Hoping former NFL Head of Officiating, Mike Pereira, looks at this game.

[ReMeDy]

Mike Pereira has done this in the past on a number of questionable referee judgement calls. In this game, there were two major ones I hope he addresses:

 

1.) The fumble recovery that did not graze the foot of Brazill, although it did graze his fingertips.

2.) Andre Johnson's sideline catch that seemingly was a completion, but was bobbled.

 

On both calls, Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth got it wrong. On both calls, the plays were reversed, meaning there WAS evidence to overturn. Yet, on the first play in particular, Al and Cris were not convinced there was any evidence.

 

I'm hoping someone could keep their eyes out for any links to these referee calls and post them when they find them. I'll do my best to find any info too. I'm more confused by the sport of football than I ever was after this game.

[Ja'Crispy]

I think both calls should have stood as called. Poor officiating on both sides IMO.

[The Colts Walker]

I feel like the 2nd call was more or less a "make up call" like you see in baseball. That's the only thing that I can think of

[CantBeStopped]

Mike always makes excuses for the officials. I have never heard him say they made the wrong call

[ReMeDy]

Mike always makes excuses for the officials. I have never heard him say they made the wrong call

 

Yea, but that's also slightly the point. I want to see him weasel his way out of this . Honestly though, any exclamation to explain this mess is better than nothing.

[T Y Goodbye]

I remember a game earlier this year, when a Colts receiver caught the ball and the defensive player was ripping at the ball, caused him to bobble it, before he regained possession and  they called it incomplete. The Colts receiver falling down and was falling as the defender was ripping at it causing the bobble, landed on his back and started rolling, but the receiver held on. They ruled that it was incomplete as the receiver did not maintain possession throughout the catch, even though it was caused by the defender. I thought that was a totally bogus call myself.

 

As for the fumble recovery, I didn't see the ball hit the player as he tossed it back in  and should have been a fumble, recovered by the Colts.

 

I don't like that the receiver must maintain possession throughout out the catch..That cost Megatron 2 TD's for him having possession then not taking 2 steps before letting the ball go in the end zone. He had possession in the end zone, which should have been a TD, but since he didn't take 2 steps before he let the ball go to celebrate, they called it incomplete..

[GoColts8818]

This guy was just bad all the way around on against both teams. 

[BOTT]

I feel like the 2nd call was more or less a "make up call" like you see in baseball. That's the only thing that I can think of

That really wouldn't have made up for it

[GoColts8818]

I feel like the 2nd call was more or less a "make up call" like you see in baseball. That's the only thing that I can think of

I think he's just not good at his job. 

[esmort]

As far as #1 goes - the incompletion to A. Johnson.  I have not gotten to go back and look at it, but when they were showing replays it looked to me like although the ball appeared to be under control by A. Johnson it was in fact being held from moving by a combination of Johnson's hands on the top tip of the ball and Butler's hand/wrist across the bottom, and as they fell out of bounds Butler's hand moves allowing the ball to come free. 

 

So if the only reason Johnson appeared to have control (no ball movement) in the first place was because Butler's hand placement was helping to hold it in place, then Johnson never really had control of the ball. 

 

But, like I said I did not get to rewind, that was just my assessment from the limited replays.

[GoColts8818]

As far as #1 goes - the incompletion to A. Johnson.  I have not gotten to go back and look at it, but when they were showing replays it looked to me like although the ball appeared to be under control by A. Johnson it was in fact being held from moving by a combination of Johnson's hands on the top tip of the ball and Butler's hand/wrist across the bottom, and as they fell out of bounds Butler's hand moves allowing the ball to come free. 

 

So if the only reason Johnson appeared to have control (no ball movement) in the first place was because Butler's hand placement was helping to hold it in place, then Johnson never really had control of the ball. 

 

But, like I said I did not get to rewind, that was just my assessment from the limited replays.

If the league says he was right on his call the NFL really needs to look at what a "catch" is.  Right now any chance they have to say what isn't a catch they take.  Then again with as many rules that favor the offense maybe one that favors the defense isn't so bad. 

[esmort]

If the league says he was right on his call the NFL really needs to look at what a "catch" is.  Right now any chance they have to say what isn't a catch they take.  Then again with as many rules that favor the offense maybe one that favors the defense isn't so bad. 

 

I think no matter how far they go to try to define a catch, as long as there is a human element there is going to be some level of opinion involved.  Personally, I think if the only way the WR is able to maintain control of the ball is through the use of some aspect of the DBs body or hand placement then it should not be a completion.  I do agree though the defense needs something to help even out the offensive advantages a little.

 

As an extreme example say the DB wraps up the receiver as he (the receiver) is attempting to catch the ball, the ball bobbles down the receivers chest, and the ball somehow gets pinned under the DB's arm against the receivers body.  As they fall a couple the receivers fingers are on the tip of the ball ... there is no ball movement and the receiver is touching it, but the receiver obviously didn't catch the ball in this situation.  This is similar to how I view the A Johnson catch; though obviously not as clear as my over the top example.

 

But, then again I may change my mind after have gotten to watch the replay a few more times from more angles.

[GoColts8818]

I think no matter how far they go to try to define a catch, as long as there is a human element there is going to be some level of opinion involved. Personally, I think if the only way the WR is able to maintain control of the ball is through the use of some aspect of the DBs body or hand placement then it should not be a completion. I do agree though the defense needs something to help even out the offensive advantages a little.

As an extreme example say the DB wraps up the receiver as he (the receiver) is attempting to catch the ball, the ball bobbles down the receivers chest, and the ball somehow gets pinned under the DB's arm against the receivers body. As they fall a couple the receivers fingers are on the tip of the ball ... there is no ball movement and the receiver is touching it, but the receiver obviously didn't catch the ball in this situation. This is similar to how I view the A Johnson catch; though obviously not as clear as my over the top example.

But, then again I may change my mind after have gotten to watch the replay a few more times from more angles.

looked like a catch to me, butler seemed to rip it lose after he was down and out of bounds and the play was over.

[esmort]

looked like a catch to me, butler seemed to rip it lose after he was down and out of bounds and the play was over.

 

Looked like he was holding it in place to me, and when he moved his hand away it released.  I need to go back and watch it; unfortunately I was not at home so didn't record it, but either way it was a very thin line that could have easily been called the other direction ... regardless I am happy that was one that went our way.

[GoColts8818]

Looked like he was holding it in place to me, and when he moved his hand away it released. I need to go back and watch it; unfortunately I was not at home so didn't record it, but either way it was a very thin line that could have easily been called the other direction ... regardless I am happy that was one that went our way.

yeah probably just a case of two people seeing the samething two different ways.

[our_dbs_rock]

I think the big part of the Johnson catch/no catch getting overturned was the fact he went out of bounds.  I think it would have been upheld if the play was in the middle of the field.  It always seems to be a little more touchy when the sidelines are involved

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

I kind of thought bey was a defenseless receiver myself. I'm just saying they would have called that any other game.

[Dr. T]

I kind of thought bey was a defenseless receiver myself. I'm just saying they would have called that any other game.

Yes. This was the other missed call that needs to be looked at and a fine needs to be given.

And of course the roughing the kicker non-call. Another huge mistake missed by this crew.

[UKCOLT17]

Yes. This was the other missed call that needs to be looked at and a fine needs to be given.

And of course the roughing the kicker non-call. Another huge mistake missed by this crew.

 

we could of challenged that am sure i heard them say that but dunno what the outcome would of been. 

[BleedBlu8792]

we could of challenged that am sure i heard them say that but dunno what the outcome would of been.

Yea, they said later on that that play was challengeable. I doubt many coaches, if any, know that that's a play that's challengeable. I'm just glad Pat wasn't hurt because that could have been bad the way his leg hit that player during the kick.

[PrincetonTiger]

Bad calls hurt both teams

[CR91]

they were both bad calls. brazill was not out of bounds and I would love to see the video of the tom and jerry cartoon the refs were watching because it sure wasnt the fumble. the andre one comes down to the horrible rule that wrs have to live by and thats having to secure the ball all throughout the process of going down.

[Old Colt]

Mike Pereira has done this in the past on a number of questionable referee judgement calls. In this game, there were two major ones I hope he addresses:

 

1.) The fumble recovery that did not graze the foot of Brazill, although it did graze his fingertips.

2.) Andre Johnson's sideline catch that seemingly was a completion, but was bobbled.

 

On both calls, Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth got it wrong. On both calls, the plays were reversed, meaning there WAS evidence to overturn. Yet, on the first play in particular, Al and Cris were not convinced there was any evidence.

 

I'm hoping someone could keep their eyes out for any links to these referee calls and post them when they find them. I'll do my best to find any info too. I'm more confused by the sport of football than I ever was after this game.

3.)  How about the blown call on the phantom blocked punt.  Texans never even touched the ball and directly hit only McAfee's leg.  he's lucky he wasn't hurt.  This directly lead to 7 points for the Texans too!

[ruksak]

Bad calls hurt both teams

I almost NEVER complain about the calls, and I always say what you just said. 

 

BUT.....that reversal on the kick return fumble was HUGE. Not only did that rob us of essentially guaranteed points, but the ref completely ignored rule #1 of Replay Review protocol. It must be 100% irrefutable evidence. Conclusive. Bill V. (the ref) ignored protocol and made a guess based on what he thought he saw. 

 

An argument can be made that Brazil's right hand was on the ground at the same time as he touched the ball, but there's no way you can review the footage and see that as conclusive. Not only that, but Bill V said himself that the ball hit Brazil's foot.

 

Guy should be fired. He really should. He's got a long record of enraging fans. 

[Superman]

Mike always makes excuses for the officials. I have never heard him say they made the wrong call

 

Pereira has disagreed with calls on many occasions. 

[Superman]

Mike Pereira has done this in the past on a number of questionable referee judgement calls. In this game, there were two major ones I hope he addresses:

 

1.) The fumble recovery that did not graze the foot of Brazill, although it did graze his fingertips.

2.) Andre Johnson's sideline catch that seemingly was a completion, but was bobbled.

 

On both calls, Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth got it wrong. On both calls, the plays were reversed, meaning there WAS evidence to overturn. Yet, on the first play in particular, Al and Cris were not convinced there was any evidence.

 

I'm hoping someone could keep their eyes out for any links to these referee calls and post them when they find them. I'll do my best to find any info too. I'm more confused by the sport of football than I ever was after this game.

 

Here's my read:

 

1) The official messed this one up. First of all, there is supposed to be clear, irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field. That's very subjective, but I don't understand how anyone can call any of those replays clear and irrefutable.

 

Secondly, the overhead replay showed a gap between Brazill's leg and the ball. I feel confident saying that Brazill's leg did NOT touch the ball. The question that remains is whether his left hand was still on the ball as his right hand came down out of bounds. But either way, I think this call should have stood as called on the field. I don't think the clear recovery could have been confirmed, but I certainly don't think it should have been reversed.

 

2) The catch by Johnson wasn't a catch. This is one of the most confusing and controversial calls in the game right now, but I think it's because people are making it more complicated than it actually is. This is the same as the Decker catch that wasn't a catch when we played the Broncos. When the receiver is going to the ground as a part of making the catch, he has to control the ball throughout the entire process. That process doesn't end until the player comes to a complete rest. Johnson was still sliding when he lost control of the ball.

 

If Johnson had been in bounds, that would have stood as a catch, because even though he lost control of the ball, it didn't touch the ground before he regained control of it. It would have still been a live ball, and him regaining control would have made it a catch. However, Johnson was out of bounds when he lost control of the ball; him losing control while out of bounds makes it a dead ball. 

 

To me, Cris and Al got the first one right. Doesn't mean Brazill didn't touch the ball while out of bounds, but I definitely don't think there was irrefutable evidence that he did. And what the ref said he saw clearly didn't happen. But they did get the second one wrong. 

[azcolt]

The roughing the punter non-call was a stinker, too. The sound and ball flight should have been a tip off that it was a pure roughing the punter. Since that call was apparently non-reviewable, the NFL should change what's reviewable as it would have taken about five seconds to correct the bad call.

[Warhorse]

I dont really care about those calls. I was way more incensed with the non calls on at least 8 mauling.....errr.......holding calls. The Texans absolutely manhandled (holding at the LOS) us without consequence.

[indyagent17]

Collinsworth is always wrong!

 

Four Major Misses

 

1 Roughing the Kicker, you cannot hit a kicker when he is vulnerable (and he was) without touching the ball

2.The fumble call was a case of a referee taking on himself to change the rules (Incontravertable evidence needs to exist to overturn)

3. Walden was grabbed and tackled while rushing the QBand that play resulted in a 21 yard completion

4. Griff Whalen was pulled down before ball got to him, at the very least (Holding) But since the ball was released it should have been PI

[Franklin County]

We beat the Texans in their house! And beat the poor officiating too! That's pretty good football for a bunch of 2nd year players.  

[Stephen]

Another complaint is the roughing the kicker no call on pat. Thought that was ridiculous to.

[The Fish]

The running into the kicker missed call drove me nuts. I have no clue what is a foul and what isn't apparently. I mean it's called Running into the kicker/Roughing.

 

The fumble was a bad call, but it's not unheard of for those plays to be a 50/50.

[BlueDynamite]

Despite several bad calls throught out that game, that nearly cost us, our team managed to keep their head in the game and pull out a hard fought win. The the calls are the least of our worries, I'm still disgusted on how many dropped passes their were by our recievers, how many missed tackles we have on a gamely babsis and remember half of Houstons Offense came from A. Johnson alone, divisional or not this was a lower echelon team and it isn't that they made US look bad, WE made US look bad. Win or not, I can't see us going anywhere if that's how we're gonna play, put us against a decent Defense then what would have happened? Just because we snuck a win doesn't mean much, teams have tons of replays to look through now.

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

Yes. This was the other missed call that needs to be looked at and a fine needs to be given.

And of course the roughing the kicker non-call. Another huge mistake missed by this crew.

this was the worst called game I've seen in a long time. Right now its not even about if it made us lose it was just so blatant, like so blatant. If you're going to make stupid rules like some, call even the stupid ones. Jeez.

[dgambill]

There were a lot of plays missed both ways. Everyone pointed out the ones that went against us but the personal foul on Reed was pretty weak...seen many never get called like that...personal foul on Luck while throwing the ball on the sideline....pretty weak too. That led directly to 4 more points. The catch by Johnson that was taken away really hurt momentum too. The officials were just all over the place and it led to big momentum swings...the two bad ones in the first half against us on the punt and fumble and then those I pointed out in the second half that worked out for us. All in all its still won on the field because despite those calls we had opportunities to stop them and them us..so it didn't change the outcomes much imo. They beat us down the first half and the opposite the second. The big difference was them losing their head coach and offensive play caller....that was the real difference in the game...its impossible to know but with Kubiak on the sideline calling plays...I think it would have been a different outcome last night. We were lucky and won't be able to get away playing only 30 mins agaisnt good teams.

[BOTT]

There were a lot of plays missed both ways. Everyone pointed out the ones that went against us but the personal foul on Reed was pretty weak...seen many never get called like that...personal foul on Luck while throwing the ball on the sideline....pretty weak too. That led directly to 4 more points. The catch by Johnson that was taken away really hurt momentum too. The officials were just all over the place and it led to big momentum swings...the two bad ones in the first half against us on the punt and fumble and then those I pointed out in the second half that worked out for us. All in all its still won on the field because despite those calls we had opportunities to stop them and them us..so it didn't change the outcomes much imo. They beat us down the first half and the opposite the second. The big difference was them losing their head coach and offensive play caller....that was the real difference in the game...its impossible to know but with Kubiak on the sideline calling plays...I think it would have been a different outcome last night. We were lucky and won't be able to get away playing only 30 mins agaisnt good teams.

Oh please, I'm sure they players lined up thinking "I wonder how Gary is doing." If the texans would have continued killing the Colts people would be saying the won one for Gary.

And pretty weak doesn't equal totally missing obvious calls. Fact is, the defender can't hit Luck in that situation and most players know that.

[Superman]

Oh please, I'm sure they players lined up thinking "I wonder how Gary is doing." If the texans would have continued killing the Colts people would be saying the won one for Gary.

And pretty weak doesn't equal totally missing obvious calls. Fact is, the defender can't hit Luck in that situation and most players know that.

 

Whether players know that rule or not, it's the rule. I don't really like it, but it is the rule. And that call kind of makes up for the two or three times Luck has been swatted in the head with no penalty this season. 

[Moose Of Woe]

Bill Vinovich. The same guy who effectively screwed Denver in the divisional playoff last season.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VVXIDNFaiLc

 

 

Unlike Denver, at least he gave us two makeup calls for the blocked punt and muffed return that we recovered in bounds.  They weren't as bad as those two plays, but at least we got _SOMETHING_. Denver got jobbed all game long by this guy.

[BOTT]

Whether players know that rule or not, it's the rule. I don't really like it, but it is the rule. And that call kind of makes up for the two or three times Luck has been swatted in the head with no penalty this season.

So...you're agreeing with me?

[Superman]

So...you're agreeing with me?

 

Absolutely. Sorry I wasn't more clear.