steelers@ravens winning touchdown

[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]

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?

[HLin NC]

Tune in to Mike P. segment on the NFL Network on Wednesday night.
I'm 100% sure he'll be covering this one.

[HLin NC]

And I'm 100% sure Mike P. will cover this in his Official Review segment on the NFL Network on Wed. night.

The networks can call the NFL master control center in NY if they really want an answer to a play. With about 30 sec. left, there might not have been time in this particular incident.

Coleman came out with a post-game statement explaining the whole possession-feet-goal line scenario. Mike P. has backed him up so for all intents, the overturn was correct if the boss says so.

[waltjp]

Forget that crap about the aquarium. The ball must break the plane of the goal line.

From Peter King's column, si.com
Steelers continue to survive in tough games - Peter King - SI.com

After the game, Coleman told a pool reporter that Holmes "had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line ... When he gained control of the ball, the ball was breaking the plane, and then he fell into the field of play. But to have a touchdown, all you have to have is a catch, which is the two feet down, possession and control of the ball breaking the plane."


I called NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira, who'd spoken with Coleman and the replay assistant following the game. Now, I have to tell you that in my jobs at NBC and Sports Illustrated I have occasion to speak with Pereira nearly every weekend about a play or two from the games, either to clarify something for the Football Night in America show or for my column. Pereira calls them the way he sees them. My experience is that Pereira does not whitewash a bad call. And last night, I asked him point blank if he thought there was indisputable visual evidence that the ball broke the plane of the goal line. "Yes, I do,'' he said.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

Because fanboys tend to get emotional.

[Brett]

Originally Posted by PackersFTW

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.

Unless the rule has changed in the last two years (the most recent NFL rule book I have is 2006); it appears that the ball has to be on, above, or behind the opponents goal line while legally in possession of a player in bounds.

Touchdown is defined in 2 - 38
A Touchdown is the situation in which any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line (plane), provided it is not a touchback (11-2).

Possession is defined in 3-2-7

A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.

[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

[ajmc]

Last night's "Inside the NFL" featured several views of this play, and the results looked pretty evident. The camera angle along the goal line showed the ball beyond the goal line plane when the receiver gained possession. He then fell back into the field of play.

It is what it is, TD.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Last night's "Inside the NFL" featured several views of this play, and the results looked pretty evident. The camera angle along the goal line showed the ball beyond the goal line plane when the receiver gained possession. He then fell back into the field of play.

It is what it is, TD.

Mike Pereria reviewed it on Wednesday night's Total Access and the camera angle was perfect, the entire ball crossed the plane in possession of the receiver.

It was interesting to note the official on the opposite side of the field was screened by a player.

[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.