Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

John Grasso wrote:

Bob Gill wrote: That catch yesterday would've been a touchdown in 1965 or '75 or '85 and nobody would have given it a second thought, and I miss those days.

When exactly did the rule change?

The rule was completely rewritten after the 2000 season--ironically, because of a disputed call in a playoff game.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers and St. Louis Rams met in the NFC championship game. With the Rams leading 11-6 and less than 2 minutes to play, Tampa Bay was moving the ball. But a pass from Shaun King to Bert Emanuel was ruled incomplete because the replayed showed that the tip of the ball had touched the ground when Emanuel made what had appeared to be a diving catch.

The ruling stirred so much controversy that the rule was rewritten. That opened the door for all these other controversies. The rewritten rule has been called the "Bert Emanuel Rule."

P.S. Rich McKay, then Tampa Bay's GM, was the co-chairman of the Rules Committee at the time.

I thought the 'watershed moment' was the 2006 playoff game between the Steelers and Colts. Polamalu's INT seals the win, but Pete Morelli's crew uses replay to overturn the call on the field, explaining "the defender caught the ball...lost it prior to getting his knee off the ground, therefore it is an incomplete pass". The verbatim part of Morelli's explanation of "knee off the ground" was wholly incorrect, but it kind of set the tone for the next 10 years (and counting).

rhickok1109 wrote:The rewritten rule has been called the "Bert Emanuel Rule."

In honor of the yahoo posters at other sites who cite such things as historically significant and make the case that the player in question is "clearly" HoF worthy, I hereby throw my hat in the ring to push Bert Emanuel as no-brainer Canton worthy.

So this should clear things up.

When it comes down to officiating or controversial calls, New England always receives the benefit of the doubt. Thus, I'm not surprised in the ruling. Politics and favoritism rules once again!

sluggermatt15 wrote:When it comes down to officiating or controversial calls, New England always receives the benefit of the doubt. Thus, I'm not surprised in the ruling. Politics and favoritism rules once again!

You mean things like Brady's suspension?

rhickok1109 wrote:

sluggermatt15 wrote:When it comes down to officiating or controversial calls, New England always receives the benefit of the doubt. Thus, I'm not surprised in the ruling. Politics and favoritism rules once again!

You mean things like Brady's suspension?

Yep, and like Spygate, too.

sluggermatt15 wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote:

sluggermatt15 wrote:When it comes down to officiating or controversial calls, New England always receives the benefit of the doubt. Thus, I'm not surprised in the ruling. Politics and favoritism rules once again!

You mean things like Brady's suspension?

Yep, and like Spygate, too.

Sugar Bear Hamilton says hi as well.

Sugar Bear Hamilton says hi as well.[/quote]

Pats get another controversial call in their favor this afternoon:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2186 ... ned-replay

Y'all's arguments not looking too good.