The NFL on Tuesday defended the controversial reversal of a 19-yard touchdown catch made by Raiders wide receiver Louis Murphy just before halftime of Oakland's 24-20 Monday night loss to the Chargers.The league office issued a further clarification of its officials' ruling on whether Murphy maintained possession of the ball. While Article 7 of the 2009 NFL Rule Book was applied in making the booth decision to reverse the touchdown, the NFL also is further citing its rule book for an explanation:
Zebra Report: Dissecting the Raiders Non-TD
"In last night's game between the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, the Raiders faced a 3rd and 5 from the Chargers' 19 with 0:50 remaining in the second quarter," the explanation reads. "The ruling on the field was a completed pass for a touchdown.
"The instant replay assistant stopped the game for an instant replay review to determine if the receiver maintained possession of the ball after he hit the ground.
"Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that 'if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in 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."'
In closing, the NFL said:
"The instant replay review determined that Raiders wide receiver Louis Murphy did not maintain possession of the ball after he hit the ground. Thus, the on-field ruling of a touchdown was reversed by referee Carl Cheffers to an incomplete pass."
Without question, the judgment call made on the field and by the replay official has caused a furor among the Raiders and their loyal fans, who have felt they've been been on the short end of many calls throughout the years.
"The Louis Murphy Reversal" may not rank up there with the infamous "Tuck Rule" call against New England, but Raiders followers, and others throughout the NFL, are questioning the application of the possession rule.
One AFC coach told FanHouse on Tuesday that Cheffers' crew may indeed have made the correct call Monday night, but that he doesn't like the rule as it is currently written.
"Really, that is just a stupid rule, and it should be revisited in the offseason by the Competition Committee," the coach said.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 13)
9-15-2009 @ 2:46PM
reikilight said...
In other words ... No this interpretation has not been used consistently in the past ... the reply ref blew the call and the NFL is backing the blown call and who is surprised that the NFL is backing a blown call? The call sucked ... he caught and had possession long enough for a completion but the refs got in right on the field and wrong in the replay booth. The NFL is as corrupt as any sport and the Raiders got robbed and even the Charger fans realize it. For the NFL to come out making more excuses today simply shows they are corrupt idiots! The replay refs BLEW THE CALL and their bosses are covering for them ... just like the rest of Corporate America ... they lie and cover it up with no morals or ethics involved ... lying is what they do best! What an idiotic coverup to a blown call!
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 3:00PM
timcaine said...
Actually you're wrong. In order for that to be ruled a catch the receiver must maintain control of the ball when hitting the ground. If you watch the replay. When Murphy rolled over, the ball was loose and made contact with the ground. Therefore the ruling is correct, and it was an incomplete pass.
9-15-2009 @ 3:26PM
leewillijr said...
You can absolutely tell who the Raider fans are on this post. After all these years of being one of the worst teams in the league you would think they would know how to not be sore losers!!!
9-15-2009 @ 3:41PM
jonathan hawley said...
The NFL and their underpaid part time officials get it wrong all the time. I'm a Bills fan and don't care about the Raiders either way but I certainly can sympathize with the fans. Instant replay has not worked, it should but it doesn't. Officials either say they don't have enough visual evidence to overturn a ruling or they just simply screw the call all together even with the help of instant replay and slow motion. HOW CAN YOU GET THE CALL WRONG WHEN YOU CAN WATCH IT OVER AND OVER IN SLOW MOTION? For all those NFL apologists out there this isn't the only game its ever happened on. It's happen again this week to someone.
9-15-2009 @ 3:44PM
Doug said...
Mike Golic, former player even said "what, the ball can't move at all while still in possession" It was a great play. These ref's don't do this for pennies anymore, either. horrible call. I'm a bears fan we've got our own problems!!! Shop Urlacher now!!!
9-15-2009 @ 6:36PM
bdddschois said...
Upon catching the ball and putting both feet down that justified the touchdown, because the plane was broke. just like when a running back breaks the plane with possesion if he drops the ball before hitting the ground it is still a touchdown. the ball broke the plane once he put both feet to the ground!
Raiders gets the shaft again!
9-15-2009 @ 6:59PM
rauchlight said...
that was one of the worst calls I have ever seen in my life! Not just Raider's fans, but all football fans should be outraged at the call, and with the NFL for insulting the intelligence of football fans! the ref should be fired, and the NFL should do more apologizing than Kanye West or Joe Wilson combined!
9-15-2009 @ 11:11PM
BobbyG said...
I am a Chargers fan of over 40 years and I thought the review was completely unnecessary from the start and was surprised as hell when they ruled it was an incomplete pass. They totally ripped off Oakland. As many times as the Chargers have been victims of bad calls, I completely sympathize with Oakland fans. That was a good catch and the guy kept control of the ball even if part of it did touch the ground. The receiver was in control of it. Better luck next time. Charger fans are used to inept officials.
9-16-2009 @ 12:15AM
Albert S. said...
I also think its B.S. I do not think he lost control .I watched it over and over again . When the ball hit the ground it didn't move . I think he was going to let go of the ball to put his hands up in celebration but then didn't want to lose his trophy 1st touchdown ball. OH yeah all of you HATERS you will have a reason to truely hate the RAIDERS were on the up side baby . The Changers are supposed to be "superbowl" bound and we are the worst football team ever right ? We handed them their azz . If you dispute this your only lying to your self. If Russell can look of the defnce once and a while be a little more accurate ,we will be on top again. Raider Nation baby.
9-16-2009 @ 1:19AM
spitter2 said...
waaaah waaaah waaaaah. Mommy,my team got cheated.
9-15-2009 @ 2:52PM
Torsten Unsworth said...
What's the definition of "goes to the ground"? Both feet down? He had possession then. His knees or backside touching the ground? He had possession then! In every other situation, if a players backside or knees touch the ground, while he is in possession, the play is over. He had possession when his backside hit the turf. Touchdown.
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 2:52PM
turnonstan said...
He caught the ball with 2 feet down and complete control. That would be a catch outside the endzone. How can it not be a touchdown in it?
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 3:02PM
timcaine said...
Actually you're wrong. In order for that to be ruled a catch the receiver must maintain control of the ball when hitting the ground. If you watch the replay. When Murphy rolled over, the ball was loose and made contact with the ground. Therefore the ruling is correct, and it was an incomplete pass.
9-15-2009 @ 3:01PM
JC said...
This is why i've lost interest in NFL games, I hope the NFL goes bankrupt!
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 3:04PM
StevefromSacto said...
I'm not a Raider fan, but this call was absurd.
"...he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone."
His legs and hip hit the ground first and he didn't lose possession of the ball. That happened later, after the ball hit the ground. How come if a running back's knees hit the ground before the ball comes out, it isn't a fumble? And what happened to the rule that the ground can't cause a fumble?
No, I don't think there is a massive conspiracy against the Raiders or Al Davis. But this call was wrong, plain and simple.
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 8:46PM
oakjd37 said...
ground can't cause a fumble good call.stevefromsacto
9-16-2009 @ 3:27PM
B said...
you have to pay attention to EVERY word in the rule. this rule only applies if the reciever. is jumps in the air or is going to the ground (diving) to make a catch. This would not apply to a running back, or a reciever that is running with the ball, or a reciever who catches the ball with both feet already on the ground. Also unlike the tuck rule (you guys got screwed there) I see this rule applied every week in almost every game. Ill admit that this was a really hard one to call but he DID jump to make the catch and he DID go to the ground as he was making the catch and the ball DID move and DID touch the ground.
9-15-2009 @ 3:04PM
whinni said...
Yea, lets see how this "call" comes to play the rest of the season with the rest of the teams. That was a bogus BS call and he had control. Touchdown Raiders...........
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 3:06PM
tkb04crew said...
what a way to start the NFL season...perhaps they should allow that ref a little remedial training or perhaps make sure his has better vision health care packages...outrageous, if they keep up this quality of officiating, I'm out...love football but hate incompetency
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 3:07PM
pghjf said...
This interpretation goes directly against another beautiful rule we all know and love.....the ground cannot cause a fumble...juuuuuust a little inconsistency there rules commitee?
Reply