Yes
No
Growing up there was a feature on Monday Night Football telecasts titled 'IBM's You Make The Call". The feature was relatively simple, they would show a snippet of NFL game film and then ask the viewer what the officials call on the field should have been. An IBM commercial would air, allowing the viewer 30 seconds or so to mull it over in their head, then the the conclusion of the play and the official's actual ruling would be made known letting the viewer know if what they thought the call should be was correct or not.
There is a reason why we are bringing this out of mothballs today, and it deals with the conclusion of the Steelers-Ravens game yesterday. With Pittsburgh trailing by 3, 9-6, and about a half minute left in the game, Pittsburgh faced a third and goal from the Ravens 3 yard line. Pittsburgh's quarterback Ben Roethlisberger rolls to his left looking for an open receiver. With nobody open and the defense closing in, he rolls back to his right, where he spots Santonio Holmes standing in the end zone. Roethlisberger fires the pass and it is caught by Holmes, who is ruled down about three inches short of a touchdown. With less than two minutes remaining in a half, the video replay official has the authority to review any questionable play on the field and this one seemed to qualify, and in the replay booth it was determined that it was in fact a touchdown.
A couple of things of note here the first being that the game pitted two teams in Pittsburgh (10-3) and Baltimore (9-4) with playoff aspirations. A win by Pittsburgh and they clinch the division title (due to having a two game lead over Baltimore with two games to play and having beaten Baltimore twice), a win by Baltimore and both teams would be tied in the division with two games to play. Second, the only way a replay official is supposed to overrule the call on the field is if there is conclusive video evidence that the original call is wrong. If the video is not conclusive, then the call on the field should stand. Third is the rulebook, which states that "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)."
The video replay official overturned the call on the field and awarded the Steelers a touchdown with 26 seconds remaining in the game and the Steelers would go on to win 13-9 and clinch a playoff spot by winning the AFC North Division title. But does the following video evidence constitute enough proof that the officials got the call on the field wrong, that is did the ball (not the player) at anytime touch the goal line while in possession of the receiver and is the video conclusive enough to overturn the call (not a touchdown) on the field?
I'll make this even more confusing if posible, in the very same rulebook (by the way I am using the 2006 Official Rulebook, finding a current one online is like trying to find the Holy Grail) it is a touchdown when "while inbounds any player catches or recovers a looseball on or behind the opponent's goal line" which would suggest that the ball may not have to break the plane if the receiver was beyond the goal line when the ball was caught.
ReplyDelete*whoosh*
ReplyDeletethat's the sound of this entry going over my head. lol
I have been commenting over at the Shutdown Corner blog on Yahoo, this call has already generated almost 1200 comments and while I was first saying it shouldn't have been overturned, I am starting to regret that poll vote, as I think the rule in the first comment was the one at play here, as the call after review was that the player had both feet down in the endzone. That being said, I think I worked haredr on research for this piece of relatively inane trivia than I have on most of my blog posts recently.
ReplyDeletewell I'm just sorry that I don't understand enough about the game to make an intelligent comment, seeing as you worked so hard on this (but I still have no inclination to learn lol)
ReplyDeleteI'll try to be as precise yet as simple as possible regarding the dilmena. There are two rules that come into question. On one hand, when a player is trying to advance a ball, in order to score, part of the ball must break the plane of the endzone, or in laymen's terms, part of the ball must be touching the white line seen above. The other rule is that if a player catches a pass and has both feet in the endzone, then it is also a touchdown even if the ball doesn't touch the white line, as long as both feet come down in the endzone. It is very convoluted and many people, myself included have been mixing up the rules throughout the day trying to figure out what was meant. After watching the video and listening to the replay officials ruling, I believe he is saying that because the player caught the ball and had both feet down in the endzone it is a touchdown. Mind you the referee who originally made the call was using the breaking of the plane standard, that the ball in fact never at any time after the catch touched the while line.
ReplyDeleteAll of this would be moot save for the time and implications of the call, with so little time on the clock and a win by Pittsburgh guaranteeing them a playoff spot or a win by Baltimore leaving both teams tied in the division at 10-4 (mind you both teams would be in good shape for the playoffs, but nothing would be guaranteed) with two games left to play, getting the call right is sort of a big deal.
i saw one replay that showed he had his feet down and the ball had broke the plain (it only takes the tip of the ball )...yet other angels show it differant
ReplyDeleteI get that when ruling on the ball breaking the plane only a tip has to touch the goal line in ordre for a touchdown to be ruled on the field, but when the referee came back with the replay booth's ruling, the booth said nothing about the ball breaking the plane at all, just that the player had two feet down in the endzone, which is when I saw the "loose ball" rule I originally commented about. I should note that the league staes that a losse ball is any ball that is not in a player's possession, so a forward pass is considered a loose ball (not to be confused with a fumble, though a fumble is a type of loose ball) until a player either catches it or it falls to the ground as an incomplete pass.
ReplyDeleteDon't those 2 rules contradict each other? One is saying the ball has to pass the line and the other says no it doesnt the player jus has to have both feet inbounds?
ReplyDeleteI say he got the touchdown jus on the grounds it caused such an uproar and the simple fact that it wasn't my Sooners playing so I didnt really care who won! lol
this is the way i see it.......
ReplyDeleteon passing plays the ball has to break the plain of the endzone ....but it does not have to be in possesion of a player at the time it crosses !
if a player catches the ball outside of the endzone while keeping his feet in the endzone it is a touchdown as long as the ball breaks the goal plain before the catch.
this is exactly what happened on this play.
the reason this play was reviewed was only to check if his feet came down before the ball. i believe that unlike the commentators the refs saw that the ball broke the plain.....hence the ref did not offer an explation concerning the goal plain,becuse it was not an issue
after listening to this i believe the commentators screwed this up big time ...they make it sound like he needed to gain posssesion while the ball was in the endzone !!!
ReplyDeleteThe rules are confusing, which is why it caused such an uproar. A player attempting to advance a football must have the ball break the plane, but that wasn't happening here, at no point did the receiver attempt to go forward, had he come out of the endzone to make the catch then he would have to break the plane of the goal line, but he never did, his feet were in the endzone when he made the catch, thus it becomes a forward progress issue, where was the player located when he made the catch and forward progress ended, he was clearly in the endzone, thus why the replay official said he had two feet down in the endzone, touchdown, that was all he needed. If location of the football were an issue in relation to the field, receivers could not make plays along the sideline where they lean out and pull the ball in while getting both feet in bounds, because as soon as the ball would cross the sideline, it would be out of bounds and therefore incomplete, regardless of the position of the receiver on the field.
ReplyDeleteLike I said earlier, I originally said replay got the call wrong because I was working with the breaking the plane standard, I didn't see enough evidence in that regard to overturn the call on the field and it has to be conclusive the official blew the call in ordre to change it, which is why I hurriedly voted they got it wrong (I wish I could take that back), but by the loose ball rule and listening to the replay officials reason for the overturning of the call on the field, I think I rushed to judgement, I don't think the referee who made the original call was applying the appropriate rule, the plane is not the issue, the position of the receiver is.
ReplyDeletei dont think the original call was wrong , the ref placed the ball where it landed believing that holmes did not get his feet down
ReplyDeletecorrect me if i am wrong ,but did they not change the rule concerning when a defensive player pushes a reciever out of bounds without putting his feet down (it is no longer considered a catch) and would it have impacted the call of the ref on this play?
ReplyDeleteYou are correct the rule was changed, just this season in fact. From the NFL regarding 2008 rule changes......
ReplyDelete» Forceout rule: The forceout rule has been eliminated. A player who receives or intercepts a ball must land with both feet inbounds. This affords the receiver and defender equal opportunity to complete the play.
"We feel that with so many levels of judgment that go into the force-out call it creates a more consistent play when either you get your feet down for a complete pass or you do not," says co-chairman of the NFL Competition Committee Rick McKay.
Previously a player needed both feet down, unless the referee deemed that he was forced out of bounds by an opposing playing, in which case they needed just one foot down and it was the referee's judgement that the player would have gotten their second foot down had it not been for contact. I am not sure but I believe this rule has changed a few times in the past.
As for how this might have affected this particular call, welll first I think we can agree it would have been a catch regardless, because unlike a sideline catch, both feet were squarely within the field of play. That being said, if Holmes had only gotten one foot down in the endzone, the other coming down outside the endzone, I am not sure at that point that it is a touchdown, it certainly would be much harder for the replay booth to overturn the call, since the call from the video booth that he got both feet down would no longer be valid.