This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Yep, he blew it, no doubt. I'm just saying from that angle, it certainly appeared as if the ball came loose after he crossed the goal line. Guy has to make a call one way or another, he called it like he saw it. He was wrong, but to suggest he was on the take or involved in some conspiracy is ridiculous.
Which is a cop out. Is there a whistle when a TD is signaled? If so, the ball is dead. It's right there in the rule book.
Rule 7, Section 4, Article 2:
An official shall declare dead ball and the down ended:
when any official sounds his whistle, even though inadvertently.
This is why the refs have to absolutely err on the side of fumble, not TD or down by contact. You can't fix this. You can fix it the other way. It has to be a built in mentality of the refs. Ball gets loose and you aren't 200% sure, rule a fumble.
I apologize for the crybaby comment. I just get tired of fans (of all teams) blaming the officials when their team loses.
If the ref couldn't see the ball, he had no business ruling that it crossed the plane. It's as simple as that. The refs screwed up big time, and it had nothing to do with the replay ruling.
I'm pretty certain they have established that if a fumble is not initially ruled, but a replay overturns the initial ruling and determines there was a fumble, the ball can still change possession if there was an immediate recovery.I want to say this goes back to the Denver-San Diego Ed Hochuli game in 2008 when Cutler fumbled and San Diego recovered immediately, but San Diego could not be awarded possession because the rules were as you describe here. It should have been San Diego ball with the lead, and would have almost certainly led to a Chargers win given the game situation. Instead, Denver was able to get the winning score on that drive.Which is a cop out. Is there a whistle when a TD is signaled? If so, the ball is dead. It's right there in the rule book.Rule 7, Section 4, Article 2:
An official shall declare dead ball and the down ended:
They did, but you're asking referees to look ahead to the potential situation and make a judgment call. To him, it appeared as if Ben had possession, crossed the goal line, and then lost the ball as he hit the ground. If that's what he thought he saw, ruling it a TD is the right call given the circumstances. Sure, in retrospect, it was a bad call, but these guys have to call them like they see them. They can't sit there and think.. "well, that sure looked to me like he crossed the goal line with the ball, then coughed it up after he hit the ground, which is a TD, but rather than calling it that way, I'll rule it a fumble just because it will be more easily correctable by replay if I'm wrong." That's a slippery slope. If it really was a TD, but for some reason, video evidence was not incontrovertible (happens all the time, players are in front of the ball at the point of impact and a clear view is unavailable) then you've just screwed the other team.Bottom line : officials need to call what they see, not what they think might be easier to correct later. Occasionally, a team will get the shaft like Miami did yesterday, but I'd still rather see the officials make what they believe is the right call, not cover their own tuchuses.
Viewing the replay from the sideline you could see that the ball did cross the plane. What you couldn't tell from that angle is that Roethlisberger had lost control of the ball. That was shown clearly in the replay from the endzone camera.I don't have a problem with the calls made by both refs on each sideline -- they both signaled TD because it did look line one. The problem I have with the rule is that they should keep the play alive long enough to see who comes out of the scrum with the ball.My guess is that will be a new rule next season...
The ref didn't actually see the ball cross the plane for a TD, because (a) it didn't and (b) he was shielded from seeing the ball cross the plane. If he didn't see it, he has no business ruling that happened. It's rather ironic that you are saying they have to "call them like they see them" and "call what they see".
Obviously I meant that they could see that it crossed the plane while in Roethlisberger's possession.Honestly, what is the difference between a play like this and a play where a RB drives into the middle of the line and the refs are shielded from view? They don't just immediately rule TD on those, they run in to see where the runner and ball ended up, confirm possession, or whatever before signaling TD.
Pretty sure the job of the refs on each sideline is to signal whether the ball crossed the plane. The ball DID cross the plane and it appeared from the replays from the sideline camera that Roethlisberger had possession. It wasn't clear when he lost possession until we saw the replay from the back of the endzone. From that angle it was clear he lost control of the ball short of the goalline.
It looked like he lost the ball after he hit the ground. That official had no reason to think otherwise. To him, it appeared to be a TD and he signaled it that way. He was wrong and it was a tough break for the Dolphins. That's really all there is to it. It's not like a play where an RB runs into a pile and the ref has no clue. From his perspective, it looked like Ben had the ball, crossed the plane, went to the ground, and then spit it up after the TD was scored.
And even from that angle, it was difficult to tell if it was short of the line or not. It appeared so, but it was also not directly overhead, so that can sometimes be misleading. It was only when that angle established that he lost the ball when he was hit, and not when he hit the ground, AND you compared it to the sideline replay that showed he was hit at the half yard line, that you were able to be sure that it was a fumble before he crossed the plane.
Because it wouldn't have mattered. Once a referee calls a Touchdown, the play is dead. It's a flaw in the system. Referees should wait until the conclusion of the play before signaling Touchdown, but in this case they didn't.
Thats wrong. Had the instant replay shown that MIA had recovered the fumble (EVEN after the play was "dead"), they would have been given the ball. The replay official just couldnt see who gained control. Now if they were really so interested to find out who recovered the fumble, why not ask the two (2) refs on the spot who were pulling players from the pileand had a MUCH better view than the replay booth (again, "Dead" ball or not).
You're arguing a different point. Yes, Instant Replay could have determined who gets the ball. But that has nothing to do with your original question ("Why didn't anyone ask the third and fourth officials?")There was no cause to ask the other officials, because the play was ruled a TD and therefore considered dead. Again, it's a flaw in the system.
Because I'm pretty sure it's not allowed. I don't think the NFL has a system in place for "conditional" rulings (i.e., "Just in case the play gets overturned, what's your ruling for all the stuff that happened after the play was ruled dead?") If the refs had done that, I think you'd see an even bigger uproar than what's happening now. The Pittsburgh players would argue that they stopped playing once they saw the ref's hands go up (as required by NFL rules).
Im not following your logic man.
