Comments on: Raiders fans now have the right to be riled up

By: stanjam

stanjam — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:15:03 +0000

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.

By: Raiders own the Steelers

Raiders own the Steelers — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:32:08 +0000

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

By: JSpicoli

JSpicoli — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:14:37 +0000

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.

By: JayBackInTheBay

JayBackInTheBay — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:59:16 +0000

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.

By: JustinSane

JustinSane — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:46:56 +0000

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

By: JayBackInTheBay

JayBackInTheBay — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:43:12 +0000

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.

By: defensiveplaymaker

defensiveplaymaker — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:38:38 +0000

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

By: AutumnWind999

AutumnWind999 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:24:57 +0000

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.

By: encinitasraider

encinitasraider — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:21:18 +0000

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.

By: stanjam

stanjam — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:06:44 +0000

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.

By: todd bennett

todd bennett — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:54:55 +0000

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!

By: Flyingelvislogosucksbringbackpatpatriot

Flyingelvislogosucksbringbackpatpatriot — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:44:02 +0000

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.

By: Silverdog

Silverdog — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:33:10 +0000

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.

By: AutumnWind999

AutumnWind999 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:57:51 +0000

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.

By: lvass76

lvass76 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:54:59 +0000

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.

By: elduderino13

elduderino13 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:47:39 +0000

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.

By: Raiderman

Raiderman — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:42:10 +0000

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.

By: YOOPERBILL

YOOPERBILL — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:37:29 +0000

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.

By: Raiders757

Raiders757 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:57:00 +0000

@ 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.

By: TimT

TimT — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:54:07 +0000

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.

By: VoxVeritas

VoxVeritas — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:51:44 +0000

“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.

By: Vinces Power Sweep

Vinces Power Sweep — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:40:39 +0000

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.

By: bwisnasky

bwisnasky — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:39:56 +0000

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?

By: TheDPR

TheDPR — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:36:44 +0000

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.

By: swervinmervin

swervinmervin — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:13:02 +0000

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

By: Eli

Eli — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:03:24 +0000

@ 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

By: Joe in Toronto, Canada

Joe in Toronto, Canada — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:30:40 +0000

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?

By: Mike Quick

Mike Quick — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:57:42 +0000

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.

By: oafan

oafan — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:07:51 +0000

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!!!!!!!!!!

By: JSpicoli

JSpicoli — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:48:46 +0000

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.