Raiders fans always believe they're being robbed by the officials. But when the league's officiating crew in Oakland Monday night overturned Raiders wide receiver Louis Murphy's 19-yard touchdown catch with 50 seconds remaining before halftime, they knew exactly where to find justification in the 2009 NFL Rule Book.Page 6. Rule 3. Section 2. Article 7. Note 1. That's where the rules confirm that Murphy's apparent touchdown reception was not a catch, because the rookie receiver did not have "firm grip and control of the ball" through the entirety of the reception while engaged with the San Diego Chargers' defender in the end zone.
Here is how the entire Article 7 -- which addresses player possession in this particular case -- reads:
"A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. 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.
"If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."
Here is the exact explanation under Note 1 of this rule, which the NFL no doubt will cite on Wednesday after the Raiders send a letter of complaint to the NFL office in New York and vice president of officiating Mike Pereira:
"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by a defender) 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, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception or recovery."
Short explanation -- while Murphy was going to the ground with the defender while in the end zone, he had to maintain control of the ball. Since it came loose from his grasp before the ball hit the ground, the catch was ruled incomplete.
The ESPN Monday Night Football crew of Mike Golic, Mike Greenberg and Steve Young seemed confused by the rules of possession, with Golic and Greenberg vehemently contending that Murphy's acrobatic reception had to be a catch because he had two feet down before the ball slipped from his fingers as he went to the ground.Young, at first glance, mentioned the correct possession rule, then got caught up in the outrage that had overtaken the announcers' box after the booth review reversed the original touchdown call.
When the second half started, it was clear someone from the NFL office had been in contact with the folks in Bristol -- ESPN showed a previously unseen angle of the play in question that showed the ball completely falling from Murphy's grasp once he got to the ground, and Golic even conceded he had spoken to the replay assistant at halftime. All three announcers clarified the rule and conceded Murphy did not maintain complete control of the football after he touched the ground.
Oakland settled for a Sebastian Janikowski field goal after the call reversal -- and the four-point swing wound up being the difference in San Diego's 24-20 win. Murphy, though, did eventually find the end zone for real, hauling in a JaMarcus Russell bomb late in the fourth quarter for his first NFL touchdown.
But it's the one he didn't get that will have everyone talking.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
9-15-2009 @ 1:49AM
rchrism said...
This is a poor explanation of what was clearly a catch and the rules application. The Raiders were robbed! No Question about that!
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 2:01AM
reikilight said...
I agree ... bad call ... it was a catch and so it goes in the NFL. The Raiders defense once again played prevent and got their azzez handed to them on that last drive ... out coached and played on a critical drive. Bad call just the same ... It was a catch!
9-15-2009 @ 3:48AM
Kever-D said...
I agree. I could care less about either team tho, because I’m a Viking fan. I’ve been watching the NFL for over 30 years, and I’ve seen many horrible calls by the officials, BUT this is one of the worst calls I have ever seen. I'm commenting because I'm getting sick and tired of the officials ruling the outcome of NFL games.
Two points to the so called explanation outlined above! First part of the rule states,
"... 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."
OR is the operative word here. Murphy had control and two-feet-in, plane of the goal line has been broke, plays over, TOUCHDOWN!! The other parts of his body don't matter here, only if he would of been flattened PRIOR to control with two-feet-in!
Second part of the so-called explanation,
"If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession...."
A blind man watching the review could see there was no "simultaneously" anything. The ball came out after the D-back drove him into the ground. And with a review, it has to conclusive to over-rule the call on the field.
This official is incompetent and should be banned from officiated any further NFL games. I don’t have a clue what goes on behind the scene during these play reviews, but I hope there’s no latitude for any hanky-panky, if you know what I mean. HOWEVER, after this debacle, I’m beginning to wonder!! From this, my confidence in the NFL has suddenly been compromised.
9-15-2009 @ 2:11PM
John Lyons said...
I must have missed something. They showed the replay at least ten times and I never saw the ball seperate from the reciever's hand. Was this play conclusive? Hardly. Just another call that goes against the Raiders. NFL stands for "Not Fair League."
9-16-2009 @ 12:30AM
Albert S. said...
OK , Lets say a receiver catches the touchdown two feet in bounds without taking another step about to raise the ball in celebration and a db can swat the ball out of his hands . There for he does not have control no touchdown? Are you freaking serious .
9-15-2009 @ 2:18AM
Mr. Hemingway said...
I hate to agree, as a San Diegan...but..that was a catch..it irks me to say that as a Chargers fan but fair is fair...
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 2:48AM
lucianomobster said...
Sorry, Nancy: Rulebook does not back reversal of Louis Murphy TD. It looks as if your interpretation of the rulebook was just as poor as the referees because the rule cited does not apply to this catch. "A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by a defender) must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone." IN THE PROCESS OF ATTEMPTING TO SECURE POSSESSION. Replay clearly shows that Murphy had already established possession of the ball before he began to go to the ground. He caught the ball with two hands above his head, brought it down and tucked it in with his right arm and came down with two feet in the endzone."A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. 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." At this point it could no longer be considered a "loose ball" and therefore the rule you and the league cited is out the window. The Raiders were robbed and of course the league went to ESPN and told them to speak on the matter in a different light, they don't want to look like fools on national television and be put in a position where the validity of their games are in question. Every other multi-million dollar corporation in this country has experienced corruption, why is it so hard to believe that the NFL is any different.
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 2:49AM
apocalypo said...
Seriously guys? I hate the Raiders, but that was a catch. Murphy definitely had control of the ball before it slipped away.
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 8:38AM
raidman75 said...
he had both feet down and he hit the ground and was down for 2 seconds before the ball came out. that was as bad a call as the tuck rule. i'd like to see if the refs are going to enforce this rule on every other team this yr whether the catch is in the field of play or the endzone... i highly doubt it.
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 8:41AM
tiffsman8386 said...
i've been a die hard raiders fan 4 over 15 years and 2 see crap like that floors me.never fails in the NFL 2 see teams get screwed,literally.raiders played a hella of a game and jus gotta keep up the awesome work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 9:19AM
Joseph said...
Yes, I agree 100% that it was a TD and the Raiders got 4 Points taken away from them, But that is only a 1/4 of the Game - JR really Sucks - He can't make routine passes -
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 9:42AM
RJ said...
Totally got robbed again. It must be the NFL's way of saying to Al Davis that he must go. It is hard enough being a Raiders fan, we don't need this to boot. Not only is the referee retarded for making that call after watching it for 10 mins, the writer of this column joins him. So after you have 2 feet down with control you must now perform a backflip in order to "catch" the ball.
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 10:18AM
Chris Crifasi said...
You are arguing from a faulty premise. You quote a rule that argues for a no catch when the receiver doesn't have possession of the football.
After watching the replay over a dozen times in HD, he clearly had control of the ball.
Also to back up my point, the officials knew they screwed up as evidenced by the many "calls" going the Raiders direction following that call.
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 10:46AM
WILL said...
WE CAN BEAT THE CHARGERS , BUT WE CANT BEAT THE REF'S
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 10:49AM
WILL said...
WHY IS A WOMAN WHO'S NEVER PLAYED IN THE NFL WRITING ABOUT IT ? (NANCY GAY)
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 11:02AM
LG said...
You cite the following to make your point:
"A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. 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."
But that is actually proof of why Murphy caught the ball and it should have been a Raider TD: PLEASE go back and watch the play again. He CLEARLY has possession of the ball with two feet on the ground, then his backside and then his elbow before he turns over and the ball comes out. The ball was secured under his arm at all times.
I will be absolutely stunned if Mike Pereira defends this call. Instead, I think the NFL will be sending a letter of apology to the Raiders.
Think about it -- this is very similar to what happened to Troy Polamalu in the playoffs against the Colts in 2006. This is what Pereira had to say then:
“The second thing is the message to the officials, as it is to anybody: The rule can state one thing, but if the rule is not implicit enough, you have to use common sense. And common sense in the Polamalu play says he had done enough to complete the catch. It kind of reminds me of the second baseman turning the double play when the ball comes out of his glove as he's trying to make a throw. In baseball, he's out at second; when Polamalu comes in and catches the ball, rolls over and kicks the ball out as he's trying to get up the process is over. He's completed the catch.” http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/9177894/rss
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 11:17AM
Dee Cutino said...
What rule are you reading. Murphy clearly had control before he jit the ground. He secured the ball, one foot came down then the other. Get some new glasses. You start your collumn out with this crap about Raider fan conspiracy then you come up with your misinterpretation of the rule. There's no conspiracy about this. It was a bad call.
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 11:05AM
derekjones530 said...
Well, Nancy GAYAZZ has been a Raider hater for a long time. I can't believe they pay her to put out these bias, inaccurate articles of garbage. Give someone else the job.. Someone who will do it right. If this is deleted, I'll know she is a coward that can't handle the truth. That call will have me pissed the whole season. Those who say he was dropping it before he hit the ground.... GET F'ing HD GDit! You really need to get glasses if you couldn't see that that was a catch. For those who think Oakland fans always think they are getting the shaft, we are, apparently you don't watch enough Raider's games to have any backing to what you are saying. WE CAN'T BEAT TWO TEAMS AT ONCE... Chargless and the zebras... Freaking lame man... Win, Lose, Tie, or Shaft, Raiders till I die! Shout out to Raider Nation Podcast... Put Miss GAY in her place this week.
Reply
9-15-2009 @ 12:49PM
Bernie said...
How is nancy being bias when she's reading what the rule says? The reason why the raiders lose because they cant score for nothing. I would put the blame on your number one pick russell. He's horrible. She's just telling the truth man.
9-15-2009 @ 1:29PM
derekjones530 said...
Apparently you don't read a lot of her articles on the Raiders. J.Russ did look bad, I never wanted him to begin with, so you're stating the obvious in my eyes. It was a catch, no truth told, she felt the need to try and rub something in the face of the Nation and ended up being wrong. Step on..