Zebras (Crooks?) Explain Ruling

November 16th, 2009

Referee Tony Corrente claimed Jason Taylor intercepted the ball on the controversial Michael Clayton play.

You saw it.

Joe saw it.

Damned near every Bucs fan saw it.

Except the clown that was watching the peep show when he should have been looking at the replay.

The zebras, shockingly, called the Michael Clayton fumble an interception.

Anwar Richardson of the Tampa Tribune actually got quotes from referee Tony Corrente about the play.

“Because the player in question (Clayton), the player who was possessing the ball in the air, as he started to come down, was hit,” Corrente said. “As he is coming down, he is now going to the ground to complete a catch and, by rule, if he’s going to the ground to complete a catch, he has to maintain possession of the ball completely through the entire process of hitting the ground and thereafter showing control.

“As he went to the ground, basically right when he went to the ground, the ball popped out, and went right into the arms of the Miami player. The ball had never touched the ground.”

This just flabbergasts Joe even more.

8 Responses to “Zebras (Crooks?) Explain Ruling”

  1. Ben Says:

    First off, he made a football move before being tackled, so it was BS.

    But ultimately if he could just hang on to the ball in the first place, this would have never been a question.

    And lets not forget we had the lead with 1:15 to go and let the Dolphins drive the entire length of the field, so NO EXCUSES.

  2. safety Says:

    Down by contact. My 9 year old (die hard Bucs fan) knows that rule.

  3. Denny Says:

    I don’t get it. If it was an interception or a fumble..why can’t Taylor return the ball for the touchdown.

    What a horrible call. These guys can’t make calls like this, AFTER INSTANT REPLAY. Full speed of the game would be one thing, but damn…

  4. TpaBayFlyFisher Says:

    The truth is that they were trying to help the Bucs secure the first overall pick…………….

  5. Petethehat Says:

    Denny, the reason is the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass, when the ruling was overturned to a fumble the ball can’t be advanced because of the original call being wrong…believe it or not that actually made sense to me . I hope it was clear enough (I’m not being facetious) The result of an overturned call limits the action which occurred because of the mistaken call.

  6. Petethehat Says:

    Either way the CALL was BS!!!

  7. FlyRick Says:

    The problem isn’t the refs here. The problem is that the NFL rules are actually murky with a play like this. Possession is not always clearly defined.

  8. Tristan Says:

    Personally, I think that for the most part, we need to turn back the clock on the NFL rulebook. Let’s go back to the rules our parents grew up with. Let’s stop treating players like babies. Let men play the game. We didn’t always have ‘in the grasp’ rules, ‘roughing the passer’ rules, ‘fair catch’ rules. Watch an old Baltimore Colts game from the ’70s or better yet, see if you can find footage from a CHICAGO Cardinals game. The receiver position in particular was an entirely different animal.

    I know, slightly off-topic, but the previous post brought out a pet peeve of mine so I said my peace.