steelers@ravens winning touchdown

[PackersFTW]

if you didn't see it, the steelers threw a pass and the guy caught it with both feet in the end zone, but the ball didn't cross the plane. is that a touchdown? i know when you go out of bounds, it's where the ball goes out, not where you do, but is it the same for the endzone? the announcers were saying yes that's how it works, but when the ref made the call (review under 2 minutes), he said "the receiver got both feet down with posession, touchdown". it doesn't make sense that he said that, because the question was did the ball cross the plane, not did he catch it. so basically he caught the ball with both feet in the end zone, but he was leaning forward as he caught it, so the ball never crossed the plane. touchdown or no?

[PSU213]

First, it's a bit unfair to flat out say that the ball never crossed the plane of the GL...the receiver was ruled to be short of the GL by the official on the field, and replay was, IMHO, inconclusive. Therefore, based on what we have been told by the NFL, the play should not have been overturned on replay.

It is correct though, that the position of the feet do not matter...it is the position of the ball in relation to the GL. Perhaps (and forgive me for putting word's in Coleman's mouth) he meant that the catch was complete when both feet were put down, and he just never mentioned that the ball broke the plane at the time the catch was complete. Plus, I really doubt that Coleman did not know or ignored the rule on the ball crossing the plane of the GL, and he just went based on the position of the feet. Whether the call was right or wrong, the mic explanation was fairly poor.

[Barcelona]

It is a touchdown, when:
-ball in runner´s possession breaks a plane of goalline (this rule is used, when offense is running into the endzone. This wasn´t this case)
-there is a completed catch in the endzone (that´s the rule, that was used). When throwing a pass, all four boundary lines of the endzone are equal. Receiver can stand inside the endzone, can extend his arms beyond endline or sideline, and if he completes the catch (that means both feet down, firmly grasping the ball), it is a touchdown - no matter where the ball is - whether the ball is inside or outside the endzone. And the same rule applies, when it´s caugth across the goalline. Let say, endzone is a huge aquarium - if you extend your arms from the aquarium and you have your feet on "aquarium´s floor", it is a catch IN aquarium.
There were many many touchdowns like yesterday´s one. And it never was questionable.

Ref made poor announcement, but ruling was clear. During the game, when Holmes muffed a punt, ref for some unknown reason assured everybody, that receiving team can advance a punt. Also that announcement was strange...

What is really bad - all servers, NFL.com included, report about wild touchdown, etc. Is it really such a huge problem to call Perreira and say "Mike, you know, we and all the nation are so stupid, that we don´t know the rules, can you explain the rules for us"? And it is not necessary to call Perreira, even somebody with knowledge of rules can be asked...

[sloth]

Originally Posted by Barcelona

It is a touchdown, when:
-ball in runner´s possession breaks a plane of goalline (this rule is used, when offense is running into the endzone. This wasn´t this case)
-there is a completed catch in the endzone (that´s the rule, that was used). When throwing a pass, all four boundary lines of the endzone are equal. Receiver can stand inside the endzone, can extend his arms beyond endline or sideline, and if he completes the catch (that means both feet down, firmly grasping the ball), it is a touchdown - no matter where the ball is - whether the ball is inside or outside the endzone. And the same rule applies, when it´s caugth across the goalline. Let say, endzone is a huge aquarium - if you extend your arms from the aquarium and you have your feet on "aquarium´s floor", it is a catch IN aquarium.
There were many many touchdowns like yesterday´s one. And it never was questionable.

Ref made poor announcement, but ruling was clear. During the game, when Holmes muffed a punt, ref for some unknown reason assured everybody, that receiving team can advance a punt. Also that announcement was strange...

What is really bad - all servers, NFL.com included, report about wild touchdown, etc. Is it really such a huge problem to call Perreira and say "Mike, you know, we and all the nation are so stupid, that we don´t know the rules, can you explain the rules for us"? And it is not necessary to call Perreira, even somebody with knowledge of rules can be asked...

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.

[wwcfoa43]

Originally Posted by Barcelona

It is a touchdown, when:
-there is a completed catch in the endzone (that´s the rule, that was used). When throwing a pass, all four boundary lines of the endzone are equal. Receiver can stand inside the endzone, can extend his arms beyond endline or sideline, and if he completes the catch (that means both feet down, firmly grasping the ball), it is a touchdown - no matter where the ball is - whether the ball is inside or outside the endzone. And the same rule applies, when it´s caugth across the goalline. Let say, endzone is a huge aquarium - if you extend your arms from the aquarium and you have your feet on "aquarium´s floor", it is a catch IN aquarium.

I disagree that all four boundary lines are treated the same. A TD is ruled when a pass is completed and the ball is on, above or behind the opponent's goal line. With that in mind, the other three planes created by the boundary lines are not relevant when ruling a TD. The only relevance is the goal line on whether the ball is in goal and the ruling on whether the pass was complete or not which involves the ground.

It is not a TD if you catch the ball on the non-goal side of the goal line, if it never crosses the line, regardless of where parts of your body are.

[Barcelona]

Aquarium "rule" applies only to passing game. For running game´s purposes, breaking the plane of goalline is rellevant.

Would Holmes catch the ball with left foot in the endzone and then rigth at "one-yard" (also something, what would cause the pass incomplete, would it be across the sideline, not goalline), he would be credited witch catch, but outside the aquarium (therefore no TD) and forward progress would be determined according to the position of the football in moment he would be down by contact

[bisonlj]

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.

I also don't know the specific rule here but my understanding is the same as yours based on comments made by one of the studio guys who claimed to have talked to Pareira. I don't always trust those guys to interpret anything rules related. He did say Pereira agreed with the ruling so the crew ultimately got it right. Either the aquarium analogy is correct or they ruled the ball did cross the plane of the goal. It was so close I can't say for certain either way. I didn't think it was conclusive enough to overturn though. I was hoping the call on the field would stand because I wanted to see if the Steelers would go for it or kick a field goal to tie.

[Barcelona]

Crossing the goalline was questionable. May be yes, may be no. It this case, they would have to upheld onfield ruling (no TD), as there was no visual evidence.

[Suudy]

Personally, I don't see how the replay provided enough evidence to overturn the official on the field. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the replay booth and in the official's locker room afterward.

I'm not fond of the aquarium analogy either. I think you only have to go to the definitions. A ball in possession of a player in the opponents EZ is always a TD. In this case, the ball was in possession of a player, but the ball was not in the EZ. No TD.

Or as my buddy and I discussed, in the case of passes to the side or back of the EZ, the ball did break the plane when it was thrown. A player gained possession while in the EZ, so TD. This idea is also flawed (think of a pass that enters the EZ, is batted/deflected back into the field, then caught outside of the EZ). I think if one sticks with the definitions, you are fine.

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.

[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.

[Johnny Cakes]

Putting aside what happened during the game in Baltimore, this is an interesting issue about the rules (and as a hope-to-be new ref next year, I'm trying to learn all I can).

Instead of the aquarium analogy, how about a glass wall at the goal line analogy?

If the receiver is in legal possession anytime after the glass wall has been "shattered" then its a touchdown.

So.....

Receiver in endzone leaning back to the one yard line to catch (and ball never crosses), no TD because glass wall not shattered.

Receiver in endzone leaning out-of-bounds to catch, TD because glass wall has been shattered and receiver in bounds regardless of the fact that the ball is not in bounds.

Is that right?

[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.

[PackersFTW]

Originally Posted by Johnny Cakes

Putting aside what happened during the game in Baltimore, this is an interesting issue about the rules (and as a hope-to-be new ref next year, I'm trying to learn all I can).

Instead of the aquarium analogy, how about a glass wall at the goal line analogy?

If the receiver is in legal possession anytime after the glass wall has been "shattered" then its a touchdown.

So.....

Receiver in endzone leaning back to the one yard line to catch (and ball never crosses), no TD because glass wall not shattered.

Receiver in endzone leaning out-of-bounds to catch, TD because glass wall has been shattered and receiver in bounds regardless of the fact that the ball is not in bounds.

Is that right?

no, because what if the ball shatters this glass wall, but he doesn't have possession until he is falling towards the 1 yard line? this is possibly what happened in the steelers game.

i don't see the need for all these analogies, they are not needed. 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. i just want to know if, as far as the front of the goal line goes, you need possession with 2 feet down, or you need to have the ball inside the end zone also. announcers have been wrong before, but the announcers said it was the latter. if this is true, that call should not have been overturned.

[SethPDX]

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.

Actually, I think 0% of the posters here are NFL officials.

If you want to know about the NFL you might learn more by contacting Mike Pereira.

[BktBallRef]

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.

I'm 100% sure that you knew this when you posted the situation. So why bother?