After further review: NFL

[Old School]

Couple of calls this weekend I would like to get an answer on, that I thought where questionable.

In the Eagles vs Lions game. I believe it was Westbrook who tried to dive into the endzone, stuck the ball out before he crossed the goal line, the ball then came lose and rolled into the endzone. The play was ruled a TD but challenged. Upon the review, it appeared the ball did not cross the goal line, however, they still gave him the TD. Did anybody see this? What is the official ruling?

There was a hard hit last night in the Saints Titans game where a hard hit was put on the TE after the catch from Drew Pearson. It looked like a clean hit, but they ruled it excessive and a penality was accessed. Is there a new rule in the NFL on hitting the player after the catch if from the bindside?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Old School

Couple of calls this weekend I would like to get an answer on, that I thought where questionable.

In the Eagles vs Lions game. I believe it was Westbrook who tried to dive into the endzone, stuck the ball out before he crossed the goal line, the ball then came lose and rolled into the endzone. The play was ruled a TD but challenged. Upon the review, it appeared the ball did not cross the goal line, however, they still gave him the TD. Did anybody see this? What is the official ruling?

The ruling was seen as not conclusive and the angle was not directly on the goal line. I think it was a great call and only the official standing directly on the goal line can see that. All the ball has to do is touch the line and the play is over and you have a touchdown.

Originally Posted by Old School

There was a hard hit last night in the Saints Titans game where a hard hit was put on the TE after the catch from Drew Pearson. It looked like a clean hit, but they ruled it excessive and a penality was accessed. Is there a new rule in the NFL on hitting the player after the catch if from the bindside?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

I did not see the play.

Peace

[Old School]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The ruling was seen as not conclusive and the angle was not directly on the goal line. I think it was a great call and only the official standing directly on the goal line can see that. All the ball has to do is touch the line and the play is over and you have a touchdown.

Is there any rule on the player having to have control of the ball at the time it reaches the goal line. IOW's, if you reach out and lose control that is still a TD?

I would not go as far as to say it was a great call. Based on my understanding, and i admit I do not know NFL rules, but it appeared the ball never crossed the plane and when he stuck it out, he lost control. Replay supports the official but I think the Eagles got a break. My intrepetation of officiating is if you are not sure, you don't award a goal. There is no way the official based on what occurred could be sure that was a TD.

I bet that if he would have ruled the ball on the goal line, I doubt if the review could over turn that ruling either. Is that what the review process has come down to now? Just a concerned fan, oh and thanks for your answer.

One more thing, I thought it was a good challenge.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Old School

Is there any rule on the player having to have control of the ball at the time it reaches the goal line. IOW's, if you reach out and lose control that is still a TD?

I would not go as far as to say it was a great call. Based on my understanding, and i admit I do not know NFL rules, but it appeared the ball never crossed the plane and when he stuck it out, he lost control. Replay supports the official but I think the Eagles got a break. My intrepetation of officiating is if you are not sure, you don't award a goal. There is no way the official based on what occurred could be sure that was a TD.

I bet that if he would have ruled the ball on the goal line, I doubt if the review could over turn that ruling either. Is that what the review process has come down to now? Just a concerned fan, oh and thanks for your answer.

One more thing, I thought it was a good challenge.

On the goal line is in the end zone. It's a basic fundamental of football officiating.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Old School

Is there any rule on the player having to have control of the ball at the time it reaches the goal line. IOW's, if you reach out and lose control that is still a TD?

I would not go as far as to say it was a great call. Based on my understanding, and i admit I do not know NFL rules, but it appeared the ball never crossed the plane and when he stuck it out, he lost control. Replay supports the official but I think the Eagles got a break. My intrepetation of officiating is if you are not sure, you don't award a goal. There is no way the official based on what occurred could be sure that was a TD.

I bet that if he would have ruled the ball on the goal line, I doubt if the review could over turn that ruling either. Is that what the review process has come down to now? Just a concerned fan, oh and thanks for your answer.

One more thing, I thought it was a good challenge.

Do you officiate football? Basketball officiating is not football officiating. The official mechanically was on the goal line and he had the best look. Even the TV commentators admitted to that. The official did not guess, he made a call and the call was challenged. The call was not overturned because there was nothing we could tell.

Peace

[Old School]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

On the goal line is in the end zone. It's a basic fundamental of football officiating.

I meant right before the goal. Again, I am not an NFL or football official. It just seems like a stretch to award the TD when the player lost control of the FB trying to stick it over the plane. At what point does control have to be, when reaching it out? In basketball, when a player shoots a 3 and you don't see his foot behind the line, it's a 2 point goal. Point is, I need to be sure to be able to rule it a 3. I just don't see how the official could be sure in that situation. I understand why the play was not overturned on the review.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not questioning the integrity of the official. I'm questioning the integrity of the call. This might be a good one to look at because it had no effect on the game. I would hate to see a game come down to a call like this. It would not make the profession look good. The thing is, if it can't be verified by review later, either way, then what call do we go with? I would say, imo, if it can't be verified for sure, then it's not, just like a 3-pt attempt is a 2 if I'm not sure, but that's a bb official trying to make a football ruling. I'll shut up now....

thanks again for your response and apologize if i have offended anyone.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Old School

I meant right before the goal. Again, I am not an NFL or football official. It just seems like a stretch to award the TD when the player lost control of the FB trying to stick it over the plane. At what point does control have to be, when reaching it out? In basketball, when a player shoots a 3 and you don't see his foot behind the line, it's a 2 point goal. Point is, I need to be sure to be able to rule it a 3. I just don't see how the official could be sure in that situation. I understand why the play was not overturned on the review.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not questioning the integrity of the official. I'm questioning the integrity of the call. This might be a good one to look at because it had no effect on the game. I would hate to see a game come down to a call like this. It would not make the profession look good. The thing is, if it can't be verified by review later, either way, then what call do we go with? I would say, imo, if it can't be verified for sure, then it's not, just like a 3-pt attempt is a 2 if I'm not sure, but that's a bb official trying to make a football ruling. I'll shut up now....

thanks again for your response and apologize if i have offended anyone.

The official is straddling the line looking right down the line at the ball. I'll take his word on the call.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Old School

I meant right before the goal. Again, I am not an NFL or football official. It just seems like a stretch to award the TD when the player lost control of the FB trying to stick it over the plane. At what point does control have to be, when reaching it out? In basketball, when a player shoots a 3 and you don't see his foot behind the line, it's a 2 point goal. Point is, I need to be sure to be able to rule it a 3. I just don't see how the official could be sure in that situation.

Let's say the officials do lose sight of the ball and that there's no means for review. In the basketball situation you have either a 2- or 3-point goal; if the ball went in the basket those are your only choices. In the football situation described, let's say nobody was sure whether the ball in possession touched the plane of the goal line. What do you rule then? The ball has to be spotted somewhere. You can't simply adopt a rule of thumb that says don't award a touchdown unless you see it, because if it's not a touchdown then where does your rule of thumb say to put the ball? So the officials have to take their best guess of where the ball wound up, and "in the end zone" should be given just as much consideration as anywhere in the field of play.

Robert

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Let's say the officials do lose sight of the ball and that there's no means for review. In the basketball situation you have either a 2- or 3-point goal; if the ball went in the basket those are your only choices. In the football situation described, let's say nobody was sure whether the ball in possession touched the plane of the goal line. What do you rule then? The ball has to be spotted somewhere. You can't simply adopt a rule of thumb that says don't award a touchdown unless you see it, because if it's not a touchdown then where does your rule of thumb say to put the ball? So the officials have to take their best guess of where the ball wound up, and "in the end zone" should be given just as much consideration as anywhere in the field of play.

Robert

Makes sense. Please understand, I don't have a dog in this fight. Being fair to both parties is what's at issue for me here. Penalizing the defense awarding a score when you can't be sure or that seems doubtful doesn't seem to fit either. BTW, the end result of the play would have been a turnover. Isn't there a rule that says you can't fumble the ball forward into the endzone?

If the official would have come together and consulted with the official in the endzone or near the middle to determine if the player had control, would have sold it for me because now you're considering every possible angle. The official straddling the line can verify that the ball crossed the plane, what he can't confirm is if the player had control when the ball crossed the plane. It's all good, I realized it's not an exact science. Something so important, it just seems like at a minimum, there should have been a conference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Old School

Makes sense. Please understand, I don't have a dog in this fight. Being fair to both parties is what's at issue for me here. Penalizing the defense awarding a score when you can't be sure or that seems doubtful doesn't seem to fit either. BTW, the end result of the play would have been a turnover. Isn't there a rule that says you can't fumble the ball forward into the endzone?

If the official would have come together and consulted with the official in the endzone or near the middle to determine if the player had control, would have sold it for me because now you're considering every possible angle. The official straddling the line can verify that the ball crossed the plane, what he can't confirm is if the player had control when the ball crossed the plane. It's all good, I realized it's not an exact science. Something so important, it just seems like at a minimum, there should have been a conference.

First, the default on a replay situation if you "can't tell" is to go with the official's original call, which is as it should be - he was in the right position on this play, and the camera wasn't.

But generally, you seem to disagree with the default position if awarding a score if you're not sure. In cases where you aren't sure (these better be few and far between), you do your best. You don't default toward one team or the other. Your assumption that you shouldn't award a score if you don't see one makes sense, but your corollary is even worse - awarding a turnover if you don't see one. If you're not SURE the ball was loose before it crossed the end line, you can't call it a loose ball.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Old School

Penalizing the defense awarding a score when you can't be sure or that seems doubtful doesn't seem to fit either.

If you ask the covering official I'm confident that he'll tell you he was sure. The fact that the play was reviewed and not overturned lends credence to his decision.

Originally Posted by Old School

If the official would have come together and consulted with the official in the endzone or near the middle to determine if the player had control, would have sold it for me because now you're considering every possible angle.

Back to your first point, the official was on the line and in position to judge whether the ball was in player possession and across the goal line. If he was unsure he would have asked for help.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

But generally, you seem to disagree with the default position if awarding a score if you're not sure. In cases where you aren't sure (these better be few and far between), you do your best. You don't default toward one team or the other. Your assumption that you shouldn't award a score if you don't see one makes sense, but your corollary is even worse - awarding a turnover if you don't see one. If you're not SURE the ball was loose before it crossed the end line, you can't call it a loose ball (either).

I totally agree. Really puts the official in a tough spot. I would hate to be the calling official on this one. The more I talk to you guys about this play, the more I am leaning towards a good call. You got to make your mind up and stick with it, which is what he did.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Old School

I totally agree. Really puts the official in a tough spot. I would hate to be the calling official on this one. The more I talk to you guys about this play, the more I am leaning towards a good call. You got to make your mind up and stick with it, which is what he did.

If you are a football official, this is a very common call. You are making a bigger deal out of this call than I bet the calling official made. And you keep talking about how "you have to be confident" and I am sure that official had seen similar plays multiple times whether he experienced it or seen it on tape. This is a very basic and common type of play where you have to determine if the player broke the plane. The fumble might not have even been an issue at that time for that official.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

First, the default on a replay situation if you "can't tell" is to go with the official's original call, which is as it should be - he was in the right position on this play, and the camera wasn't.

But generally, you seem to disagree with the default position if awarding a score if you're not sure. In cases where you aren't sure (these better be few and far between), you do your best. You don't default toward one team or the other. Your assumption that you shouldn't award a score if you don't see one makes sense, but your corollary is even worse - awarding a turnover if you don't see one. If you're not SURE the ball was loose before it crossed the end line, you can't call it a loose ball.

Rugby Union has a "default" call in a case somewhat analogous to what's been raised. In case of doubt as to whether the ball was touched down by the attacking team in goal, it's a 5-meter scrum, attacking side to put the ball in. But you couldn't translate that literally to North American football, moving the ball back that far in case of doubt as to a TD. There's no really good point to default to.

Robert