Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

The NFL has it both ways ...


Grits and Shins
 Share

Recommended Posts

If the ball breaks the plane of the EZ it is a TD regardless of where the feet are.

If the feet are in the EZ it is a TD regardless of where the ball is.

 

But in the regular field of play it is all about where the ball is and the feet don't matter (not out of bounds).

A WR can catch a ball that is out of bounds if his feet are in bounds.

 

This seems very inconsistent to me.

 

So I'm watching the BAL-PIT game and a pass is thrown to Holmes. Holmes comes out of the EZ to catch a ball. It is pretty clear that the ball was never in control of Holmes and across the plane of the EZ at the same time. There is some question about whether or not Holmes was in control of the ball with both feet in the EZ. Call on the field is no TD.

 

So while I disagree with the way the rules are written one thing seems clear to me ... there was not incontrovertable evidence to reverse the call on the field of no TD. Yet the call is reversed and it is a TD??????

 

If the same play had happened a couple minutes earlier with PIT out of time outs it wouldn't have been a TD either ... because PIT could not have challenged the call.

 

The whole instant replay thing is a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought he had control while the ball was touching the GL also. A bud watching the game with me saw it the other way, and neither of us had a rooting interest.

 

I didn't have a dog in that fight either ... but the fact that people can watch the same replay and make a different determination seems to speak loud and clear that there was not incontrovertable evidence to reverse the call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they showed the replay during the halftime show of SNF and froze the camera, it sure did look like he had control and the ball was even touching the white endzone line.

 

I think it was a TD.

 

Homer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was a TD. The end zone starts at the very front edge of the front of the white stripe. All the ball has to do is 'touch' the stripe and it's a TD. It doesn't have to 'cross' the stripe in terms of touching the green of the end zone. I thought it was clear the ball crossed into the white area of the stripe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a hard time telling exactly when "control" of the football is made, and a "catch" is ruled when watching the replays.

 

In the TV coverage, they always pause it right when it first hits his hands and the ball is barely on the goal line, but it almost looks like he re-clutches it on the way down. But it's really hard to say.

 

I don't doubt that many people would have different interpretations of this even with super high def super slow mo replays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a hard time telling exactly when "control" of the football is made, and a "catch" is ruled when watching the replays.

 

In the TV coverage, they always pause it right when it first hits his hands and the ball is barely on the goal line, but it almost looks like he re-clutches it on the way down. But it's really hard to say.

 

I don't doubt that many people would have different interpretations of this even with super high def super slow mo replays.

I agree. I mean if I was under the hood and saw what I saw with the replay, I would have called it a TD. I would not have had much of a problem with someone calling it at the two inch line but I would have thought that they were wrong.

 

I am kind of surprised that the line judge did not call it a TD right away but they showed him bending his head around a player trying to see so that may have caused him to not see it the right way.

 

The call that bothers me is not this one but the challenge over the spot of the ball when the Steelers gained a first down. I could not in any way shape or form see how they got such a good spot and unless they see something in that review booth that we don't, I just can not see it. No one mentioned that play though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would LOVE to see some form of what they use in Tennis (cyclopes I think) applied to the stripe of the end zone. I'm sure some would cry foul, but its a great system and it would a slam dunk way to establish whether or not the ball crosses the plain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a hard time telling exactly when "control" of the football is made, and a "catch" is ruled when watching the replays.

 

In the TV coverage, they always pause it right when it first hits his hands and the ball is barely on the goal line, but it almost looks like he re-clutches it on the way down. But it's really hard to say.

 

I don't doubt that many people would have different interpretations of this even with super high def super slow mo replays.

 

Which means the evidence is NOT incontrovertible. The referees are interjection to much subjective opinion in their rulings on replays. It should be black and white to reverse a call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the ball breaks the plane of the EZ it is a TD regardless of where the feet are.

If the feet are in the EZ it is a TD regardless of where the ball is.

 

But in the regular field of play it is all about where the ball is and the feet don't matter (not out of bounds).

A WR can catch a ball that is out of bounds if his feet are in bounds.

 

This seems very inconsistent to me.

 

I am not arguing whether it was a TD or not because I did not see the play nor a replay but, I don't really see what is inconsistent about what you said here.

 

You say a WR can catch a ball that is out of bounds so long as his feet are inbounds.That means that his act of catching a ball that is not in the field of play before it touches the ground or another player who is not in the field of play, while his feet remain in the field of play has in essence kept the ball in play and constitutes a catch within the field of play.

 

How is that different than a WR catching a ball that is not in the endzone while his feet remain in the end zone? Does that not constitute a catch within the endzone?

 

The only difference here is the idea that a player can score a td so long as the ball breaks the plane of the endline before the player is down or out of bounds regardless of where his feet are. This is no different than a player stretching out for a first down prior to being downed.

 

The new line of scrimmage is not where the player is downed, it is where the ball is when te player is downed. This is the same everywhere on the field.

Edited by Jrick35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concensus here was that it was not a TD. Ball never broke the plane. However, we were looking at it from the standpoint of what we have been told about three hundred billion times.... the ball must break the plane doesn't matter, where the player is. I am at total loss as to what the rule is now.

 

The explaination by the ref was a bit lacking too. He never addressed the ball being in the EZ or even touching the line.

 

This call is going to leave a mark for sure. No matter which way you believe the rule to be or not be.

 

But then questionable calls have gone the Steelers way for about 35 years or so..... as if the refs have a vested interest or something. (Always gotta get a dig in when I can...) LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what the Rule is now either. When the ref explained the reversal, he never even addressed the ball breaking the plane of the goal line. He only talked about 2 feet in the endzone and possession.

 

Great picture:

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2008-12/43876070.jpg

Edited by NavinRJohnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concensus here was that it was not a TD. Ball never broke the plane. However, we were looking at it from the standpoint of what we have been told about three hundred billion times.... the ball must break the plane doesn't matter, where the player is. I am at total loss as to what the rule is now.

 

The explaination by the ref was a bit lacking too. He never addressed the ball being in the EZ or even touching the line.

 

This call is going to leave a mark for sure. No matter which way you believe the rule to be or not be.

 

But then questionable calls have gone the Steelers way for about 35 years or so..... as if the refs have a vested interest or something. (Always gotta get a dig in when I can...) LOL

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

I am also now confused about the rule. If the ball must break the plane then we have something to discuss but I personally still think that the tip of the ball was in the white thus broke the plane and a TD.

 

If all he needs is control with two feet in the endzone, then we really have nothing to talk about here as that part is pretty clear, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

I am also now confused about the rule. If the ball must break the plane then we have something to discuss but I personally still think that the tip of the ball was in the white thus broke the plane and a TD.

 

If all he needs is control with two feet in the endzone, then we really have nothing to talk about here as that part is pretty clear, I think.

 

 

:wacko: My kid and I have been bashing heads over the Steelers for eons. I am on his ignore list here too.

 

This situation has definitely caused much confusion about rules and their interpretation as regards the EZ that is for sure.

 

This has been a season of some very interesting calls, mistakes, and reading of the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My $.02:

 

If the ball must break the plane while in the receiver's possession, I do not think it was a TD, and there is no way the call should have been overturned.

 

If it's a TD with the receiver having both feet in the endzone and catching the ball, then it was clearly a TD and they were right to overturn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me and the two other people watching it with me it looked like the ball did NOT cross the plane. That was both when we initially saw it in real time as well as ther freeze frame slow motion. Now, if the rule is the feet being in the endzone regardless of where the ball is, then I can see it being called a TD, but I was unaware of that rule, as I thought the ball had to cross the plane.

 

ETA, oh crap I actually agree with the abulance chasing lesbo.

Edited by Perchoutofwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My whole take on replay is simple. If you have to slow something down to 1 frame per 5 seconds and still can't make the decision, use the original call on the field.

 

Replay every 3 plays is but one thing that is making the NFL far less of a fun game to watch. If it's cut and dry to overturn, then fine. If you have to freeze-frame it from the f'n blimp in HD and draw some fake line to distinguish exactly where the goal line is and reverse angle it to see the ball, then let the refs decide. Jeebus.

 

He called it on the 3 inch line and I didn't see any replay that definitely showed the ball crossing the plane. I didn't know about the 2 feet in the endzone rule either. Silly little NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the instant replay was put into the game to correct calls, not slow the game down to a 4 hour cry baby fest.

 

These games are running over their time slots all the time and not in the fun OT playoff way.

Edited by WaterMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not arguing whether it was a TD or not because I did not see the play nor a replay but, I don't really see what is inconsistent about what you said here.

 

You say a WR can catch a ball that is out of bounds so long as his feet are inbounds.That means that his act of catching a ball that is not in the field of play before it touches the ground or another player who is not in the field of play, while his feet remain in the field of play has in essence kept the ball in play and constitutes a catch within the field of play.

 

How is that different than a WR catching a ball that is not in the endzone while his feet remain in the end zone? Does that not constitute a catch within the endzone?

The only difference here is the idea that a player can score a td so long as the ball breaks the plane of the endline before the player is down or out of bounds regardless of where his feet are. This is no different than a player stretching out for a first down prior to being downed.

 

The new line of scrimmage is not where the player is downed, it is where the ball is when te player is downed. This is the same everywhere on the field.

 

The difference is that the front of the end zone, the line, extends forever, past the pylons. So if a WR is on the sideline of the end zone, and is making a catch and gets two feet in, but the ball physically is out of bounds, then it's a TD since the ball has crossed the imaginary end zone line.

 

In this play, the question is whether the ball ever made it to the end zone while in posession of the WR. Yes, his feet were in the end zone, but to my knowledge, that shouldn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information