Cross the goalline?

[mikesears]

Superbowl question?

After a spirited debate about this over lunch, I thought I would ask everyones opinion.

Did Lewis cross the goalline BEFORE he lost possession of the football? After looking at the replay, I thought he made it! Barely, but the ball was still in his hand when he crossed the goalline.

Had someone argue that in the very next frame of the replay, the ball was out. Therefore, she didn't believe he had possession.

Again, I think the ruling of Touchdown was correct.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I officiate football (actually it is soccer I officiate but I football friends take my joking good naturedly), but I do have a question regarding the Super Bowl last night.

In the official's judgement the Ravins' player had control of the ball when the ball broke the plan of the goal line and thus the ball became dead.

If the in the official's judgement the Ravins' player was not in control of the ball it would have been a fumble, the ball would have remained live and the second Ravins' player would have recovered it for a TD anyway.

Therefore, what would have happened if the replay would have reversed the touchdown and a fumble had been declared.
Since the ball was dead because of the official signalling a TD, who would have gotten the ball and where would they have gotten it.

It seems to me that when the replay ruled the TD good, it was a good example of if you can't explain it don't call it.

[Schmidt MJ]

If the in the official's judgement the Ravins' player was not in control of the ball it would have been a fumble, the ball would have remained live and the second Ravins' player would have recovered it for a TD anyway.

Therefore, what would have happened if the replay would have reversed the touchdown and a fumble had been declared.
Since the ball was dead because of the official signalling a TD, who would have gotten the ball and where would they have gotten it.

It seems to me that when the replay ruled the TD good, it was a good example of if you can't explain it don't call it. [/B][/QUOTE]


This exact question came up last night during the game with me and my friends. First of all let me say that in my opinion the touchdown was good and that the replay only confirmed it in my opinion. As soon as the nose of the ball touched the first edge of the white goal line, it was a touchdown. It looked to me that the nose of the ball was a good 6 inches over the first edge of the line when it left the runners hand, therefore the fumble was of no consequence.

As for your question as to what would be done if the touchdown was overruled. I can only answer what would be done in highschool, and I'm not sure if the NFL rules are the same, but if the fumble would have happened before the ball crossed the goalline then this would have been an inadvertent whistle since the referree signaled a touchdown thereby killing the play. The second Raven player picking up the loose ball in the end zone would not have affected anything since he would have been recovering a dead ball. I believe the head referee made the right call by affirming the TD, however I would not have wanted to be that official making the call in "real time".

[Zeke5]

This was definitely a funny play, but could've been not
so funny for the crew had they had to overturn the call
on the field.

The thing that surprised me the most was how fast Walt
Anderson (LJ) was on his wistle and signalling TD. These
guys are afforded the "luxury" of instant replay. Let the
play continue for a second or 1.5 seconds to digest exactly
what you have. Calls don't have to be made the split
second an event happens (that's what so great about
football). If he would have laid off for a second, he
would have realized that he had a potential fumble, the
ball would have been recovered or knocked out of bounds
(I thought it was knocked OOB)shortly after at which time he could signal his TD. Upon review, they either would have
a TD, or (assuming the ball did go OOB) Giants ball on the
20 after a touchback. No harm, the teams accept the
outcome, it was a close play and the crew looks great.

But ...

In the case of a fast wistle (which it was), and if they
determined that Lewis lost posession on 3 inch line,
Baltimore would retain posession, the down would have counted and the ball would be placed on the 3" line because
of an inadvertent wistle (in the NFL, the offense is not
given the option to replay the down as is in HS). There
would not be too many happy NY people if this happened, and
the crew looks less than "Super".

BTW ... On replay, I thought it was a TD (barely) and
Mr. Anderson got lucky.

Another interesting thing was the amount of BS that went
on after the wistle and OOB (especially in the first half).
The Umpire surely earned his game fee. I wonder how much
more of that stuff Mr. Austin was going to let go before he
flagged or tossed soemone. That would take some serious
guts to do that in a Super Bowl ...

[JugglingReferee]

I thought that the LJ sold the call very well. I saw it in real time as well, on TV of course, and thought it was a TD. In fact, I also thought why are they going to a replay? i thought it was obvious. I think that the LJ looked GREAT making the call.

..Mike

[J_Biz]

What would be the better mechanic on the play - Hesitate 1 or 2 seconds because of the "luxury" of replay? Or go up with your call immediately and show your confidence in your ability to make split-second decision in the biggest pro game of the season?

Walt did just fine on that play.

[mikesears]

I have to agree that he should sell the call. Just because their is instant replay does not mean an official should delay a whistle. Instant replay was not put in place of an officials judgment. Call it like you see it! If your in the NFL you have good officiating skills. As it turned out, his call was correct!

[Zeke5]

O.K., I agree with you whole heartedly that he "sold" the
call, and that he looked good doing it, but the fact of the
matter is, the NFL has a very different approach to selling
calls and shutting down plays than we do in HS or college.
I have a NFL supervisor and officiating contact that has
filled me in on this topic, so I'm not making this stuff
up. I am posting it for the benefit of all in this forum.
You may not gree with it, or it may not be acceptable in
your chapter, but this is honestly what the NFL is looking
for.

After the snap, these guys are trained to be very slooooow with the wistle. The only time there should be a fast
(reactionary) whistle is for shutting down plays for delay
of game, false starts, unabated to the QB offsides and
whenever player safety is in jeopardy. They are also trained
to have slow, controlled, composed signalling. Yes, there
are ways to "sell" a call without being abrupt or emphatic.
Don't get caught up in the excitement of the play. Your
signal should not punctuate the elevated importance of any
play. Signals should be made in a consistent, confident
demeanor throughout the game no matter if it is a routine
or tight big play.

I was told, that had this play happened in the playoffs
exactly the way it happened, and the call was made the way
that it was, that this, coupled with another moderate
error, might have been enough to keep him out of the big
game. (Actually, the questionable defensive holding that he
called against the Giants that nullified an interception
return most likely will keep him out of big games for a
long while)

Only 6 months till football season ... I can't take this
XFL crap.