Another rules question (1 Viewer)

[gman74]

NFL rulebook:

"The plane of the goal line extends indefinitely, and remains active so long as ANY part of the BALL CARRIER remains in bounds and crosses the goal line.

"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football.



"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

as discussed on every NFL post game show imagineable after the game..anyone buying into the notion that the ball doesn't have to break the plane of the Goal Line for a TD may want to check again..

as the current NFL Rules stand.. not '06 not '07... the ball has to break the plane of the Goal Line..

I'm not anti stiller on this or pro raven...

the fact of the matter is the officials clearly blew it and did nothing short of screw up one helluva ball game..

to Pitts' credit they got the W..

they've been getting those making their own breaks all season to this point..

and it appears it may simply be their year..

FYP

must be a Steeler university English student..

 

[bjabrad]

I saw the ball cross into the white goal line and I saw both feet touch down but I would have to know the definition of WHEN the player is ruled to have control/possession before I could determine if he had control while having two feet down and the ball was simultaneously in the endzone (touching the white goal line). If the rule is just about the players body then it's obviously a TD but if it's about simultaneous control, two feet down and in the end zone then I don't think it was a TD.

On a tangent side note, here's one that never made sense to me:

A few years back David Boston caught a ball in the right side of the end zone with his back to the sideline. As he comes down, he lands with the toes of both feet in bounds and with possession of the ball but as he continues to land, both heels touch out of bounds. It's ruled NO TD but if he was facing the other way and his toes dragged going out of bounds then it would have been ruled a TD. I hate inconsistencies in rules. If toes count going forwards then they should count going backwards.

 

[poopdawg]

I saw the ball cross into the white goal line and I saw both feet touch down but I would have to know the definition of WHEN the player is ruled to have control/possession before I could determine if he had control while having two feet down and the ball was simultaneously in the endzone (touching the white goal line). If the rule is just about the players body then it's obviously a TD but if it's about simultaneous control, two feet down and in the end zone then I don't think it was a TD. On a tangent side note, here's one that never made sense to me:A few years back David Boston caught a ball in the right side of the end zone with his back to the sideline. As he comes down, he lands with the toes of both feet in bounds and with possession of the ball but as he continues to land, both heels touch out of bounds. It's ruled NO TD but if he was facing the other way and his toes dragged going out of bounds then it would have been ruled a TD. I hate inconsistencies in rules. If toes count going forwards then they should count going backwards.

I think that happened to Witten a few weeks ago. Came down with one foot in bounds and touched down with the toes on the other foot first, then his heel touched out of bounds. They called it a no-catch.

 

[fezic]

Here is the 2006 rulebook online: http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/...%20RULEBOOK.pdf

Though I'm a Steelers fan and wish it were there, the line mentioned earlier does not exist in this version.

 

[bryhamm]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

Rule 3, Section 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).

Rule 11, Section 2 Touchdown

Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):

(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponent’s goal line and is in possession

of a runner who has advanced from the field of play; or

(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the

goal line, and some part of the ball was passed over or inside the pylon; or

© a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that no part of the player’s

body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or

(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind

the opponent’s goal line; or

(e) The Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably

unfair act.

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

A, B and C talk about the ball. D does not. Does this leave it open for interpretation?

 

[dirty_martini]

The NFL could easily determine whether the ball passes the plane of the goal line with today's sensor technology. Whether it's RFID or something else, I have no doubt it could be done. There is no need to rely on visual evidence for that point. You could even have a red dot or something that lights on the "official replay" screen that could be used when judging possession at the time the ball crosses the plane.

This was a bang bang play that could have been called either way from what I've seen. This is not a Testeverde tackled at the 1 yard line kind of touchdown. To pretend that the Ravens were ripped off by a horrible call is a disservice to how close this play was.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I confess I didn't know that "this two feet in on a reception" was a rule. Of course I still don't think it is a rule.

ETA: And if this is a rule, Walt Coleman doesn't know it either....

After the game, Coleman clarified his explanation.

"Yeah, the ball was breaking the plane," said Coleman, an NFL official for 19 seasons who is known for being the referee in "The Tuck Rule Game" between the Patriots and Oakland Raiders in the playoffs after the 2001 season.

"He had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line."

 

[Da Guru]

I liked the old NFL, where the "ball carrier and the ball" both had to be on the ground in the endzone for it to be a TD. The breaking the plane is out of hand.

 

[bjabrad]

I confess I didn't know that "this two feet in on a reception" was a rule. Of course I still don't think it is a rule.

ETA: And if this is a rule, Walt Coleman doesn't know it either....

After the game, Coleman clarified his explanation.

"Yeah, the ball was breaking the plane," said Coleman, an NFL official for 19 seasons who is known for being the referee in "The Tuck Rule Game" between the Patriots and Oakland Raiders in the playoffs after the 2001 season.

"He had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line."

I think the ref saw it differently than I did on replay. I saw control of the ball taking place when the ball was no longer in the end zone.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Peter King said this after talking to NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira

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.

Just a heads up...

 

[PosterNutBag]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

Rule 3, Section 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).

Rule 11, Section 2 Touchdown

Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):

(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponent’s goal line and is in possession

of a runner who has advanced from the field of play; or

(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the

goal line, and some part of the ball was passed over or inside the pylon; or

© a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that no part of the player’s

body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or

(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind

the opponent’s goal line; or

(e) The Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably

unfair act.

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

A, B and C talk about the ball. D does not. Does this leave it open for interpretation?

I am not sure how you think that D does not talk about the ball. It specifically mentions that the loose ball is caught or recovered on or behind the opponent's goalline.

 

[poopdawg]

Peter King said this after talking to NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira

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.

Just a heads up...

Interesting. If true, then my initial post is wrong.

 

[PosterNutBag]

Peter King said this after talking to NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira

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.

Just a heads up...

This is interesting. It leads me to believe that the ball has to be just touched by the receiver on or above the goalline (if the result of the play is a completion) to be considered a TD. I have seen the play numerous times and he was not in complete possession of the ball while the ball was above the goalline (i.e. breaking the plane of the goalline). Hopefully Pereira appears on NFL Network this week with a thorough explanation of this play.It's funny that the last quote you had from Peter King mentions if there was indisputable visual evidence that the ball broke the plane of the goal line....I agree there definitely was, but I don't agree that Holmes was in complete possession of it when it broke the plane of the goalline.

 

[Lupe]

What if you catch a ball in the front corner of the endzone by the pylon, and you have both feet in, but the ball goes outside the pylon (never croses the goal-line inside the pylon). I'm sure this has happened especially if the QB rolls out to that direction.

 

[Modog814]

Peter King said this after talking to NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira

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.

Just a heads up...

This unfortunately doesn't answe the question whether it was the correct call. I think we can ALL agree that the ball did break the plane of the goal line. The question that should have been asked was "was there indisputable visual evidence that Holmes had possesion of the ball with 2 feet down and the ball across the goal line?" (Or asked what is the specific wording of the rule that is applied here...)IMO it was no, and shouldn't have been overturned, and think that if the call on the field was a TD that it shouldn't have been overturn either. Too close to call, but I think the refs blew it on this one (unless of course I misunderstand the rule).

 

[PosterNutBag]

Peter King said this after talking to NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira

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.

Just a heads up...

This unfortunately doesn't answe the question whether it was the correct call. I think we can ALL agree that the ball did break the plane of the goal line. The question that should have been asked was "was there indisputable visual evidence that Holmes had possesion of the ball with 2 feet down and the ball across the goal line?" (Or asked what is the specific wording of the rule that is applied here...)IMO it was no, and shouldn't have been overturned, and think that if the call on the field was a TD that it shouldn't have been overturn either. Too close to call, but I think the refs blew it on this one (unless of course I misunderstand the rule).

Agreed. That is what I was saying in my last post. I definitely don't understand how there was indisputable evidence to overturn a TD call when it looked like he was never IN POSSESSION of the ball while it was over the goalline. Rather it appeared from my viewing of the replay that when the ball initially touched his hand it was above the goalline, but in the split second of time after that point that it took Holmes to be in full possession of the ball, it appeared that he was at that point not with the ball above the goalline.

 

[bryhamm]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

Rule 3, Section 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).

Rule 11, Section 2 Touchdown

Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):

(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponent’s goal line and is in possession

of a runner who has advanced from the field of play; or

(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the

goal line, and some part of the ball was passed over or inside the pylon; or

© a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that no part of the player’s

body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or

(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind

the opponent’s goal line; or

(e) The Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably

unfair act.

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

A, B and C talk about the ball. D does not. Does this leave it open for interpretation?

I am not sure how you think that D does not talk about the ball. It specifically mentions that the loose ball is caught or recovered on or behind the opponent's goalline.

You could interpret D to mean that the "on or behind the opponent’s goal line" part applied to the receiver and not the ball. Probably not, but I'm just sayin.

 

[puckalicious]

Peter King said this after talking to NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira

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.

Just a heads up...

This unfortunately doesn't answe the question whether it was the correct call. I think we can ALL agree that the ball did break the plane of the goal line. The question that should have been asked was "was there indisputable visual evidence that Holmes had possesion of the ball with 2 feet down and the ball across the goal line?" (Or asked what is the specific wording of the rule that is applied here...)IMO it was no, and shouldn't have been overturned, and think that if the call on the field was a TD that it shouldn't have been overturn either. Too close to call, but I think the refs blew it on this one (unless of course I misunderstand the rule).

There is no way you can say the refs "blew the call" in this situation, regardless of how they ruled it. You are asking the human brain to make a judgment in a split second with missing information. Reffing is not easy, they do an outstanding job week in and week out, and this is an example of just how tough some plays are to judge. Here it is a day later and most of us still aren't sure which way it should go.

 

[PosterNutBag]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

Rule 3, Section 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).

Rule 11, Section 2 Touchdown

Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):

(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponent’s goal line and is in possession

of a runner who has advanced from the field of play; or

(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the

goal line, and some part of the ball was passed over or inside the pylon; or

© a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that no part of the player’s

body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or

(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind

the opponent’s goal line; or

(e) The Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably

unfair act.

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

A, B and C talk about the ball. D does not. Does this leave it open for interpretation?

I am not sure how you think that D does not talk about the ball. It specifically mentions that the loose ball is caught or recovered on or behind the opponent's goalline.

You could interpret D to mean that the "on or behind the opponent’s goal line" part applied to the receiver and not the ball. Probably not, but I'm just sayin.

I see what you are saying, but to me it's clearly talking about the location of the loose ball recovery.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Peter King said this after talking to NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira

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.

Just a heads up...

This unfortunately doesn't answe the question whether it was the correct call. I think we can ALL agree that the ball did break the plane of the goal line. The question that should have been asked was "was there indisputable visual evidence that Holmes had possesion of the ball with 2 feet down and the ball across the goal line?" (Or asked what is the specific wording of the rule that is applied here...)IMO it was no, and shouldn't have been overturned, and think that if the call on the field was a TD that it shouldn't have been overturn either. Too close to call, but I think the refs blew it on this one (unless of course I misunderstand the rule).

To each his own I suppose.I remember Ben's TD in the SB that was ruled a TD and upheld and everyone was screaming bloody murder for not over-turning it.

This one was just as close and it gets over-turned and again there is controversy.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Thankfully the NFL doesn't rely on this message board for input...

 

[MNTom]

If it would have stayed as called on the field, how many think the Steelers would have went for it on 4th down with only inches to go?

I think Tomlin would have went for the TD. On the road, may never see ball in overtime.

 

[renesauz]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

Rule 3, Section 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).

Rule 11, Section 2 Touchdown

Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):

(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponent’s goal line and is in possession

of a runner who has advanced from the field of play; or

(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the

goal line, and some part of the ball was passed over or inside the pylon; or

© a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that no part of the player’s

body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or

(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind

the opponent’s goal line; or

(e) The Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably

unfair act.

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

Part d is redundant. If it meant what we thought it did (before this weekend), then it would already be covered by part a. The folks writing/reviewing this rulebook aren't likely to have such an obvious and unnecessary redundancy.I think the correct interpretation using part d is that if the ball broke the plane AND the player was established in the end zone, it's a TD. Nothing there says that those two things must be simultaneous. If both of these things are met, then intial contact of the ball to the receiver will be in the EZ.

IE: He could have juggled that ball and been clearly 1/2 yard out when he got control...and it would still be a TD since it initially broke the plane and he got control while both feet were down in the EZ....he had established position in the EZ and did NOT come out of it to make this catch.

This seems to me the proper interpretation of part d....but a stupid one. Everywhere else on the field the placement of the ball is based on forward progress AFTER the ball is in posession.

(FWIW...I still think he may have had possession past the plane, but don't see how it was overturned)

 

[GregR_2]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

Rule 3, Section 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).

Rule 11, Section 2 Touchdown

Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):

(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponent’s goal line and is in possession

of a runner who has advanced from the field of play; or

(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the

goal line, and some part of the ball was passed over or inside the pylon; or

© a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that no part of the player’s

body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or

(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind

the opponent’s goal line; or

(e) The Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably

unfair act.

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

Part d is redundant. If it meant what we thought it did (before this weekend), then it would already be covered by part a. The folks writing/reviewing this rulebook aren't likely to have such an obvious and unnecessary redundancy.I think the correct interpretation using part d is that if the ball broke the plane AND the player was established in the end zone, it's a TD. Nothing there says that those two things must be simultaneous. If both of these things are met, then intial contact of the ball to the receiver will be in the EZ.

IE: He could have juggled that ball and been clearly 1/2 yard out when he got control...and it would still be a TD since it initially broke the plane and he got control while both feet were down in the EZ....he had established position in the EZ and did NOT come out of it to make this catch.

This seems to me the proper interpretation of part d....but a stupid one. Everywhere else on the field the placement of the ball is based on forward progress AFTER the ball is in posession.

(FWIW...I still think he may have had possession past the plane, but don't see how it was overturned)

No, they aren't redundant. Rule A requires that it have been "a runner who has advanced from the field of play". In short that he gained possession of the ball outside of the end zone and advanced it.Rule D is for when a player gains possession and the ball is already on or beyond the goal line.

They are mutually exclusive cases.

 

[puckalicious]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

Rule 3, Section 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).

Rule 11, Section 2 Touchdown

Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):

(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponent’s goal line and is in possession

of a runner who has advanced from the field of play; or

(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the

goal line, and some part of the ball was passed over or inside the pylon; or

© a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that no part of the player’s

body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or

(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind

the opponent’s goal line; or

(e) The Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably

unfair act.

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

Part d is redundant. If it meant what we thought it did (before this weekend), then it would already be covered by part a. The folks writing/reviewing this rulebook aren't likely to have such an obvious and unnecessary redundancy.I think the correct interpretation using part d is that if the ball broke the plane AND the player was established in the end zone, it's a TD. Nothing there says that those two things must be simultaneous. If both of these things are met, then intial contact of the ball to the receiver will be in the EZ.

IE: He could have juggled that ball and been clearly 1/2 yard out when he got control...and it would still be a TD since it initially broke the plane and he got control while both feet were down in the EZ....he had established position in the EZ and did NOT come out of it to make this catch.

This seems to me the proper interpretation of part d....but a stupid one. Everywhere else on the field the placement of the ball is based on forward progress AFTER the ball is in posession.

(FWIW...I still think he may have had possession past the plane, but don't see how it was overturned)

No, they aren't redundant. Rule A requires that it have been "a runner who has advanced from the field of play". In short that he gained possession of the ball outside of the end zone and advanced it.Rule D is for when a player gains possession and the ball is already on or beyond the goal line.

They are mutually exclusive cases.

I expect Pereira to explain it this way as part D spells it out. The ball broke the plane and was caught by the player, and the player then showed all the necessary requirements of possession. TD. Doesn't matter where his feet were as long as they were inbounds. The only questionable part is the evidence that the ball broke the plane, but we are being told by the officials that the evidence is clear that it did.

The NFL should have 3 cameras looking only at the goal line for every play of every game. One from each sideline, and one from the top like in hockey. Heck maybe even have 3 or 4 overhead cameras in order to get each one zoomed in on just a portion of the goal line. Silly roofless stadiums make this difficult.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

When I first started reading this thread, I was like "yeah, you never heard of that rule, because it doesn't exist." Then as it went on, I started questioning myself, and was ready to dig out the rulebook. Glad this is straightened out.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

...

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

A, B and C talk about the ball. D does not. Does this leave it open for interpretation?

I am not sure how you think that D does not talk about the ball. It specifically mentions that the loose ball is caught or recovered on or behind the opponent's goalline.

You could interpret D to mean that the "on or behind the opponent’s goal line" part applied to the receiver and not the ball. Probably not, but I'm just sayin.

Exactly what I was going to say. Technically speaking there is some ambiguity in that line.

 

[Modog814]

There is no way you can say the refs "blew the call" in this situation, regardless of how they ruled it. You are asking the human brain to make a judgment in a split second with missing information. Reffing is not easy, they do an outstanding job week in and week out, and this is an example of just how tough some plays are to judge. Here it is a day later and most of us still aren't sure which way it should go.

I certainly can say I think they blew the call. I'm not talking about the call on the field. I would have been fine with either call being made on the field b/c as you said its a split second and they have to make a call. I'm referring to the fact that in my mind I didn't see indisputable visual evidence to overturn the call on the field, so in my mind the call was blown bc they did overturn it. There is no way that the ref could have seen indisputable visual evidence to overturn that call, (same if it was called a TD).

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

There is no way you can say the refs "blew the call" in this situation, regardless of how they ruled it.

You can, and should, specifically because of how close this call was. Plays are only supposed to be overturned if there is conclusive evidence that they ere incorrectly ruled on the field. This call was way too close to reverse, no matter which way it was originally called. Therefore, they "blew the call" (Read: replay.)

 

[GregR_2]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

...

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

A, B and C talk about the ball. D does not. Does this leave it open for interpretation?

I am not sure how you think that D does not talk about the ball. It specifically mentions that the loose ball is caught or recovered on or behind the opponent's goalline.

You could interpret D to mean that the "on or behind the opponent’s goal line" part applied to the receiver and not the ball. Probably not, but I'm just sayin.

Exactly what I was going to say. Technically speaking there is some ambiguity in that line.

I agree the wording can seem ambiguous. But even with that being the case, I still have extremely little doubt that they were referring to the ball and not the player.

 

[puckalicious]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

...

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

A, B and C talk about the ball. D does not. Does this leave it open for interpretation?

I am not sure how you think that D does not talk about the ball. It specifically mentions that the loose ball is caught or recovered on or behind the opponent's goalline.

You could interpret D to mean that the "on or behind the opponent’s goal line" part applied to the receiver and not the ball. Probably not, but I'm just sayin.

Exactly what I was going to say. Technically speaking there is some ambiguity in that line.

Not really, the previous points are explicitly relating this phrase to the location of the ball. Furthermore, the beginning of point D already explains the player's position, therefore the "on or behind the opponent's goal line" must refer to the other noun in the sentence (the ball).

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

...

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

A, B and C talk about the ball. D does not. Does this leave it open for interpretation?

I am not sure how you think that D does not talk about the ball. It specifically mentions that the loose ball is caught or recovered on or behind the opponent's goalline.

You could interpret D to mean that the "on or behind the opponent’s goal line" part applied to the receiver and not the ball. Probably not, but I'm just sayin.

Exactly what I was going to say. Technically speaking there is some ambiguity in that line.

Not really, the previous points are explicitly relating this phrase to the location of the ball. Furthermore, the beginning of point D already explains the player's position, therefore the "on or behind the opponent's goal line" must refer to the other noun in the sentence (the ball).

"Player" is a noun, too.

 

[parasaurolophus]

the whole thing on NBC with collinsworth confused the heck out of me.

They showed that picture, drew a line that mirrored the goal line, it hit the ball, then they showed the above replay and it clearly looked like it was in.

Then every one of them said they didnt think it was conclusive enough?

When I first saw the replay i thought it was a bad call, but then I saw that and felt better.

 

[Godsbrother]

the whole thing on NBC with collinsworth confused the heck out of me.They showed that picture, drew a line that mirrored the goal line, it hit the ball, then they showed the above replay and it clearly looked like it was in. Then every one of them said they didnt think it was conclusive enough?When I first saw the replay i thought it was a bad call, but then I saw that and felt better.

I was surprised by the original call on the field because it looked to me like it was a TD. AFter looking at it a number of times I still think it was a TD.That said I was surprised when the officials overrruled the call of the field because it was a very close call and the original call was no TD.

 

[renesauz]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

Rule 3, Section 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).

Rule 11, Section 2 Touchdown

Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):

(a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponent’s goal line and is in possession

of a runner who has advanced from the field of play; or

(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the

goal line, and some part of the ball was passed over or inside the pylon; or

© a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that no part of the player’s

body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon; or

(d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind

the opponent’s goal line; or

(e) The Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably

unfair act.

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

Part d is redundant. If it meant what we thought it did (before this weekend), then it would already be covered by part a. The folks writing/reviewing this rulebook aren't likely to have such an obvious and unnecessary redundancy.I think the correct interpretation using part d is that if the ball broke the plane AND the player was established in the end zone, it's a TD. Nothing there says that those two things must be simultaneous. If both of these things are met, then intial contact of the ball to the receiver will be in the EZ.

IE: He could have juggled that ball and been clearly 1/2 yard out when he got control...and it would still be a TD since it initially broke the plane and he got control while both feet were down in the EZ....he had established position in the EZ and did NOT come out of it to make this catch.

This seems to me the proper interpretation of part d....but a stupid one. Everywhere else on the field the placement of the ball is based on forward progress AFTER the ball is in posession.

(FWIW...I still think he may have had possession past the plane, but don't see how it was overturned)

No, they aren't redundant. Rule A requires that it have been "a runner who has advanced from the field of play". In short that he gained possession of the ball outside of the end zone and advanced it.Rule D is for when a player gains possession and the ball is already on or beyond the goal line.

They are mutually exclusive cases.

Really??????...take those extra words out....the "advanced part"...those words themselves are redundant when compared to part d under the more common interpretation here. No matter how you spin it...we ALL thought you had to have possession and break the plane at the same time. The rules don't actually say that. If they meant to imply that...there would not need to be BOTH part a and part d in the rules above! They could just say "possess the ball while the ball is past the plane of the goal."

 

[Sebowski]

What I'm wondering is if Desean Jackson had his feet in before he dropped the ball on the goalline.

 

[poopdawg]

What I'm wondering is if Desean Jackson had his feet in before he dropped the ball on the goalline.

I dont see how thats possible. I could see one foot touching down in the endzone, but I dont see how its possible, considering how fast he was running, for the second foot to touch down and the ball not yet cross the plane of the end line (unless his arm was outreached backwards, which it wasnt).

 

[puckalicious]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

...

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

A, B and C talk about the ball. D does not. Does this leave it open for interpretation?

I am not sure how you think that D does not talk about the ball. It specifically mentions that the loose ball is caught or recovered on or behind the opponent's goalline.

You could interpret D to mean that the "on or behind the opponent’s goal line" part applied to the receiver and not the ball. Probably not, but I'm just sayin.

Exactly what I was going to say. Technically speaking there is some ambiguity in that line.

Not really, the previous points are explicitly relating this phrase to the location of the ball. Furthermore, the beginning of point D already explains the player's position, therefore the "on or behind the opponent's goal line" must refer to the other noun in the sentence (the ball).

"Player" is a noun, too.

Are you intentionally being obtuse? (d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the opponent’s goal line;

Match the colors. More importantly, points A-C set the precedent that the phrase "on or behind the opponent's goal line" is describing the location of the ball, not the player.

This is pretty basic English 101 stuff here.

 

[Godsbrother]

NFL backs ruling on Steelers' winning touchdown

Monday, December 15, 2008

By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The NFL is backing referee Walt Coleman's decision to overturn a call on the field and rule Santonio Holmes' catch a touchdown that gave the Steelers a 13-9 victory at Baltimore yesterday.

Coleman's officiating crew ruled that Holmes did not get into the end zone when he caught Ben Roethlisberger's pass from the Ravens' four with 43 seconds left. However, after viewing it on replay, Coleman overturned the call and signaled a touchdown.

"Walt Coleman determined via high-def video review that the receiver had possession and two feet down with the ball in the goal line, meaning it broke the plane,'' an NFL spokesman said via e-mail.

The spokesman said Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating, backed the Coleman ruling after replay.

Coleman explained after the game that Holmes "had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line."

By rule, his feet did not have to be down, however, when the ball crossed the goal line -- he had to be in possession of the ball when it broke the plane of the goal line and then, to complete the play, his feet had to touch the ground.

"When he gained control of the ball,'' Coleman said, "the ball was breaking the plane and then he fell into the field of play."

 

[PosterNutBag]

NFL backs ruling on Steelers' winning touchdown

Monday, December 15, 2008

By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The NFL is backing referee Walt Coleman's decision to overturn a call on the field and rule Santonio Holmes' catch a touchdown that gave the Steelers a 13-9 victory at Baltimore yesterday.

Coleman's officiating crew ruled that Holmes did not get into the end zone when he caught Ben Roethlisberger's pass from the Ravens' four with 43 seconds left. However, after viewing it on replay, Coleman overturned the call and signaled a touchdown.

"Walt Coleman determined via high-def video review that the receiver had possession and two feet down with the ball in the goal line, meaning it broke the plane,'' an NFL spokesman said via e-mail.

The spokesman said Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating, backed the Coleman ruling after replay.

Coleman explained after the game that Holmes "had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line."

By rule, his feet did not have to be down, however, when the ball crossed the goal line -- he had to be in possession of the ball when it broke the plane of the goal line and then, to complete the play, his feet had to touch the ground.

"When he gained control of the ball,'' Coleman said, "the ball was breaking the plane and then he fell into the field of play."

It's nice to know that is exactly what they thought they saw. I guess people are just going to have to agree to disagree about whether or not Holmes had possession of the ball when it was above the goalline. I personally believe he was in the process of gaining it at that time, but by the time he had gained possession the ball was not above the goalline.

 

[Buckeyedawgs]

I wanted Ravens to win bad. I was mad when the call was over turned. I was convinced by the naked eye there was no way they could overturn it. They did giving the Steelers another luck out win.

Bottom line I am now convinced they had to have visual evidence we could not see from the naked eye because Holmes body had the ball blocked when he first made contact with it and it was over the plane.

I can now live with it unlike when they robed San Diego! And a few other calls I have seen this year that were absolutly terrible.

 

[PosterNutBag]

I wanted Ravens to win bad. I was mad when the call was over turned. I was convinced by the naked eye there was no way they could overturn it. They did giving the Steelers another luck out win. Bottom line I am now convinced they had to have visual evidence we could not see from the naked eye because Holmes body had the ball blacked when he first caught it and it was over the plane. I can now live with it unlike when they robbed San Diego! And a few other calls I have seen this year that were absolutly terrible.

Even if the call does not get overturned, it is still 4th and goal from the 6 inch line. The game is either going to be won on the next down or forced into OT with a FG to make it 9-9. It's not like the Ravens were robbed (if the replay review was blown --- i am not suggesting it was). The odds were still against the Ravens winning the game if it ends up at 4th and goal from the 6 inch line.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I am looking at the official NFL rules from 2007.

...

I DO NOT see the section that was listed earlier:

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

I suppose that there may be a broader version of the rules than I have, but I have not seen a link to the legal catch citation above.

A, B and C talk about the ball. D does not. Does this leave it open for interpretation?

I am not sure how you think that D does not talk about the ball. It specifically mentions that the loose ball is caught or recovered on or behind the opponent's goalline.

You could interpret D to mean that the "on or behind the opponent’s goal line" part applied to the receiver and not the ball. Probably not, but I'm just sayin.

Exactly what I was going to say. Technically speaking there is some ambiguity in that line.

Not really, the previous points are explicitly relating this phrase to the location of the ball. Furthermore, the beginning of point D already explains the player's position, therefore the "on or behind the opponent's goal line" must refer to the other noun in the sentence (the ball).

"Player" is a noun, too.

Are you intentionally being obtuse? (d) Any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the opponent’s goal line;

Match the colors. More importantly, points A-C set the precedent that the phrase "on or behind the opponent's goal line" is describing the location of the ball, not the player.

This is pretty basic English 101 stuff here.

Actually, I'd say it's fairly complex English, as I believe it is a "gerund" versus "present participle" in the two ways that can be interpreted.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...The odds were still against the Ravens winning the game if it ends up at 4th and goal from the 6 inch line.

Based on this years Steelers short yardage offense?

 

[moondawg]

There is no way you can say the refs "blew the call" in this situation, regardless of how they ruled it. You are asking the human brain to make a judgment in a split second with missing information. Reffing is not easy, they do an outstanding job week in and week out, and this is an example of just how tough some plays are to judge. Here it is a day later and most of us still aren't sure which way it should go.

I certainly can say I think they blew the call. I'm not talking about the call on the field. I would have been fine with either call being made on the field b/c as you said its a split second and they have to make a call. I'm referring to the fact that in my mind I didn't see indisputable visual evidence to overturn the call on the field, so in my mind the call was blown bc they did overturn it. There is no way that the ref could have seen indisputable visual evidence to overturn that call, (same if it was called a TD).

These are exactly the type of calls the refs are TRAINED to make during a replay review. We may or may not agree but to say they did not have indisputable visual evidence to overturn is not a call we (the fans) have the knowledge to make.

 

[Tau837]

NFL backs ruling on Steelers' winning touchdown

Monday, December 15, 2008

By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The NFL is backing referee Walt Coleman's decision to overturn a call on the field and rule Santonio Holmes' catch a touchdown that gave the Steelers a 13-9 victory at Baltimore yesterday.

Coleman's officiating crew ruled that Holmes did not get into the end zone when he caught Ben Roethlisberger's pass from the Ravens' four with 43 seconds left. However, after viewing it on replay, Coleman overturned the call and signaled a touchdown.

"Walt Coleman determined via high-def video review that the receiver had possession and two feet down with the ball in the goal line, meaning it broke the plane,'' an NFL spokesman said via e-mail.

The spokesman said Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating, backed the Coleman ruling after replay.

Coleman explained after the game that Holmes "had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line."

By rule, his feet did not have to be down, however, when the ball crossed the goal line -- he had to be in possession of the ball when it broke the plane of the goal line and then, to complete the play, his feet had to touch the ground.

"When he gained control of the ball,'' Coleman said, "the ball was breaking the plane and then he fell into the field of play."

It's nice to know that is exactly what they thought they saw. I guess people are just going to have to agree to disagree about whether or not Holmes had possession of the ball when it was above the goalline. I personally believe he was in the process of gaining it at that time, but by the time he had gained possession the ball was not above the goalline.

IMO he clearly caught the ball while it was breaking the plane. Given that they say here that the two feet do not have to be down at that point for it to be a TD, I don't see what is left to argue about... That said, it would be nice to see an actual rule quoted from the NFL rulebook that covers this.EDIT: Looks like the rule was right there all along in David's post. Many probably assumed the airborne runner would end up on the end zone side of the plane of the end zone, rather than the other side.

Rule 11, Section 2 Touchdown

Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):

(b) a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the

goal line, and some part of the ball was passed over or inside the pylon

This is essentially what he says in the bolded quote above. So possession = gaining control of the ball, which is only a part of completing a catch... and if one possesses the ball while it breaks the plane, and then completes the catch in any manner (in or out of the end zone), it's a TD. Makes sense now that it has been explained.

 

[Tau837]

What I'm wondering is if Desean Jackson had his feet in before he dropped the ball on the goalline.

That wouldn't matter. All that matters is if the ball broke the plane at any point, and it didn't on that play.

 

[PosterNutBag]

It's nice to know that is exactly what they thought they saw. I guess people are just going to have to agree to disagree about whether or not Holmes had possession of the ball when it was above the goalline. I personally believe he was in the process of gaining it at that time, but by the time he had gained possession the ball was not above the goalline.

IMO he clearly caught the ball while it was breaking the plane. Given that they say here that the two feet do not have to be down at that point for it to be a TD, I don't see what is left to argue about... That said, it would be nice to see an actual rule quoted from the NFL rulebook that covers this.

I am not disputing the two feet thing since it is not at all relevant since he was totally in bounds during the entire play. The feet don't matter one bit here. My stance is that in my opinion, Holmes was touching the ball while it was above the goalline but I think (based on my viewing of the play) that he did not have possession of the ball (i.e. completed the catch) until the ball was no longer above the goalline.So, in the end, I don't think there is a complicated rule from the rulebook to quote here. I simply think that the officials are saying he completed the catch while the ball was still above the goalline, which I disagree with based on my viewing of the play.

 

[Tau837]

the whole thing on NBC with collinsworth confused the heck out of me.They showed that picture, drew a line that mirrored the goal line, it hit the ball, then they showed the above replay and it clearly looked like it was in. Then every one of them said they didnt think it was conclusive enough?When I first saw the replay i thought it was a bad call, but then I saw that and felt better.

Yes, I think they were focused on more than just whether or not the ball broke the plane. They may have been unaware that both feet do not have to be down when that happens. I think that has been the major point of confusion in the whole thing.

 

[Tau837]

It's nice to know that is exactly what they thought they saw. I guess people are just going to have to agree to disagree about whether or not Holmes had possession of the ball when it was above the goalline. I personally believe he was in the process of gaining it at that time, but by the time he had gained possession the ball was not above the goalline.

IMO he clearly caught the ball while it was breaking the plane. Given that they say here that the two feet do not have to be down at that point for it to be a TD, I don't see what is left to argue about... That said, it would be nice to see an actual rule quoted from the NFL rulebook that covers this.

I am not disputing the two feet thing since it is not at all relevant since he was totally in bounds during the entire play. The feet don't matter one bit here. My stance is that in my opinion, Holmes was touching the ball while it was above the goalline but I think (based on my viewing of the play) that he did not have possession of the ball (i.e. completed the catch) until the ball was no longer above the goalline.So, in the end, I don't think there is a complicated rule from the rulebook to quote here. I simply think that the officials are saying he completed the catch while the ball was still above the goalline, which I disagree with based on my viewing of the play.

Well if the feet aren't part of it, what do you mean by completing the catch? He didn't bobble it at all. The ball was thrown towards the back of the end zone, and its path was stopped and reversed by Holmes' hands. IMO no bobble means he possessed it at that point.

 

[The_Man]

NFL backs ruling on Steelers' winning touchdown

Monday, December 15, 2008

By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The NFL is backing referee Walt Coleman's decision to overturn a call on the field and rule Santonio Holmes' catch a touchdown that gave the Steelers a 13-9 victory at Baltimore yesterday.

Coleman's officiating crew ruled that Holmes did not get into the end zone when he caught Ben Roethlisberger's pass from the Ravens' four with 43 seconds left. However, after viewing it on replay, Coleman overturned the call and signaled a touchdown.

"Walt Coleman determined via high-def video review that the receiver had possession and two feet down with the ball in the goal line, meaning it broke the plane,'' an NFL spokesman said via e-mail.

The spokesman said Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating, backed the Coleman ruling after replay.

Coleman explained after the game that Holmes "had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line."

By rule, his feet did not have to be down, however, when the ball crossed the goal line -- he had to be in possession of the ball when it broke the plane of the goal line and then, to complete the play, his feet had to touch the ground.

"When he gained control of the ball,'' Coleman said, "the ball was breaking the plane and then he fell into the field of play."

This is the only pertinent part of that entire story:

The NFL is backing referee Walt Coleman's decision to overturn a call on the field and rule Santonio Holmes' catch a touchdown that gave the Steelers a 13-9 victory at Baltimore yesterday.

Of course the NFL is backing the decision, just like it backed the Tuck Rule, just like it backs pretty much every controversial decision. I used to look forward to watching Mike Pereira on NFL Total Access until I realized that 99% of the time he mouthed the company line and said the refs got it right. It's like watching a Presidential press secretary. I'm not arguing the ruling one way or the other -- I'm just saying that Mike Pereira coming out and backing the call in no way means the call was right.