PDA

View Full Version : "Controversial call" , my ...



SanAntonioSteelerFan
12-15-2008, 12:42 AM
I'm sick of what the talking heads have obviously agreed is the party line. Tones had two feet in the end zone, and the ball crossed the plane. Where's the controversy, except that the ref made the wrong call initially?

Fl*ck 'em all!

costanza2k1
12-15-2008, 12:43 AM
What's controversial is we drove 92 yards on them and they couldn't stop our O. Eat that.

SidSmythe
12-15-2008, 12:46 AM
Was a great play ... technically it was a TD or the ball would have been on the 1 inch line. Ben sneaks it in. Big deal.

BigBen2112
12-15-2008, 12:49 AM
Was a great play ... technically it was a TD or the ball would have been on the 1 inch line. Ben sneaks it in. Big deal.

I think we would have gone for it as well...and it would have been a hair from the goal line and I dont think there is any way to stop that honestly.

Jooser
12-15-2008, 01:16 AM
Dumb F*cks just need something to talk about all week, that's all. Besides, they're smarting from the fact that they were all on the Rats' bandwagon. Suck it talking heads! :owned

NKySteeler
12-15-2008, 01:22 AM
I've been debating that call quite a bit tonight.... Two feet in... Did the ball cross?... I've seen the replay several times and I'm still not sure...

...Doesn't matter at this point.... We're gonna hear the "talking heads" debate this all week, I'm guessing... We got a call, and we've seen calls go against us... So be it.

SteelerOfDeVille
12-15-2008, 01:28 AM
when they got the ball on their own 8, my wife says, "suppose they had the ball inside the 1 and it was 4th and goal.... would they kick it or go for it?"

I responded, "I'd kick it. They've struggled on short yardage and I wouldn't LOSE right there... I'd go for the tie."

When they initially called it NOT a TD, she was schitting herself. She was like, "I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to mess them up. I jinxed them, didn't i?"

For those who don't know, there's some history here. The only other time she asked me a hypothetical during a game was, "what happens if Bettis fumbles this ball.........."

Yes... THAT play...

I told her she can NEVER ask me a hypothetical during a game as long as we're married - and she wants to STAY married.

SteelerOfDeVille
12-15-2008, 01:30 AM
BTW, I didn't think it was conclusive.... i don't know for sure that his foot was down as the ball was over the plane...

If I was ref and it wasn't the steelers, I wouldn't have overturned it.

NKySteeler
12-15-2008, 01:31 AM
I just now went back and watched the replay.... I have Directv with a DVR, so I froze it, then advanced it ONE FRAME AT A TIME... The ball crossed the plane... It was a touchdown. No question.

stlrz d
12-15-2008, 01:36 AM
I just now went back and watched the replay.... I have Directv with a DVR, so I froze it, then advanced it ONE FRAME AT A TIME... The ball crossed the plane... It was a touchdown. No question.

NKy - go tell these guys!

http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/forumdisplay.php?f=10

:lol:

NKySteeler
12-15-2008, 01:43 AM
I just now went back and watched the replay.... I have Directv with a DVR, so I froze it, then advanced it ONE FRAME AT A TIME... The ball crossed the plane... It was a touchdown. No question.

NKy - go tell these guys!

http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/forumdisplay.php?f=10

:lol:

Good grief... I looked at that page, but couldn't muster the emotion to go looking for an argument. I'm too old for that crap... :lol:

... But I HAVE watched it very slowly several times now, and the front edge of the plane (starts at the frontal edge of the white paint) was crossed. Heck, I think it was firmly across after viewing it over and over.... It wasn't an easy call regardless how you slice it, but it WAS a touchdown.

buckeyehoppy
12-15-2008, 01:44 AM
I just now went back and watched the replay.... I have Directv with a DVR, so I froze it, then advanced it ONE FRAME AT A TIME... The ball crossed the plane... It was a touchdown. No question.

It was a TD and I said it from the first time they showed the replay because the rules are clear that the ball must only "touch" the goal line to be considered a TD.

Obviously, Holmes feet were in the end zone and most of the rest of him was, too. The ball tip was just touching the goal line and that was all they needed once he maintained possession through the catch (miraculously).

They would have had the ball on about the one foot line if the play had stood as called. I think the Steelers would have gone for the win and I wouldn't have blamed them for that if they had failed. That's what champion teams do is win.

But the booth review worked in favor of the Steelers, so it was a moot point. This time, the replay worked for good and benefited the Steelers...hoo-rah!!!

stlrz d
12-15-2008, 01:45 AM
I just now went back and watched the replay.... I have Directv with a DVR, so I froze it, then advanced it ONE FRAME AT A TIME... The ball crossed the plane... It was a touchdown. No question.

NKy - go tell these guys!

http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/forumdisplay.php?f=10

:lol:

Good grief... I looked at that page, but couldn't muster the emotion to go looking for an argument. I'm too old for that crap... :lol:

... But I HAVE watched it very slowly several times now, and the front edge of the plane (starts at the frontal edge of the white paint) was crossed. Heck, I think it was firmly across after viewing it over and over.... It wasn't an easy call regardless how you slice it, but it WAS a touchdown.

:lol:

Jooser
12-15-2008, 01:48 AM
Hell my wife saw it and she said it was a touchdown, and she's never wrong! :shock: And go tell 'em she said so...... :lol:

SteelerOfDeVille
12-15-2008, 02:10 AM
I just now went back and watched the replay.... I have Directv with a DVR, so I froze it, then advanced it ONE FRAME AT A TIME... The ball crossed the plane... It was a touchdown. No question.
the ball certainly crossed the plane... but, were his feet down when it did. of that, i'm not sure. he jumped a little as he caught it... i think his feet were up. and when he landed, i'm not sure either way...

bad overturn, imo.

it wasn't conclusive.

NKySteeler
12-15-2008, 02:24 AM
the ball certainly crossed the plane... but, were his feet down when it did. of that, i'm not sure. he jumped a little as he caught it... i think his feet were up. and when he landed, i'm not sure either way...

bad overturn, imo.

it wasn't conclusive.

Damn you SoD for making me go back and look at it yet again... :HeadBanger ... :lol:

Yes, he was up, but as he caught it, his feet became firmly planted and had full possesion as the ball crossed the plane.... Actually, when you slow it down to one frame at a time, the ball not only crossed the plane but was firmly entrenched as a TD....

Those of you with a DVR, go do the same thing... When you see it, there will be no question whatsoever.... Yea, at full speed or even slow-mo, it looks questionable... But not when you slow it down even further....

SoD, I have to say that "upon further review" it was actually a good overturn and was completely conclusive... But it was definitely close, and it took a "frame by frame" analysis to prove it to me... That's all I got....

SteelerOfDeVille
12-15-2008, 02:32 AM
the ball certainly crossed the plane... but, were his feet down when it did. of that, i'm not sure. he jumped a little as he caught it... i think his feet were up. and when he landed, i'm not sure either way...

bad overturn, imo.

it wasn't conclusive.

Damn you SoD for making me go back and look at it yet again... :HeadBanger ... :lol:

Yes, he was up, but as he caught it, his feet became firmly planted and had full possesion as the ball crossed the plane.... Actually, when you slow it down to one frame at a time, the ball not only crossed the plane but was firmly entrenched as a TD....

Those of you with a DVR, go do the same thing... When you see it, there will be no question whatsoever.... Yea, at full speed or even slow-mo, it looks questionable... But not when you slow it down even further....

SoD, I have to say that "upon further review" it was actually a good overturn and was completely conclusive... But it was definitely close, and it took a "frame by frame" analysis to prove it to me... That's all I got....
didn't dvr the game... i'll do it on the replay which i'm sure they'll show a zillion more times.

BigBen2112
12-15-2008, 02:34 AM
Here's my question.

There is no doubt he crosses the plane...but I dont think that his feet were down when he did. Just like SoD.

HOWEVER...what about forward progress? If a guy catches a ball and then while he's in the air is hit and knocked 2 yards backwards they give him forward progress...

Is it different for TDs?! I didnt think it was.

SteelerOfDeVille
12-15-2008, 02:59 AM
Here's my question.

There is no doubt he crosses the plane...but I dont think that his feet were down when he did. Just like SoD.

HOWEVER...what about forward progress? If a guy catches a ball and then while he's in the air is hit and knocked 2 yards backwards they give him forward progress...

Is it different for TDs?! I didnt think it was.
feet have to be down in the end zone... just like if you catch it and go ob in the air. it's about where you establish possession...

i dvr'd the replay... it's still to close to overturn, imo.

BigBen2112
12-15-2008, 03:15 AM
Here's my question.

There is no doubt he crosses the plane...but I dont think that his feet were down when he did. Just like SoD.

HOWEVER...what about forward progress? If a guy catches a ball and then while he's in the air is hit and knocked 2 yards backwards they give him forward progress...

Is it different for TDs?! I didnt think it was.
feet have to be down in the end zone... just like if you catch it and go ob in the air. it's about where you establish possession...

i dvr'd the replay... it's still to close to overturn, imo.

So your saying that if I jump in the air at the 50 yard line and catch the ball and maintain possession throughout the catch but while still in the air I am pushed back to the 45 where my feet/body touch that I should not get the ball @ the 50? Thats not the interpretation of forward progress as I understand it.

kennyes
12-15-2008, 05:22 AM
I dunno I watched a dozen times in slo-mo and reverse or the footage they shot during the game. From the sideline angle his feet dragged and appeared to me to be clearly down. The overhead camera shot with zoom showed the ball clearly over the plain as Tonio caught it. He immediately started to extend his arms after the catch as he was falling forward. That's where people question cause it was close. Those weasels over at the sun can only talk about the game being fixed. I guess they didn't take in account all the blown calls in favor of the those bounty incentive expansion douchebags...

Jom112
12-15-2008, 07:26 AM
I just now went back and watched the replay.... I have Directv with a DVR, so I froze it, then advanced it ONE FRAME AT A TIME... The ball crossed the plane... It was a touchdown. No question.
the ball certainly crossed the plane... but, were his feet down when it did. of that, i'm not sure. he jumped a little as he caught it... i think his feet were up. and when he landed, i'm not sure either way...

bad overturn, imo.

it wasn't conclusive.

I thought it was too close to call as well. Or at least too close to overturn the ruling on the field. But since it was so close, I don't think it was a bad call. It could have gone either way, the ref decided he crossed the plane with possession so he called it that way.

That first down call earlier in the game though was easily one of the worst replayed calls that I've have ever seen. It's one thing to call that live, it's another to call that spot after the replay...

SanAntonioSteelerFan
12-15-2008, 09:00 AM
In retrospect ... who says feet have to be down touching the end zone?

There are all kinds of TDs called where the player's entire body is out of bounds (in the air, for example), but the ball breaks the plane of the end zone.

So the feet are a red herring. The question is did Tones have possession of the ball in the end zone, regardless of his feet.

Look at NKy's post - he's the only one here who has described a frame-by-frame ... TD.

MeetJoeGreene
12-15-2008, 09:07 AM
I will DVR the replay and watch it as well.

I thought it was really, really close. I didn't think they would overturn it....but they did.

Whew.

Now we have to listen to Rich "bad word" Eisen on NFL network all week and his Steeler-hating act.

DukieBoy
12-15-2008, 09:13 AM
What's controversial is we drove 92 yards on them and they couldn't stop our O. Eat that.

This was a 92 yard drive in honor of #92 James Harrison.
James said it was a TD. End of argument.

BURGH86STEEL
12-15-2008, 09:26 AM
I think it was to close to overturn the call. In any event, the Ravens let the Steelers drive down the field. They had opportunities to stop them but did not. Ultimately, the call was not what won or loss the game.

papillon
12-15-2008, 09:32 AM
What's controversial is we drove 92 yards on them and they couldn't stop our O. Eat that.

This was a 92 yard drive in honor of #92 James Harrison.
James said it was a TD. End of argument.

:Agree :Agree

I don't want James looking for me. I'm agreeing with him wholeheartedly. Here's to you James, first a few of these :Cheers and then go get you a little of this :Boobs

Pappy

frankthetank1
12-15-2008, 09:35 AM
I just now went back and watched the replay.... I have Directv with a DVR, so I froze it, then advanced it ONE FRAME AT A TIME... The ball crossed the plane... It was a touchdown. No question.
the ball certainly crossed the plane... but, were his feet down when it did. of that, i'm not sure. he jumped a little as he caught it... i think his feet were up. and when he landed, i'm not sure either way...

bad overturn, imo.

it wasn't conclusive.

he had his feet down. i have gone over that play a lot, and in one frame the ball does cross barely and his toes are barely on the ground. i think if they didnt get the td ben sneaks it in on the next play from the inch line. they suck in short yardage, but a qb sneak with ben is almost unstopable, unless he fumbles of course

papillon
12-15-2008, 09:40 AM
MY stance on this type of play is and always will be the same. A football game is 60 minutes long one play whether it occurs on the first play from scrimmage or the last doesn't decide the game.

The Ravens first three possessions of the game handed them theball with the average field position of their own 43 yard line and they didn't get any points. Had they taken advantage of their superiority in the punt game that last TD would have only closed the gap of the final score.

TD or not the Steelers played all 60 minutes and won the game. The #2 ranked defense gave up a 92 yard drive on what certainly was the Steelers final possession of the game. The Steelers earned it and the Ravens lost it; the reversal of the call had very little to do with the outcome.

Just my :2c minus .18 cents

Pappy

frankthetank1
12-15-2008, 09:42 AM
MY stance on this type of play is and always will be the same. A football game is 60 minutes long one play whether it occurs on the first play from scrimmage or the last doesn't decide the game.

The Ravens first three possessions of the game handed them theball with the average field position of their own 43 yard line and they didn't get any points. Had they taken advantage of their superiority in the punt game that last TD would have closed the gap of the final score.

TD or not the Steelers played all 60 minutes and won the game. The #2 ranked defense gave up a 92 yard drive on what certainly was the Steelers final possession of the game. The Steelers earned it and the Ravens lost it; the reversal of the call had very little to do with the outcome.

Just my :2c minus .18 cents

Pappy

thats an excellent point. the refs never decide a game no matter what calls are made. they could of stopped the steelers before they even got close to the end zone, but they didnt and it came down to the final seconds. joe flacco also couldnt of thrown a pick to end the game. the jeff reed personal foul was terrible, so if the steelers had lost we could blame that one call, but that would be ignorant and childish

papillon
12-15-2008, 09:48 AM
MY stance on this type of play is and always will be the same. A football game is 60 minutes long one play whether it occurs on the first play from scrimmage or the last doesn't decide the game.

The Ravens first three possessions of the game handed them theball with the average field position of their own 43 yard line and they didn't get any points. Had they taken advantage of their superiority in the punt game that last TD would have only closed the gap of the final score.

TD or not the Steelers played all 60 minutes and won the game. The #2 ranked defense gave up a 92 yard drive on what certainly was the Steelers final possession of the game. The Steelers earned it and the Ravens lost it; the reversal of the call had very little to do with the outcome.

Just my :2c minus .18 cents

Pappy

thats an excellent point. the refs never decide a game no matter what calls are made. they could of stopped the steelers before they even got close to the end zone, but they didnt and it came down to the final seconds. joe flacco also couldnt of thrown a pick to end the game. the jeff reed personal foul was terrible, so if the steelers had lost we could blame that one call, but that would be ignorant and childish

BigBen2112
12-15-2008, 11:44 AM
In retrospect ... who says feet have to be down touching the end zone?

There are all kinds of TDs called where the player's entire body is out of bounds (in the air, for example), but the ball breaks the plane of the end zone.

So the feet are a red herring. The question is did Tones have possession of the ball in the end zone, regardless of his feet.

Look at NKy's post - he's the only one here who has described a frame-by-frame ... TD.

I am of the same conclusion...look, the ball is the ONLY thing that has to cross the goal line...and WHO SAYS that he has to have possession INSIDE the endzone? If I catch the ball on the one and I stretch the ball out and put it into the endzone is that not a TD even if none of my body is in the endzone? If I catch the ball in the endzone while jumping but am pushed out of the endzone back to the one, however, maintaining possession throughout then forward progress puts me IN the endzone and thus its a TD...so what is wrong with this call?

Uncle Rico
12-15-2008, 12:14 PM
I think that the Holmes TD is just the third part of a much overdue trilogy dating back to the 1980's. First the Browns/Ravens franchise had "The Drive" then it was "The Fumble" and now they have "The Replay." They're cursed I tell you.

Iron Shiek
12-15-2008, 12:45 PM
In retrospect ... who says feet have to be down touching the end zone?

There are all kinds of TDs called where the player's entire body is out of bounds (in the air, for example), but the ball breaks the plane of the end zone.

So the feet are a red herring. The question is did Tones have possession of the ball in the end zone, regardless of his feet.

Look at NKy's post - he's the only one here who has described a frame-by-frame ... TD.

I am of the same conclusion...look, the ball is the ONLY thing that has to cross the goal line...and WHO SAYS that he has to have possession INSIDE the endzone? If I catch the ball on the one and I stretch the ball out and put it into the endzone is that not a TD even if none of my body is in the endzone? If I catch the ball in the endzone while jumping but am pushed out of the endzone back to the one, however, maintaining possession throughout then forward progress puts me IN the endzone and thus its a TD...so what is wrong with this call?

Its the right call. Mostly everyone agrees that it was a TD. But the belly aching is moreso about the original call being not a TD, thus causing them to see "irrefutable evidence" to overturn the call. Which it was really tough to determine even on replay whether the ball did cross the plane, but I think it did and many other do. Just a tough "overturn" I think is the real problem. Good thing they did get it right though.

If it happened to the Ravens, I'd be mad, but I would still agree that he was in.

Slapstick
12-15-2008, 12:52 PM
The only controversial thing about the call was the fact that they got it wrong on the field...

steelblood
12-15-2008, 12:53 PM
reversing that call was wrong. There was not conclusive replay evidence that the ball was over the plane after is was totally possessed by the receiver. The Ravens got hosed on that one. But, thems the breaks.

On a side note, I think the refs are predisposed to mark the ball at the one inch line any time that it is close. I don't know if they crave attention or if it is somehow an impowering moment for them, but it is annoying.

BigBen2112
12-15-2008, 11:57 PM
Guess I was right.

All you have to do is have the ball across the goal line...your feet do NOT have to come down inside the endzone= basically the forward progress role.


NFL backs ruling on Steelers' winning touchdown
Monday, December 15, 2008
By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The NFL is backing referee Walt Coleman's decision to overturn a call on the field and rule Santonio Holmes' catch a touchdown that gave the Steelers a 13-9 victory at Baltimore yesterday.

Coleman's officiating crew ruled that Holmes did not get into the end zone when he caught Ben Roethlisberger's pass from the Ravens' four with 43 seconds left. However, after viewing it on replay, Coleman overturned the call and signaled a touchdown.

"Walt Coleman determined via high-def video review that the receiver had possession and two feet down with the ball in the goal line, meaning it broke the plane,'' an NFL spokesman said via e-mail.

The spokesman said Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating, backed the Coleman ruling after replay.

Coleman explained after the game that Holmes "had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line."

By rule, his feet did not have to be down, however, when the ball crossed the goal line -- he had to be in possession of the ball when it broke the plane of the goal line and then, to complete the play, his feet had to touch the ground.

"When he gained control of the ball,'' Coleman said, "the ball was breaking the plane and then he fell into the field of play."

More details in tomorrow's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08350/935329-100.stm

He had the ball and the tip of the ball crossed the goal line...doesnt matter if his feet were down when the ball did cross the goal line...any time after the ball crosses the goal line if is feet come down in bounds, whether in the endzone or not and its a TD.

Flasteel
12-16-2008, 12:27 AM
reversing that call was wrong. There was not conclusive replay evidence that the ball was over the plane after is was totally possessed by the receiver. The Ravens got hosed on that one. But, thems the breaks.

On a side note, I think the refs are predisposed to mark the ball at the one inch line any time that it is close. I don't know if they crave attention or if it is somehow an impowering moment for them, but it is annoying.

Sorry. But you and everyone who agrees with you is wrong...the call was correct. Read the rules.

By the way, it seems quite a few folks don't understand the meaning of conclusive evidence. When you clearly see the ball cross the goal line while being possessed by the receiver followed by two feet clearly down to maintain possession, it is conclusive.

NKySteeler
12-16-2008, 12:48 AM
Sorry. But you and everyone who agrees with you is wrong...the call was correct. Read the rules.

By the way, it seems quite a few folks don't understand the meaning of conclusive evidence. When you clearly see the ball cross the goal line while being possessed by the receiver followed by two feet clearly down to maintain possession, it is conclusive.

Fla, I think the issue comes from the vague definition of "conclusive evidence"... I suffer from this as well... I watched the play over and over. I had to actually slow it down on the DVR to slow-mo and watch it one frame at a time...

I really STILL don't know what the true definition is, but while listening to the Jim Rome radio show today, he expounded his interpretation.... If 20 people see it and 20 people agree, it's indesputable... If you have to watch it several times from different angles and slow it down, it's desputable... I do NOT agree with him because if it's able to be reviewed, then it's dependant upon the call... Rome said that it "violated the spirit" of the actual rule regarding the review... I disagree with him on this...

... Bottom line is that the interpretation of "indesputable evidence" appears to be different amongst folks.... It WAS a TD... He had posession, and the ball crossed the plane.... But how it was determined to be so was the issue as far as I can tell.... Heck, if the Balt folks don't like it, then they shouldn't have let us drive 92 yds....

And on a side note... I think we have a great D that can win us games. But an anemic offense for three qtrs of each game causes me to overlook the great play at the end... I hate it...... But Ben has made 5 4th qtr comebacks this season and we've outscored the opponents something like 34 or 37 to nothing in the 4th qtr in the last 3 games... It's the early part of the games that worry me and drives me crazy... And it unfortunately diminishes my opinion by the time the game is finished.

SteelerOfDeVille
12-16-2008, 12:50 AM
I just now went back and watched the replay.... I have Directv with a DVR, so I froze it, then advanced it ONE FRAME AT A TIME... The ball crossed the plane... It was a touchdown. No question.
the ball certainly crossed the plane... but, were his feet down when it did. of that, i'm not sure. he jumped a little as he caught it... i think his feet were up. and when he landed, i'm not sure either way...

bad overturn, imo.

it wasn't conclusive.

he had his feet down. i have gone over that play a lot, and in one frame the ball does cross barely and his toes are barely on the ground. i think if they didnt get the td ben sneaks it in on the next play from the inch line. they suck in short yardage, but a qb sneak with ben is almost unstopable, unless he fumbles of course
you saw CONCLUSIVELY that his toes were BARELY on the ground?

that's why i love our fans... we're the only ones who'll argue a statment like that... :Cheers

BigBen2112
12-16-2008, 01:35 AM
I just now went back and watched the replay.... I have Directv with a DVR, so I froze it, then advanced it ONE FRAME AT A TIME... The ball crossed the plane... It was a touchdown. No question.
the ball certainly crossed the plane... but, were his feet down when it did. of that, i'm not sure. he jumped a little as he caught it... i think his feet were up. and when he landed, i'm not sure either way...

bad overturn, imo.

it wasn't conclusive.

he had his feet down. i have gone over that play a lot, and in one frame the ball does cross barely and his toes are barely on the ground. i think if they didnt get the td ben sneaks it in on the next play from the inch line. they suck in short yardage, but a qb sneak with ben is almost unstopable, unless he fumbles of course
you saw CONCLUSIVELY that his toes were BARELY on the ground?

that's why i love our fans... we're the only ones who'll argue a statment like that... :Cheers

If you read above you will see that he did not HAVE to get his feet down. As I stated earlier.

SteelerOfDeVille
12-16-2008, 01:37 AM
I just now went back and watched the replay.... I have Directv with a DVR, so I froze it, then advanced it ONE FRAME AT A TIME... The ball crossed the plane... It was a touchdown. No question.
the ball certainly crossed the plane... but, were his feet down when it did. of that, i'm not sure. he jumped a little as he caught it... i think his feet were up. and when he landed, i'm not sure either way...

bad overturn, imo.

it wasn't conclusive.

he had his feet down. i have gone over that play a lot, and in one frame the ball does cross barely and his toes are barely on the ground. i think if they didnt get the td ben sneaks it in on the next play from the inch line. they suck in short yardage, but a qb sneak with ben is almost unstopable, unless he fumbles of course
you saw CONCLUSIVELY that his toes were BARELY on the ground?

that's why i love our fans... we're the only ones who'll argue a statment like that... :Cheers

If you read above you will see that he did not HAVE to get his feet down. As I stated earlier.
if you read above he said he DID. :moon

SanAntonioSteelerFan
12-16-2008, 12:59 PM
I'm sorry for harping on this, after this post I will take up Zen meditation and cool off.

But right now I am so steamed. I just read an article in the NYT, another one that referred to the call as close, and this one even said "somewhat questionable".

I HATE THESE SPORTSWRITERS WHO WRITE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FACTS.

The fact is the ball crossed the plane of the goal line. I saw it on the TV replays, and it is apparently even more clearly visible on the frame by frame replay that NKy described.

What p*sses me off is that these things take on a life of their own after a while of so-called reporting. I bet if you ask 100 NFL fans whether Ben crossed the plane of the goal in Superbowl XL, at least half would say "No", even though the replays frame-by-frame clearly show he did. How did they get that opinion? By reading inferior journalists who use the word "questionable" or "controversial".

The right words to use are "a close play". That is accurate, and it does not raise implications of of wrong calls.

OK, now I'm breathing deep, and saying "ohmmmmm" , sorry for the rant.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
12-18-2008, 08:31 AM
My friend sent me this, apparently from the NFL rulebook. Look at the bit in gold ... apparently, by rule, it was a touchdown without ambiguity .

From the NFL Rulebook:

Section 14 In Touch and Impetus

Article 1 A Ball is In Touch:

(a) after it has come from the field of play, it touches a goal line (plane) while in player

possession; or

(b) while it is loose, it touches anything on or behind a goal line.

Note: If a player while standing on or behind the goal line touches a ball that has come from

the field of play and the official is in doubt as to whether the ball actually touched the goal

line (plane), he shall rule that the ball was in touch.

papillon
12-18-2008, 10:41 AM
My friend sent me this, apparently from the NFL rulebook. Look at the bit in gold ... apparently, by rule, it was a touchdown without ambiguity .

From the NFL Rulebook:

Section 14 In Touch and Impetus

Article 1 A Ball is In Touch:

(a) after it has come from the field of play, it touches a goal line (plane) while in player

possession; or

(b) while it is loose, it touches anything on or behind a goal line.

Note: If a player while standing on or behind the goal line touches a ball that has come from

the field of play and the official is in doubt as to whether the ball actually touched the goal

line (plane), he shall rule that the ball was in touch.

I believe that rule is for touchbacks, not touchdowns.

Pappy

papillon
12-18-2008, 10:46 AM
reversing that call was wrong. There was not conclusive replay evidence that the ball was over the plane after is was totally possessed by the receiver. The Ravens got hosed on that one. But, thems the breaks.

On a side note, I think the refs are predisposed to mark the ball at the one inch line any time that it is close. I don't know if they crave attention or if it is somehow an impowering moment for them, but it is annoying.

Sorry. But you and everyone who agrees with you is wrong...the call was correct. Read the rules.

By the way, it seems quite a few folks don't understand the meaning of conclusive evidence. When you clearly see the ball cross the goal line while being possessed by the receiver followed by two feet clearly down to maintain possession, it is conclusive.

FlaSteel, I never saw a replay that had a camera shooting directly down the goal line. Every replay that I saw was at an angle and this may have given the perception that the ball crossed the goal line, but, in actuality may not have. Without the direct line of sight down the goal and as close as that play was I don't think you can state conclusively that the ball broke the plan of the goal line.

Indeed, it appears that it does, for an ever so brief moment, but from the angle given in the replays you can't conclusively say that the ball broke the plane.

I don't believe the play should have been overturned. On the other hand, had it been ruled a touchdown on the field you couldn't have overturned that call either.

Pappy

SanAntonioSteelerFan
12-18-2008, 11:03 AM
reversing that call was wrong. There was not conclusive replay evidence that the ball was over the plane after is was totally possessed by the receiver. The Ravens got hosed on that one. But, thems the breaks.

On a side note, I think the refs are predisposed to mark the ball at the one inch line any time that it is close. I don't know if they crave attention or if it is somehow an impowering moment for them, but it is annoying.

Sorry. But you and everyone who agrees with you is wrong...the call was correct. Read the rules.

By the way, it seems quite a few folks don't understand the meaning of conclusive evidence. When you clearly see the ball cross the goal line while being possessed by the receiver followed by two feet clearly down to maintain possession, it is conclusive.

FlaSteel, I never saw a replay that had a camera shooting directly down the goal line. Every replay that I saw was at an angle and this may have given the perception that the ball crossed the goal line, but, in actuality may not have. Without the direct line of sight down the goal and as close as that play was I don't think you can state conclusively that the ball broke the plan of the goal line.

Indeed, it appears that it does, for an ever so brief moment, but from the angle given in the replays you can't conclusively say that the ball broke the plane.

I don't believe the play should have been overturned. On the other hand, had it been ruled a touchdown on the field you couldn't have overturned that call either.

Pappy

Isn't there a camera at the goal line for every NFL game, and that is the shot that we all see (and the refs see too)? Or are you saying it is not necessarily on the goal line?

Thanks -

papillon
12-18-2008, 11:21 AM
reversing that call was wrong. There was not conclusive replay evidence that the ball was over the plane after is was totally possessed by the receiver. The Ravens got hosed on that one. But, thems the breaks.

On a side note, I think the refs are predisposed to mark the ball at the one inch line any time that it is close. I don't know if they crave attention or if it is somehow an impowering moment for them, but it is annoying.

Sorry. But you and everyone who agrees with you is wrong...the call was correct. Read the rules.

By the way, it seems quite a few folks don't understand the meaning of conclusive evidence. When you clearly see the ball cross the goal line while being possessed by the receiver followed by two feet clearly down to maintain possession, it is conclusive.

FlaSteel, I never saw a replay that had a camera shooting directly down the goal line. Every replay that I saw was at an angle and this may have given the perception that the ball crossed the goal line, but, in actuality may not have. Without the direct line of sight down the goal and as close as that play was I don't think you can state conclusively that the ball broke the plan of the goal line.

Indeed, it appears that it does, for an ever so brief moment, but from the angle given in the replays you can't conclusively say that the ball broke the plane.

I don't believe the play should have been overturned. On the other hand, had it been ruled a touchdown on the field you couldn't have overturned that call either.

Pappy

Isn't there a camera at the goal line for every NFL game, and that is the shot that we all see (and the refs see too)? Or are you saying it is not necessarily on the goal line?

Thanks -

I don't know if there is one directly on the goal line or not. You would think that there would be one (on both sides of the field). What I am saying is this, during the time that the referees were reviewing the play all of the replays that were shown on TV had a slight angle to them. I never saw a replay that had a direct line of sight down the goal line. That doesn't mean there isn't one, I've just never seen it if there is.

I equate this to checking the gas guage in your car. The driver who looks directly at the guage knows exactly how much fuel is in the car. However,the passenger, seeing the same guage, but, from an angle may think that there is more or less than there actually is, because, they are not looking directly at the needle.

I guess in the end I don't believe there was enough evidence to conclusively state that the ball broke the plane of the goal line.

Pappy

Slapstick
12-18-2008, 12:54 PM
I guess in the end I don't believe there was enough evidence to conclusively state that the ball broke the plane of the goal line.

Pappy

Thank God that the official got it right...after review...

stlrz d
12-18-2008, 03:19 PM
reversing that call was wrong. There was not conclusive replay evidence that the ball was over the plane after is was totally possessed by the receiver. The Ravens got hosed on that one. But, thems the breaks.

On a side note, I think the refs are predisposed to mark the ball at the one inch line any time that it is close. I don't know if they crave attention or if it is somehow an impowering moment for them, but it is annoying.

Sorry. But you and everyone who agrees with you is wrong...the call was correct. Read the rules.

By the way, it seems quite a few folks don't understand the meaning of conclusive evidence. When you clearly see the ball cross the goal line while being possessed by the receiver followed by two feet clearly down to maintain possession, it is conclusive.

FlaSteel, I never saw a replay that had a camera shooting directly down the goal line. Every replay that I saw was at an angle and this may have given the perception that the ball crossed the goal line, but, in actuality may not have. Without the direct line of sight down the goal and as close as that play was I don't think you can state conclusively that the ball broke the plan of the goal line.

Indeed, it appears that it does, for an ever so brief moment, but from the angle given in the replays you can't conclusively say that the ball broke the plane.

I don't believe the play should have been overturned. On the other hand, had it been ruled a touchdown on the field you couldn't have overturned that call either.

Pappy

Isn't there a camera at the goal line for every NFL game, and that is the shot that we all see (and the refs see too)? Or are you saying it is not necessarily on the goal line?

Thanks -

I don't know if there is one directly on the goal line or not. You would think that there would be one (on both sides of the field). What I am saying is this, during the time that the referees were reviewing the play all of the replays that were shown on TV had a slight angle to them. I never saw a replay that had a direct line of sight down the goal line. That doesn't mean there isn't one, I've just never seen it if there is.

I equate this to checking the gas guage in your car. The driver who looks directly at the guage knows exactly how much fuel is in the car. However,the passenger, seeing the same guage, but, from an angle may think that there is more or less than there actually is, because, they are not looking directly at the needle.

I guess in the end I don't believe there was enough evidence to conclusively state that the ball broke the plane of the goal line.

Pappy

Did you see the game on NFL Network replay?

They did a freeze frame of the view straight down the goal line. They even took it a step further and zoomed in on the ball. It was clearly in Holmes' hands and clearly across the goal line.

papillon
12-18-2008, 03:24 PM
Did you see the game on NFL Network replay?

They did a freeze frame of the view straight down the goal line. They even took it a step further and zoomed in on the ball. It was clearly in Holmes' hands and clearly across the goal line.

Yea, I watched the replay of the game, but, don't recall seeing a shot directly down the goal line. If it happened that way, that's great, but, at the time it occurred I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe the call should be overturned.

Pappy

feltdizz
12-18-2008, 03:25 PM
the rule is 2 feet down in the endzone on a catch is a TD.

crossing the GL is for runs..

regardless I agree... all NFL stadiums should have GL cams facing each other.

Every camera they showed.. even on the 1st down they called..was on an angle.

stlrz d
12-18-2008, 03:27 PM
Did you see the game on NFL Network replay?

They did a freeze frame of the view straight down the goal line. They even took it a step further and zoomed in on the ball. It was clearly in Holmes' hands and clearly across the goal line.

Yea, I watched the replay of the game, but, don't recall seeing a shot directly down the goal line. If it happened that way, that's great, but, at the time it occurred I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe the call should be overturned.

Pappy

Aha my friend...all it had to do is lead Walt Coleman to believe it should be overturned! :D

feltdizz
12-18-2008, 03:42 PM
I think 2 feet down made the call easy.. I just think so many people didn't know the rule that of course it seemed bogus. ESPN runs with it cause it makes for a good story.

papillon
12-18-2008, 03:57 PM
[quote="stlrz d":n9iu8iv1]
Did you see the game on NFL Network replay?

They did a freeze frame of the view straight down the goal line. They even took it a step further and zoomed in on the ball. It was clearly in Holmes' hands and clearly across the goal line.

Yea, I watched the replay of the game, but, don't recall seeing a shot directly down the goal line. If it happened that way, that's great, but, at the time it occurred I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe the call should be overturned.

Pappy

Aha my friend...all it had to do is lead Walt Coleman to believe it should be overturned! :D[/quote:n9iu8iv1]

Yea, Walt did his job correctly this time. Hopefully, he doesn't do his job incorrectly at a crucial point in any game moving forward.

Pappy

Iron Shiek
12-18-2008, 04:01 PM
[quote="stlrz d":26hkdxal]
Did you see the game on NFL Network replay?

They did a freeze frame of the view straight down the goal line. They even took it a step further and zoomed in on the ball. It was clearly in Holmes' hands and clearly across the goal line.

Yea, I watched the replay of the game, but, don't recall seeing a shot directly down the goal line. If it happened that way, that's great, but, at the time it occurred I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe the call should be overturned.

Pappy

Aha my friend...all it had to do is lead Walt Coleman to believe it should be overturned! :D

Yea, Walt did his job correctly this time. Hopefully, he doesn't do his job incorrectly at a crucial point in any game moving forward.

Pappy[/quote:26hkdxal]

Unless it involves screwing the Cheaters somehow. In that case, I fully support his ineptness...but I'm sure they are under strict orders to suddenly be inept at being inept when it comes to that team.

skyhawk
12-18-2008, 07:39 PM
Right stlrz d. NFL network had Mike Pereira on last night. It was clearly a TD.

Mike broke it down beautifully. I think ALOT of people and regular fans STILL don't know that the PLANE of the endzone is the front of the big thick line. I just know it.

If they do they are blind.

Pereira is a bada$$.

stlrz d
12-18-2008, 10:56 PM
Right stlrz d. NFL network had Mike Pereira on last night. It was clearly a TD.

Mike broke it down beautifully. I think ALOT of people and regular fans STILL don't know that the PLANE of the endzone is the front of the big thick line. I just know it.

If they do they are blind.

Pereira is a bada$$.

Here it is: http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80d68f82

SanAntonioSteelerFan
12-19-2008, 12:38 AM
Right stlrz d. NFL network had Mike Pereira on last night. It was clearly a TD.

Mike broke it down beautifully. I think ALOT of people and regular fans STILL don't know that the PLANE of the endzone is the front of the big thick line. I just know it.

If they do they are blind.

Pereira is a bada$$.

Here it is: http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80d68f82

Looks like a goal line camera, I think --- Pappy, what do you see to make you think it is not on the goal line?

papillon
12-19-2008, 10:27 AM
Right stlrz d. NFL network had Mike Pereira on last night. It was clearly a TD.

Mike broke it down beautifully. I think ALOT of people and regular fans STILL don't know that the PLANE of the endzone is the front of the big thick line. I just know it.

If they do they are blind.

Pereira is a bada$$.

Here it is: http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80d68f82

Looks like a goal line camera, I think --- Pappy, what do you see to make you think it is not on the goal line?

That's on the goal line as far as I can tell. I don't remember that shot during the game and replay. I could have been so disgusted that they didn't call it a touchdown on the field that I missed it during the replays. Still, it does appear that the ball breaks the plane, but, it's close.

I stand corrected.

Pappy

SanAntonioSteelerFan
12-19-2008, 02:34 PM
OK then, TD it was!

I still want to re-educate Crissy Collingsworthless for leading the campaign to discredit the TD :twisted: , I wonder if Deebo might have a few free moments? :Bow

stlrz d
12-19-2008, 03:21 PM
Right stlrz d. NFL network had Mike Pereira on last night. It was clearly a TD.

Mike broke it down beautifully. I think ALOT of people and regular fans STILL don't know that the PLANE of the endzone is the front of the big thick line. I just know it.

If they do they are blind.

Pereira is a bada$$.

Here it is: http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80d68f82

Looks like a goal line camera, I think --- Pappy, what do you see to make you think it is not on the goal line?

That's on the goal line as far as I can tell. I don't remember that shot during the game and replay. I could have been so disgusted that they didn't call it a touchdown on the field that I missed it during the replays. Still, it does appear that the ball breaks the plane, but, it's close.

I stand corrected.

Pappy

Yes Sir!!!!!

:tt2 :tt2 :tt2 :tt2 :tt2 :tt2