The NFL's Polamalu Apology

When I was a kid, the wiseguys in Paterson used to say, "Always be generous when it doesn't cost you anything." I thought about that when the NFL threw Pete Morelli under the bus for his overturn of the Polamalu interception in the Colts-Steelers game. Pittsburgh won the game, so saying Steel City suffered from a bad call didn't cost the NFL a damn thing. If the Cots had won, the NFL would have twisted itself up in knots justifying the call, like they did the Tuck Play.

If the NFL wants to stop this nonsense they have to quit writing incoherent rules. When the Redskins beat the Bucs just a week before, Edell Shepherd was ruled to not have caught a pass despite securing the ball, getting his foot down in the endzone after being contacted by a defender and then losing the ball after he hit the ground. After the game was over, NFL Head of Officials Mike Pereira told Bucs officials that no rule was on the books that corresponded to the refs lengthy interpretation. But there was no further comment on that from the NFL and Pereira defended the ruling as absolute rather than interpretive on his weekly appearance on the NFL Network.

After the Polamalu overturn, Pereira was incoherent in trying to explain why the Shepherd catch was no catch but the Polamalu incompletion (as ruled) was actually a pick. Here's what he said: "The definition of a catch -- or in this case an interception -- states that in the process of making a catch a player must maintain possession of the ball after he contacts the ground."

The ref clearly followed the Shepherd play and rationalized that Polamalu was falling to the ground and lost the ball while still on the ground. If that's the rule for Shepherd than it must be the same for Polamalu, right? But no, "after hitting the ground" apparently means "the instant he hits the ground" (although Shepherd already had a foot and knee on the ground, but never mind). What if you make a catch and slide five yards on a wet field and then drop the ball? Catch? Incomplete? How long is "after"?

Pereira continued: "The initial call on the field was that Troy Polamalu intercepted the pass because he maintained possession of the ball after hitting the ground. The replay showed that Polamalu had rolled over and was rising to his feet when the ball came loose."

While he may have been rising to his feet, he was still, technically, down.

Here's a suggestion: A catch occurs when a WR has possession of the ball as he hits the ground. Pretty simple, right?

Again, all this crap started with the Tuck Play. Everyone who watched foot knows that's a fumble, but the NFL could never tarnish a playoff win (and, ultimately, a Super Bowl Championship). Pereira says Morelli should have used "common sense." But the NFL threw common sense out of the rule book with the Tuck Play. Remember, Brady had BOTH HANDS ON THE BALL when Woodson knocked the ball loose. Yet the NFL agreed with the ref that Brady was legally in the act of passing prior to contact. As Gruden's dad said at the time: "I've never seen a QB throw a pass with two hands."

END OF POST