forearm touched the ground.
    That’s THREE, count em’, THREE different parts of his body touching the ground and controlling the ball.
    How many more body parts and/or times does one need to TOUCH the ground?!
    Two feet down, butt down, elbow down, arm down.
    That’s a catch, and , unfortunately, highway robbery for that poor kid who made the TOUCHDOWN catch.
    OBTW, nice try at trying to split hairs, but as you can see here and ALL OVER the internet for that matter you, Florio and Pereria are in the MINORITY, way in the minority.

  49. MasterShake says: Sep 18, 2009 9:10 PM

    JayBackInTheBay says:
    September 18, 2009 10:34 AM
    By the way, do you know any other sport where the head of officiating needs to justify his and his colleague’s activity for the past week? Neither do I. It’s because NFL refs suck.
    I agree with your statement 90%. Not all the refs are bad, just most. Then I watched the NBA. Check a game out when they have scrubs for refs. I’m wondering if they could possibly even by worse??? Makes you a little less brash with the crappy NFL refs.

  50. LightningLucci says: Sep 18, 2009 10:56 PM

    Eli,
    “To make things even more comical in your PREVIOUS post, you stated, unbelievably… “the receiver NEVER had possession in the first place.”
    “How utterly OBTUSE can a person be!?!”
    Right back at you, buddy.
    Read again what I said. Based on the NFL’s interpretation of the rule…not YOURS…the
    receiver never had possession in the first place. Regardless if they called it wrong, which is what I meant by “rightly or wrongly”, the rule they used to declare the pass incomplete answers the previous question about why the play wasn’t instantly over when the receiver was in the end zone with possession and two feet down.
    It’s like asking, “If A happened, why didn’t B apply?” And my response was, “Because they’re saying A didn’t happen.”
    Get it?
    “NOWHERE, and I mean NOWHERE does it say to infinity! And nowhere but nowhere did Pereria say to infinity.”
    “The rule states NOTHING about momentum or until the continuation of the play or until infinity.”
    Nope, it doesn’t. And I guess you didn’t the whole point of that post was that it didn’t. It also says nothing about your interpretion, doesn’t it? Nowhere does it say “split second after”. It just says “after”. That’s all. And I gave their version of what that means. You gave your version of what it SHOULD mean. If we switched to yours, other plays would be affected, too, in a way we wouldn’t like. That is MY objection.
    “but as you can see here and ALL OVER the internet for that matter you, Florio and Pereria are in the MINORITY, way in the minority.”
    Argumentum ad populum

  51. Stuart Scotts left eye says: Sep 18, 2009 11:15 PM

    Raidernation,
    STOP CRYING LIKE WITTLE BABYS!
    The rule has been told to you a thousand times and yet you continue to say “oh but he butt was down first” or “his two feet hit then he came down”, well you’re missing the entire point of EVEN AFTER HE HIT THE GROUND. Stop acting like such babies and suck it up. Incomplete pass. Call was ruled correctly on the field. Indisputable evidence. Stop crying.
    And if you want to talk about a game changing call what about the 3rd and long call and on the Raiders last true drive where Shaun Phillips was called for illegal hands to the face. Watch it where Phillips grabs the RT on the numbers and lifts him up so bad that his chest pad and Phillips knuckles knock his helmet off. Oh, but that gets played off as “the refs are human” on TV huh? Would have been 4th and long on the Raiders 40 and probably punted to the Chargers. Convenient that you forget about that since you benefited from that call.
    What a sad sad state the Raidernation is in. sad sad state

  52. Eli says: Sep 19, 2009 6:29 AM

    @LightingLucci
    It is you Mike Pereria!
    Nice try Mike but you suck at posting as well as being the head of officiating.
    Keep lying to yourself Mike, as I pointed out to you previously, the VAST MAJORITY know an obvious lie when the see one.
    The only one your fooling is yourself.

  53. wiley16350 says: Sep 21, 2009 10:32 AM

    “Please, not being a smart ass here at all, PLEASE point out to me where it says “MOMENTUM of the play is over”.
    Also, please point out to me in the video where Pereria says “MOMENTUM of the play is over”.
    Guess what?
    You can’t because it doesn’t.
    It DOES however state AFTER he touches the ground.
    He had control of the ball AFTER he touched the ground with his butt, THEN his elbow, THEN his arm.
    To bad, all the NFL managed to do was take away an OBVIOUS touchdown from that kid.”
    __________________________________
    No it doesn’t say that but it is always interpreted this way by the refs. So they are being consistent in that way. The point of the rule is to eliminate the need for the referee to make a judgment on whether he had possession or not. So basically he can’t lose possession of the ball at all in this situation. Of course I defend this only to have the refs in the Houston-Tennessee game call it a different way when Jacoby Jones lost control of the ball after rolling end over end a couple of times. Maybe they didn’t think the ball touched the ground on that play i didn’t hear the explanation. But I have seen this type of call plenty of times and fans constantly complain that the refs screwed them, but they are usually consistent in this situation. I think it is a stupid rule, they have to go back and allow the refs to have the ability to judge whether or not the player had control of the ball long enough to constitute it being a catch. I agree that Murphy caught that ball but not according to the way the refs have interpreted that rule time and time again. My main point is the NFL isn’t out to get you and the refs didn’t purposely cheat you, the refs make bad calls all the time but in this case it seems they were being consistent with the way they have interpreted the rule (which their interpretation aligns with the reason the rule is in place at all, to keep the refs from having to make a judment call). So if you want to claim that it is a bad rule or that the interpretation of the rule should be clarified then that’s fine, but don’t claim conspiracy or the refs cheated. The refs made the call according to how that rule has been implemented time and time again.

  54. MurphygotRobbed says: Sep 22, 2009 5:09 PM

    Wiley16350: “their interpretation aligns with the reason the rule is in place at all, to keep the refs from having to make a judment call”
    The problem is the “official (mis) interpretation” requires substantially more of a judgement call than if the refs adhered to a strict interpretation based on the English language. The English language dictates that if the receiver has control of the ball – for even a single moment – after that player makes contact with the ground (e.g., in this case, Murphy’s feet were the first point of contact with the ground) it is a catch. Yes, whether or not the player “had control” is still somewhat subjective, but on the whole, a strict adherence to the rules is much more objective than requiring the receiver maintain control for an indefinite period of time after hitting the ground.
    A lot more consistency and fan-acceptance would come from simply requiring control + 2 feet (or their equivalent) in-bounds (which, as it turns out, is all that the rules-as-written require). The NFL is making a HUGE mistake by defending and propagating the mis-interpretation of the “going to the ground” rule.

  55. wiley16350 says: Sep 23, 2009 8:47 AM

    murphygotrobbed: The problem is the “official (mis) interpretation” requires substantially more of a judgement call than if the refs adhered to a strict interpretation based on the English language.
    No, because the official’s interpretation is that if the receiver loses control of the ball at any time during the play then the pass is incomplete, it is cut and dry, no judging whether or not he had control of the ball before he hit the ground. If the ball comes lose and he loses control then it is ruled an incomplete pass. It’s that easy.

Leave a Reply

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