steelers@ravens winning touchdown

[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.

[PackersFTW]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

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.

you can do that? he will respond to you? or is this just for the nfl network show or something where yours might get picked.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

because you guys are quite helpful. if i did find another forum, there is a good chance it would be like most forums, where people argue like they are 16, angry, and looking for a boost in self esteem. this forum seems to be how all forums should operate. if this were a "normal" forum, most threads would have sentences like "wow, you're a complete idiot. you're a disgrace to football fans everywhere."

Originally Posted by Brett

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

good, this is exactly what i thought was the case, the ref just forgot to mention it.

[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.

[TonyT]

The official on the field who made the call spotted the ball just short of the goal line. There was no way Coleman should of overturned that call. Earlier in the game there was a challenge on the spotting of the ball that was called a Steeler first down the replay CLEARLY showed the ball carrier did not get to the 30 yard line in fact his helmet didn't even get the first down marker it was a good one half yard or more short but Coleman comes out of replay and says the call on the field stands WHAT? There was no way. If he blew that call that was so clear then there is NO WAY he can overturn that last call. But HE DID. Walt Coleman should be FIRED his is flat out Pathetic!!. I think the Las Vegas boy's lined ole Walter's pockets with some CASH.

[PSU213]

Originally Posted by TonyT

The official on the field who made the call spotted the ball just short of the goal line. There was no way Coleman should of overturned that call. Earlier in the game there was a challenge on the spotting of the ball that was called a Steeler first down the replay CLEARLY showed the ball carrier did not get to the 30 yard line in fact his helmet didn't even get the first down marker it was a good one half yard or more short but Coleman comes out of replay and says the call on the field stands WHAT? There was no way. If he blew that call that was so clear then there is NO WAY he can overturn that last call. But HE DID. Walt Coleman should be FIRED his is flat out Pathetic!!. I think the Las Vegas boy's lined ole Walter's pockets with some CASH.

If you want to disagree with the call or post some other type of intelligent comment about it, please do, but please do not use the forum to defame people.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by TonyT

The official on the field who made the call spotted the ball just short of the goal line. There was no way Coleman should of overturned that call. Earlier in the game there was a challenge on the spotting of the ball that was called a Steeler first down the replay CLEARLY showed the ball carrier did not get to the 30 yard line in fact his helmet didn't even get the first down marker it was a good one half yard or more short but Coleman comes out of replay and says the call on the field stands WHAT? There was no way. If he blew that call that was so clear then there is NO WAY he can overturn that last call. But HE DID. Walt Coleman should be FIRED his is flat out Pathetic!!. I think the Las Vegas boy's lined ole Walter's pockets with some CASH.

Last resort of the fanboy. Must be on the take. Oh, my.