Another rules question (1 Viewer)

[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."

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.

They didn't back Hochuli earlier this season. They didn't back the Testaverde TD call years ago. They admit mistakes sometimes. I'm sure they err on the side of not admitting mistakes, but if it is clear they own up to it.And, while I think the tuck rule is one of the dumbest rules ever in sports, supposedly it was called correctly.

 

[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.

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.

I am not sure what you mean it was thrown towards the back of the end zone. What I saw was that ball hit his hands just barely above the goalline and at that time he was falling fast out of the endzone (his momentum was going the opposite way). In the split second after his initial touching of the ball until he completely possessed it as it moved another foot or so into his body, I feel like he was no longer above the goalline. It was definitely VERY close, but in my view it was not conclusive that it was DEFINITELY a TD. It looked to me that the ruling on the field that the ball should be on the 6 inch line was the correct call.We obviously disagree with what we saw and have to agree to disagree. I just can't believe they OVERTURNED the call on the field since the replay didn't appear to provide conclusive "slam dunk" evidence that he possessed the ball above the goalline.

 

[switz]

Yes, the ball did cross the line - for a very brief moment. That was not the same instant as his completing the reception as he fell forward. The ball was initially spotted at about the 6" line, which I believe was correct.

If they had ruled on the field it was a TD, and then after replay held to that call, I would have held the opinion that it was NOT a TD, but that the evidence was not strong enough to overturn it.They did NOT rule it a TD, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could argue the evidence WAS strong enough to overturn the call on the field and make it a TD.

 

[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.

I am not sure what you mean it was thrown towards the back of the end zone. What I saw was that ball hit his hands just barely above the goalline and at that time he was falling fast out of the endzone (his momentum was going the opposite way). In the split second after his initial touching of the ball until he completely possessed it as it moved another foot or so into his body, I feel like he was no longer above the goalline. It was definitely VERY close, but in my view it was not conclusive that it was DEFINITELY a TD. It looked to me that the ruling on the field that the ball should be on the 6 inch line was the correct call.We obviously disagree with what we saw and have to agree to disagree. I just can't believe they OVERTURNED the call on the field since the replay didn't appear to provide conclusive "slam dunk" evidence that he possessed the ball above the goalline.

What I meant was, the ball was going one way and contact with Holmes' hands completely reversed the path of the ball from going towards the end zone to going away from the end zone.Your view is that there was a split second in there from when he touched the ball and reversed its path until he actually possessed it. Where we disagree is that I think that instant reversal of the path of the ball, with no bobble by Holmes, equals the instant of possession, which means it happened above the plane where that contact occurred. So to me the evidence was indeed conclusive.

 

[Tau837]

Yes, the ball did cross the line - for a very brief moment. That was not the same instant as his completing the reception as he fell forward. The ball was initially spotted at about the 6" line, which I believe was correct.

If they had ruled on the field it was a TD, and then after replay held to that call, I would have held the opinion that it was NOT a TD, but that the evidence was not strong enough to overturn it.They did NOT rule it a TD, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone could argue the evidence WAS strong enough to overturn the call on the field and make it a TD.

I just did argue that. He caught and possessed the ball over the plane of the goal line IMO. Hence, the reversal was correct IMO.

 

[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.

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.

I am not sure what you mean it was thrown towards the back of the end zone. What I saw was that ball hit his hands just barely above the goalline and at that time he was falling fast out of the endzone (his momentum was going the opposite way). In the split second after his initial touching of the ball until he completely possessed it as it moved another foot or so into his body, I feel like he was no longer above the goalline. It was definitely VERY close, but in my view it was not conclusive that it was DEFINITELY a TD. It looked to me that the ruling on the field that the ball should be on the 6 inch line was the correct call.We obviously disagree with what we saw and have to agree to disagree. I just can't believe they OVERTURNED the call on the field since the replay didn't appear to provide conclusive "slam dunk" evidence that he possessed the ball above the goalline.

What I meant was, the ball was going one way and contact with Holmes' hands completely reversed the path of the ball from going towards the end zone to going away from the end zone.Your view is that there was a split second in there from when he touched the ball and reversed its path until he actually possessed it. Where we disagree is that I think that instant reversal of the path of the ball, with no bobble by Holmes, equals the instant of possession, which means it happened above the plane where that contact occurred. So to me the evidence was indeed conclusive.

I hear ya. We just don't agree. The instant the ball touches his finger tips equals Holmes touching the ball for the first time, but to me this does not constitute possession (the ball still has to travel fully into his hands, which are traveling into his body due to the force of the ball). The ball needs to be completely in his hands (we are only talking fractions of a second here) and not moving towards the endzone anymore (and not being bobbled). I am not saying he bobbled it, so we agree on that. What I am saying is that as the ball traveled another foot into his body (while his body was moving the opposite way) was the first time the ball was completely in his hands (and the first time there was possession). We are splitting hairs at this point.It seems that the official saw it your way, but there are plenty of us that agree that there was not conclusive enough evidence to overturn a call that was made on the field. At the same time, I don't believe they could have ruled it "not a TD" if that was the call on the field. It was that close on the replay that I don't think you can say with 100% certainty either way in order to overturn either possible call. But IMO I think it appeared as if the ball was not over the goalline when Holmes eventually had possession.

 

[dparker713]

Based on some of the interpretations of the rules I've read here, a player could clearly be inside the front corner of the endzone at the pylon, have a QB near that same sideline throw him the ball, catch the ball well outside the pylon, with the ball never crossing the plane of the endzone, and according to some that wouldnt be a TD. There needs to be some interpretation of the rules that makes that a TD, since the plane no longer extends past the sideline. Section d could be interpreted to account for this situation.

 

[daveR]

Consider the subsequent placement of the ball for the following play. It goes to the forwardmost point of the preceding play. If that point puts its nose over the white, it is a TD.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

My copy of the rules contains all black text -- no blue or red.The question is what the prepositional phrase "on or behind the opponent's goal line" modifies.

Grammatically, it could be used as an adjective to modify "ball," or it could be used as an adverb to modify "catches." In the first case, it's the ball that must be in the end zone. In the second case, it's the subject of the very "catches" -- i.e., the player -- who must be in the end zone.

("It is a touchdown ... while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball on or behind the opponents' goal line in his underwear." In substituting one prepositional phrase for another, we can see that a prepositional phrase immediately following "ball" in that sentence need not necessarily modify "ball.")

From an English 101 standpoint the rule is ambiguous.

From a football standpoint, however, I think it is fairly clear that the phrase modifies "ball." I also think that Holmes really did catch the ball while the ball had crossed the plane of the goal line, so it should have been a touchdown.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

There are no gerunds or present participles in that sentence.

 

[moondog]

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.

Yes it does.

 

[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.

There are no gerunds or present participles in that sentence.

Doh! At least reaffirm that it is ambiguous, and I'll go away...

It's not a sentence.

 

[General Tso]

The real issue here is that the ref appeared to misinterpret or misunderstand the rule. Why is that important? Well, I'm no expert in NFL rules, but I do know having been a softball umpire that a misinterpretation of a rule is one of the allowable reasons for a protest. Judgment calls (ie - I believe the ball crossed the plane) are not valid reasons to protest a game. But misinterpretation or misapplication of a rule most definitely is a reason to protest a game and to potentially be awarded with relief or restitution (at least in softball).

After reviewing the replay and arriving at his decision, the ref basically said "the receiver had possession of the ball with his feet in the end zone". He made no mention of the ball crossing the plane. AFTER the game, yes - he made a point to clarify that in his judgment the ball had crossed the plane. But think about this - what would you say if you had just misinterpreted the rule?

Based on what I saw, the only reason for the ref overturning the call on the field was that he misinterpreted the rule. I haven't seen any irrefutable evidence that the ball crossed the plane. The fact that his explanation after making the call corroberates my theory is the icing on the cake. In my opinion the ref didn't know the rule, and everything that has happened after that has been a cover-up to protect him and the beleaguered NFL officials - who are basically screwing up this year at an alarming rate.

 

[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.

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.

My copy of the rules contains all black text -- no blue or red.The question is what the prepositional phrase "on or behind the opponent's goal line" modifies.

Grammatically, it could be used as an adjective to modify "ball," or it could be used as an adverb to modify "catches." In the first case, it's the ball that must be in the end zone. In the second case, it's the subject of the very "catches" -- i.e., the player -- who must be in the end zone.

("It is a touchdown ... while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball on or behind the opponents' goal line in his underwear." In substituting one prepositional phrase for another, we can see that a prepositional phrase immediately following "ball" in that sentence need not necessarily modify "ball.")

From an English 101 standpoint the rule is ambiguous.

From a football standpoint, however, I think it is fairly clear that the phrase modifies "ball." I also think that Holmes really did catch the ball while the ball had crossed the plane of the goal line, so it should have been a touchdown.

The question is, do you think the replay shows irrefutably that it was a touchdown?

 

[Godsbrother]

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.

They didn't back Hochuli earlier this season. They didn't back the Testaverde TD call years ago. They admit mistakes sometimes. I'm sure they err on the side of not admitting mistakes, but if it is clear they own up to it.And, while I think the tuck rule is one of the dumbest rules ever in sports, supposedly it was called correctly.

The NFL also admitted the mistake in the Steelers-Chargers game where they took the TD away from the Steelers. I think it took balls to admit that mistake in which an estimated $65 million was lost in gambling. They could have very easily stood by the officials and completely avoid a huge controversy.I think the NFL does a pretty good job of reviewing close calls and reporting publically their findings.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

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.

They didn't back Hochuli earlier this season. They didn't back the Testaverde TD call years ago. They admit mistakes sometimes. I'm sure they err on the side of not admitting mistakes, but if it is clear they own up to it.And, while I think the tuck rule is one of the dumbest rules ever in sports, supposedly it was called correctly.

The NFL also admitted the mistake in the Steelers-Chargers game where they took the TD away from the Steelers. I think it took balls to admit that mistake in which an estimated $65 million was lost in gambling. They could have very easily stood by the officials and completely avoid a huge controversy.I think the NFL does a pretty good job of reviewing close calls and reporting publically their findings.

I'm pretty sure the NFL also issued a statement that the Jags should have been flagged for HOLDING in the playoff game vs the Steelers and it was not called. That play directly cost the Steelers not only a game, but a Playoff game. So for everyone who says "The Steelers get ALL the calls, WAAA!"You are flat out wrong.

 

[puckalicious]

Doh! At least reaffirm that it is ambiguous, and I'll go away...

Based on the preceeding 3 points with similar (or clearer) grammar, it is not ambiguous at all. All references to the goal line are about the ball. It makes no difference where the player is as long as he is inbounds.

 

[apalmer]

After reviewing the replay and arriving at his decision, the ref basically said "the receiver had possession of the ball with his feet in the end zone". He made no mention of the ball crossing the plane. AFTER the game, yes - he made a point to clarify that in his judgment the ball had crossed the plane. But think about this - what would you say if you had just misinterpreted the rule?

Based on what I saw, the only reason for the ref overturning the call on the field was that he misinterpreted the rule. I haven't seen any irrefutable evidence that the ball crossed the plane. The fact that his explanation after making the call corroberates my theory is the icing on the cake. In my opinion the ref didn't know the rule, and everything that has happened after that has been a cover-up to protect him and the beleaguered NFL officials - who are basically screwing up this year at an alarming rate.

Basically said? "Basically" means you're paraphrasing. How can you argue that he misinterpreted the rule by paraphrasing what he said? What was the exact quote? In my opinion, he "basically" said, "The receiver caught the ball in the endzone and got two feet down."

 

[apalmer]

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.

I am not sure what you mean it was thrown towards the back of the end zone. What I saw was that ball hit his hands just barely above the goalline and at that time he was falling fast out of the endzone (his momentum was going the opposite way). In the split second after his initial touching of the ball until he completely possessed it as it moved another foot or so into his body, I feel like he was no longer above the goalline. It was definitely VERY close, but in my view it was not conclusive that it was DEFINITELY a TD. It looked to me that the ruling on the field that the ball should be on the 6 inch line was the correct call.We obviously disagree with what we saw and have to agree to disagree. I just can't believe they OVERTURNED the call on the field since the replay didn't appear to provide conclusive "slam dunk" evidence that he possessed the ball above the goalline.

What I meant was, the ball was going one way and contact with Holmes' hands completely reversed the path of the ball from going towards the end zone to going away from the end zone.Your view is that there was a split second in there from when he touched the ball and reversed its path until he actually possessed it. Where we disagree is that I think that instant reversal of the path of the ball, with no bobble by Holmes, equals the instant of possession, which means it happened above the plane where that contact occurred. So to me the evidence was indeed conclusive.

I hear ya. We just don't agree. The instant the ball touches his finger tips equals Holmes touching the ball for the first time, but to me this does not constitute possession (the ball still has to travel fully into his hands, which are traveling into his body due to the force of the ball). The ball needs to be completely in his hands (we are only talking fractions of a second here) and not moving towards the endzone anymore (and not being bobbled). I am not saying he bobbled it, so we agree on that. What I am saying is that as the ball traveled another foot into his body (while his body was moving the opposite way) was the first time the ball was completely in his hands (and the first time there was possession). We are splitting hairs at this point.It seems that the official saw it your way, but there are plenty of us that agree that there was not conclusive enough evidence to overturn a call that was made on the field. At the same time, I don't believe they could have ruled it "not a TD" if that was the call on the field. It was that close on the replay that I don't think you can say with 100% certainty either way in order to overturn either possible call. But IMO I think it appeared as if the ball was not over the goalline when Holmes eventually had possession.

If he had a good enough grip that the ball was moving his hands, he had possession. If there's no bobble, then the first contact has to equal possession. Why would the direction the ball is travelling make a difference? If he doesn't pull the ball towards his body (i.e., continue the direction of the ball toward the endzone) after he makes the catch, he's an idiot.

 

[General Tso]

After reviewing the replay and arriving at his decision, the ref basically said "the receiver had possession of the ball with his feet in the end zone". He made no mention of the ball crossing the plane. AFTER the game, yes - he made a point to clarify that in his judgment the ball had crossed the plane. But think about this - what would you say if you had just misinterpreted the rule?

Based on what I saw, the only reason for the ref overturning the call on the field was that he misinterpreted the rule. I haven't seen any irrefutable evidence that the ball crossed the plane. The fact that his explanation after making the call corroberates my theory is the icing on the cake. In my opinion the ref didn't know the rule, and everything that has happened after that has been a cover-up to protect him and the beleaguered NFL officials - who are basically screwing up this year at an alarming rate.

Basically said? "Basically" means you're paraphrasing. How can you argue that he misinterpreted the rule by paraphrasing what he said? What was the exact quote? In my opinion, he "basically" said, "The receiver caught the ball in the endzone and got two feet down."

Yeah, "basically". Yeah, paraphrasing. Don't have the time or the inclination to find the exact text of what he said. Sorry dude too much going on and this isn't a court of law... The important thing is not the xact words, but that he didn't mention that the ball crossed the plane. This is the key consideration in the argument. The fact that he specifically didn't mention it tells me there's a good chance he misunderstood the rule.

 

[DangerMonkey]

Based on some of the interpretations of the rules I've read here, a player could clearly be inside the front corner of the endzone at the pylon, have a QB near that same sideline throw him the ball, catch the ball well outside the pylon, with the ball never crossing the plane of the endzone, and according to some that wouldnt be a TD. There needs to be some interpretation of the rules that makes that a TD, since the plane no longer extends past the sideline. Section d could be interpreted to account for this situation.

Why does there need to be some interpretation of the rules that makes that a TD?It is clearly NOT a touchdown.As for the issue at hand, I am a Raven fan and a lifelong Steeler hater. To me that play should never have been overturned, because the evidence was not conclusive enough to overturn it. Had it been called a TD on the field, I would say the same. That being said, the Steelers still deserved to win the game. The B-More defense failed to stop the Steelers when it counted. It never should've been that close.The Ravens have beaten the Steelers both times they played this year, but they have lost both of those games. In both instances, the Steelers made more of the few opportunites they had, than the Ravens did of theirs and took home the W.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Based on some of the interpretations of the rules I've read here, a player could clearly be inside the front corner of the endzone at the pylon, have a QB near that same sideline throw him the ball, catch the ball well outside the pylon, with the ball never crossing the plane of the endzone, and according to some that wouldnt be a TD. There needs to be some interpretation of the rules that makes that a TD, since the plane no longer extends past the sideline. Section d could be interpreted to account for this situation.

Why does there need to be some interpretation of the rules that makes that a TD?It is clearly NOT a touchdown.

As for the issue at hand, I am a Raven fan and a lifelong Steeler hater. To me that play should never have been overturned, because the evidence was not conclusive enough to overturn it. Had it been called a TD on the field, I would say the same. That being said, the Steelers still deserved to win the game. The B-More defense failed to stop the Steelers when it counted. It never should've been that close.

The Ravens have beaten the Steelers both times they played this year, but they have lost both of those games. In both instances, the Steelers made more of the few opportunites they had, than the Ravens did of theirs and took home the W.

In the second game, the only area the Ravens outplayed the Steelers was on special teams. Both offenses were pathetic for pretty much all game but the difference is that the Ravens had more opportunities due to special teams. Both defenses played great but the Steelers was slightly more dominant because they had 0 breakdowns whereas the Ravens had 1. The Ravens did not "beat" the Steelers in that game. It was a very evenly matched game that was won by a single drive.

 

[DangerMonkey]

Based on some of the interpretations of the rules I've read here, a player could clearly be inside the front corner of the endzone at the pylon, have a QB near that same sideline throw him the ball, catch the ball well outside the pylon, with the ball never crossing the plane of the endzone, and according to some that wouldnt be a TD. There needs to be some interpretation of the rules that makes that a TD, since the plane no longer extends past the sideline. Section d could be interpreted to account for this situation.

Why does there need to be some interpretation of the rules that makes that a TD?It is clearly NOT a touchdown.

As for the issue at hand, I am a Raven fan and a lifelong Steeler hater. To me that play should never have been overturned, because the evidence was not conclusive enough to overturn it. Had it been called a TD on the field, I would say the same. That being said, the Steelers still deserved to win the game. The B-More defense failed to stop the Steelers when it counted. It never should've been that close.

The Ravens have beaten the Steelers both times they played this year, but they have lost both of those games. In both instances, the Steelers made more of the few opportunites they had, than the Ravens did of theirs and took home the W.

In the second game, the only area the Ravens outplayed the Steelers was on special teams. Both offenses were pathetic for pretty much all game but the difference is that the Ravens had more opportunities due to special teams. Both defenses played great but the Steelers was slightly more dominant because they had 0 breakdowns whereas the Ravens had 1. The Ravens did not "beat" the Steelers in that game. It was a very evenly matched game that was won by a single drive.

I would agree that the game was very evenly matched. The Ravens failed to convert the opportunities their special teams gave them, and failed to stop the Steelers when it matterethed. Maybe it would be better to say the Ravens had the second game won and gave it away on one drive. Either way I feel like both of those games should've gone the other way, but they didn't.Hats off to the Steelers for winning two hard fought games

 

[fred_1_15301]

Based on some of the interpretations of the rules I've read here, a player could clearly be inside the front corner of the endzone at the pylon, have a QB near that same sideline throw him the ball, catch the ball well outside the pylon, with the ball never crossing the plane of the endzone, and according to some that wouldnt be a TD. There needs to be some interpretation of the rules that makes that a TD, since the plane no longer extends past the sideline. Section d could be interpreted to account for this situation.

Why does there need to be some interpretation of the rules that makes that a TD?It is clearly NOT a touchdown.

As for the issue at hand, I am a Raven fan and a lifelong Steeler hater. To me that play should never have been overturned, because the evidence was not conclusive enough to overturn it. Had it been called a TD on the field, I would say the same. That being said, the Steelers still deserved to win the game. The B-More defense failed to stop the Steelers when it counted. It never should've been that close.

The Ravens have beaten the Steelers both times they played this year, but they have lost both of those games. In both instances, the Steelers made more of the few opportunites they had, than the Ravens did of theirs and took home the W.

In the second game, the only area the Ravens outplayed the Steelers was on special teams. Both offenses were pathetic for pretty much all game but the difference is that the Ravens had more opportunities due to special teams. Both defenses played great but the Steelers was slightly more dominant because they had 0 breakdowns whereas the Ravens had 1. The Ravens did not "beat" the Steelers in that game. It was a very evenly matched game that was won by a single drive.

I would agree that the game was very evenly matched. The Ravens failed to convert the opportunities their special teams gave them, and failed to stop the Steelers when it matterethed. Maybe it would be better to say the Ravens had the second game won and gave it away on one drive. Either way I feel like both of those games should've gone the other way, but they didn't.Hats off to the Steelers for winning two hard fought games

......I'm not trying to say that the Steelers outplayed the Ravens in either of those games. They didn't. I honestly don't think you could find 2 more evenly matched teams than the Steelers and Ravens. It's a shame that the Ravens will have to fight to make the playoffs because they are clearly one of the top 3 teams in the AFC.