steelers@ravens winning touchdown

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by PackersFTW

i'm extremely frustrated because 90% of the people here are trying to be helpful and are good people as far as forums go, but most don't know enough about the nfl, they are high school refs.

You might try asking in Usenet group rec.sport.officiating, where IIRC Mike Scott has actually officiated NFL games. I've had cases where he's infuriated me and a bunch of other participants in a thread, but turned out to be right.

High schools, having the most game plays, have the greatest call for officials. However, many also officiate in minor league adult games, which minor leagues frequently use the previous season's NFL rules or modified NFL rules.

The various North American codes have diverged enormously regarding treatment of kicks and end zones, but not regarding the scoring of touchdowns. AFAIK if an airborne player catches the ball while moving backward, once the necessary part(s) of the player's body touch(es) the ground in bounds, possession is ruled retroactive to where the player gained control of the ball, which in this case was ruled as having been in the end zone. I too was shocked that the call of no touchdown was overruled.

Robert

[PackersFTW]

clearly nobody knows for sure what the actual rule is. this is frustrating.

Originally Posted by sloth

I'm not going to speak too authorative on this as I'm not familiar with NFL interperations in this area, but I think that aquarium analogy is a bit flawed. The recievers feet and not the ball position doesn't matter in the back or side of the endzone because of the "goal line extended". The idea that the goal line does not stop at the out of bounds line and as long as the player is not out of bounds and the ball is over the extened goal line you have a touchdown. My understanding of the interperation is that you have to treat the front of the endzone different than the sides and back becasue of this principal.

there is one situation where the goal line extended kinda changed. that is where you are diving for the front corner of the end zone. the rule used to be that if you dove out of bounds at the 1, and ANY part of your body crossed over the pylon in the end zone, it was a TD. i thought this was an insanely stupid rule. so stupid some players thought you needed to cross the ball over the corner of the end zone, some fumbling while trying, when all you needed to do was wave your arm over it. the rule was recently changed so that you must cross the ball over the goal line while in bounds.

Originally Posted by Suudy

Now, I don't know NFL interpretations. Doesn't the NFL have some different interpretation of batting kicks away from the goal that the players feet have to be out of the EZ? Perhaps a similar principal applies. But you'd think the same principal would apply to the running game as well.

i don't understand what you mean here.

Originally Posted by With_Two_Flakes

Saw that game over here in the UK. The replays that UK TV showed over here actually froze it at the moment of the catch and the ball had just penetrated the GL so it was a TD. UK commentators seemed to agree it was a TD.
Surprised to read on this forum that there is any controversy. I think the replay guy got it right - tight call but correct.

an inch of the tip of the ball did cross the goal line, BUT it was not in the receivers possession at that time. there is no way you can say it absolutely crossed the goal line while in his possession. i'd say based on the replays, there is like an 80% chance it didn't cross the goal line, but that means it's not definitive, thus can't be overturned. many people forget it must be 100%, otherwise the call on the field stands. i think this "must be conclusive" rule should be removed, because who says the call on the field is best just because you can't tell from the replay? refs make mistakes, let the replay tell you. even if you are only 55% sure on something, choose that.

[Suudy]

[QUOTE=PackersFTW;558453]

Originally Posted by Suudy

i don't understand what you mean here.

How many times do we say players (NCAA and NFL) attempt to keep a punt from going into the EZ that try to keep both feet in the field of play. In NFHS (and I think NCAA, you TX guys can confirm) it doesn't matter where you are in the field (note: OB is different), only where the ball is. However, those guys who try so hard to keep both feet out of the EZ when batting must learn it somewhere.

Is this just a common misconception that coaches and players have?

Or does the NFL have a rule related to where the player is located when batting a kicked ball?

Just a curiosity.

However, this situation is obviously not related to this, since we appear to have some confirmation from the NFL that the ball broke the plane in player possession.

[wwcfoa43]

[QUOTE=Suudy;558559]

Originally Posted by PackersFTW

How many times do we say players (NCAA and NFL) attempt to keep a punt from going into the EZ that try to keep both feet in the field of play. In NFHS (and I think NCAA, you TX guys can confirm) it doesn't matter where you are in the field (note: OB is different), only where the ball is. However, those guys who try so hard to keep both feet out of the EZ when batting must learn it somewhere.

Is this just a common misconception that coaches and players have?

Or does the NFL have a rule related to where the player is located when batting a kicked ball?

Just a curiosity.

However, this situation is obviously not related to this, since we appear to have some confirmation from the NFL that the ball broke the plane in player possession.

In the NFL on scrimmage kicks, if the player's body contacts the end zone while he is recovering or catching a punt, it is a touchback, even if the ball was not in the end zone.

However, this has absolutely nothing to do with scoring a touchdown in which the ball MUST be in the end zone.

[With_Two_Flakes]

Originally Posted by PackersFTW

an inch of the tip of the ball did cross the goal line, BUT it was not in the receivers possession at that time. there is no way you can say it absolutely crossed the goal line while in his possession.

My bad! It wasn't the Steelers-Ravens I saw here in the UK, it was Cowboys-Giants.

Cant comment on the catch-nocatch in the Steelers-Ravens game.

[PackersFTW]

i just watched the halftime show of the cowboys game, and all 4 guys said absolutely no way should that have been overturned. they said that calling those replays "indisputable evidence" is a joke. however, they said had the play been called a touchdown on the field, they probably would have stayed with that also. so basically, everybody but steelers fan seem to agree that those replays don't show anything. i personally am about 60-80% sure that the ball didn't cross the goal line, but again, that means if i were the ref i would stay with the call on the field regardless of what it was.

[waltjp]

I didn't think there was enough there to show that the ball was in the end zone but I will concede that it was very close. The cause of my confusion was the explanation given by Coleman and his lack of stating that he concluded that the ball had broken the plane while in player possession.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by waltjp

I didn't think there was enough there to show that the ball was in the end zone but I will concede that it was very close. The cause of my confusion was the explanation given by Coleman and his lack of stating that he concluded that the ball had broken the plane while in player possession.

I agree with the first sentence. I knew the rule, so I guess I didn't pay much attention to the explanation.

I don't like the precedent that this play sets for what counts as "indisputable visual evidence."

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by PackersFTW

so basically, everybody but steelers fan seem to agree that those replays don't show anything.

Excuse me, but this is cr@p. Who really cares what 4 talking heads think on a show that generates ratings by helping to create controversies? Even if one of them is Bob Costas. The only thing that matters is Coleman thought it was enough and Pereira thought it was enough. I think I'll take their informed opinions over everyone else's because only their opinions matter.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Excuse me, but this is cr@p. Who really cares what 4 talking heads think on a show that generates ratings by helping to create controversies?

Don't you remember? Everybody on ESPN thought the Washington touchdown unsportsmanlike thing early in the season was unwarranted, therefore it was!

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Don't you remember? Everybody on ESPN thought the Washington touchdown unsportsmanlike thing early in the season was unwarranted, therefore it was!

Ohhh....the Huskies I know are still bitter over this one. And they have mountains of evidence in the form of the Theisman's of the world to back them up!

Of course, I still have the (Cr)Apple Cup to shut them up if they get too unruly....