Skip to content

Week Two "Official Review" revisits Louis Murphy rule

In the online-only bonus coverage of some of the biggest calls from Week Two, NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira addresses the two plays from Week Two that seemed to contradict the decision in the last game of Week One to take points off the board in Oakland.

Late in the first half of the Chargers-Raiders game, receiver Louis Murphy made a catch in the end zone, got two feet down with the ball, continued to the ground, and lost possession.

No catch.

As to Week Two, the league continues to stand behind the position that the decision to award a touchdown to Texans receiver Jacoby Jones and Panthers tight end Dante Rosario was correct.

Lamented Pereira at the outset of the discussion with NFL Network’s Paul Burmeister, “I really feel bad about this.  I mean, this has gotten to be so convoluted, this whole act of catching a pass when you’re going to the ground, that it’s very difficult for people to grasp what is a catch and what isn’t a catch.”

Again, here’s the rule:  “If a player goes to the ground in the act of
catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control
of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.  If
he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control,
the pass is incomplete.  If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground,
the pass is complete.”

Regarding the Jones catch, Pereira explained that the catch was good when Jones hit the ground the first time, and that the loss of possession after Titans cornerback Cortland Finnegan flipped Jones to the ground a second time didn’t matter.

“This is a catch and it needs to stay a catch,” Pereira said.

But, in our view, Jones wasn’t on the ground long enough to actually be “on the ground.”  He only glanced the ground as part of a continuous action that resulted in him eventually landing on the ground, and losing the ball.

It’s a visceral sense, a “know it when you see it” type of a thing.  Jones’ knee and elbow hit only momentarily while he was rolling to the ground with Finnegan.  But, as we see it, Jones wasn’t on the ground until he hit the ground a second time.  And, at that point, he lost the ball.

No catch.

As to the Rosario play, it’s a matter of subjective interpretation as to whether Rosario completed the catch before he hit the ground.  In our view, the real question is whether Rosario would have stayed on his feet if he hadn’t lunged for the goal line.  And it looked like Rosario was heading to the ground regardless of whether he lunged for the goal line.  Thus, he was going to the ground and he should have maintained possession after he struck the ground.

So, no catch.

And even though we understand where the league is coming from, the bigger concern we have is that, if Jones and Rosario each made a good catch, then Louis Murphy’s play from Week One should have been upheld on review, too.

Permalink 48 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
48 Responses to “Week Two "Official Review" revisits Louis Murphy rule”
  1. RaiderClay says: Sep 26, 2009 8:53 AM

    Pereira appears unable to admit a flawed call…

  2. Jampa says: Sep 26, 2009 9:05 AM

    “Know it when you see it”, as you put it, is the core of the problem… as in the tuck game, or the murphy catch or the muffed punt at tenesse, 99% of the people who sees them will see it as it is.
    it´s like a Law & Order episode where they look for technicallities to let the crimibnal free…

  3. aj says: Sep 26, 2009 9:07 AM

    Go back to the rule. There is no time element for how long the player touches the ground before he is considered down.
    So even if it’s ‘momentarily’, down is down, as Jacoby Jones was when he first touched the ground. He also maintained control of the ball until he contacted the ground a second time after rolling over Cortland Burnedagain.

  4. Cap says: Sep 26, 2009 9:19 AM

    I think the real issue here is the difference between the standards for a pass or a rush. When a player is running for the goal, and leaps and extends the ball over the end line, the score is indicated at the moment the ball penetrates the plane. If the player loses control later, or goes out of bounds, or whatever, it is still a touchdown. In contrast, the current rule for pass plays is too convoluted.
    I like the standard promoted by Madden (?) that three guys watching the game in a bar should be able to figure it out.

  5. mike28212 says: Sep 26, 2009 9:20 AM

    I guess when this situation happens this weekend and it is ruled a non-catch we can expect Pereira to defend that call as well. He’s right about one thing. It is difficult to know what constitutes a catch when the rules seemed to be applied differently from game to game.

  6. Raiderman says: Sep 26, 2009 9:20 AM

    One of these days the NFL is going to add an “Except when it’s the Raiders” addendum to every rule in their rulebook.

  7. masterblaster78 says: Sep 26, 2009 9:26 AM

    Hey it’s the Raiders. The NFL has it out against them. Any other team the catch Murphy made would have resulted in a TD. Since he plays for the Raiders, now it’s not……..Has anyone noticed, plays that are controversial involve the Raiders? Does anyone see the NFL having a H**don for them or do you need glasses?

  8. chc4 says: Sep 26, 2009 9:27 AM

    There is no way Rosario’s was a catch in the CAR/ATL. I’m not even sure he had possession before going to the ground. Terrible call by the refs and Perriera. And he wonders why the rule is so confusing? Perhaps it’s because the implementation of it is so inconsistent.

  9. pkrjones says: Sep 26, 2009 9:32 AM

    The rules are wacked! IF a player on the sideline has control of the ball and 2 feet down it’s a catch. The same rule should apply in the endzone. IF a running back with the ball is down by contact (with the ground) when his knee, elbow or hip hit the ground, then it should be that way for a receiver in the field of play, or in the endzone. IF a RB scores a touchdown by having the tip of the ball cross the endzone line, then ANY player in the endzone, WITH possession should score a touchdown.
    The fact that EVERY call needs to be analyzed to determine a TD or not is ridiculous… consistency in the rules will eliminate the ludicrous reviews and lame technicalities.

  10. El Slappo says: Sep 26, 2009 9:33 AM

    Good point about the time element, there is no designation of how long the player must be on the ground.
    This also should have applied to the Murphy TD – he was ‘on the ground’ when his butt and elbow touched the ground – at that point the play should have been over and ruled a TD if we use the interpretation used on the Jones TD.
    The vague wording of this rule (as with other rules) leaves it up the real-time interpretation of the NFL ref – which isn’t exactly a confidence-inspiring set up given the foulups we have noticed even when they have crystal clear HD replays.
    I think the Rosario call was just a total blown call – the guy never really had any control over the ball IMO.

  11. obscenery says: Sep 26, 2009 9:36 AM

    Florio is right… if the rule were to say “The receiver must maintain possession the 2nd time he hits the ground, in addition to the first”.
    Luckily Florio can’t change the rules.
    The Rosario call is easy. one foot down, two feet down, made a “football move” to cross the plain of the goal line. Touchdown! Fireworks! Endzone dance!
    If the rules are difficult to understand then work on seeing them as black and white as a refs uniform.

  12. pfinfl says: Sep 26, 2009 9:37 AM

    But, in our view, Jones wasn’t on the ground long enough to actually be “on the ground.” He only glanced the ground as part of a continuous action that resulted in him eventually landing on the ground, and losing the ball.
    Florio, this is the most inane take you have ever made. Since when is there a reqirement to be down long enough?

  13. penguininbondage says: Sep 26, 2009 9:59 AM

    Did he touch the ground with a body part other than his hand or feet? YES
    Did he have control of the ball at that moment? YES
    Was he inbounds when he caught the ball prior to hitting the ground? YES
    Pretty simple stuff, even for a lawyer.

  14. mvlonergan says: Sep 26, 2009 10:05 AM

    Move on, Florio. You’re starting to sound like a disgruntled fantasy football manager whining on the message board about the scoring system. You’re doing the exact thing that the NFL doesn’t want their refs to do, which is to interpret a situation or predict what may have happened. Stop doing your lawyerly interpretations and just read the rule.

  15. Agamemnon says: Sep 26, 2009 10:29 AM

    Sorry, Mr. Florio. I agree with you nearly 99% of the time. This is a 1%.
    “But, in our view, Jones wasn’t on the ground long enough to actually be “on the ground.” He only glanced the ground as part of a continuous action that resulted in him eventually landing on the ground, and losing the ball.”
    Why does this feel like a “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.” If the receiver was on the ground, IE down by contact, and a second move by the defender caused him to hit the ground a second time, that seems like a catch to me; two separate football moves.
    Which brings me to the second play. As you describe: “As to the Rosario play, it’s a matter of subjective interpretation as to whether Rosario completed the catch before he hit the ground. In our view, the real question is whether Rosario would have stayed on his feet if he hadn’t lunged for the goal line.” The critical piece to this is the “lunged for the goal line”. Isn’t possession described as two feet down and a football move? Wouldn’t lunging for the goal line be considered a football move?
    In actuality, the second play to me doesn’t look like a catch, because as the ball was moving around as the receiver tried to lunge toward the endzone. I don’t think he ever really had possession. But, that part is certainly subject to opinion.
    I do not have any stake in any of the 6 teams involved in these three plays (the two in week 2 and the first week with the Raiders). I’d like to think I’m an objective observer. And I’m afraid that I disagree with you on these interpretations as you have written them, Mr. Florio.

  16. Cerberus says: Sep 26, 2009 10:30 AM

    I seriously doubt the League is worried about the rules becoming so convoluted; otherwise they would just simplify the process of what defines a catch. And if the rules are becoming so complex that fans are having a tough time grasping them, what does that say about the rules? That is like asking us to let the refs tell us who wins the games on Sunday.
    As for Rosario’s catch, why is his lunge for the endzone considered a second-move, while Murphy’s twist to pull-away from the defender’s swap at the ball is not? Does Pereira think none of us have video of the catch, or that we don’t have ability to look back and see that Murphy also made a second-move? No, it wasn’t a lunge, but that is because he was already in the endzone. However, he did twist away before going to the ground with his glut, elbow and forearm, prior to the ball moving.
    Methinks the NFL counts on the fans of 31 other teams to not care, and when something happens to their teams the other 31 teams’ fans won’t care about them. So, all they really need to do is a little spin-doctoring until our collective amnesia sets in and the Murphy TD-reversal is an afterthought.

  17. ragin40 says: Sep 26, 2009 10:31 AM

    It was a catch and the whole football world knows it….

  18. Dan says: Sep 26, 2009 10:54 AM

    Cerberus says:
    September 26, 2009 10:30 AM
    I seriously doubt the League is worried about the rules becoming so convoluted; otherwise they would just simplify the process of what defines a catch.
    Cerebus: I guarentee you they will look at this rule and make it more simple and better.

  19. leatherneck says: Sep 26, 2009 10:55 AM

    Jacoby Jones (Texans) caught the ball. He hit the ground with his elbow and his shin. Jones maintained possession. That is a catch in the endzone and the play is over. After that, he was thrown and the ball came out. At that point the touchdown had already been scored. PFT says “Jones’ knee and elbow hit only momentarily” but that is not at all relevant. There is nothing in the rule about “momentarily.”
    Louis Murphy (Raiders) caught the ball. He hit the ground. As soon as he hit the ground, the ball came out. That is not a catch.
    Dante Rosario (Panthers) caught the ball while standing up, and made a football move, demonstrating possession as he moved forward. By demonstrating possession, it became a catch. The ball crossed the plane of the goal line. When that happened it was a touchdown and the play was over. Subsequently, Rosario hit the ground and the ball came out. The play already was finished by that point and it was a touchdown.
    I don’t see any problem with any of these calls. The officials got these calls right.

  20. Dan says: Sep 26, 2009 11:03 AM

    By rule, the NFL got all 3 calls correct. Jacoby Jones and Rosario were TDs and no one has an issue with them except Mr Florio.
    Its the Murphy TD that needs a serious re-interpretation of the rule.
    One poster (I think a Chargers fan) came up with a great idea to fix the rule. Just add, once a body part hits the ground with the receiver in possession of the ball, the play is over. Its a Catch (Touchdown).
    And it will go back to the ground cant cause a fumble or an incomplete pass.

  21. Pino says: Sep 26, 2009 11:31 AM

    Whatever happened to “the ground cannot cause a fumble?”

  22. Play4Blood says: Sep 26, 2009 11:46 AM

    Let it go…

  23. Inept_guy says: Sep 26, 2009 11:48 AM

    Sorry but Florio actually has a point with this momentarily crap. If you are going to say that one player brushing the ground and then subsequently losing control counts, then why doesn’t it count when a player is falling, other parts of his body hit first and then he loses control after other parts hit. Its pretty much the same thing. The rule should simply be that if you have control and 2 feet, a knee, elbow, whatever hits its a catch. None of this football move or maintaining possession for some subjective period or whatever.

  24. StillMadAtSlobber says: Sep 26, 2009 12:01 PM

    # RaiderClay says: September 26, 2009 8:53 AM
    Pereira appears unable to admit a flawed call…
    _________________________________
    That’s provably incorrect.
    After the 2005 AFC Divisional playoffs, Colts-Steelers, Pereira said the ref was incorrect in overturning Polamalu’s INT.

  25. StillMadAtSlobber says: Sep 26, 2009 12:04 PM

    obscenery says: September 26, 2009 9:36 AM
    Florio is right… if the rule were to say “The receiver must maintain possession the 2nd time he hits the ground, in addition to the first”.
    Luckily Florio can’t change the rules.
    The Rosario call is easy. one foot down, two feet down, made a “football move” to cross the plain of the goal line. Touchdown! Fireworks! Endzone dance!
    If the rules are difficult to understand then work on seeing them as black and white as a refs uniform.
    ___________________
    By that interpretation, in last years AFCCG, Steelers-Ravens, the ref was wrong.
    Santonio Holmes caught the ball (around the 5 yard line), had both feet down, shifted the ball into 1 hand and extended it forward as he was going down. It moved when he hit the ground, and it was ruled an incomplete pass.

  26. StillMadAtSlobber says: Sep 26, 2009 12:09 PM

    Stop saying football move people, that got eliminated this year. It is no longer part of the rule.

  27. Treadstone says: Sep 26, 2009 12:24 PM

    This is sad. It’s not that difficult to understand. In talking about football-no rules-Murphy and Jones were both td’s.
    If considered w/the rules, they got the Murphy call correct b/c the wr has to go clear to the ground while holding on to the ball. In one motion, he hit his butt yes, but that same motion twisted him on around and when he belly flopped, he lost it.
    Jones caught the ball and lost the ball before he even made it to the ground. I have no idea how they screwed up that call, he didn’t hold on to it clear to the ground. The calls completely contradict each other.
    Rosario on the other is a pretty simple call. The above rule doesn’t apply to this situation b/c he caught the ball outside of the endzone and becomes another runner and therefore all he has to do is make the ball hit the goal line. This is the easiest call in question.
    Come on Florio, I’m suprised you missed this one; you’re normally pretty good at explaining things.

  28. Agamemnon says: Sep 26, 2009 12:26 PM

    StillMadAtSlobber has a point. Ed Hochuli said earlier this year (quoted from Forums.footballguys.com)
    “The one (change) I think is the most dramatic is not really a rule change, it’s just an interpretation change from the competition committee that deals with what is a completed catch,” Hochuli said.
    Beginning this season, a receiver that gets two feet down and has control of the ball has a reception.
    Traditionally a player needed to make “a football move” after a catch to have it classified a reception. Now, a quick hit from a defender could result in a fumble.
    “Sometimes there’s a situation where there were three steps and the ball would come out and it would be correctly ruled an incomplete pass,” Hochuli said. “So, the receiver gets a second foot down, gets hit and the ball comes lose — we would have a fumble rather than an incomplete pass.”
    *****
    So, under this interpretation, and I apologize for forgetting about the football move thing, these do appear to be catches. I guess it’s your judgement on whether the receivers were “going to ground”. Where the football move thing does come into play, for me, is that the lunge to the endzone. That “football move” came between the catch and the “going to ground” in the endzone. Therefore, going to ground was not part of the catch. And I think that’s where the rule is supposed to be applied.
    Florio may have an argument, but I don’t think the officials have it wrong either. Definitely, I don’t think that it can be argued that if one is a catch they all are, or vice versa.

  29. jbraider says: Sep 26, 2009 12:46 PM

    Only the dumba$$ NFL would take the perfectly simple act of catching a pass – which has never been a problem for the NCAA, AFL, CFL, etc. – and foul it up by letting a bunch of brain-dead lawyers write the rule.
    “If in the process of catching a pass, the receiver is going to the ground…”
    It is a dumb rule already:
    When is the process of catching a pass completed and when does the act of going to the ground begin?
    Murphy had control of the ball with both feet down in the end zone. TO me that completes tha process of the catch. How can the ref guarantee that he was going to the ground at that instant? If the db that was draped over him had stopped trying to tackle him at that point, would Murphy necessarily have “gone to the ground” (and what does going to the ground mean anyway – should we interpret that as anything other than your feet touching the ground?)
    I say Murphy made the catch and was subsequently tackled in a manner such that the ball came out AFTER his elbow hit the ground. THe fact that the tackle (and subsequent non-fumble) happened 0.5 seconds after the catch (instead of 30 seconds after the catch) is irrelevant.

  30. snnyjcbs says: Sep 26, 2009 12:59 PM

    After Murphy catches the ball he hits the ground with both feet and than falls on his ass and is sitting in the endzone on his ass with complete control of the ball prior to rolling over.
    So from what the NFL is stating above once Murphy was sitting on his ass in the endzone with complete control of the ball it should have been a TD and the Raiders could be 2-0.
    Does that dude from the NFL have no shame. Someone should stop him from going on TV and trying to rubber stamp these calls, he is making an ass out of himself and the whole thing is becoming a huge joke.
    As I have stated before, the NFL likes it this way. It gives them control to twist a game in any direction that they would like to see it go. And even without that the NFL and the refs have become way to much a part of the game.
    I will say it once again, “do not piss down my back and try to tell me that it is raining.”

  31. Goose! says: Sep 26, 2009 12:59 PM

    He’s not on the ground enough? Really? That’s your argument? So when a guy catches a ball, is tripped, and his knee touches the ground for a second but he quickly stands back up that’s not down by contact?

  32. leatherneck says: Sep 26, 2009 1:18 PM

    After making the catch, Jacoby Jones had to demonstrate possession. He hit the ground. He maintained possession. That is a catch. Touchdown. It doesn’t matter how long he stays on the ground. Whatever happens after the touchdown, whether he gets thrown in the air or whatever is irrelevant.
    After making the catch, Louis Murphy had to demonstrate possession. He hit the ground. He lost possession. That is not a catch. Incomplete pass.

  33. Tdk24 says: Sep 26, 2009 1:39 PM

    The NFL refs are the worst of any league. Remember, they can’t even get the OT coin toss called correctly. I really don’t know how they can live with themselves.

  34. The Wishbone says: Sep 26, 2009 1:50 PM

    I saw all three of these live. They were all obvious calls, they were all correct. I don’t understand why you keep wasting posts on this.

  35. SJPB8 says: Sep 26, 2009 2:09 PM

    You guys really are dumb if you cant see what the ref is saying. In Rosario’s case going to the ground was not part of making the catch. He caught it turned and lunged for the goal line what is so hard to see about that. The only thing I can see questioned is whether he fumbled before scoring. But trying to call that incomplete is horrible.
    As far as the Jones play.. how can you say he wasnt on the ground enough?? That is stupid as well. If you hit the ground you hit the ground, there is no 2 second rule or anything that says your whole body has to hit. Once you are down by contact and you still have possession it is a catch.
    As for Louis Murphy falling to the ground was part of the catch. He didnt maintain possession therefore no catch.
    It seems to me that Florio is trying to argue a point where he has none. When the ref told him the rules and corrected where Florio was wrong he goes and makes things up. To say Rosario was probably going to the ground is something that you cannot guess. The rule doesnt say if you think he would have went to the ground had he not done what he did. I mean seriously if he could turn to lunge at the goal line why not turn to run? The fact that he turned upfield would even make him going to the ground in that play not part of the catch. Seriously you guys are trying to make something outta this.

  36. Agamemnon says: Sep 26, 2009 2:15 PM

    That’s more than a little harsh, Tdk24. I’ve been hard on Refs in my time too, but let’s face it. We get the benefit of seeing plays in slow motion for multiple, miltiple angles. These refs get the benefit of seeing the plays in the heat of the action, at full speed. Then when the head ref does get to watch a replay, he gets what, a minute and a half? With the debate in this thread alone, one can see how much judgement comes into play, as well as the interpretation of the rules.
    Besides, the Big Ten basketball refs are the worst; friggin home-town referees… ;-)

  37. Mark0226 says: Sep 26, 2009 2:23 PM

    I agree with Pereira 100% on all accounts.

  38. DanSnyder says: Sep 26, 2009 2:27 PM

    It’s not the louis murphy rule.. This rule has been around and enforced plenty.. Just because raiders fans are not used to seeing passes to the endzone does not mean it is something new or crazy. Plenty of teams had this happen last season and while it can be annoying its the rules.
    It’s only a big deal cause the raiders can’t score. The rule had nothing to do with their loss. They got soft and let san diego drive down on them doing the same dumpoff to a wide open sproles over and over. They deserved to lose.
    Raiders organization does not deserve this much attention. Let it die.

  39. Tr3pidation says: Sep 26, 2009 3:11 PM

    About the Rosario catch-AS SOON AS THE BALL BREAKS THE PLANE OF THE ENDZONE, IT’S A TOUCHDOWN. if he establishes possession of the ball before breaking the plane of the endzone he could drop the ball and it should still be ruled a TD.

  40. Eli says: Sep 26, 2009 3:52 PM

    Mike Pereira says…
    “I really feel bad about this. I mean, this has gotten to be so convoluted, this whole act of catching a pass when you’re going to the ground, that it’s very difficult for people to grasp what is a catch and what isn’t a catch.”
    ====================================================
    Thanks for insulting us Mike Pereira.
    Yeah, where to stupid to know these things.
    Only you Mike are so smart that you can “grasp what is a catch and what isn’t a catch.”
    UN-BEE-LEAVABLE!
    This guy makes six digit’s a year, swanky office in NY, nice house, fly’s first class, five star hotels, steak and lobster, field passes to any game, Super Bowl, player autographs, you name it.
    And what do we get in return?
    In the ENTIRE time he has been head of officiating he has NEVER fixed it. And now he insults the very people who butter his bread.
    His officials can’t even look into a monitor with multiple slow motion angle replays and get a call right that your average fan CAN just seeing it a couple of times between commercials.
    Hey Pereira! I can “grasp” the rule just fine, it is YOU who has “CONVOLUTED” the Murphy call.
    Anybody with a pair of eyes and common sense could clearly see that Murphy made that catch and it was indeed a touchdown.
    And may I remind you Pereira, that it also states you must have indisputable evidence to overturn the original ruling on the field.
    Their was no indisputable evidence, just more inept officiating which you Mike Pereira are in charge of and keep making excuses for.

  41. Eli says: Sep 26, 2009 3:53 PM

    Mike Pereira, please explain this…
    Here is the RULE again EXACTLY as it relates and appears in the rule book…
    “If the player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass he must maintain control of the ball AFTER HE TOUCHES THE GROUND”.
    NOWHERE and I mean NOWHERE does it state ANYTHING about “you must maintain possession of the ball through the ENTIRE play.”
    NOWHERE.
    If the rulebook stated THAT, then I along with the majority of others wouldn’t be on here arguing that in the first place.
    That’s what this is all about.
    So, all Murphy had to do was “maintain control of the ball AFTER HE TOUCHES THE GROUND”.
    With the key word being… “TOUCHES”.
    Here again is a slow motion video of the Murphy touchdown and the blown call by the official…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBS8tTsnWE
    A). At 1:02 you can CLEARLY see both feet and his butt are BEGINNING to “touch the ground” and he is controlling the ball.
    B). At 1:14 you can CLEARLY see that his RIGHT elbow has “touched the ground” and he is controlling the ball.
    C). At 1:15 you can CLEARLY see that his RIGHT forearm has “touched the ground” and he is controlling the ball.
    D). At 1:16 you can CLEARLY see that his LEFT hand has “touched the ground” and he is controlling the ball.
    The play SHOULD have been ruled a completed catch and a touchdown the split second after his butt INITALLY “touched the ground”.
    And it for sure should have been ruled a catch and a touchdown after the second time a part of this body “touched the ground”!
    But what makes this such a travesty is that not 1, not 2, or even 3, but in FACT 4 separate times a different part of his body “touched the ground” while he maintained control of the ball!
    Mike Pereira is WRONG and covering up the TRUTH.
    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.

  42. fugitive99 says: Sep 26, 2009 3:55 PM

    I have been watching nfl football for 40 years . If the Murphy catch wasnt a TD then I should stop watching. I dont care what the rule says. As far as Mike Pereria and his weekly NFL network segmant its a joke he can twist the rules around anyway he wants so he does not say they made a mistake . Mike you would get more credability if you would admit when the officials are wrong.

  43. Blueberry Head says: Sep 26, 2009 4:05 PM

    This is like one of those times where you say something knee-jerk, you realize you were wrong, but instead of admitting you were wrong you go in the completely opposite direction and magnify your stupidity. Read the rule, Florio. They’re not bad calls. Call them bad rules, but don’t dispute what “down” is, because that’s pretty obvious, and I’m sure if you think about it for a moment you’ll realize how many problems your false-interpretation would cause in application. A knee is down. This isn’t something that can be down sometimes, depending on how the rest of the body is moving. Stop being so silly.

  44. AutumnWind999 says: Sep 26, 2009 4:20 PM

    Is Pereira blind, lying or just stupid?
    Did he not see Louis Murphy with control of the ball, two feet down … control of the ball, a knee down … control of the ball, a hip down …
    How was Jones’ catch any different? Jones actually had control of the ball for less of the action of going to the ground.

  45. Hwood82 says: Sep 26, 2009 4:29 PM

    Florio, you guys are either hating on the Texans or smoking lots of crack! You said because he only touches the ground momentarily then the pass should be incomplete!?!?!
    Really!?
    What if he was in the open field and Finnegan tackled him, he touches the ground for the same period of time – would he have been able to advance the ball after that? Of course not, he would be ruled down by contact because HIS KNEE AND ELBOW BOTH TOUCHED THE GROUND – TWICE! Now get your head out of your rectum and quit hatin’ on my Texans!

  46. raideralex99 says: Sep 27, 2009 3:42 AM

    SJPB8 says:
    September 26, 2009 2:09 PM
    You guys really are dumb if you cant see what the ref is saying. In Rosario’s case going to the ground was not part of making the catch. He caught it turned and lunged for the goal line what is so hard to see about that. The only thing I can see questioned is whether he fumbled before scoring. But trying to call that incomplete is horrible.
    As far as the Jones play.. how can you say he wasnt on the ground enough?? That is stupid as well. If you hit the ground you hit the ground, there is no 2 second rule or anything that says your whole body has to hit. Once you are down by contact and you still have possession it is a catch.
    As for Louis Murphy falling to the ground was part of the catch. He didnt maintain possession therefore no catch.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    LOL … who’s dumb … some people believe anything. I bet you still believe there’s weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

  47. BleedColtsBlue says: Sep 27, 2009 6:12 AM

    “But, in our view, Jones wasn’t on the ground long enough to actually be “on the ground.”
    Three second rule, anyone?

  48. Ray Guy says: Sep 27, 2009 10:43 AM

    Raiderman says:
    “One of these days the NFL is going to add an “Except when it’s the Raiders” addendum to every rule in their rulebook.”
    ______________________________________
    You need to learn to read the rule book. It’s already in there under subsection “D”, paragraph12:
    Quote: “Screw the Raiders at all costs”
    originally written by Pete Rozelle.

Leave a Reply

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