steelers@ravens winning touchdown

[PackersFTW]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Because fanboys tend to get emotional.

this is the point of sports. btw, to the person you were responding to, i'm a packers fan (should be obvious), so i have no bias.

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? 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.

actually it's the opposite; if it's 50/50, they usually side with the officials or are neutral. they can be fined for saying certain things, not to mention they are probably told not to badmouth unless it was a really horrible call or something.

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.

Originally Posted by Forksref

These are tough calls, as are pileups at the GL because of being screened.

I too, think the camera angle was perfect. If someone had used the telestrater to draw a line along the first edge of the GL, it would have crossed over the ball: TD

I know that's hard for some people to accept, but it was a TD. Case closed.

i'm a packers fan, i have no reason to cheer for either team. so i think my opinion is a fair one.

the replays they showed with the red line down the goal line were bad. why? because they made the red line so thick (i'd say at least 3 inches wide in relation to the field) that it appeared it was a touchdown. wouldn't be surprised if they purposely did that. also, did the officials have the red line while looking at the replays? no they didn't. i'm not saying it was clearly no touchdown, i'm saying that it was not indisputable evidence. if it's obvious (it has to be obvious, otherwise call on the field stands) and the right call, why did NON-ravens fans complain?

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by PackersFTW

this is the point of sports.

To be irrational?

The point of this forum is to discuss officiating. We try to keep it reasonable and the conspiracy theories to a minimum.

People who spout about Vegas lines and officials being paid off have ventured off the reservation and have no place here. They are worthy of our scorn and derision.

Tinfoil hats are not the point of sports. Stupidity is not the point of sports.

[PackersFTW]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

To be irrational?

The point of this forum is to discuss officiating. We try to keep it reasonable and the conspiracy theories to a minimum.

People who spout about Vegas lines and officials being paid off have ventured off the reservation and have no place here. They are worthy of our scorn and derision.

Tinfoil hats are not the point of sports. Stupidity is not the point of sports.

i totally agree with everything you said. the thing is, to basically state that somebody who is a huge fan (fanboy) is automatically an irrational idiot is retarded. he basically said that fanboy=idiot, which is totally false.

[newmdref]

I would like to actually ask a rule question as it relates to this situation. (I am a new official so go easy on me) I understand its a touchdown by rule when the receiver is in possession of the football, with both feet down in the field of play and any portion of the ball intersects the EZ line. My question is at what point does the receiver establish possession?? It is my understanding (limited understanding) that the receiver must make a move with the football and maintain possession of the ball through that movement in order for possession to be established. When I watch this play on tape the receiver's first movement(tucking) of the ball takes the ball out of the endzone, if it was ever in, which establishes possession. So...in this situation was possession established a the second it touched his hands?? or after that??. A "What if" situation I have thought of, as it relates to this play, is: the receiver catches the ball just as he did in the game but is hit from behind almost immediately after his hands touch the ball (with both feet in bounds and the ball touching the EZ line) and losses possession of the ball while attemping to tuck it. Is it still a TD or incomplete pass?? Please Advise.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by newmdref

I would like to actually ask a rule question as it relates to this situation. (I am a new official so go easy on me) I understand its a touchdown by rule when the receiver is in possession of the football, with both feet down in the field of play and any portion of the ball intersects the EZ line. My question is at what point does the receiver establish possession?? It is my understanding (limited understanding) that the receiver must make a move with the football and maintain possession of the ball through that movement in order for possession to be established.

Originally Posted by newmdref

When I watch this play on tape the receiver's first movement(tucking) of the ball takes the ball out of the endzone, if it was ever in, which establishes possession. So...in this situation was possession established a the second it touched his hands?? or after that??. A "What if" situation I have thought of, as it relates to this play, is: the receiver catches the ball just as he did in the game but is hit from behind almost immediately after his hands touch the ball (with both feet in bounds and the ball touching the EZ line) and losses possession of the ball while attemping to tuck it. Is it still a TD or incomplete pass?? Please Advise.

Go to the 2:27 mark in this video.

NFL Video Galleries

[JR12]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Go to the 2:27 mark in this video.

NFL Video Galleries

Thanks, very informative.

[newmdref]

Juggling thanks

[ajmc]

Somrthing you really need to think about and understand is the concept of forward progress, and how to respond to, and apply it. The Pittsburg-Ravens TD play is an excellent example.

There are several factors involved which are considered separately and are not necessarily related to, or dependent on each other. Taken separately, a "catch" requires possession of the ball, while there is contact with the ground (2 feet-NFL, 1 foot-College, HS or any other part of the body). For that catch to produce a TD, both factors have to be satisfied and the ball has to break the plane of the goal line. There is no absolute time limitation to completing the sequence.

Forward progress is defined (At the NFHS level) as (NF: 2.15.1) "the end of advancement of the ball in a runner's possession or the forward-most point of the ball when it is fumbled out of bounds towards the opponent's goal and it determines the dead ball spot." Normally, this is an eyeball judgment made without benefit of slide rule, slow motion or stop action photography or computer generated red lines.

(NF: 2.15.2) relates to this specific instance in stating, "When an airborne player makes a catch, forward progress is the furthest point of advancement after he possesses the ball if contacted by a defender."

Mixing those points together to fit the play at hand, you have a player, with both feet on the ground, possessing a ball whose front edge clearly broke the plane of the goal line (as determined by replay). The issue of, "the receiver must make a move with the football and maintain possession of the ball through that movement in order for possession to be established" was completed after the receiver was knocked to the ground, out of the EZ, where the catch was ultimately completed.

When a decision is reached that the catch had satisfied all requirements to be considered completed, THEN forward progress is determined by the "furthest point of advancement" reached during the possession process, which in a situation like this did not occur at the same point where forward progress was determined.

At the NFL level, the Referee having benefit of IR technology, determined that the ball did break the goal line plane, and making that determination, as is his responsibility, reversed the call on the field.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by PackersFTW

i totally agree with everything you said. the thing is, to basically state that somebody who is a huge fan (fanboy) is automatically an irrational idiot is retarded. he basically said that fanboy=idiot, which is totally false.

No, "fanboy" is a derogatory term. A huge fan is a huge fan, a rabid fan, a hardcore fan. A fanboy is a schmo who usually is an idiot.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

A fanboy is a schmo who usually is an idiot.

Bingo.

One thing I've noticed about most officials, especially people that have been officiating for a while, is that we tend to grow to become fans of the game as a whole as opposed to just a team or two. That's not to say we don't have our favorite teams but I believe the zeal dies down into a deeply rooted admiration for the game we've chosen to officiate as an avocation.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Welpe

One thing I've noticed about most officials, especially people that have been officiating for a while, is that we tend to grow to become fans of the game as a whole as opposed to just a team or two. That's not to say we don't have our favorite teams but I believe the zeal dies down into a deeply rooted admiration for the game we've chosen to officiate as an avocation.

Still a fan of a team, my zeal has died down because I'm older and I realize it's less important than what's for dinner, but still a fan. Just not a fanboy.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Still a fan of a team, my zeal has died down because I'm older and I realize it's less important than what's for dinner, but still a fan. Just not a fanboy.

FanMAN?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Bingo.

One thing I've noticed about most officials, especially people that have been officiating for a while, is that we tend to grow to become fans of the game as a whole as opposed to just a team or two. That's not to say we don't have our favorite teams but I believe the zeal dies down into a deeply rooted admiration for the game we've chosen to officiate as an avocation.

I'm still just as huge a fan of my teams. What's changed is I now realize the officials are not out to get them, they are not intentionally making calls AGAINST my team, and I now have a much better understanding of the rules and philosophies.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I'm still just as huge a fan of my teams. What's changed is I now realize the officials are not out to get them, they are not intentionally making calls AGAINST my team, and I now have a much better understanding of the rules and philosophies.

But you still know that Vegas pays the officials off, right?