NEWS: Steelers Notebook: NFL agrees on officials' TD call

[costanza2k1]

Steelers Notebook: NFL agrees on officials' TD call
League backs referee's take on Holmes' score
Tuesday, December 16, 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 Sunday.

Coleman's officiating crew ruled that Holmes did not get into the end zone when he caught Ben Roethlisberger's pass from the Ravens' 4 with 43 seconds left. But 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 Coleman's 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."
Ed Bouchette can be reached at ebouchette@post-gazette.com.
First published on December 16, 2008 at 12:00 am

[Chachi]

This has been a great example of the media bitching for bitching sake.

From all I have read and heard, the general consensus is that "It was the correct call. It was a TD".

BUT!!!!!!!

"This is not how replay should work. There has to be INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE to overturn the call, and there wasn't any, the call should have stood as it was called on the field."

??!?!?!?!?!?!??!????? :shock:

Shorter media: "We are happy the correct call was made, but, because it was arrived at in a way we don't like, the correct call should not have been made."

Idiots. Everyone of them.

[MeetJoeGreene]

Seriously... EFF YOU Berman and Jackson....

[Discipline of Steel]

I bet Cris Collinsworth and crew did not review the high def video that the NFL officials have access to. I realize it looks a little blurry and is hard to tell on your TV screen, but there must have been something there to make the ref change the call.

[sd steel]

I don't know, I saw it in high def at my home and it looked clear to me that it crossed the line. It looked like a clean catch, (no bobbling), once it hit his hands. I don't see where there should be an argument....unless I was rooting for the Ravens.

[anjang86]

Two groups are interpreting two different rules:

1. The ball has to cross the goaline
2. Sideline rules apply, if his feet are down, doesn't matter if the ball crosses the goaline.

#2 is the correct interpretation. If everybody could get on the same page about that, there would be no controversy. You could tell, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Holmes's feet were both in and he had total control of the ball.

Now, if people out there still think #1 is the way to go (like Rich Eisen) then I can totally see how this call is controversial. You couldn't tell from indisputable evidence that the ball crossed the goaline. Therefore, the call on the field should have stood.

Too bad group #1 is totally incorrect. There's no controversy here, it was a good call and the Steelers won the game.

[sd steel]

Two groups are interpreting two different rules:

1. The ball has to cross the goaline
2. Sideline rules apply, if his feet are down, doesn't matter if the ball crosses the goaline.

#2 is the correct interpretation. If everybody could get on the same page about that, there would be no controversy. You could tell, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Holmes's feet were both in and he had total control of the ball.

Now, if people out there still think #1 is the way to go (like Rich Eisen) then I can totally see how this call is controversial. You couldn't tell from indisputable evidence that the ball crossed the goaline. Therefore, the call on the field should have stood.

Too bad group #1 is totally incorrect. There's no controversy here, it was a good call and the Steelers won the game.

Sideline rules don't apply, the ball has to touch or cross the plane of the goalline. The argument is whether Holmes had control of the ball before coming back across the goal line into the field of play. Holmes caught the ball with both feet down and with the ball on the goalline, he then transitioned and tucked the ball. This movement made it look like he didn't have control. The side judge who made the intial call and spotted the ball at the half yard line was blocked from view of the play by a DB. His head was looking from a yard deep in the endzone. He didn't see the play clearly, and the review showed the ball crossing the plane.

[anjang86]

Two groups are interpreting two different rules:

1. The ball has to cross the goaline
2. Sideline rules apply, if his feet are down, doesn't matter if the ball crosses the goaline.

#2 is the correct interpretation. If everybody could get on the same page about that, there would be no controversy. You could tell, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Holmes's feet were both in and he had total control of the ball.

Now, if people out there still think #1 is the way to go (like Rich Eisen) then I can totally see how this call is controversial. You couldn't tell from indisputable evidence that the ball crossed the goaline. Therefore, the call on the field should have stood.

Too bad group #1 is totally incorrect. There's no controversy here, it was a good call and the Steelers won the game.

Sideline rules don't apply, the ball has to touch or cross the plane of the goalline. The argument is whether Holmes had control of the ball before coming back across the goal line into the field of play. Holmes caught the ball with both feet down and with the ball on the goalline, he then transitioned and tucked the ball. This movement made it look like he didn't have control. The side judge who made the intial call and spotted the ball at the half yard line was blocked from view of the play by a DB. His head was looking from a yard deep in the endzone. He didn't see the play clearly, and the review showed the ball crossing the plane.

Sideline rules DON'T apply? Huh... I've been hearing something different...

Well... everybody continue with the speculation, I'm giving up because we won.

[blacknblue80s]

The NFL really needs to clarify this one. Either way its a td.

It is either foreward progress = td, or possession with two feet down means you are in the endzone = td.

[Slapstick]

In a way, the sideline rules do apply...

Holmes had possession of the ball when the ball crossed the plane of the goal line...all Holmes had to do was get both feet down and maintain possession of the ball while falling down on the ground ("finishing the catch")...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08350/935329-66.stm


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."