True, but I believe the HL believed that Triplette was signaling first down, in fact that was what I think Al saw when he said a first down was rewarded. Looking at the replay, it is awfully tough to discern that it was a third down signal unless you were standing next to Triplette. All the time you see the HL signaling the chain gang to move when the runner obviously reached the line to gain.

Bengals' BenJarvus Green-Ellis Scores Controversial TD Against Colts | Bleacher Report

Triplette's on a roll.

I watched several replays and could not tell if the NT made contact. It looks very possible he tripped on his own which means the reversal was correct. If Triplett did not look at the possible early contact then he may be in a bit of trouble. Per the pool report transcript he only looked at the goal line.

Correct.

Cincinnati Bengals vs. Indianapolis Colts Pool Report

Hey, thanks for proving my theory. You realize this isn't a forum to come and bitch about pro officials missing calls, right?

It appears to me they got this one right, despite the idiots claiming differently. This isn't NCAA rules people.

My advice: maybe start a discussion to see if people here think the call was missed rather than just diving in and, well, I'll leave it at that.

Doubt he's even a baseball umpire either. He's never once posted in the Baseball forum concerning a situation he was involved in.

The issue here is the potential contact was not at the goal line but back at the 4/5 when he was tripped. That is the contact that was ruled to have put the runner down, but Triplett didn't look at that part of the play to determine if there was contact. I don't think it's conclusive so the call on the field should have stood.

How in the world could you possibly know this.

And ... seems to me in the replay there's no chance he was tripped by the NT (I admit the one video in this thread is inconclusive). The one shown on the NFL Red Zone was pretty clear.

There was definitely a chance he was tripped, but I agree, it wasn't conclusive from the replay; even with stop-action on an HDTV.

Meaning the call on the field stands. It appears that they didn't go far enough back on the video to be able to accurately rule on the play.

Because it would be impossible to learn anything from reading about others' experiences or plays in MLB games, right [mod snip]

I disagree. The angle they showed a couple of times on tv conclusively showed space between the NT and the runner - he didn't touch him.

I haven't seen the replay, but you can't possibly know they didn't go back far enough. It's likely they had a different angle than you did.