Comments on: League defends decision on two-point play

By: FrenchMontana

FrenchMontana — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:00:52 +0000

For all of you whom are whining about it being an incomplete pass you’re probably COLTS fans or simply against the Saints winning.
Part of the NFL rule on what an incomplete pass is, “If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.”
Moore did bobble the ball when he first caught it as he was trying to break the plane, then in Moores second act of tryin to possess the ball he does just that, its clear in the replay that he has firm possession of the ball and is breaking the plane, that is a complete pass. The defender then unintentionally kicks the ball out. It didnt look like a complete pass in real time obviously.
This was the correct call for sure.

By: just_looking

just_looking — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:29:40 +0000

JB,
The text of the rule explictly says it doesn’t matter whether the ball was caught in or out of the endzone when determining whether it was a catch. But, I agree it was a catch because Moore regained control prior to the ball touching the ground – and that would apply no matter where he is. In contrast, Murphy did not regain control.
While Moore breaking the plane doesn’t make a difference in determining whether it was a catch, it does make a difference in the placement of the ball after the catch. Because he wasn’t touched until after regaining control (a catch), when he broke the plane the play is over. Had he done the same completely inside the endzone, the play is also over the moment he regained control (score). If the play happens completely outside the endzone, it’s a catch, but then I’m not sure if it would be ruled a fumble when the ball was kicked out, or down by contact.
The other wrinkle might have been had Moore been touched prior to hitting the ground. It’s still a catch, but the spot depends on where the ball was when he first hits the ground.

By: JB-Thunder

JB-Thunder — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:06:31 +0000

This is the stupidest article I’ve ever read, Florio.
The Louis Murphy situation is COMPLETELY different. There, Murphy caught the ball when he was already IN THE ENDZONE. Therefore, the rule you quoted states that the receiver must maintain possession, even when he hits the ground. Otherwise, it is not a catch, and therefore not a TD.
In the Lance Moore case, Moore caught the ball OUTSIDE OF THE ENDZONE. The ball then crossed the plane (while he maintained possession), leading to an automatic touchdown. End of play. The drop at the end did not affect the touchdown call in any way.
So the situation boils down to whether the catch is made inside of the endzone or outside of it.
From the NFL website: “To score a touchdown, the ball must be carried across the goal line into the end zone, caught in the end zone[...]” In Moore’s case, he caught the ball (and maintained possession) outside the endzone, then carried it across the goal line. Touchdown. End of story. Murphy’s situation fell into the second category, where he needed to make the catch in the endzone.

By: bang2gongs

bang2gongs — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:09:33 +0000

Boomer Esiason, who did a phenomenal job calling the game with Marv Albert on Westwood One, was incredulous. And rightfully so
The ” And rightfully so ” part makes no sense.
Read the rule again, watch the replay; the replay
call was correct.
Boomer and the Saints organization have never
liked each other, the same type of relationship
I see developing between Florio and the organization thanks to his incesant, inane comments towards them.
Time for your medication?

By: JeffWasHere

JeffWasHere — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:49:47 +0000

I agree with the article. It was not a catch. If it were any other team at any other time, it would not have been a catch. The fact that it happened near the goal line has nothing to do with whether it is a catch. As they always say, you have to basically get up off the ground with the ball for it to be a completion. It really didn’t make much difference in the final result, but it just drives you a little crazy when they call it an incomplete pass when your favorite team is playing, but they don’t enforce it during the biggest game of the year.

By: Adam-Chris Scheftersen

Adam-Chris Scheftersen — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:46:35 +0000

jb10 says:
February 7, 2010 10:35 PM
huge surprise they defend it! an even bigger surprise they reversed it!
pereira reminds me of the lawyer on sienfeld.
—————————–
“It’s outrageous, egregious, preposterous.”

By: Adam-Chris Scheftersen

Adam-Chris Scheftersen — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:32:13 +0000

Nuckinfutz says:
February 8, 2010 12:26 PM
I am not a Colts fan, and I was rooting hard for the Saints………. BUT……….why were the Saints not called for clipping Peyton Mannng during the interception return. It certainly looked like a block in the back to me.
——————————
I’m not going to bother to look up the actual rule, but I believe it’s not a block in the back unless the defender is chasing the ball carrier from behind.. That play was different. Manning was in front of him, trying to turn around and adjust to Porter’s cut back. The offense (Saints) has to have the opportunity to block defenders in front of the ball carrier. They just can’t pull them down from behind.

By: ryanmc

ryanmc — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:15:31 +0000

“…If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.”
Sure looked like he regained control of the ball prior to it being kicked out of his hands, and that control was with the ball across the goal-line. Pretty easy call of completion IMO. Nothing to see here folks – move along.

By: Nuckinfutz

Nuckinfutz — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:26:06 +0000

I am not a Colts fan, and I was rooting hard for the Saints………. BUT……….why were the Saints not called for clipping Peyton Mannng during the interception return. It certainly looked like a block in the back to me.

By: pjarvis

pjarvis — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:22:05 +0000

Did you not really watch the game??? Weather that called was over turned or not the Saints went on to score yet ANOTHER touchdown which in turn made them the Superbowl Champs!!! Not that one specific play or call… So go change your diaper and quit being a baby about it all…. or do you want to go cry with Payton Manning? The Colts got outplayed fair and square!

By: eagle_fan34

eagle_fan34 — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:11:51 +0000

Bell63 has it exactly right. He had possession and the defender touched him on the leg. Down by contact. everything after that is a non-factor. Congrats to the Saints!!!

By: Ottawa49ers

Ottawa49ers — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:04:25 +0000

He lost it when he hit the ground, so it wasn’t a catch at that point, but then regained posession and crossed the line with the ball before the defender made contact. touchdown

By: Bell63

Bell63 — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:00:11 +0000

He had possession, crossed the plane, then the opposing player touched him. At that point, the ball should be dead. Even the rule quoted in this piece does not justify the initial call. They got it right on the replay.

By: rlee

rlee — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:55:55 +0000

Mike’s self-assuredness, coupled with most everyone else’s vehement disagreement, made check the rules. Here’s what I found in the 2006 NFL Rulebook (http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/2006%20NFL%20RULEBOOK.pdf):
A touchdown occurs “when a runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponents’ goal line (plane)…. The ball is automatically dead at the instant of legal player possession on, above, or behind the opponents’ goal line.”
So if there was any moment when the player had possession of the ball behind the goal line (or plane), it counts.
“A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.” This all seems to have occurred with in this situation–just freeze frame where Lance is on his head with the ball securely in his hands.
*****
The language others are quoting about controlling the ball prior to the ball touching the ground is the definition of a *catch*, not of *player possession*:
“A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in flight. Note: It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the ball has touched the ground.” So people who say you have to have control until the ball touches the ground are correct. HOWEVER, this is the definition of a “catch”, not of “possession”. Even if Lance didn’t legally make a catch, it would appear that he had possession of the ball for an instant while the ball was over the goal plane, and that’s good enough for a touchdown.
********
Finally, the title of this article, “League Defends Decision,” says absolutely nothing about the NFL defending their decision against people denigrating it. A better headline would be “League Explains Decision” or, even better, “NBC Commentator Hates NFL Decision”. If the headline had been the latter, I would have discounted the article much more quickly and saved a few more minutes this morning.

By: Not a member?

Not a member? — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:39:18 +0000

I usually hate all the posts here about how Florio is an idiot, but I’d have to agree this time.
Clearly a catch and the right call. As to the 100 drunks in a bar theory, I was in a bar with well over 100 drunks and all agreed it was a catch.
To hemiduke, Saints fans aren’t playing the Katrina card. The media is the only one that keeps bringing that up, so STFU idiot.
to all the haters:
WHO DAT!!!

By: Adam-Chris Scheftersen

Adam-Chris Scheftersen — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:28:12 +0000

Tompadre nailed it.

By: .VoxVeritas

.VoxVeritas — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:51:14 +0000

Ball in hands with two feet on the ground = possession when you either 1) make a “football move” or 2) go to the ground and maintain possession throughout. the moment you break the plane of the goal after or while making a “football move”, down over, ball carrier has scored.
Congratulations, Saints and Saints fans!

By: BenRapistberger

BenRapistberger — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:50:08 +0000

“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.”
-He caught the pass
-He hit the ground
-The ball bobbled
-He regained possession
-The ball never touched the ground
-The ball was in the endzone
-A defender knocked the ball out with his leg

By: fab

fab — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:43:24 +0000

wyoff says:
February 7, 2010 10:38 PM
The Steelers must have paid off the refs on that call- after all, isn’t that the only time there are ever any close calls or controversial calls during Super Bowls?
————————————————–Funny, I am a steeler fan and I was thinking sort of the same thing. If that call was reversed for the steelers, there would be 1000000 post from steeler haters saying it was fixed. And like always, it really had no bearing on the outcome of the game. The colts still would have needed a td and manning still woulkd have thrown the pick 6. You can have all your records and commercials maning, I will take big Ben any day of the week. He knows how to win superbowls.

By: jd

jd — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:25:06 +0000

This was one of the most beautiful catches I have ever seen. To NOT give the 2-pts would have been a crime against the sport. The rule needs to be changed, it’s bad for WRs and the NFL.

By: Zaggs

Zaggs — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:11:27 +0000

Moore did not have possession. Upon hitting the ground he bobbled the ball (which was why it was ruled incomplete the first time). If we’re going with the second act rule (even though there was no second act) then losing possession upon the ball being kicked out must be considered.
Though I’m not surprised at the final call as the league has redefined “possession” for the Saints a few times this year (including being in possession as the ball falls out of two hands but because one hand is on it and it comes out on hitting the ground its possession).

By: pfii63

pfii63 — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:09:41 +0000

# richk says: February 8, 2010 6:18 AM
Saint’s -2 = 29
Colts 17
mute point!!
——————————————————
While I agree with your point, the word is “moot”.
Did you go to the same school that gave Florio his juris doctorate?

By: Rip

Rip — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:59:19 +0000

Viking kong – the queens suck, you swallow, deal with it.

By: Chapnasty2

Chapnasty2 — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:56:48 +0000

The Government can’t force us to buy health insurance but they stand by that decision too. Rules don’t apply to the all mighty powers including the NFL

By: Rip

Rip — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:55:37 +0000

Viking kong – the queens suck, you swallow, deal with it.

By: atomic_monkey

atomic_monkey — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:52:08 +0000

Florio, how can a lawyer have such poor reading comprehension skills? As you pointed out, the rule states: “If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.” Prior to the ball, not the player, hitting the ground.
You embarrass yourself when you inaccurately re-state the rule two paragraphs later. You moronically wrote: “[The rule] says that if the player is going to the ground in the act of catching a pass, he must maintain control after he touches the ground.”
Please explain to me how you twist the phrase “prior to the ball touching the ground” into “after [the player] touches the ground”???

By: GirthyOne

GirthyOne — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:51:19 +0000

This is where you lose it: “In other words, he must keep the ball until he comes to rest.”
That is not true. At no time do you have to come to rest. You have to be on the ground with control. Not come to rest. Quit changing the words and the meaning.
I agree with everyone here who say you suck for writing that.

By: TheDPR

TheDPR — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:46:28 +0000

I am glad the officials didn’t determine the outcome of the game like they so often do. The two points were fairly meaningless, even though I agree that they made the wrong call in overturning it. And the weak offensive pass interference in the endzone against the Colts toward the end was wrong but didn’t really hurt since it gave Manning more room to make a play.
Nevertheless, the officials made a couple mistakes and they were, as usual, in favor of the same team.

By: atomic_monkey

atomic_monkey — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:46:19 +0000

Florio has horrible reading comprehension skills (how can he be a lawyer?). As he points out, the rule says: “If he regains control PRIOR TO THE BALL TOUCHING THE GROUND, the pass is complete.” But in Florio’s analysis, he keeps misquoting the rule to say: “prior to the PLAYER touching the ground.”

By: hankstramcbsradio

hankstramcbsradio — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:36:05 +0000

I like the facemask on Aaron Rodgers and how it wasn’t called. Rodgers choked.