Mike Pereira on Louis Murphy's TD Oakland vs Chargers 9/14/09

[HaloGearsSolid]

he should of been down when his ass hit the ground but since this was in the endzone it should of been a TD once he had possession of the ball and his feet r in bounds which is what happened here. nothing they say really makes since here

[patsrule213]

@HaloGearsSolid

That is for a running play, not a passing play. At the time, nfl rules stated that you had to hold on to the ball "AFTER" you hit the ground. The rules are different for a running play than a passing play. At the time, the catch process started once you hit the ground and it ended when you stopped moving. And Louis Murphy was still moving at the time that he lost the ball, therefore the pass is incomplete.

[Eclipton]

They're most likely going to get rid of this rule during this offseason. I've seen 3 instances in the 2010 Season where the refs didn't apply the rule correctly or didn't apply it at all. There may have been more in games I didn't see. If it's getting to the point where the refs can't use the rule correctly, then just get rid of it, it's not worth keeping if the refs can't get it right every time. The rule should be: 2 feet with posession = touchdown regardless of what happens next.

[notchjohnson1]

i never see this rule applied. ever.

[Spadeswild1]

The ground cant cause a fumble. But it can cause an incomplete pass? Dummies

[mailman32212]

to all patriot fans go on line i forget his name buit a boston writer says he watched tuck rule tape hundreds time and brady taps the ball with his free hand after pulling back.forget about the all other bullshit on call. like no indisputable evidence,the ref coming back saying his arm was going forward?brady trying to kick woodson as hes jumping over watch video watch his feet?

[patsrule213]

@mailman32212

Then that Boston writer should google the nfl total access top 10 controversial calls, where the tuck rule comes up and Rod Woodson says "terrible call", then Rich Eisen informs him that it was the proper interpretation of the tuck rule. So this writer is 100% wrong about his interpretation of the tuck rule. Google it, if you don't believe me.

[mailman32212]

@patsrule213 obviously youre a stupid patriot fan my comment wasnt about the interpretation of the rule but that a boston writer said watching the play hundreds of times that brady tapped the ball with his free hand therefore negating the tuck rule which is fuckin retarded to begin with. if any patriots had balls they would comment they should never had one regardless of the retarded rule. i have never heard any of them make such a comment? you lost on the field in the tuck game to all patriots!

[mailman32212]

nfl is a fucking joke! there never wrong?his ass hits his knees hit his elbow hits how many body parts have to hit?what if he takes three four five etc steps then goes to ground?i guess ground can cause fumble technically ?

[patsrule213]

@mailman32212

It doesn't matter what body part hit the ground. Louis Murphy has to maintain possesion of the ball AFTER he hits the ground and he has to maintain possesion until he stops moving. And Louis Murphy is still moving and the ball ends up between his legs and that's what makes the pass incomplete. The NFL is never wrong? Remember the 2002 game between the Giants and 49ers? The league admitted that they were wrong about not calling pass interference.

[NinjaWarrior2012]

fuck that

[thetruth777]

fuck that, two feet and a butt...FULL possession, review should end there, fuck fuck FUCK you asshole.

[patsrule213]

@thetruth777

Actually it doesn't matter what body parts hit the ground, a reciever must maintain possesion of the ball AFTER he hits the ground, even if a knee and/or any other body part, and once he hits the ground, then the process of the catch starts. And then watch the ball slip out of his hands and end up between his legs, then he scooped the ball back up. Louis Murphy was still moving at the time that the ball hit the ground, therefore by rule, the pass in incomplete.

[mailman32212]

@patsrule213 so what if he hits ground out of bounds?hes catching it out bounds isnt he?another thing.if a player is hit while catching and the catch starts when he hits ground? if hes out bounds when he hits ground can he be hit by another defensive player?penalty?

[patsrule213]

@mailman32212

If he hits the ground out of bounds, if he had two feet in and he maintains possesion of the ball after he hits the ground, then it would be a catch. Otherwise, it would not be a catch. I guess if he was hit out of bounds, it would be a late hit, but if the reciever has stopped moving, then it would be a late hit. It seems like it would be tough to hit a reciever while he was moving, but if he did hit while he was moving and the ball came out, it would be an incomplete pass.

[mailman32212]

@patsrule213 your point is wrong?if he has two feet in and theres contact once any part of his body a knee butt even another step then hes now out of bounds? but your explanation says once he hits ground the catch process starts? if any part of body hits out of bounds after two feet and contact how can it be a catch? hes out of bounds? if you say the opposite than hes not done with catch process till after two feet in then contact than part of body hits out bounds then maintain?

[mailman32212]

@patsrule213 then he should be able to be hit after he hits out bounds?so cant be late hit? you cant have it both ways?

[patsrule213]

@mailman32212

Now I missed a question in my first response. You asked if the catch starts when he hits the ground. That's true when a player is going to the ground. And you have to maintain possesion after you hit the ground whether you are in the field of play or the endzone. The catch process ends when the reciever gets up or stops moving.

[patsrule213]

@rydizzle83

If he stayed down and stopped moving, then it would be a catch, but because he was still moving and spiked the ball before the process of the catch was completed, that pass was incomplete.

[patsrule213]

@rydizzle83

In the scenario that you mentioned, it would be a catch. However, the Calvin Johnson play was not a catch. He was going to the ground and he has to maintain possesion throughout the catch, and he spiked the ball before the process of the catch was completed. If Calvin Johnson stood up then spiked the ball, it would be a completed pass. But he spiked it prematurely and because of that it was an incomplete pass.

[pelorojo7]

The Raiders suck even without bad calls.

[twobigjets]

If you don't like the NFL rules or reffing, go start your own professional league.

[mailman32212]

@twobigjets yeah thers a great answer! dick head!

[twobigjets]

@mailman32212 Awww I struck a nerve. That was too easy.

[miltz4]

CALVIN! nooo!!!

[h0wiew0wie]

This is the dumbest f*cking BULL$HIT excuse I have ever heard in my life...He was down, two hands, control plus his butt touches the ground...so basically if he got up, spiked the ball in the endzone, it would be an incomplete pass? WTF? ARE YOU F*CKING RETARDED NFL? First the tuck rule, now this????? GTFO FPOS!!!!

[patsrule213]

@h0wiew0wie

What you described was for an RUNNING play, not a passing play. The rules are different for a passing play than a running play. Louis Murphy is going to the ground but the ball ends up between his legs. And if he knew that he caught the ball, why did he scoop the ball back up? Louis Murphy has to maintain possesion of the ball until he is ready to stand up, which he doesn't, meaning that the pass is incomplete. I hope that I cleared it up for you.

[SL4VE0WNER1904619]

@patsrule213 ok then how come the exact same play happend but it was called a td titans vs texans shaub and again in the superbowl for the 2 point con.

[patsrule213]

@SL4VE0WNER1904619

I didn't see the one against the Texans vs Titans, if you want to upload it, I will watch it. The play in the super bowl was called correctly because the reciever made a slight football move by moving his hands over the goal line, which ends the play. The football move ends the process of making the catch. Louis Murphy did not make a football move and he lost possesion of the ball and it went between his legs which makes it incomplete.

[sahpreem]

his ass is on the ground so therefore he is down while he still has control.

[patsrule213]

@sahpreem

That's for a running play, not a passing play. Louis Murphy has to maintain possesion of the ball after he hits the ground, and the ball ends up between his legs, which led to the reversal of the call on the field. People often confusing the rule for a running play for a passing play, Those two rules are completely different.

[31003GOOSE]

Im not arguing any of the calls. What I dont understand is how the call on the field are getting overturned. The Referee is clearly calling it a touchdown. Just like the tuck rule play. It was called a fumble on the field. To overturn is has to be not open to question or dispute; indisputable. In either play I dont see the indisputable evidence.

[patsrule213]

@31003GOOSE

The play was overturned because the referee could not see the ball end up between his legs, the view was blocked, He has to call touchdown and we need instant replay to get these calls correct. This pass was incomplete and the play was called correctly. The same goes for the Tuck Rule. That was another play that was called correctly due to instant replay. The referees can not watch the play in slow motion and we need instant replay for that. Both of those plays were good calls.

[Eclipton]

@patsrule213 Another case you can argue in favor of the ref is that this play was similar to the one that happened in the Bucs vs. Redskins game in the 2005 Wildcard game. Same thing happened, except it was ruled incomplete. Even after the Bucs challenged, the call still stood. When I saw the replays, I knew this call was going to be overturned. If it didn't get overturned, you knew Mike Pereira was going to have a long talk with the ref about the rule mentioned in this video.

[patsrule213]

Watch from 0:33 to 0:37, this is the first instance where it occurs. Notice that the ball comes out and he scoops the ball back into his hands. Now, would Louis Murphy have scooped the ball back into his hands if it was a catch? Absolutely not. He knew that he had lost possesion of the ball and he scooped it up quickly enough to make people belive that he caught the ball. This was an incomplete pass.

[Maldonado365]

but santonio holmes can catch a ball with ONLY two feet then step out and its a TD but Murphy cant because he has to FALL down with the ball AFTER he caught it and landed with TWO feet...

BULLSHIT!

[tjstevens74]

These idiots have to make rules that make sense, because I see a TD, period. Murphy caught the ball, two feet hit the ground, HIS BUTT HITS THE GROUND, and he still has positive possession... sounds like a textbook completion and TD to me. The fact that the ball comes out AFTER a completion (and thereby TD) is irrelevent... the completion has already occured. What if a receiver catches a ball, takes two steps, and then drops it out of bounds? STILL A CATCH.

Just say it... we got robbed again

[tapias0117]

i remember the monday night game earlier that day a similar thing happened with the fatriots nd bills but for them it was a touchdown, i was at this game this call was bull! RAIDER NATION 2010!!!!!!!!

[rylaione]

but he was down u freaking retard.

[patsrule213]

@rylaione

That is for a running play not a passing play. In a passing play when a reciever is going to the ground, he must maintain possesion of the ball throughout the catch, which he didn't. He scooped the ball up after it touched the ground, therefore it is a textbook incomplete pass.

[JMMEZ3]

if he wasnt a raider they wouldve called a touchdown easily with no hesitation whatsoever!!

[RaidersClips]

its crazy how the whole NFL hates the raiders

[profkloch]

fuck you mike pereira

[falcan129]

Raiders always get screwed.... its unbelievable

[007RDRZ]

VP of screwing The RAIDERS over. Fuck this old piece of shit. Just like the National Fraud League, a bullshit explaination for a bullshit call to try & cover their agenda. FUCK 'EM !!!

SILVER & BLACK, IT's THE ONLY NATION !!!

[MacDrenugga]

fuck mike pereira ill beat that old mans ass

[solidyahoo]

hmmm so what is the difference between Murphy's catch and the 2 point conversion catch in the superbowl ????? Explain that to me NFL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[maynard666]

@solidyahoo exactly

[yukonraider4life]

he had control when his knee hit the ground and the defender was on his back that makes him down right screwed us again

[kb2k23]

and after they called this very similer plays happen just like this that were called a td like the very next week this was a bad call.

[ganilao]

NFL is full of sh$t!! stop drinking them haterade!

[Disembodied23]

This guy and the NFL is so full of shit it makes me sick. Fuck you.

[Disneydanny]

@Disembodied23 lucky for us he'de's retiring soon. I hope the NFL finds someone who is better.

[nickmyr23]

Are you serious NFL, that is fucking garbage! Making up some bs excuse that doesn't even go along with the rule, just to screw the Raiders!

[YahTrickYah321]

Exactly. Remember the tuck rule?

"Shoot, the Raiders are gonna win. Let's just make up a rule so that doesn't happen. =]"

Fuck the NFL.

[patsrule213]

@YahTrickYah321

The Raiders were handed a Super Bowl ring in 1976. In 1976 the Raiders got a phantom roughing the passer call on the last drive and they scored the game winning touchdown. Then they easily win the Super Bowl. So you can't say that the referees hate the Raiders. The referees don't make calls against the Raiders on purpose.

[SL4VE0WNER1904619]

@patsrule213 yeah they do face it the nfl hates the raiders because al davis sued them and won ever since they make bad calls against them and all you hear is criticism on them

[patsrule213]

@SL4VE0WNER1904619

The NFL hates the Patriots more than the Raiders. Let's start with 1976, where there was a roughing the passer call when replays showed no roughing. And who were we playing? The Raiders. Then, they go on to win the Super Bowl. And let's not forget about the Rams walkthrough tape, which surprisingly hasn't been found yet people think we are guilty. And the tainted Super Bowls? Spygate wasn't illegal untill 2007. The NFL hates the Patriots.

[SL4VE0WNER1904619]

@patsrule213 your kidding me right?patriots fans are complaining about roughing the passer?lmfao!!!even players who played with brady (harrison) says he needs to man up what about the tuck rule and they went on to win the sb how the fuck r u gunna say the nfl hates the patriots y the fuck r u even on here ur not a raiders fan or a chargers fan so y the fuck r u on this video

[patsrule213]

@SL4VE0WNER1904619

I'm here because I am allowed to express my opinion on videos. And the tuck rule was in the rulebook, so it doesn't mean that they like the Patriots. They were following the rules, so you can't say that the league loves the Patriots because they followed the rules of the NFL.

[SL4VE0WNER1904619]

@patsrule213 its also in the rules that you cant hit the qb significantly after he throws the ball so they were following the rules there to but dude if you honestly think the nfl hates the patriots your a fucking dumbass if i were part of the nfl id hate the raiders to because al davis sued them and won thats why they hate them they have no reason to hate the patriots dumbass

[patsrule213]

@SL4VE0WNER1904619

And no one has any reason to hate the Raiders either. It's all in both of our heads. The league favors no team over any other team. But why is it saying that the NFL won those lawsuits filed by Al Davis? I don't hate the Raiders, and I wouldn't know any reason why people would hate the Raiders. And I have a good reason for saying that some people hate us, usually Jets fans, but we are constantly attacked for the same exact reasons. I personally don't hate on people.

[SL4VE0WNER1904619]

@patsrule213 rivalries i can see but even look at nfl network always hating on the raiders they hate them because supposodly they played dirty and u got it the other way al davis sued them and won and because of the tuck rule i will always hate the pats so fuck u jk

[patsrule213]

@YahTrickYah321

The tuck rule and the catch rule are in the books, so the NFL is not trying to make up rules so that the Raiders don't win. And you can't blame the referees for following the rules of the NFL. There is no conspiracy against the Oakland Raiders. There never was and there never will be a conspiracy against the Oakland Raiders.

[mailman32212]

@patsrule213 yo stupid if only one team in the nfl yr after yr is in top part of penaltiesfor a team somethings going on? its not the same players for last 50 yrs? read those penalty stats one other team i think philly? is in top part for few yrs then out but the raiders there yr after yr?

[nickmyr23]

I just can't believe how idiotic the explanation is because he clearly had control after he hit the ground. He was on his way to standing up when the ball slipped, the play was completely over. Even the rule explains that he caught it. It says after the player hits the ground he must maintain posession. He did after his but hit the ground, it was clear. Just because it slipped as he was standing up after the play makes it an incomplete pass?

[nickmyr23]

Wow! According to the rule it was a touchdown! It says he must maintain control after he touches the ground. He did, his butt hit the ground and he held on to it. Play over touchdown!

[cunjaTELIVISION1]

he had the ball when his butt touched

[aberjan21]

the question is "how long after he hits the ground does he have to maintain possession?"

its clear the ball came lose and went between murphy's legs, but that was a couple of seconds after he hit the ground. its very subjective

[TheBucsareawesome1]

He has to maintain control thoughout the entire process of making the catch.

The process doesn't stop until the player stops moving.

[jonjon535353]

if the process doesnt stop until he stops moving wouldnt tht mean when a player gets up and goes to celebrate and throws the ball down tht it isnt a catch anymore because he was still moving? lol

[TheBucsareawesome1]

His momentum had stopped by then.

[nickmyr23]

Lol exactly! When exactly is the play over? His but hit the ground and he still had posession and that should be the end of the play touchdown!

[whistle18]

Once both feet come down in the endzone with ball in hand should be a touchdown. What is the difference from a player reaching the ball over the plane at the pilon. Once it breaks the plane it's a touchdown. Even if said players momentum carries him out of the field of play. If he fumbles it, it's still a touchdown. What is the difference?

[Lunaticfringe1000]

By rule, he must maintain possession of the ball. He doesn't. It's simply not a TD. I don't understand the confusion

[axisD]

Someone should make a compilation of all the times the Raiders get screwed. Does anyone have the Stanford Routt Pass interference call from the Eagles game? god damn I wish we could do something about this!

[makoshark123456]

this prick comes up with one pre-season game example that this type of ruling had been called before and is therefore valid? Dollars to doughnuts there must be 50X examples of comparable catches like Louis made since that rule change. One pre-season call constitutes a valid precedent? You've got to do better, douche bag.

[makoshark123456]

who were the 2 refs that sent it up for review? I would love to see raider nation showing up to games with black t-shirts and duck tape numbers on them instead of paying the NFL for insane royalties for team paraphenalia. Fascinating that the NFL VP went to such great lengths to rationalize this. Methinks he's too defensive too much. Take your bag of shit analysis elsewhere.

[makoshark123456]

After the tuck rule I cancelled my DirecTV football pass. It's been inconvenient following the raiders from the east coast, but the NFL won't get another dime from me. Another classic call. Praise to Louis Murphy's ability to shrug it off and make the hi-light clips of the eagles games. Is anyone but me getting tired of the cliche that the team must be better than to put themselves in a position for the refs to take a game away? Boycott the NFL, call them and say it won't stop until they do

[seancramento]

FUCK'N BULLSHIT!!!!!!

[GyancarloP]

the nfl is fucking with murphy 1st this and this weekened the catch against the texans was ruled incomplete bs

[malakismail2184]

Just another way to fuck over the raiders season

[guitarplayer0027]

well, i guess no touchdown. horrible rule, it makes me want to shove my fist down a cats throat, because it makes no sense to me. but good call. horrible rule

[tyotb213]

Mike Pereira always say they make the right call which is bullshit. He even said the TUCK RULE was correct. I seen 5 different situations of review when nfl "total access" go to Mike Perira he always say the refs made the right call. Refs don't see everything, he talking Murphy losing possession. Murphy NEVERED lost possession until he let the ball go cause he knew the play was over. This VP of officiating is a joke

[Lunaticfringe1000]

LMAO--your reply is HILARIOUS.

He CLEARLY lost control of the ball and did NOT let go of it because the play was over. I don't know what game you are watching...

[jgsk8er]

@Lunaticfringe1000 it wasnt a catch then tell me this the next week in the houston tennessee game the same thing happend but the houston wr picked the ball up off the ground now u cant tell me thts not bull

[Lunaticfringe1000]

We're not talking about the Texan vs. Titan game though. We're talking about this play and, by rule, he must maintain possession of the ball post-contacting the ground. He didn't. I don't understand the confusion; it's pretty simple.

[jgsk8er]

@Lunaticfringe1000 look at the louis murphy cach and the houston catch

besides he made contact with the ground when his ass hit he got 2 feet in and his ass hit the ground thts when the play shoulda been over not when he got hit and rolled over

[Lunaticfringe1000]

You continue to get off topic. I don't care what happened in the Titan vs. Houston game---perhaps THAT was a bad call; I don't know. Here, it's very clear that this reception should NOT have been ruled a catch. It's in the rules and it really is that simple.

Further, it also seems you are complaining about the rule itself. If so, that's fine--say the RULE sucks & needs to be changed. But to say anything along the lines that the refs made a bad call is wholly incorrect.

[jgsk8er]

@Lunaticfringe1000 they did make a bad call his ass hit the ground and of corse the ball is gonna move when he hit and he did have control all the way till his ass hit and he got both feet dow and yes the rule fucking sux

[Lunaticfringe1000]

LOL. It does NOT matter that his butt hit the ground. Murphy LOST CONTROL OF THE BALL after hitting the ground, which means, BY RULE, that the play was CORRECTLY ruled INCOMPLETE. I'm struggling with what the confusion is all about.

As far as changing the rules, I'm sure that the competition committee has a way of receiving fan suggestions, so I'd urge you to communicate your thoughts with them.

However, a poor rule does NOT mean that the ref made a bad call. It was CORRECTLY ruled INC

[jgsk8er]

@Lunaticfringe1000 wow u really r a idiot his feet touched and then his ass hit the ground thts when tht play shoulda been over not after he was rolled over and almost completely laying down

[Lunaticfringe1000]

Unreal...the idiot calls me an idiot...

Where do morons like you come from? What DON'T you understand?

LEARN THE RULES, IT HELPS...REALLY.

BY RULE, it's INCOMPLETE. All the bullsh*t that you spew forth is MEANINGLESS.

BY RULE, he MUST maintain possession of the ball; he DIDN'T.

The play should NOT have been over before he hit the ground.

RE-READ THAT LAST SENTENCE AGAIN, PLEASE...

WTF don't you understand about that?

It was the CORRECT CALL.

[jgsk8er]

@Lunaticfringe1000 im an idiot he did hit the ground HIS ASS HIT THE GROUND U FUCK TARD and the reason he ddnt "maintain"possession is because his arm moved when he hit the ground and yes i know and understand the rules i play the game myself he only lost control because he hit the ground with his ass and wat do u think would happen if u hit the ground with ur ass and ur holding a football... UR ARM IS GONNA FUCKING MOVE

[Lunaticfringe1000]

HAHAHA. Am I getting to you??

Listen up...and listen CAREFULLY.

All that nonsense you spewed forth...

MEANINGLESS.

It doesn't MATTER.

Is that clear enough for you?

BY RULE, he must maintain possession of the ball. He didn't.

It doesn't matter, "Oh, his arm is going to move!" READ THIS--IT DOESN'T MATTER; IT'S THE RULE

If you understood the rules, then you wouldn't be making such lame comments

[jgsk8er]

@Lunaticfringe1000 no ur not getting to me at all, and if u wanted to u coulda ended this conversation a long time ago i know its the rule u dumbass ive stated tht like 3 -4 times already i am saying tht his arm moved beacause he hit the ground oh and if its so meaningless stop talking to me u fucking retard

[Lunaticfringe1000]

OMG

I'm almost speechless with how SLOW you are. If YouTube allowed me to post a lengthier message, I'd cut and paste your comments below and let that room-temperature IQ you're demonstrating just SHINE.

Just funny as hell.

And I love tough guys that name call over the internet. Not only is it very mature, clearly it proves you are someone not to be messed with...

LMAO...if you ONLY knew...

[jgsk8er]

@Lunaticfringe1000 i dnt have to prove shit im not slow and i have a higher iq of room temp u r a guy tht has no life and argues with kids on youtube i mean really dude u argue with kids on youtube ur awsome, oh and dnt be a hypocrit im not the only one thts name calling u fucking idiot read ur comments

[TheBucsareawesome1]

What you mean is, it's a bad rule not a bad call.

By the rules currently in place, the refs got it right.

[jgsk8er]

wow dude i really dnt care anymore and yeah watch nfl network they talked about it and they said the play was over when his ass hit the ground and tht is after i said it all over youtube

[TheBucsareawesome1]

Don't know why they would say that because that is not the rule.

[jgsk8er]

dude like i said i dnt give a fuck any more

[tyotb213]

I was at the game and the rule applies to making a questionable catch like a sideline catch or a "diving" catch. Murphy caught the ball without any effort of a "football move" which means once he hits the ground doesnt matter if the ball comes out he's down just like a fumble. Plus this is in the endzone which once he has possession once he hit the ground doesnt matter if the ball pops out he is down and its a touchdown. LMAO at your football knowledge

[Lunaticfringe1000]

This is PRICELESS!!

LMAO...I can't believe some of you...

The rule applies to END ZONE CATCHES AS WELL. I have no idea where you guys get your information from, but it's WRONG. And you have the gall to call other people's knowledge out?

Simply CLASSIC...

And I believe "football move" has been ELIMINATED from the rulebook.

And the fact that you were at the game is meaningless.

[tyotb213]

umm the "football move" is in the rulebook thats why they mentioned it. There isnt a yard after an END ZONE so why does he have to possess it after he's hit the ground...think about it.

[Lunaticfringe1000]

There is NOT a requirement in the rules for a football move insofar as a catch is concerned....

And the rule SPECIFICALLY applies to catches in the end zone as well.

I simply do NOT understand what the confusion is all about. It's VERY clear in the rulebook, but some of you simply don't want to acknowledge it and instead desire to make the rules up as you see fit.

It's pure comedy--there's nothing to think about--he must maintain possession and didn't.

[ANTARCTICM0NKEY]

it was the right call. it hit the ground as he landed. A RULE IS A RULE

[lee1rbc]

Texans Titans game the same thing happened, they called that a TD! . This was a catch, they know it. They are using the wrong rule for this play. 2 steps and a football move is a catch! Louis taks two steps and then makes a move by pushing the defender with His left arm. If This was in the middle of the field and He was hit just before His rear hit the ground they would have called a fumble. Look how long they took to make the call. Also this video is the NFL network questioning the NFL?

[Raiderman1988]

He gets 2 feet down, then his butt, then his elbow! Butttt no, you have to hold the ball for fucking ever i guess. I hate that they make all these rules and break it down frame by frame to find something wrong with everything.

[ephor]

Football is so simple, When the knee hits the ground, play is down and over, those other plays shown dont get down before the ball comes loose.

[ephor]

Whats the big thing is the play is over, before he loses the ball. The rule says have possesion after the WR hits the ground, but his butt hits the ground and has possession, I thought butt was part of the reciever, and I thought butt hittin the ground ends play, esp in the end zone. Play is over before he loses it

[psa1000]

His arm was level to the ground when it hit the floor (the ball was still in his hands at the time) ...isnt the play dead after that?

[BigPrimo33]

the ball did not come out of his hands untill he was getting up. THIS WAS A TD, NO IF AND OR BUTS!!!

[FirstStreetTV]

..but the ball can knock over a pylon and count as a TD? Ok..