Game Thread W11 - Cleveland V Baltimore (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

What will be the question is whether the officials had any contact with anyone from the booth or from Piera or anywhere else.If the decision was made purely among the officials on the field, then that's "discussion" (And I'm certain that's going to be the company line unless someone has video of the ref on a mic with the booth or answering Piera's phone call )If there was any outside contact by the officials or if they looked at any video of any sort, that would be "review" and the Ravens got screwed.J

It is a strange day and age in which we live where getting the call right constitutes getting screwed. That is not to dispute the points you're making, just musing on the oddness of it all.

I agree for sure road. It's the whole good call / bad call thing we had in the thread.That's a fascinating discussion I think. It brings in rules and sportsmanship and all kinds of stuff. Things like does the RB call himself out if he steps out of bounds but nobody sees it. Very interesting.J

 

[roadkill1292]

Before I let this thought get away from me in the excitement of the double doinker, Cleveland fans, let me point out that your team just won a divisional game on the road when it didn't play particularly well. The Brownies made lots of mistakes, had lots of penalties and let Kyle freakin' Boller get hot against them late in the game. Yet they still won the game. That showed me who is definitely the better team this year. Romeo is making some solid progress there.

As for the Ratbirds, the late comeback was very encouraging, but going almost the entire first half without a first down and the characteristic turnovers (and ensuing short fields) doomed them once again. I continue to suspect that the offense simply will not be able to push a magic button and become competent all at once and I hold the head coach responsible for this.

 

[DawgPoundNJ]

You definitely are in trouble if Kyle Boller is your savior. Unless taking a knee from the 50 and throwing the ball through the goalposts are in your game plan...

 

[Joe Bryant]

NFL.com might want to change their writeup.

That kick was initially ruled no good as it careened off the left upright, down onto the crossbar and back onto the playing field. But the replay showed the ball had actually hit behind the crossbar and was good, sending the game into overtime.

J

 

[Soaring Eagle]

anyone have the link to the FG

 

[Joe Bryant]

They really need to cover their tracks better... From the official play by play:

03) (Field Goal formation) 4-P.Dawson 51 yard field goal is No Good, Short, Center-64-R.Pontbriand, Holder-15-D.Zastudil. Kick hit crossbars and bounced back. Play Challenged by Replay Assistant and REVERSED. (Field Goal formation) 4-P.Dawson 51 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-64-R.Pontbriand, Holder-15-D.Zastudil.

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

They really need to cover their tracks better... From the official play by play:

03) (Field Goal formation) 4-P.Dawson 51 yard field goal is No Good, Short, Center-64-R.Pontbriand, Holder-15-D.Zastudil. Kick hit crossbars and bounced back. Play Challenged by Replay Assistant and REVERSED. (Field Goal formation) 4-P.Dawson 51 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-64-R.Pontbriand, Holder-15-D.Zastudil.

J

How long until this is "updated".Only thing more perfect would be if the play had involved Michael Clayton.

J

 

[AndersonToEdwards]

JB just said it is an reviewable(?) play.

 

[Soaring Eagle]

sorry

meant the video link so i could see it again

 

[AndersonToEdwards]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlQPEE51N6Q

 

[Joe Bryant]

JB just said it is an reviewable(?) play.

James Brown? On a post game show?J

 

[AndersonToEdwards]

JB just said it is an reviewable(?) play.

James Brown? On a post game show?J

Right after the play was ruled, and just before the ensuing kickoff he said that "our people" have looked into it and that it was able to be reviewed.

 

[Joe Bryant]

JB just said it is an reviewable(?) play.

James Brown? On a post game show?J

Right after the play was ruled, and just before the ensuing kickoff he said that "our people" have looked into it and that it was able to be reviewed.

Interesting. I'm pretty sure that's wrong though.J

 

[AndersonToEdwards]

JB just said it is an reviewable(?) play.

James Brown? On a post game show?J

Right after the play was ruled, and just before the ensuing kickoff he said that "our people" have looked into it and that it was able to be reviewed.

Interesting. I'm pretty sure that's wrong though.J

Just looked up on wikipedia> The NFL replay system currently only covers the following situations:

* Scoring plays

* Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted

* Runner/receiver out of bounds

* Recovery of a loose ball in or out of bounds

* Touching of a forward pass, either by an ineligible receiver or a defensive player

* Quarterback pass or fumble

* Illegal forward pass

* Forward or backward pass

* Runner ruled not down by contact

* Forward progress in regard to a first down

* Touching of a kick

* Other plays involving placement of the football

* Whether a legal number of players are on the field at the time of the snap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_replay

From the looks of it it seems to be able to be reviewed.

 

[Joe Bryant]

JB just said it is an reviewable(?) play.

James Brown? On a post game show?J

Right after the play was ruled, and just before the ensuing kickoff he said that "our people" have looked into it and that it was able to be reviewed.

Interesting. I'm pretty sure that's wrong though.J

Just looked up on wikipedia> The NFL replay system currently only covers the following situations:

* Scoring plays

* Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted

* Runner/receiver out of bounds

* Recovery of a loose ball in or out of bounds

* Touching of a forward pass, either by an ineligible receiver or a defensive player

* Quarterback pass or fumble

* Illegal forward pass

* Forward or backward pass

* Runner ruled not down by contact

* Forward progress in regard to a first down

* Touching of a kick

* Other plays involving placement of the football

* Whether a legal number of players are on the field at the time of the snap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_replay

From the looks of it it seems to be able to be reviewed.

I don't think so. Siciliano on Red Zone channel saidage 109 rule 15 parargraph 9 item C says Field goals cannot be reviewed.

I'm sure we can get a cut and paste somewhere. Where's Maurile?

J

 

[AndersonToEdwards]

I don't think so. Siciliano on Red Zone channel saidage 109 rule 15 parargraph 9 item C says Field goals cannot be reviewed.I'm sure we can get a cut and paste somewhere. Where's Maurile?J

This could get very interesting then.

 

[thayman]

NBC and Peter King had good info on this.Back judge said it was good. Field judge said no good. Field judge was more adamant and won out. No good was call.Had a conference and still decided no good. Ref Morelli put the headset on to talk to the booth.Now here is where it gets According to Peter King, Morelli asked the booth for help and the replay official said it was not reviewable and that he couldn't tell him anything.Cris Collinsworth was funny saying, "He said he couldn't help him, but by the way, Your hair sure looks GOOD. Do you know any GOOD places to eat..."Wow.J

Why is a FG not reviewable, but a TD crossing the plane is?? One would think they are essentially the same thing, as far as the ball crossing the plane goes.

 

[The Man With No Name]

NBC and Peter King had good info on this.Back judge said it was good. Field judge said no good. Field judge was more adamant and won out. No good was call.Had a conference and still decided no good. Ref Morelli put the headset on to talk to the booth.Now here is where it gets According to Peter King, Morelli asked the booth for help and the replay official said it was not reviewable and that he couldn't tell him anything.Cris Collinsworth was funny saying, "He said he couldn't help him, but by the way, Your hair sure looks GOOD. Do you know any GOOD places to eat..."Wow.J

Why is a FG not reviewable, but a TD crossing the plane is?? One would think they are essentially the same thing, as far as the ball crossing the plane goes.

Because the end zone line is clearly seen and there can be no instance of the ball being 10,20.30 feet away from the line as it can the goalposts, which are only so high. And the officials are standing directly below them with no interference of view like at the goalline. It's clearly a judgement call on high flying fieldgoals. Camera angles are not straight on view of the posts either.

 

[AndersonToEdwards]

NBC and Peter King had good info on this.Cris Collinsworth was funny saying, "He said he couldn't help him, but by the way, Your hair sure looks GOOD. Do you know any GOOD places to eat..."

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Speaking of the rule book-

Cleveland - 7:00 1st-10, BAL11 7:00 D. Anderson incomplete pass to the left 2nd-10, BAL11 6:55 J. Lewis rushed up the middle for 10 yard gain 1st-1, BAL1 6:09 BAL penalty 1st-1, BAL1 6:01 D. Anderson rushed up the middle for 1 yard touchdown. P. Dawson made PAT

The first first and one was really first and about 6 inches. The Ravens defender got caught with his back to the ball and was called for pass intereference. The penalty seemed to be "half the distance" and replay first down as now the ball was maybe 3 inches from the goal line. (We had the sound on another game so we missed the explanation.) We were joking that the Browns would be in a better position if they took the incompletion (2nd and goal from 6 inches out) rather than the penalty (first and goal at the actual one yard line). The actual call seems like a proper call, but is it in the rule book that way? Oh, and for the field goal at the end of regulations. Lets not forget that the Ravens caught a small break at the end of the first half when they went to challenge an "in bounds catch" which they should have lost except for "malfunction of replay equipment" meant the play wasn't actually reviewed. Imagine if the field goal was actualy reviewable but the equipment malfunctioned.In the "would-a, could-a, should-a" department how would the game have been different if this play at the end of the first half...
4th-7, CLE34 0:24 K. Boller incomplete pass to the right

...was a 51 yard field goal for Stover?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't think so. Siciliano on Red Zone channel saidage 109 rule 15 parargraph 9 item C says Field goals cannot be reviewed.I'm sure we can get a cut and paste somewhere. Where's Maurile?J

This could get very interesting then.

They've got their out. It's a done deal. Their story is goign to be they called the booth and the booth said, "No, it's not reviewable. You have to figure it out on your own". It's a perfect alibi and that will be that. J

 

[thayman]

NBC and Peter King had good info on this.Back judge said it was good. Field judge said no good. Field judge was more adamant and won out. No good was call.Had a conference and still decided no good. Ref Morelli put the headset on to talk to the booth.Now here is where it gets According to Peter King, Morelli asked the booth for help and the replay official said it was not reviewable and that he couldn't tell him anything.Cris Collinsworth was funny saying, "He said he couldn't help him, but by the way, Your hair sure looks GOOD. Do you know any GOOD places to eat..."Wow.J

Why is a FG not reviewable, but a TD crossing the plane is?? One would think they are essentially the same thing, as far as the ball crossing the plane goes.

Because the end zone line is clearly seen and there can be no instance of the ball being 10,20.30 feet away from the line as it can the goalposts, which are only so high. And the officials are standing directly below them with no interference of view like at the goalline. It's clearly a judgement call on high flying fieldgoals. Camera angles are not straight on view of the posts either.

But why wouldn't they put a camera on the goal posts?? I guess it takes a situation like this to make them change a rule, but I would think they would mount cameras on the posts so they can clearly see when a ball passes through.

 

[MojoDawg]

... Many of the Browns walked off in stunned silence after Dawson's kick. Several Cleveland players, however, insisted Dawson's kick hit the curved center support behind the crossbar. They gathered in the end zone, pointing at the spot where the football struck before bouncing back.

They were right. After a lengthy discussion, the officials ruled the kick passed through the uprights and called the teams back onto the field.

Referee Pete Morelli had announced over the public address system that he would "take a look at this play" before he went to the review booth and manned the headphones to replay assistant Howard Slavin. According to league spokesman Greg Aiello, Slavin told Morelli that he couldn't show him the kick because field goals are not reviewable under the rules.

Morelli proceeded to further discuss the kick with his crew and Aiello said one of the back judges, Keith Ferguson, "felt more strongly" that the ball had crossed through the goal posts. Morelli based his reversal on Ferguson's opinion.

Referring to the initial call, Morelli said, "It was a ruling by one of the officials. The other official informed me that the ball hit the back of the extension of the goal post. ... We determined that was what it struck. Therefore, it made the field goal good."

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=271118033