Sunday Night Quarterback

[Dgstan]

Disagree with ya DGstan...he must mantain possession throughout the completion of the play and he didnt. Replay clearly shows he didnt.

That's the point. The play WAS complete. When both of his feet touch the ground with control of the ball - Touchdown Raiders!!! He had total control of the ball until the it hits the ground. This is well after both feet come down. If he was juggling the ball, then it's incomplete - but at no point was the ball not in his complete control until after he's already down.

It's like saying a receiver who spikes the ball in the endzone after a catch never actually caught it. How long are these guys supposed to hang onto the ball? Both his feet (and his rump) were on the ground before the ball came out. All the rules I'm reading refer to a receiver who does not have full control of the ball. You cannot deny the ball was in his control. It never so much as moves until it gets knocked out by the ground.

Watch it again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taoJjvL9e7g

The reality is that this play will precipitate another rule change, just like the motherloveing Tuck Rule. Yes - we're still pissed about that.

[Snakejr]

Its not a n call ..it was the correct call. Blame the rules not the officials. They got the call correct

Sluggo.... Go back to sleep.. JHC..... KIA

[Sluggo4171]

Sluggo.... Go back to sleep.. JHC..... KIA

stick to selling orecks and insulting people in the chat...leave the football talk to meself, and DGSTAN..

[Sluggo4171]

The play was not complete until the player hits the ground. Thats what it means by possession throughout the play. Funny thing is that there was a similar review in the early game with the pats winning TD. Difference is watson maintained possession while hitting the ground. Also helped that Watson had his arm underneath the ball when hitting the ground.

Like I said...its a crappy rule. But the refs have been pretty consistent with the call since its inception. The call made is consistent with how they have been calling it.

If I was a raider fan Id blame the following

1. Synthetic Tracks
2. Patches
3. the 8 ball rule in little league
4. Lou Holtz
5. Tom Brady
6. clam jobbers
7. Avocado trees
8. Mr Buttermaker
9. Jockey Agents
and 10. "tiny hands" McFadden for fumbling in the first half and leading to a chargerette TD

[DegenerationX]

My problem is the call on the field was a TD and the ball when he sat on the ground might have moved a centimeter. Is that really conclusive in order to overturn the ruling on the field of a TD? You see people lunge at the pylon and the ball slips out and it is a TD so what the hell is the difference?

[Dgstan]

The play was not complete until the player hits the ground.

You either didn't see the play or your a closet Charger fan (not that there's anything wrong with that). What do you mean "The play was not complete until the player hits the ground"? He did hit the ground - with both feet and his butt as well. All the while maintaining absolute control of the ball. How long does he have to hold it after he's down in the endzone? Until the end of the quarter? WTF?

Like DX said, guys merely stick the nose of the ball over the plane of the goal line and it's "instant touchdown" even if it gets immediately swatted away. How can they say this is any different? He had possession. He made the precious "football move" after catching it. He was clearly down in the endzone before letting go of the ball. To top it off, the referee's explanation was he "lost possession on the way to the ground" which is patently untrue. The ball was dislodged by the ground.

Since it's inception, the basic rule of instant replay was to rectify bad calls made in the heat of the moment, not dissect scoring plays ad nauseum until they find something they can overturn. Reversals are supposed to be based on incontrovertible evidence, not borderline, subjective interpretations. Plays that close and subjective are ALWAYS allowed to stand because the evidence in not conclusive enough to warrant reversal.

[Sluggo4171]

Closet Charger fan Hell no. I cant stand Corky Rivers or L I brag that Im humble T. You make very valid points about reaching out and the ball coming lose. Difference is that a player would be considered to have possession of the ball when it comes lose. Think they call it a "football move" now.



From an NFL.com article

Oakland was on the wrong end of a replay review at the end of the half, when an apparent 19-yard touchdown pass to Murphy was overturned because the ball came loose as he hit the ground. Oakland settled for a 37-yard field goal by Janikowski with 40 seconds left.

"By definition in our rule book, he's going to the ground and has to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire act of the catch," referee Carl Cheffers told a pool reporter. "And in this case, he lost possession and the ball hit the ground. Therefore, it's incomplete."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d ... nfirm=true

[Kermit]

But... but... the ground can't cause a fumble. ???

[Sluggo4171]

But... but... the ground can't cause a fumble. ???

Fumble has nothing to do with it. Issue is whether it was a complete pass not a fumble. Saying its a fumble means the player had possession and therefore this whole discussion is moot.

Interesting comment in a yahoo article today

• Dear ESPN analysts Steve Young and Mike Golic: You’re both great guys, but you should have watched the officiating video the NFL sent out last week in which Mike Pereira, the league’s head of officials, went over the exact situation where Oakland wide receiver Louis Murphy’s(notes) potential 19-yard touchdown in the first half was overturned. Pereira explained in detail that a receiver has to control the ball all the way to the ground for it to be a catch and that the league was emphasizing that point this season.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=A ... &type=lgns

[AlphaGaijin]

You either didn't see the play or your a closet Charger fan (not that there's anything wrong with that). What do you mean "The play was not complete until the player hits the ground"? He did hit the ground - with both feet and his butt as well. All the while maintaining absolute control of the ball. How long does he have to hold it after he's down in the endzone? Until the end of the quarter? WTF?

Like DX said, guys merely stick the nose of the ball over the plane of the goal line and it's "instant touchdown" even if it gets immediately swatted away. How can they say this is any different? He had possession. He made the precious "football move" after catching it. He was clearly down in the endzone before letting go of the ball. To top it off, the referee's explanation was he "lost possession on the way to the ground" which is patently untrue. The ball was dislodged by the ground.

Since it's inception, the basic rule of instant replay was to rectify bad calls made in the heat of the moment, not dissect scoring plays ad nauseum until they find something they can overturn. Reversals are supposed to be based on incontrovertible evidence, not borderline, subjective interpretations. Plays that close and subjective are ALWAYS allowed to stand because the evidence in not conclusive enough to warrant reversal.

EXACTLY Doug. This whole thread has gotten absolutely ridiculous. I'm not blaming our loss on that call, but we got robbed. No doubt.

Sluggo, stick to clam jobbers, the Tuck Rule & your Patriots. Leave football to me, Doug, DX & Snake for crissakes.

It wasn't a fumble and it wasn't an incomplete pass. Dude rolled over the ball AFTER HITTING THE GROUND & the point of the ball came out -- BARELY. Guy was down *ON*THE*GROUND* by miles and the play was COMPLETE. Touchdown Raiders. NUFF LOVEING SAID.