The Disputable Touchdown
by BallsofSteel on Dec 14, 2008 10:12 PM EST
Email
PrintJust now Collinsworth and the halftime crew opined that the touchdown should not have been allowed because there wasn't indisputable proof that he had the ball across the plane. From my understanding, possession of the ball with both feet in the endzone constitutes a touchdown, and that was indisputable. Whether the ball crossed the plane was definitely disputable but my understanding is that only matters in cases where the ballcarriers feet don't enter the endzone. Does anyone know the rules well enough to explain this one?
Secondly, what will it take for them to place a sensor on the goalline and inside the ball to determine this sort of thing? Seems like such a no brainer.
Off topic: We did get a very questionable first down off a run that was absolutely stuffed.
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
not sure on the rules
but i think you are correct. I think you can definitely tell the ball crossed the plane. But I was under the impression that the ball had to cross after he got possession. Oh well. Oh, and once again, another poorly officiated game. Tons of holds and blown calls on both sides of the ball.
All that aside
There were several blown calls that went against the Steelers as well. Harrison was blatantly held, Colon was called for a phantom hold, and the TD debate, well you add up a driving Steeler offense, one timeout left, on the Baltimore inch line, with the possibly the Biggest QB in the NFL, and you tell me how the Steelers weren’t gonna get in. Plus on an overhead of the play they showed on NBC, it looked pretty clear that Holmes had the ball across the plane.
To the tune of the classic children's song "This Old Man" (the part with nick nack patty whack)
Big Snack, Silverback, take the Dawg Pound's Bone, the Black and Gold sent the Brownies crying home.
by Tim Mullhaupt (HSS) on Dec 14, 2008 10:30 PM EST reply actions
"it looked pretty clear that Holmes had the ball across the plane."
i live in california, and no one at the bar i was at wanted to believe me when i said that. looked preeeetty clear.
of course, instead of arguing, i just yelled “TOUCHDOWN RRRRRRRRRRRRAIDERSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!” and that shut them up real quick.
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
Definition from NFL.com
Touchdown: When any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, breaks the plane of the opponent’s goal line, provided it is not a touchback.
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions
My probably unpopular opinion in that case is that the ruling should have stood and we kick a FG and go to overtime. I do not wan’t to see the Ravens again this year. They will have everything to play for and beating that D three times in a season seems horribly fucking unlikely.
Fear not my friend, let fate take its course here. If we stay at the 2 seed they would and we would have to make to the AFC Championship game. If we get the 1st seed and they beat the 3rd seed, then I think we would see them in the divisional game but in Heinz field.
Also I have a theory about rookie QBs. Not sure but almost ceratin not a single one has every won a SB, (and I swear to god if its Brady I will puke) and its not going to happen this year.
Remember how bad Ben struggled against the Jets and then the stinking Pats took us out in the AFC Championship game. Rookie QBs struggle immensely in the playoffs.
by Silverback92 on Dec 14, 2008 10:54 PM EST up reply actions
Nobody ever has
No Rookie ever won all the way.
The lack of experience is a huge factor. Ben looked pretty bad in the 04 playoffs. Then again, the pats had cameras.
no FG
no way we kick a FG, if thats not ruled a TD. It would have bee 4th and inch, man you have to go…BB sneak with RB pushing him from behind..we would have scored anyway.
Considering Tomlin's mentality I think your right
But I’m not sure we get the TD.
by BallsofSteel on Dec 14, 2008 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
We Definately GO!
He went for it last week. He does this week. On the road. Division on the line? Inches? We go and make it.
Such a crock of crap the media serves us! We won this game. period.
My thoughtages
The BALL has to cross the plane.
It did. I think it was VERY clear on several replays the ball was at a point over the white line.
So now the question was, did the Receiver get possession of the ball while it was across the plane?
This too is a yes. Holmes has both hands on it, firmly grasping the ball while it is over the white line. Touchdown.
He didnt bobble it, and then finally secure it at the 1 yard line. He caught a ball that was in the endzone. Touchdown.
You are welcome
I make a heck of an NFL lawyer. That was a tricky call though and I’m sure baltimore fans the world over hate the refs tonight. But they sure as hell owe us a few of thsoe
Yeah thats basically the two step process
The real thing I thought they might question was Santonio’s possession. Because the ball very clearly was not in the EZ for long. Like a millisecond. But he got an excellent hold on the ball during that second. And legally that is all it takes.
My take
Ok. I’ve been discussing this with my dad about the touchdown. If a reciever is passed the ball and it sails clean over the endzone and the reciever reaches out and grabs the ball (never having control of the ball when it’s in the endzone) and drags both feet while falling down out of the endzone, isn’t that a touchdown? Given the ball is never in control while in the endzone, the reciever still makes the catch, but never gets the ball to cross the plane it’s going to be a TD. So, what is the difference between the front of the endzone or the back of the endzone?
I’m a little confused on the officiating this year. It has a close resemblence to Stevie Wonder’s visual judgement. The lack of holding calls on Deebo today were seen by the pigeons on top of the lights at the stadium. Honestly, if I have to hear someone say that it wasn’t a TD and the Steelers should have lost that game, I’m going to sit them down and make them watch the replay and agree that we flat out got shafted on the calls today. Pass interference, holding, encroachment, it was all there and practically none of it was called. But, the win was sweet and everyone in the league knows we’re for real. If they don’t, they will next week! Go Steelers!
by SoCalSteelerFan on Dec 14, 2008 11:21 PM EST reply actions
The goal line is the difference
It’s what the touchdown rule uses to define what the ball must cross. It must cross the goal line. Everything after the goal line is endzone, whether it is in bounds or out of bounds.
by BallsofSteel on Dec 14, 2008 11:30 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks
for clearing that up. All makes sense now.
by SoCalSteelerFan on Dec 14, 2008 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
TOUCHDOWN
i really don’t understand why the people at NBC act like it wasn’t a touchdown. When he drew his little yellow line, it clearly lined up with the ball over it and holmes feet on the ground. I really don’t understand why anyone can’t just look at that and say HEY he has posession the ball is barely over that white line and his two feet are on the ground, touchdown.
Also i saw an overhead view and it is much better, you can clearly see the ball go over the line, it actually went further than i thought it did from the other view but overhead was very clear.
They just want to have another thing to talk about i guess, if they make it controversy then they can talk about it for a week until the next game in case nothing else happens. but look now i guess they can talk about how GREAT dallas is now that they beat the Giants or they can talk about how the giants NEED burress and jacobs now that they lost two straight games. But they weren’t talking about how they needed burress and jacobs when they didn’t play the games they won, (WASH and whichever one before that) but i think they do need Jacobs.
am i the only one who thinks the giants aren’t all that good? i mean, they got lucky vs us, they played us when we were playing horrible and caught SO many breaks. in a rematch we handle them.
also am i the only one who thinks that this offense could be a top 10 offense if they just execute? with the bad-play calling, and lack of focus or execution whatever you wanna call it, it seems like we always beat ourselves on the offensive side of the ball. I feel like we should come out of the game passing and then run the ball instead of vice versa.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 12:00 AM EST reply actions
Top 10?
No, probably not. Especially not with our line. A top 10 offense needs to be able to run the ball, unless you’re the Pats from last year.
by Chicago Steeler on Dec 15, 2008 12:06 AM EST up reply actions
Top 10 when they wanna be
Were clearly on top of the league when we need to be. While I wish this could be the case during the rest of the game, I absolutely believe we have a great O. We kinda remind me of Indy 06 where they had a great passing game and a few complimentary RB’s.
We could totally be that this year. Cept the O-line is lacking and players just wont put up their A game each week. This week Santonio was messing up, Nate was not on point, Hines had a hell of a game though.
And for all the FWP haters out there lately, may I add he performed considerably better than MM this week, and had a 12 yard run repealed by a phantom hold.
yeah
FWP is getting steadily better, he still misses some times where he should bounce it outside and use his best weapon to torch defenses. I really do get frustrated with all of the holding calls because its hard enough running the ball nowadays, especially against the Ravens, especially when FWP misses those cutback lanes and outside free areas where he can run wild, and especially when BA calls a stupid run call.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 12:40 AM EST up reply actions
But.
The O-line did a fantastic job today against the #2 defense along with the good decision making of BB.
But I don’t think we need an overpowering line, I think they have been taking too much heat than they deserve.
Everyone expects us to run it down people’s throats but the fact is that we can’t do that anymore. Our line isn’t one of the best anymore but it isn’t one of the worst. We don’t exactly have overpowering backs and that is going to limit what playcalling we can do. Especially when you consider that we rarely use a FB anymore and that the majority of our run plays are up the middle. Of course they will look bad when all of those implications are on and we are constantly playing against the best defenses the NFL can offer.
Then on passing situations, a lot of the blame was on BB but now he is starting to come around and get rid of the ball quickly, there has NEVER been an offensive line who can block everyone, even blitzers for more than 5+ seconds and I believe the average is like 3 so why are we getting so mad at ours? It doesn’t help when BB holds the ball so long and on top of that he DOES have plenty of plays where he is just standing in the pocket with plenty of time to throw.
Looking at our weapons we should be a top 10 offense. Ward, Holmes, Washington, Sweed, Miller, Parker, Mendenhall*, Moore, and Roethlisberger?
I think we just need to execute earlier instead of in the 4th Quarter, i mean keep it up in the 4th but we should start out games like that, and THEN turn it up a notch in the 4th.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 12:37 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah
This sorta “wait until minute 55” to turn it on thing is kinda scary. Not complaining. But still, wouldnt hurt to have to run the clock out at that point.
yeah its actually killing me. I like close games but this is hurting my health or something. After the game i became immensely ill and i have been feeling nauseous since the end of the game with a massive head ache. I am starting to get over it and thats why i am on the computer now.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions
thx
but officiating aside? i know ravens fans are always going to feel like they were cheated but still.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 12:41 AM EST up reply actions
ok disregard
that last comment, at least you have the balls to come over here.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions
no offense taken..you guys sealed the deal and played with horrendous field position. we didn’t deserve it considering we could only put up FG’s. kind of knew it was coming..Ben picks his spots and he’s usually right.
Suggs
Hey, I saw Thuggs was dinged up a little (3rd Q?)… Did he get back in the game? Word on him?
Guns don't kill people. Lamar Woodley kills people.
Rules
If the player is standing still, or moving backwards, only his feet need to be in the endzone. The ball across the plane is only for a player with forward momentum. I decided to not read all of these, so if that was said, sorry. But that is the rule.
by Michael Uhlhorn on Dec 15, 2008 1:47 AM EST reply actions
Interesting
I didn’t know that. So the umpire that told the Ravens coach that the ball had to cross the goal line was wrong. Very interesting.
if this is really a rule, then it settles the debate. but i have yet to hear this rule anywhere except right here. can you verify with a link?
...die trying
http://www.agentorangerecords.blogspot.com
May not settle the debate
But here’s the 06 rulebook: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.officiating/browse_thread/thread/202da341710c916e
You can check out Rule 11, Section 2, Article 1 (Touchdown) :
It is a touchdown (3-38):
(a) when a runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponents’
goal line (plane); or
(b) while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the
opponents’ goal line.
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
(1) The ball is automatically dead at the instant of legal player possession on, above,
or behind the opponents’ goal line.
(2) The Referee may award a touchdown when a palpably unfair act deprives the
offended team of one.
(3) For a foul after a touchdown (between downs), see 3-11-2-a and 14-5.
I see nothing in there that says you can have a touchdown if the ball didn’t cross the plane, regardless of the position of the receiver’s feet.
I don’t really have an opinion on the claim that the ball nosed into the plane, because I was watching at a bar and they never put up a great angle on the shot. I know it was damn close.
Guns don't kill people. Lamar Woodley kills people.
Ah-ha
Walt Coleman fesses up:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afcnorth/0-1-306/Referee—Ball-broke-the-plane.html
TOUCHDOWN STEELERS!!!!!
Guns don't kill people. Lamar Woodley kills people.
huh
The way the ref announced it, (“the receiver had 2 feet down in the end zone and had possession of the ball”) it sounded like he was saying (errantly) that it didn’t matter where the ball was. I agree with the NBC guys, and Collinsworth had a good point: replay is supposed to fix eggregiously bad calls, not exchange one questionable judgement for another. The shot on the far goal line was a perfect shot, and I couldn’t tell what it should be. The blimp shot was not directly over the goalline, so it’s useless. The ref could have called it either way, and I’d be making this same argument. I think the ref made a mistake in overturning the call.
I’m actually disappointed that they made the bad call, because it takes something away from the victory. People will forget that the call didn’t decide the game, it decided whether we went into OT (or took a shot) or won. I’d feel much better, however if Ben didn’t spike the ball like an idiot on first down with over a minute left, making it 3rd down instead of 4th. Then you’re talking about a 50-50 chance or better of getting it in with a sneak, then a 50-50 chance in OT if that doesn’t work.
charity standing orders
Agreed, the spike was stupid. Not only did it waste a down, but we wanted to burn time off the clock. As it was we left flacco with too much time. We could have ended that drive with under 20.
The “indisputable evidence” used on challenges is always nonsense. They never use that. Personally I think it was a touchdown, but I don’t think the evidence was 100% conclusive that it was, and therefore the ruling on the field should not have been overturned. Good of them to penalize Reed 15 yards to try and make amends though.
haha
Thought about that penalty too. Like that Bud or Miller commercial with the official:
“We really blew that call… but don’t worry… we’ll penalize the other team for no good reason in the second half.”
charity standing orders
agreed about the spike
I actually rarely yell at the tv when watching football because that seems so idiotic to me, but I started yelling at the tv when i saw Ben motioning to spike the ball. I was in a Steelers bar in SF, and everyone around me was saying it was the right thing to spike the ball.
Morons.
that says
(b) while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the
opponents’ goal line.
santonio was inbounds and caught the ball behind the goal line. what more do you want?
b does not state that the ball has to cross the plane, that is in a where the player is advancing from the field of play, which santonio was not, he was in the end zone already.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
Anyone have the pics?
I’d like to see the still frame pictures of this…
Like the one Collinsworth showed with the line drawn and also the blimp view. IMO the blimp view settles this.
yeah
that would be helpful, it was obvious with an HD view and the line or with the blimp view in HD that it was a TD
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 6:08 PM EST up reply actions
The side angle
Im in detroit and watched the CBS broadcast.
They showed a great goal line angle, that was dead on with the goal line so you know it wasnt a weird angle.
The ball CLEARLY gets caught with about 1/2 the ball over the white line. As long as a single molecule of pigskin is over that line, its a TD.
Now due to Tone’s momentum, they show he pushes the ball back out.
Also a over the head view made it look really good that the ball crossed the plane.
To me there was no doubt. Heck, this one was easier to call than the Big Ben TD run in the SBXL. I still think that was in too if only by a few atoms.
We've gotten hosed on plenty of calls this year
so even if this one was questionable, I offer no apologies. Nice to see stuff even out—-finally.
Holmes gets credit
Yes Tonio dropped the punt. Oops. But he managed to flick it up and away from a dirty bird and into Foxy’s hands. He seemed to realize he had a shot at saving it and he did.
He gets a pat on the back. He redeemed himself.
Plus it was our 2nd biggest PR of the year!!!
lol
that is true, even though i almost had a heart attack.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 6:09 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah we should practice it
I mean it worked!!! Lets just work on it some more! Advancing the muff. For some reason I found it hilarious to hear him say that.
Oh and did anyone catch the early ref call with the Tackle Eligible confusion? He said “#79 was confused but lined up correctly, no foul”
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"Thoughtful discussion with a sense of history."
Art Rooney Jr.
"Level-headed thinking." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
