Skip to content

Raiders fans now have the right to be riled up

It figures that, after we spilled plenty of e-ink in defending the Week One decision to take away from the Oakland Raiders a second-quarter touchdown after receiver Louis Murphy, despite having possession and two feet down, lost the ball when hitting the ground, officials blew two similar calls in the next Sunday of action.

In both cases, the calls on the field were upheld via replay review, even though it appears to us that the touchdowns should have been wiped off the board, just like Murphy’s was.

First, Texans receiver Jacoby Jones made an end-zone catch against the Titans that, based on our understanding of the rule that took away the Murphy touchdown, shouldn’t have been a catch.  (For the video, click here and forward to 1:55.)

The quickly developing play, which sort of reminds us of Butch Johnson’s arguable non-catch in Super Bowl XII, involved Jones making the catch, going to the ground, and losing possession once hitting the ground.

Second, Panthers tight end Dante Rosario made a catch against the Falcons while going to the ground.  He reached the ball over the goal line while falling, and then he lost possession just as he hit the turf.

The referee ignored the plain terms of the rule that took away Murphy’s score, ruling instead that Rosario made the catch and then in a separate action reached the ball over the goal line.

But Rosario was going to the ground while he was catching the ball.  So, under Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1, Rosario was required to maintain possession after hitting the ground.  And, as abundantly clear in the video, he didn’t.

So, yes, while Raiders fans were wrong to be upset last Monday night, they should be livid now.

Permalink 95 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Atlanta Falcons, Carolina Panthers, Houston Texans, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Tennessee Titans, Top Stories
95 Responses to “Raiders fans now have the right to be riled up”
  1. RaiderDogg says: Sep 21, 2009 10:56 PM

    Thanks Florio. Unfortunately it still doesn’t give the Raiders that 4 points back, which coincidentally was the difference in the final score.

  2. Naitch says: Sep 21, 2009 10:57 PM

    I still think this rule shows a dichotomy of touchdown rulings in the NFL. During a running play, once the ball crosses the plane of the endzone, it’s ruled a touchdown, yet if you throw a pass and the receiver gains possession, gets both feet down, and lands, but the ball comes loose once he hits the ground, it’s incomplete. That makes absolutely zero sense to me.
    There should be some consistency in that, once a receiver has established possession of the ball in the endzone, it should be a touchdown.

  3. JMClarkent says: Sep 21, 2009 10:57 PM

    Gotta keep poking us in the eye, don’t ya guy?

  4. Karl says: Sep 21, 2009 11:00 PM

    Like I told you the first time. The endzone is treated differently from the rest of the field and the B team had it right.

  5. UFL rules the NFL says: Sep 21, 2009 11:01 PM

    According to the news, there were several prison riots all over the country, it appears Raider fans were throwing tantrums in their cells.

  6. Dillpx183 says: Sep 21, 2009 11:02 PM

    I’m convinced the NFL makes instant reply decisions using their own version of the origami fortune teller….they randomly select numbers to get a “reverse” or “uphold” decision, and when they unfold the last flap there is an explanation for their decision….god i’m so extremely bitter now
    http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=11454819

  7. INVAIDUH says: Sep 21, 2009 11:02 PM

    Whatcha gonna do.
    Raider Nation….Rollin’ strong.

  8. VoxVeritas says: Sep 21, 2009 11:02 PM

    “The quickly developing play, which sort of reminds us of Butch Johnson’s arguable non-catch in Super Bowl XII”
    It’s not arguable. You can’t take 2009 rules and apply them to 1978! Back then possession of the ball for any amount of time in the end zone = TD.

  9. Festivus says: Sep 21, 2009 11:04 PM

    The NFL needs to get their collective head out of their butt and fix this rule. Or educate their refs. Its one thing to miss a call, its another to review it for 5 minutes and miss it.
    These seemingly arbitary rulings on the same plays is making me think the NFL is quickly becoming the WWE.
    Whats next, Tom Cable going to run on the field and hit a ref with a chair? Hmmmm.

  10. Common Sense says: Sep 21, 2009 11:09 PM

    It’s another open ended rule that allows the refs to have an excuse for either way they call it. It’s bullshit!

  11. MkePackFan says: Sep 21, 2009 11:12 PM

    Naitch says:
    I still think this rule shows a dichotomy of touchdown rulings in the NFL. During a running play, once the ball crosses the plane of the endzone, it’s ruled a touchdown, yet if you throw a pass and the receiver gains possession, gets both feet down, and lands, but the ball comes loose once he hits the ground, it’s incomplete. That makes absolutely zero sense to me.
    —————————————————-
    I couldn’t agree more. A runner with the ball can break the plane of the goal and loose possession of it after doing so and it’s still a TD.
    In the case of this Raider WR…he caught the ball, had two feet down, then a knee, but because he got rolled over by some guys and the ball came loose enough to rub the ground a little bit and suddenly he didn’t maintain possesion?
    The stark difference between the two is way too confusing.

  12. Play4Blood says: Sep 21, 2009 11:15 PM

    Those plays are totally unrelated to the Murphy non-catch.
    Murphy was already in the endzone. There’s a different set of rules involved there.
    Jones and Rosario caught the ball in the field of play (outside of the endzone). Before going down or losing control of the ball, the ball broke the plain of the goal line. By rule, the play is over at that moment. Anything after that point is meaningless, save for a few ranting fans…and they’re pretty meaningless too.
    I thought everybody knew this.

  13. oaklandzombie says: Sep 21, 2009 11:17 PM

    Really??? Show one Raider fan not surprised by this. Those two catches just reinforce the belief by The Raider Nation that the very people who are hired by the league to officate this games are biased when it comes to the Raiders and I wouldn’t be suprised if those very people had money on those games.
    The Rosario catch video, that Official is just as stupid as his brother who I like to call “Major this and that” because everytime he throws a flag its a major hold or major facemask and then the replay doesn’t show anything.
    So does this mean the league will have a BS excuse this week as to why these were catches but Murphy’s wasn’t? In the end it doesn’t matter because The Raider Nation will always be right about the bias towards the team by officals.
    While were on it how about the blown call in the K.C./Oakland game of a facemask when the replay clearly showed there wasn’t one but Oakland was flagged for it anyway. Just another day in the life of a Raider fan.

  14. basko says: Sep 21, 2009 11:17 PM

    To Naitch.
    The rule is the same. Once a player has possession and the ball is in the end zone, it is a touchdown. Technically, when a player has two feet in bounds and the ball, he does not have possession IF the ball is jarred loose once hitting the ground.
    This is the same rule everywhere else on the field. If a player catches a ball, gets to feet down, and is immediately blindsided on the 50 yard line with the ball coming out, it is NOT a catch. A player must make a football move.
    This is also the same rule on a side line catch. Every week, every game, there is a sideline catch where the official looks at the player’s feet AND if he maintains possession after falling out of bounds.
    This rule is exactly the same as the end rule.

  15. lebowski says: Sep 21, 2009 11:18 PM

    Refs suck

  16. kev says: Sep 21, 2009 11:20 PM

    Pereria will come up with some explanation, he always does

  17. wolfpackraider says: Sep 21, 2009 11:20 PM

    don’t worry, we are.
    My favorite part is how you never hear about controversial calls that are subsection D of appendix CC for any team other than Oakland.
    I actually heard “lingering” years ago called in a game… lingering… WTF is lingering? Hanging out at the line of scrimmage but not running a play… could have sworn that’s what a play clock was for.
    Snow Job, Saragusa intentionally injuring Rich Gannon without even a late hit called after his Jimmy Superfly Sunka belly flop, the list is too long to go down.

  18. HarrisonHits says: Sep 21, 2009 11:26 PM

    And there was an INT taken away from a Fins player late in the first half tonight by the same rule. Ball came out when he hit the ground, no INT.
    The normal inconsistency between the refs continues.

  19. Gnarburger says: Sep 21, 2009 11:27 PM

    Watch the Rosario play and go back and watch the play in the AFC Championship game that was overturned and ruled no catch by Santonio Holmes near the goal line. Holmes catches the ball near the 5, takes a few steps, holds himself up with the other arm and lunges to the end zone. Rosario, in one motion, falls to the ground and reaches over the goal line. Holmes was ruled no catch, Rosario was ruled TD. The officials don’t understand the rule.

  20. dforce says: Sep 21, 2009 11:32 PM

    Looks like NFL officials need an in-season seminar on this one ruling because they are butchering the hell out of this call. Its obvious now that the ruling you get on this type of call depends on who is officiating your game. I’m a Raider fan and I can accept the ruling as it was explained on the Murphy CATCH..if it were called the same way consistently…you know, like that tuck rule bull$#%^. Lets see if Mr. Director of officiating has the balls to step out and explain these calls. Hopefully they will ask him on the NFL Network.

  21. BostonISaChraphole says: Sep 21, 2009 11:36 PM

    As long as Jamarbust is QB in oakland they will never win anything. Gallery is out now so it will be even more fun to watch Jamarbust throw picks under pressure.

  22. sand0 says: Sep 21, 2009 11:38 PM

    The ruling of what constitutes a reception should be the same in the endzone as it is outside of the endzone. This article seems to make a distinction between the two.
    That seems kind of dumb to me that the rule would be different outside of the endzone and inside of the endzone.

  23. PurpleNGold says: Sep 21, 2009 11:42 PM

    the following comments have not yet been Raidered
    With a GPS transmitter in the ball, take readings at the goal lines before the game and assume they are constants to define the goal plane. Take readings of the rest of the field in the same fashion, to define the field boundry, yardmarkers, and goalposts. The ball would always know where it was, so to speak; position plus ten yards defines the first down plane. Scroll ball position data across the bottom of the replay video so the officials could see the moment of ground contact, freeze the frame and know exactly where the ball was at that time.

  24. Jaxom says: Sep 21, 2009 11:43 PM

    Just like Coach Cabel said the Refs will call that play a touchdown 9 out of 10 times. Looks like the NFL needs to get their stuff together on this call it’s BS that they get wrong 2 out of 3 times …………. like to hear what Peiaria (SP) has to say on this one after it was high-lighted last week, on a Monday Night game.

  25. Bob S. says: Sep 21, 2009 11:43 PM

    That rule had better be changed IMMEDIATELY ! Even tonight it came into play. Get rid of the wording “completely going thru the motion of catching the ball” or whatever words they PURPOSELY put in to make sure refs can control momentum, score and winners of any game they so choose to manipulate.

  26. IanWhetstone says: Sep 21, 2009 11:48 PM

    “There should be some consistency in that, once a receiver has established possession of the ball in the endzone, it should be a touchdown.”
    There is. This rule about which Mr. Florio is harping is about determining possession, whether in the the end zone or not. I’ve read others make the “runner crossing the plane” argument before, but it’s irrelevant. A runner has already established possession; a receiver in this circumstance, by rule, has not.
    As for whether the rule should have applied in these cases, the ref who reviewed the Rosario play explained his ruling pretty clearly. He did not think that Rosario was going to the ground during the catch, but rather as a “second act” after having completed the catch. I’ll buy that, since he lands and has to shift his weight and momentum again to lunge for the goal line.
    The other play is not so well explained. I’m not sure how you rule “the ball came out after the player bounced off the ground a second time.”

  27. buzzbissinger says: Sep 21, 2009 11:49 PM

    So what are you saying? I shouldn’t have been mad last week, but I should be mad now? You, muck like you buddy Perrira, are “talking out of both sides of your mouth”…
    …and it’s pure, commerialized BS

  28. IWanttoPunchFloriointheFace says: Sep 21, 2009 11:57 PM

    Well, well, well…I must give credit to Florio for bringing this up – I saw the Jones TD call and was immediately disgusted that it was upheld, but I wasn’t aware of the other one. Never thought Florio would have the sack to give Raider fans any credence, but at least he now acknowledges they have a legitimate beef.
    This is exactly why the officiating in the NFL sucks and rules are interpreted differently from crew to crew. Just change the damn rule to include language that constitutes possession in the end zone. Two feet down and several different body parts hitting the ground to me equals possession.

  29. Apetits says: Sep 21, 2009 11:58 PM

    Same thing at the end of the Bengals game when Driver caught the ball on the 10 while “going to the ground,” lost it when he hit the ground, and then swam on his stomach across the turf to get it back. No catch under Murphy’s law, right? Wrong. But then, it was Hochuli, so who knows WTF was going through his head. Raiders got jobbed – and I hate the Raiders.

  30. TheSveed says: Sep 21, 2009 11:59 PM

    It just further proves that the NFL still has a beef with The Raiders. At what point will the NFL be forced into accountability for their blatant bias?

  31. egypt123 says: Sep 21, 2009 11:59 PM

    Sorry, Florio, but there’s a difference here. In both of these plays the player caught the ball and possessed in the regular field of play so all they had to do at that point is cross the plain of the goal (same as if it were a running play) with the ball. Had either of these players caught the ball while IN the endzone and then dropped it, then yes, the rule applies just like it did in the Raiders game. Right or wrong, that’s why the plays were called the way they were.

  32. SmackMyVickUp says: Sep 22, 2009 12:03 AM

    Honestly, if Jamarcus Russell gets the ball to a receiver in the end zone within catching range it should be a TD. Give em a few sympathy calls.

  33. elroy says: Sep 22, 2009 12:08 AM

    If the Raiders had scored that TD (BTW the head of NFL officiating said it was an incomplete pass, watch the video of NFL.com), they would NOT have gone for it on 4TH AND 15, and thus would not have scored a long TD with 4 minutes left. They would have been up by 3 instead of down by 4, and would have punted.

  34. Bob S. says: Sep 22, 2009 12:09 AM

    The farce here is if I was a ref I would want the rule to be clear and straightforward so I would not be criticized for having to make these absurd and contradictory decisions that do decide games. BUT refs want these rules written this way because they do use it to control the momentum, score and outcome of games. Is that not obvious why they demand having right to blow whistle in middle of an unfinished play? Or wanted to keep that down by contact NOT reviewable for years? Or this “completing the catch all the way through”?

  35. MooseDaddy says: Sep 22, 2009 12:10 AM

    I don’t disagree with the rule. It’s completely different for a running back who already HAS the ball ON THE GROUND from a receiver who is midair and hasn’t established control ON THE GROUND yet. Ugh. It’s not even an argument how they could be the same thing. But in any case, I don’t care what the rule is, just be CONSISTENT with it. And I’m not a fan of any of the teams involved.

  36. mike28212 says: Sep 22, 2009 12:11 AM

    Thanks for posting about this. I’m really curious to hear what the NFL has to say in regards to these two plays.

  37. Humboldt420 says: Sep 22, 2009 12:12 AM

    Well, more fuel to the Raider conspiracy theory.
    Like others have stated, it would be nice to have some consistency when it comes to officials and their rulings on certain plays.
    Jones’ catch was no different than Murhpy’s catch against San Diego. He caught the ball, then lost possession as he hit the ground. Yet, officials ruled he was down once his left foot came down.
    Murphy had two feet down, then, his butt hit, yet he is not down? The only reason the ball came free was because he was trying to get up.
    Jones’ was flung like a rag doll by the Titans’ DB, rolled, the ball came loose and hit the ground.
    Sad, sad, sad.
    I’m no Raider fan, a 49er fan if you’re wondering, and to see Jones’ TD good makes me wonder if the Raider Nation has any basis on their NFL vs. Al Davis theories.
    Hey PFT guys, here’s a question: Do NFL officials get fined for making bad calls?
    I just wanted to know. I mean, if the Zebras were fined like the players, maybe that would curb some calls and make it more uniform. I mean, you want to get the call by the books if you face getting dollars taking out of your pocket right?

  38. veistran says: Sep 22, 2009 12:17 AM

    @Naitch the problem is with your understanding of the current rules. The rules say you don’t get possession just by getting control and putting two feet, a butt cheek or a knee etc down. All that does is establish the catch as in bounds or out of bounds. The act of making a catch requires you to either land on your feet (meaning standing) or to control the ball through the ground (for any case where you don’t land standing). As to how the rule is applied/enforced that is clearly should be considered in the offseason if its going to be inconsistent.

  39. 19giants87 says: Sep 22, 2009 12:21 AM

    What we need is a rule that better describes when a player attains possession of the ball. It is the heart of this argument and your powers in the football media should highlight the plight of fans.
    Funny that the NFL does not post their official rulebook online, asking a lot for a pdf file that allows for fans to better understand the game.
    As a fan of the game I feel the need for a concise rule of what is possession in the field of play, none of this going to the ground blah blah blah. In my backyard, flag football league ect. that was a TD. When i watch a game now it seems that the replay rule = only 1 thing, an opportunity to show more commercials.

  40. boltschick says: Sep 22, 2009 12:25 AM

    The NFL needs full-time officials who spend 40 hours a week doing nothing but officiating, reading the rules and practicing officiating.
    I couldn’t believe the call against the Raiders, but karma always comes back to bite you and the Chargers suffered some similarly horrible calls and non-calls on Sunday.

  41. Warpstone says: Sep 22, 2009 12:33 AM

    I think our gripe is mostly that the Murphy call was made on the field and that the instant replay didn’t seem conclusive–you could argue that the ball was coming out as he got up–so he should have got the benefit of the doubt on the call (like replay is supposed to work).

  42. dEV says: Sep 22, 2009 12:40 AM

    The rule as it currently stands is just plain silly. If a receiver catches the ball, gets both feet down in bounds, and then loses control of it, that sounds like a fumble rather than an incomplete pass. If the guy happens to be in the end zone, well… touchdown.
    As it stands, I don’t see how a ball moving ever-so-slightly provides evidence that the receiver has “lost control” of the ball. A clear-cut bobble, sure. But just because something round rotates slightly does not, in my mind, demonstrate “conclusive visual evidence.”

  43. encinitasraider says: Sep 22, 2009 12:40 AM

    we moved on…cant wait till a playoff games is decided by this…then Jeff Fischer and co will take notice instead of worrying about Jerry’s big TV

  44. Raiders own the Steelers says: Sep 22, 2009 12:41 AM

    This team is headed to the Super Bowl

  45. DrBoogerLipsIsBack says: Sep 22, 2009 12:45 AM

    Naitch is correct. The rule is bad for the game. If you get two feet down (or the equivalent i.e. elbow, knee, etc) while in the endzone, then it should be a TD.
    I agree with the rule in the normal field of play however.

  46. cnelson13 says: Sep 22, 2009 12:57 AM

    Wrong, Florio. Rosario makes the catch, then turns and gives toward the end zone. That’s two separate actions, and therefore losing the ball after it crosses the plain is irrelevant.

  47. darrius_heyward-bey-butterfingers says: Sep 22, 2009 12:59 AM

    OK well, im not a big chiefs fan, but I live in Missouri, and I don’t care what the rule is- he got one foot, two foot, his butt… All in the end zone, where possession past the goal line = TD. The rule is retarded if it takes away an obvious touchdown.

  48. snnyjcbs says: Sep 22, 2009 12:59 AM

    Now you are getting the point, you will see a bunch of catches this season just like Murphys that the NFL will call touchdowsns, no reveiwe and if they have a reveiw will be upheld as touchdowns.
    The reason for this is because they are touchdowns just like Murphys was a touchdown. But because the NFL only put the Raiders on Monday Night opening weekend against the Chargers was that they were hoping they would be blowed out on National TV as in prior years.
    Once they saw how the Raiders were dominating the game they took the TD off the board to lend just a bit of a helping hand to the Chargers. If that touchdown was left a TD the Chargers Tie with the last second score not win.
    You watch this year just how many TD’s just like Murphys are left touchdowns just because they are not being made by the Raiders.
    As I wrote before, “do not piss down my back and try and tell me that it is raining”

  49. Rezen says: Sep 22, 2009 1:03 AM

    Mr. Florio, if you watch the replay of the Jones catch, his knee was clearly down as he was crossing the plane of the endzone; the replay official should have spotted him down at the 1. Subsequently, as the defender pulled Jones over and across his body, Jones’ elbow then subsequently hit the ground as well, then he rolled over again before losing control of the ball.
    You spoke with Tim Brando this morning – and Tim Brando later had Steve Tasker (who called the game for CBS) on his radio show (after you spoke with him) and discussed this very play. During a commercial break during the final 2 minutes of the game, Steve Tasker phoned Mike Pereira and asked him about this call. Mike Pereira explained that because Jones rolled over twice while maintaining posession into the endzone, that it was “enough” and that the referee got the call right on the field.

  50. Tennessee_Tyrant says: Sep 22, 2009 1:05 AM

    Yeah … Florio , that non catch by J0nes vs Titans was a horrible call . Very clear that he lost possession before his knee hit the ground – AT THE 2 YARD LINE FIRST ! …. With all the hoopla that the NFL does , why dont they have an “EXCLUSIVE” NFL Network referee who makes the more difficult calls . It would help their ratings as well as significantly reduce backlash for blown ” big ” calls . After the play they could stay in the network and debate the play until the next call would be needed ( Roughly every 5 – 15 minutes ) . It seems a no brainer for the tender starved network , so why not appease football fans everywhere and have one or two TOP OFFICIALS who make THE call .

  51. Silver&Black666 says: Sep 22, 2009 1:06 AM

    I have to admit that Florio is not being a dick for once regarding the Raiders.
    This is a fair and respectable article that does nothing more than confirm the fact that we should be 2 – 0 right now!
    Maybe I will have AD return your calls from now on Florio!

  52. ragin40 says: Sep 22, 2009 1:13 AM

    Florio why doesn’t the NFL comment on these? Where is that smug idiot mike perierra whatever his name Is….

  53. dtcharlieb says: Sep 22, 2009 1:16 AM

    You’re wrong about the Jacoby catch. It was a touchdown because he catches the ball and is immediately touched down in the endzone. He then pops right back off the ground and then while hitting the ground a second time, he loses control of the ball. The touchdown counts right when he catches it and is down by contact.

  54. PiKindaGuy says: Sep 22, 2009 1:21 AM

    I’m a Raiders fan and during the Monday night game I thought it was a complete BS call, especially with the B-team announcers’ interpretations of the rule which turned out to be wrong.
    However after seeing the actual rule I respected the call and saw that it was indeed right, and was really annoyed by “Raider Nation” saying it was a screwjob and how the refs enter each game hoping to screw the Raiders over (I actually loathe Raiders fans).
    But those two plays there are complete horse shit and prove the NFL is a ridiculous game.
    I’ll still tune in every Sunday and watch every minute of every game I can though.

  55. Karlchaz says: Sep 22, 2009 1:32 AM

    I have to agree with Naitch there. During the destruction of my Packers by Cincinnati, Palmer had a QB sneak for a touchdown. As soon as he crossed the goal line he fumbled the ball but it still counts. Not saying that it shouldn’t have, but it is odd that different guidelines exist depending on the type of play.

  56. LT11 says: Sep 22, 2009 1:39 AM

    The difference is that the call against the Raiders was buzzed down from the replay officials just like the TUCK PLAY.Both plays happened within the final 2 minutes of the respective halfs and like usual the Head Honchos (Proably watching in New York)in the NFL screwed the Raiders.Norv Turner was not even going to challenge that call if he did’nt have to.

  57. jayz says: Sep 22, 2009 1:50 AM

    Conceptually the best way to think about the rule is that it is an extension of the “football move” rule. Ordinarily you have to make a “football move” to complete a catch, but when you catch the ball while you are falling to the ground you don’t have that opportunity. So keeping possession while you hit the ground is a substitute for making a “football move”.
    I didn’t see Rosario’s TD catch, but if he had sufficient control of the ball to allow him to stretch it out over the goal line, that to me seems like a sufficient “football move” to demonstrate possession, and thus a legal catch.

  58. theTRUTHwillSETuFREE says: Sep 22, 2009 2:18 AM

    I cant wait to hear what Periera has to say about this. There’s definitely gonna be some kind of spin on it. Once again I think we may see the Raiders getting screwed on a an absurd call and having a rule changed because of it the same year.
    Just like in the Dallas game with that timeout 1/16 of a second before Tynes kicked the ball at the end of the game. That’s the same crap Denver pulled on us. Granted we did the same thing the next week and won with it. But shit like that has to be changed too. This league is getting ridiculous with these rules. It’s starting to look like a circus.
    Two feet down in the Endzone with possession = a damn TD!
    Anything beyond that is a goddamn celebration!

  59. Dan says: Sep 22, 2009 2:25 AM

    Totally agree with Naitch
    And it shouldn’t only be Raider fans upset all NFL fans should be Livid! It will come back to get your team some point down the line.

  60. Bad-Andy says: Sep 22, 2009 2:33 AM

    Hopefully you spill a bunch of “e-ink” on these two calls too. Or is that only when you’re dumping on the Raiders?

  61. CABroncoFan says: Sep 22, 2009 2:34 AM

    Silly Florio…Raider fans just use internet for the pictures. They don’t read.

  62. RexRyan'sStressedLapband says: Sep 22, 2009 2:38 AM

    This is one of several rules in the NFL that hand the officials too much power to “decide” what to do. I think that if the ball is in your hands, and you have control, it’s a catch. It shouldn’t matter how long you have control, just that you had it. Yeah, there will be some fumbles that people will say were incomplete, but it will get rid of this BS in the endzone.

  63. raidergrunt says: Sep 22, 2009 3:31 AM

    I hope that the NFL issues a statement reconciling these rulings because one of these days a similar play will ruin an important game. (Much like the Tuck Rule ruined the Raiders run to the Super Bowl under Gruden.) I had previously thought that it doesn’t matter if the ball pops out as a result of impact with the ground if the receiver clearly has possession going down with both feet touching the ground.

  64. TBTrojan says: Sep 22, 2009 4:10 AM

    The officials were awful this weekend.
    You can add the Bills 2nd INT to the list of blown calls.
    How exactly does Scott pick Leftwich off after the ball hits the ground TWICE?
    To make matters worse, old man Ron Winter reviewed it and still got it wrong .
    So he gives the ball to a team that didn;t earn it, charges the other team a timeout for the pleasure of being screwed and to top it off adds a 15 yard Fask Mask call to the end of the return (how you facemask someone on a deadball is a wonder to me.
    The Bucs sucked that game but the refs help in no way.

  65. MrSalamander says: Sep 22, 2009 4:13 AM

    Where are all the witty comments from the witty sheep? WWF(L) fans, be advised… the lockout looms. Finally the same owners who’ve been set on never seeing Al Davis hold the Lombardi again will finally get to show their true colors, and I’d put my money on the crazy old fart pulling one last masterstroke before he kicks the bucket, just to spite them from his grave.
    And to all you crying b¡tch-ass Chargeed fans – and for those Donkey fans still playing the same drinking game – “Ed Hochuli”
    *chug!*

  66. JSpicoli says: Sep 22, 2009 4:48 AM

    I knew this without any recent evidence, and you should too, if you call yourself a football fan Mike.
    There must be some reason that the NFL ref’s keep splitting hairs when it comes to the Raiders.

  67. oafan says: Sep 22, 2009 5:07 AM

    Example of why football sucks! You’d never have this problem with baseball, Florio. Football is a novelty, not to be taken seriously. How could you? Football is subjectively officiated and the rules change from game to game. And to think, people actually care about who wins these games. Hilarious. Baseball FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!

  68. Mike Quick says: Sep 22, 2009 5:57 AM

    Wrong. Again. Reception rules are different in the endzone/going out of bounds and between the endzones in the field of play. I didnt see the Jones call, but the Rosario call was correct. Look it up, Mike, then correct yourself.

  69. Joe in Toronto, Canada says: Sep 22, 2009 6:30 AM

    Off topic but a really interesting fact…..
    Greg Ellis has three sacks in two games _ three more than the Dallas Cowboys have in two games. The Cowboys released Ellis in the offseason.
    lol, gotta love it. Right, Vox?

  70. Eli says: Sep 22, 2009 7:03 AM

    @ Mike Florio
    Mike, Mike, Mike. You just don’t get it.
    It’s not just RAIDER FANS that are upset!
    For the love of Pete! Please, wake up! The officiating in the NFL is inept and in some cases BIAS. Fans of every team are long past getting sick and tired of the keystone cops of the field.
    Although the Jones and Rosario touchdowns BOTH should have been overturned (TWO goofs just one short week later) The Murphy touchdown should NOT have.
    I find it amazing that for whatever convoluted reason you still believe the Murphy touchdown was called correctly.
    Let’s try this again Mike and perhaps this time you will actually have a viable response to me. Somehow though, I doubt it.
    On 9/19/09 3:52 PM ET Mike Florio had this to say in his video…
    “The receiver must maintain possession of the ball through the ENTIRE play”.
    Absolutely, positively and unequivocally FALSE.
    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 continuation of the play, infinity of the play, momentum of the play or as Florio has incorrectly suggested, possession of the ball through the ENTIRE play.
    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, 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

  71. swervinmervin says: Sep 22, 2009 7:13 AM

    The NFL is all about allowing their refs to control the scores of the games. It’s all about Vegas, baby. Vegas.

  72. TheDPR says: Sep 22, 2009 7:36 AM

    I agree with Mike on the Jones play. The Rosario play, I disagree with, though feel it shouldn’t have been a TD, either.
    It was a clear catch, turn, then dive for the endzone. While diving, he lost control and fumbled the ball. Do you need complete control while crossing the goal line? THAT is the issue here. If so, then fumble, recovered by Rosario at the 1.5 yard line. If not, then TD and the call was correct.

  73. bwisnasky says: Sep 22, 2009 7:39 AM

    Ultimately, as with the Tuck rule…. the problem with how this was applied in the Raiders/Chargers game has NOTHING to do with the possession, or the loss of possession. As with the Tuck Rule game, the problem with the officiating in both of them was the fact that there was not “clear evidence” to overturn the call that was originally made on the field. The technicalities of the rule can be challenged in the off-season, and in both instances, they should be, however, in a game time situation, there was no reason for either officiating crew to overturn the call that was made on the field. There simply wasn’t inconclusive evidence that the wrong call was made. If there was, people wouldn’t still be arguing about both calls. That is where the Raiders got screwed… twice. You can add the Vincent Jackson forward pass that wasn’t a forward pass into the mix too if you want…. The problem seems to stem that anytime there is one of these questionable calls in a game involving the Raiders, there is always some obscure rule that is pulled out and applied even though the evidence is underwhelming at best that the call should be overturned. Funny thing is, no one is calling out hacks like Nancy Gay who was so quick to jump on the bandwagon that the rule was properly applied in the Raider game. Where’s Nancy’s loud mouth saying that the rule was improperly applied in the Texans/Titans game?

  74. Vinces Power Sweep says: Sep 22, 2009 7:40 AM

    I can’t wait to see the weekly CYA segment on NFL Total Access with Mike Pereira explaining away why these two plays were touchdowns and Murphy’s was not. Only two weeks in, and the officiating this year already has been beyond bad. Maybe these morons need training camp too.

  75. VoxVeritas says: Sep 22, 2009 7:51 AM

    “Greg Ellis has three sacks in two games _ three more than the Dallas Cowboys have in two games. The Cowboys released Ellis in the offseason.
    lol, gotta love it. Right, Vox?”
    Actually, yeah. He didn’t want to be there, and he cost too much money. No more Ellis drama. No more whining and crying and lying. What’s not to love? He finally gets to do what he’s always wanted to do, which is play DE, pin his ears back and rush the passer on every down. I’m sure he’ll be the catalyst that creates another glorious Raiders’ Super Bowl win.
    P.S. Canada is still a third-rate country full of surrender bunnies. Bow to your British queen and speak French while you’re doing it, bitch.

  76. TimT says: Sep 22, 2009 7:54 AM

    Rosario completed the catch, put both feet on the ground, turned up-field and stretched across the goal line. That’s a touchdown with 2 clear motions (reasonably clear).
    I don’t know how a ref could uphold that Rosario TD. From the replays in Mike’s link, there’s nothing to suggest he ever demonstrated possession.
    The Murphy catch/non-catch seems to be called according to the rules. It sucks, because it looks like a TD, but you have to have a line somewhere.

  77. Raiders757 says: Sep 22, 2009 7:57 AM

    @ Play4Blood
    I hate to tell you, but your wrong. It doesn’t matter if you catch outside the goal line, or anywhere else on the field. Per the rule that was enforced in the Raiders game, neither one of the examples given were a touchdown. It doesn’t matter if you break the plane in the process. There is nothing written that says otherwise.

  78. YOOPERBILL says: Sep 22, 2009 8:37 AM

    The rules should be changed to if a player catches the ball with two feet anywhere in bounds its a legal catch and the ball hitting the ground after clear possession should not matter as the ground cant cause a fumble by rule, so then neither should it cause a pass not to be a completion,if a player reaches the ball out after a pass over the goalline it should be a TD as he was in clear possession when it crossed the goalline, the rules could be and should be simplified for the good of the game.

  79. Raiderman says: Sep 22, 2009 8:42 AM

    One rule for one team, another for everybody else, when has it ever been any different concerning the Raiders.
    We always have the right to be riled up when we’re getting screwed by the league and refs at every turn.

  80. elduderino13 says: Sep 22, 2009 8:47 AM

    Thanks for telling us poor stupid Raider fans how we should feel. Um, should I wipe my *ss before or after I sh*t? Keep the updates coming, otherwise I might forget to keep breathing without your sage wisdom, Florio.

  81. lvass76 says: Sep 22, 2009 8:54 AM

    gee, that ref who took away the Murphy touchdown would make a great Supreme Court judge. He ignored what was in obvious plain sight and did what he wanted. Instant replay = constitution.

  82. AutumnWind999 says: Sep 22, 2009 8:57 AM

    The problem is the rule is horrendously written. What does “go to the ground” mean? In Murphy’s case having both feet down in the end zone with control of the ball … a knee down in the end zone with control of the ball … his ass down in the end zone with control of the ball somehow did not qualify as having gone to the ground.
    For Florio and Periera to suggest it was a clear non-catch on the Murphy TD is a joke. The rule as it’s written is a joke. The fact is it is applied much more the way it was in the Jacoby Jones TD — which was not nearly as thorough a catch as Murphy’s — than it is when they OVERTURNED the Murphy TD catch.
    The Murphy play was a blown call, not on the field but by the head official on replay. Periera always finds some explanation to defend these BS calls. About once a year he’ll step up and say one of these calls was incorrect just so he can pretend that he’s being objective the rest of the time.
    Florio either hates the Raiders or just enjoys aggravating Raiders fans to stir up a response and dozens of postings.

  83. Silverdog says: Sep 22, 2009 9:33 AM

    You don’t get to decide when we have the right to be riled up – we do! We knew then, what you know now – the fine print only applies to the Raiders. We have known this for years (decades). Don’t get insolent with us just because you finally get it. You finally saw proof. Good for you. We have witnessed this stuff countless times. Welcome to our world. You now have the right to carry on.

  84. Flyingelvislogosucksbringbackpatpatriot says: Sep 22, 2009 9:44 AM

    If the “ground” can’t cause a fumble why should it cause a pass to be incomplete? Your setting up the receiver to get killed.

  85. todd bennett says: Sep 22, 2009 9:54 AM

    Thanks FlowerO for giving us Raider fans the right You Jack azz! We so much better now that you gave us permission, Daddy. Plezzzze! ROCK!

  86. stanjam says: Sep 22, 2009 10:06 AM

    People need to stop comparing it to a running back. There is no comparison. A running back has established possession of the ball well before crossing the end zone. Even if they did not, it would be a fumble, not an interception, since it is not a pass, allowing them to retrieve the ball, which is live. Once a ball is IN POSSESSION it is different. With a receiver the ball is NOT in possession yet. They must establish possession after catching the ball during the process of hitting the ground. If they had caught the ball outside of the end zone and had run it it (hadn’t been knocked down during the catch) then it is the same as a running back, and if they lose the ball outside the end zone it becomes a fumble, and if they break the plane it is a TD. The whole rule is about what happens during the process of catching the ball!
    So stop comparing the process of catching a ball to a running back. It is a completely different thing.

  87. encinitasraider says: Sep 22, 2009 10:21 AM

    I have Murphy’s catch on my DVR and i get tired of people saying he lost control of the ball while going to the ground.WRONG.
    Go back at look at the play…He has possesion of the ball when both feet hit the ground and then his but hits….He rolls over on his front and still has possesion while his forearm is under the ball. Then he starts to get up and the ball comes lose. How is that losing possesion through the catch. Lets ask Peria that as he is replaying it on Jerry’s Jones big Tv that Jeff Fischer hates so much.
    The NFL refs are becoming more and more like the NBA. Makes you wonder what crews are working with Vegas.

  88. AutumnWind999 says: Sep 22, 2009 10:24 AM

    Vinces Power Sweep says:
    September 22, 2009 7:40 AM
    I can’t wait to see the weekly CYA segment on NFL Total Access with Mike Pereira explaining away why these two plays were touchdowns and Murphy’s was not. Only two weeks in, and the officiating this year already has been beyond bad. Maybe these morons need training camp too.
    ——————-
    I wish that was going to happen, but I’d be willing to bet they ignore these plays during this week’s CYA segment. Pereira would have to admit the interpretation of this rule applies differently to the Raiders than everyone else.
    Kind of like the tuck rule. When’s the last time you’ve seen that play called?
    Not to mention Brady had the ball in both hands and was holding it at his waist when it was knocked loose.
    Not to mention the referee never says tuck rule or anything to imply he was referring to the tuck rule when he OVERTURNED the call on the field. He simply says “the quarterback’s arm was going forward.” The Tuck Rule is what the league PR people dug up after the fact to justify the Raiders getting robbed … again.
    Let’s see,
    – The tuck rule
    – The Immaculate Reception
    – Murphy’s TD
    – Vincent Jackson celebrating during a game vs. Oakland a couple of years ago by spinning the ball to the ground when he wasn’t touched down and having an obvious fumble ruled ‘an illegal forward pass’ (after a 5 minute conference amongst the officials) on a play on which San Diego still got a 1st down on a key drive to win the game (LMAO on that one).
    – A million phantom holding calls or other penalties to negate big plays for the Raiders.
    – The 1977 playoff game vs. the Broncos where an OBVIOUS fumble by the Broncos running back that would’ve gone the other way for a TD was negated and the Broncos went on to score — a 14-point swing on a horrendous in the playoffs.
    I know there are a million more like this that I just can’t remember.
    The fact is Al Davis was Enemy No. 1 of the NFL before the AFL-NFL merger. And he’s done little to pacify anyone in the league since. Don’t think that’s not a factor in all of this.

  89. defensiveplaymaker says: Sep 22, 2009 10:38 AM

    This is the problem with having humans as refs. They are going to make mistakes. Only when we have robots for refs will there be no missed calls….oh wait unless someone uploads a virus into them that causes them to miss a call :)

  90. JayBackInTheBay says: Sep 22, 2009 10:43 AM

    Thank you Florio, I appreciate your application of logic and reason in this circumstance.
    Of course there are still idiots and douche nozzles commenting here that Murphy’s was a non-catch using the same pathetic splitting hair logic that refs use. To you I say pull your head out of your ass.

  91. JustinSane says: Sep 22, 2009 10:46 AM

    Ive seen this happen a couple times this year already. Shit aint right.

  92. JayBackInTheBay says: Sep 22, 2009 10:59 AM

    And lets not forget that this was ruled a catch and then overturned by replay. The replay LITERALLY took several minutes. It took them several minutes to decide if they had indisputable evidence to overturn the call. That in itself is pathetic and emblematic of an overwhelmed group. If you need more than two minutes to decide if there is indisputable evidence, then it is not indisputable.
    Bottom line is Refs in the NFL are terrible and enjoy too much influence over the outcome of games.

  93. JSpicoli says: Sep 22, 2009 1:14 PM

    The Marquez pope “safety” interception in SEA
    The Chargers “Illlegal forward pass” ruled a fumble when Plaxico did it a couple years earlier.
    The tuck call.
    Moss phantom PI on winning TD against KC.
    More bad spots and rare calls than I can remember. It happens every week. I always said I have to start writing these down, maybe the time has come.
    Also, maybe the time has come that i have to take a step back frm being a hardcore fan. It just hurts too much to care and see us get absolutely screwed at every opportunity.

  94. Raiders own the Steelers says: Sep 22, 2009 1:32 PM

    It’s not just RAIDER FANS that are upset!
    Right, Gang Members, Child Molesters, Illegal Aliens are pissed too.

  95. stanjam says: Sep 22, 2009 3:15 PM

    Umm, that video shows the refs explanation. I don’t agree with it, but not like you might think. The ref stated that he made the reception and made a football move. That would put this into a completely different category than a receiver going to the ground during a catch. If he has possession and makes a football move, he then becomes the same thing as a running back. See my earlier post about the difference between a receiver catching a ball and a running back being tackled. If that is the case it doesn’t matter if the ball comes out. While a receiver going to ground losing the ball would be an incompletion, a running back losing the ball before going down is a fumble, unless the plane is broken, which it was.
    So the question is entirely different. Did he have possession and make a football move? I say no, the ref says yes.

Leave a Reply

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