LabattBlue Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 If Polamula continued to roll on the ground for 40 yards without being touched and then as he tries to finally get up, he knocks the ball loose, is it still no interception? If this call was the result of some obscure rule, the rule needs to be removed.
AJ1 Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 That is correct.However the first interception that they took away from Polamalu was also a blown call that should have been interpreted as a catch under the Bert Emanual rule. The second interception that they took away from Polamalu was probably the worst call I have ever seen in the postseason in one of the most poorly officiated playoff games you'll ever watch. 569776[/snapback] Can I agree more than 100%?. There are some plays that demand common sense judgement. That 2nd int reversal demonstrated that the head ref has none. And, I am not a Steelers fan.
millbank Posted January 16, 2006 Author Posted January 16, 2006 From USA today , what official Morelli says he seen in making the call on intercpetion: With the Steelers' offense and Colts' defense already on the field, referee Pete Morelli stunningly ruled an incomplete pass. Replays shown in the stadium and on CBS clearly showed Polamalu having possession as he fell, then fumbling as he got up to run. Morelli said: "I had the defender catching the ball. Before he got up, he hit it with his leg with his other leg still on the ground. Therefore, he did not complete the catch. And then he lost the ball. It came out, and so we made the play an incomplete pass." - .... who knows what will come out next USA Today Football 569394[/snapback] what will come out next is them saying it was a interception..... really He did catch it
SDS Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 I don't think you can include the Bailey fumble. I agree that he probably fumbled through the endzone and it should have been a fumble. However, there is ZERO way to prove it with replay unless you have the Goodyear Blimp parked directly over the pylon when it happens. It's all about perspective and angle of viewing. Ironically, Simms idea of drawing a line between where the ball landed and where Bailey lost it and seeing if that line passes through the endzone actually has merit (even a blind squirrel....) but is infeasabile. More time and more sophisticated equipment on the sidelines would be necessary. 569898[/snapback] actually, they have the technology now. Remember the "3D" view of the game that CBS displayed a couple of years ago? They could have swung the angle around and showed the ball's trajectory going out of bounds.
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 If Polamula continued to roll on the ground for 40 yards without being touched and then as he tries to finally get up, he knocks the ball loose, is it still no interception? If this call was the result of some obscure rule, the rule needs to be removed. 569991[/snapback] This is exactly what I was trying to say. Maybe I am seeing things... And anyway... His right knee was down and then came up when he rolled... His left knee was up and then went down when he rolled... At SOME point... BOTH knees were in the air... It is even clearer on the replay. Kinda like a horse at full gallop...All four are in the air. IMO, TP made a "football move".
LabattBlue Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 I wonder if the NFL would be acknowledging that the call was wrong if Indy had comeback to win the game? My guess is that you would have seen the NFL officials backing up the call made during the game.
R. Rich Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 All the king's horses and all the king's men can't put this crap back in the king's horse.
Recommended Posts