Fella's,

Regarding the call at the GL with Roth going in for the score. I think we all know the play and this post isn't about whether the call was right/wrong. We weren't there.

Here is my question.

When an official in an NFL game raises a hand is he declaring the ball dead? Is this the same as blowing the whistle?

The replay shows the official coming in with an arm up, then he signals touchdown a little bit later. <font size=4>IF</font> this means the ball is dead, do we have an inadvertant arm? :)

I was wondering the same thing on a different play, the Hasselbach fumble/D.B.C. I thought that I saw the U put his arm up, but could not see it again on the replays.

Don't know about the NFL but in the NF rules book 2.45 Inadvertant arm can only occur when the official forgets to apply deodorant.

I was led to believe that the covering offical's arm in the air signals that the play is dead and the 45-second clock should begin for the next play.

Indeed, Hittner came in with one arm up, and then signalled touchdown.

Didn't agree with the call, nor the non-overturning of said call. But when I saw the hand in the air, I said to everyone at the party, "Nope, didn't get it."

The other funny thing was on the offensive pass interference in the end zone when the back judge went to get his flag and pulled out his beanbag first. :)

The official, imo, erroneously raised his arm.

However, the correct call was made. It was a touchdown.

The only thing I did not like about the replay was the explanation, or lack there of, by Mr. Leavy.

Leavy only said the play as called stands. He did not give any explanation (as replays have been given this season in the NFL) saying either that the ball crossed the plane of the goal line and the call stands, or that there was no conclusive video evidence to overturn the call on the field. Either one of these would have added credibility to the review in my opinion.

He did a much better job explaning how Hasselback was touched while going down onthe play where the ball popped out when he hit the ground.

In or not...what's strange is that there is no camera that is lined up spot-on down the goal line. The camera angle seemed to me to be a little bit off, making the judgement of the whether the ball touched the goal line very difficult. Maybe the booth has a camera shot without parallax problems.

I agree. If they didn't give the TD and then reviewed it I think that would have stood. I think the camera was at a bad angle... thus giving us "there was no conclusive video evidence to overturn the call on the field."

But I would have liked to hear it from the referee...?

what we see is what they see...

With the technology that these networks have, you would think they would have this yellow line (only for viewers) to show if the ball breaks the plane.

If ball breaks plane, then the line shows it or vanishes. I know, it's crazy but they do have the technology.

As far as the hand raised by an official, the signal is for a dead ball but it is for officiating purposes only. As an official, we cannot expect players to stop if they see our arm raise.

In fed, we use it to allow the other officials to blow their whistle, especially at the U. Also in fed, the player is down when knee touches, and ball is dead. Players' knee down kills the play, hopefully not an IW!

I think there are a lot of fans with better TV sets than the monitors that NFL referees get. They should have a big-*** plasma for them to see. :)

That would be nice....LOL :)

Speaking of new technologies, I wonder if/when they'll come out with a microchip inside the ball that'll determine if it crosses the GL at any point. Perfect the technology and you could even use it to determine 1st downs without bringing the chains out.

I say within 15 years this technology is in place and being used in the NFL...

Personally I felt the TD call was kicked. He did not know it was a TD as he was coming in. Roth then pulled the ball out from under him and at that point, per replay, it was clearly not over the goal line. He then moved it forward and into the end zone. At that point, if I'm on the line, I rule it short. The wing didn't as it was at that point he called it a TD. To any extent replay would not have changed anything. Now did the ball actually cross when Roth was diving? Maybe, maybe not, but the covering official was not sure either as he would have came up immediately if he was.

Something I have not seen anywhere, but could explain Hittner's dead-ball, then TD signal....


We have only seen one angle of the play, the angle where we see Hittner's one-armed dead ball signal, followed by a two-armed TD signal about 2 seconds later.

Is it possible that he felt the runner was short and spotting the ball, however his linesman across the field from him (with perhaps a better angle to see the ball in the runner's arm) who we can not see in any of the replays we have been shown thus far went up with a TD signal, and thus Hittner, yielding to him mirrored his TD signal?

The play did happen pretty much in the center of the field, for both wings to have an equal look at.

Thoughts?

At first I disagreed with you, but looking at the photos posted by OverAndBack, you could be right. The linesman on the other side might have had a clear view of Rothlisburger. But I really doubt he could have been more confident of the call since Rothlisburger's back is to him, preventing that official from seeing the ball.

Where are you going to put the chip? In the middle of the ball? What if only the tip of the ball hits the goal line (which is all it has to do)? Is the chip going to know that?

You could, I suppose, bury a wire of some sort all along the inward edge of the goal line, extending all the way across the field, the problem is what would "trip" the signal.

Would you have to put a chip in each point of the ball and one in the middle just to be reasonably sure that it would trip the signal?

Remember, the Cyclops machine at the US Open was full of problems when they started using it. Do they still use it? I don't even know.

Perhaps the NSA could provide some satellite imagery!

I'm not sure I want to watch a game where chips in footballs make decisions for refs.

Sports-talk-radio in my city has been debating the pros and cons of full-time refs for the NFL...but I'm not sure how that would have made a difference in this particular sitch.

I don't agree. The run was off-tackle to the left away from the offside wing.

Did you watch the video clips in this forum?
http://www.officialforum.com/thread/24802

That wing had no view of the ball at all, the QBs back was facing his way.

I'm convinced that the defender while making the tackle used his right hand to keep the ball from breaking the plane.
As a result, I think the correct call should have been no TD and let replay try to over turn that call, which I don't think they could.

I think in less time then that....

I don't full-time refs would make a difference at all!

One point I would like to make is that you NEVER mirror a TD signal. You only signal a TD if you see the score yourself...

I've been silent on the whole SB thing. Especially since I am a diehard Seahawks fan. Since I am an engineer in real-life, and a football official in my spare time, I do think I can comment on the item below.

I have 2 points: a) I don't think a chip will be used, and b) I think they could make such a thing work.

I don't think a chip will be used because it removes the human element. I like the way the NFL handles officiating "errors." The way the NCAA does it is too arbitrary. I like giving the teams a say in what should/should not be challenged. And because of that, I think human observation will continue long into the future. Making machines decide the outcome of the game--no matter how fair--makes the game less interesting. And I bet you the union representing the officials will raise holy hell over this issue (re: MLB umpires).

As for the technology, I think it is quite possible to embed something in the ball that would trigger when the GL is crossed. It doesn't need to be a chip, but a wire that goes lengthwise and widthwise on the ball. RFID technology is already quite advanced, and an RFID chip with "antennas" attached could easily detect when the ball crosses the plain. So you don't need to worry about the chip "tripping" the wire in the GL since the "antennas" would cover all possible outside edges of the ball.

But I think the discussion over this is moot because of the desire to keep things human.

[q]One point I would like to make is that you NEVER mirror a TD signal. You only signal a TD if you see the score yourself...[/q]


I agree with this with one rare exception. And that exception may apply here...

When you are showing one signal, and your partner is showing a different signal, and you defer to him. You can't just put the one arm down. You go up with the other one to help sell his call.

I raised the issue of the chip simply because I believe the technology could easily be developed. As with any new technology, you'll always have people who disagree with its use/disuse/misuse, but for the general good of the game I don't think it would take away from the game at all.

As for the union objecting, this tool could be used to help officials! What could the opposing coach say when the on-field official signals a touchdown AND the chip triggers to signal it crossed the GL? It would be hard to argue that as a coach without losing some credibility.

I agree the a chip would work in most cases, but not all. The play that comes to mind is the one in which the runner loses posession right at the goal line and the ball continues forward. So then we are back to the covering official's judgement as to weather the ball broke the plane before or after loss of possession.

Or what about the knee being down right as the ball comes close? Or an elbow? Or a foot OOB?

I think we're a LONG way from technology that would rule any better than a human official with help from a replay when needed.

Oh, by no means am I suggesting that we let the technology take over! I can't see any situation in the near future where we wouldn't need human judgment. The situations listed above are good examples as to why we'd still need officials.

I just think that we can incorporate technology to make our jobs easier. i.e. instant replay allows the pros to see the play from multiple angles to determine the correct call. I think 20-25 years ago the tech wasn't developed enough to incorporate it (i.e. slo-mo, zoom, etc.), but it works in today's game.

I could see something like a chip being used at some point. What I am suprised we have not already seen is a laser of some sort used to measure for 1st downs. When a new LTG has been established, a mark exactly 10 yards downfield is set and then when the officials place the ball down it is obvious, quick, and easy to tell if the LTG is reached, or how much is needed for a 1st down. This seems like an easy thing for the NFL to do and it would speed up the game, which they are always interested in doing.

10-yard chains are imprecise at best, especially at lower levels. And even if they're accurate, spotting the ball is hardly an exact science (though I try my best) - heck, half the time I'm told to spot it on a yard mark whenever close. (See that one commercial from 2004(?) for further commentary on this idea.)

BUT - the NFL will pretty much never get rid of them, for the simple reason that they provide dramatic tension. Replay is a technology that works for the mass market because it serves to increase suspense, and with coaches' challenges, it adds another element for fans to second-guess after the game. A line-to-gain laser would take away the moment just as the chain is being stretched where every pair of eyes in the stadium is fixed on that one spot.

GO STEELERS!!!!


http://www.geocities.com/marke1085/stfu1.gif







http://www.geocities.com/marke1085/stfu2.gif







http://www.geocities.com/marke1085/stfu3.gif