The NFL has it both ways ...

[MTSuper7]

I don't mind the challenge system for replays, but officials are so scared chitless of making mistakes at the end of the game that they review WAY too many plays. The Holmes catch was certainly worth a review, but I would argue that half of the plays reviewed in the final two minutes of either half are not close enough calls to even warrant review.

 

As for this specific play, I agree with Grits... The call on the field should only be overturned when there is obvious evidence on the replay that the call was wrong. As this board has demonstrated, the replay wasn't obvious. And the officials simply invented a new rule when they said that two feet in the endzone with possession = TD. The ball always has to cross the plane.

 

Is is just me or does it seem like officials like to invent new rules on the fly? Anyone here see Brandon Minor's pylon TD in the MIchigan - Michigan State game this season?

[Big John]

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.

I don't like it at all. It shows a computer image instead of an actual photo or video. I don't trust those at all.

[AtomicCEO]

I don't like it at all. It shows a computer image instead of an actual photo or video. I don't trust those at all.

 

Yeah... remember when Fox put the glow on the hockey puck? It was always off by a little bit.

[NavinRJohnson]

Well, there is no new rule. As Denny Green would say, it is what we thought it is...the ref saw the ball break the plane.

----------

 

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."

More details in tomorrow's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

 

First published on December 15, 2008 at 2:29 pm

[Azazello1313]

I thought he had possession while the ball was over the goal line, and it should have been a TD. if the best argument you've got is that it may have been ovr the goal line, but it is not "incontrovertible" or whatever, to me that is a weak argument. you've got crystal clear evidence to make the ruling one way or the other. you stick with the call on the field when the video replays don't have a clear angle allowing you to overturn the call. but a really close play is not the same as one where the replays you have access to are inconclusive. this is one rare instance where the NFL's statement reflexively backing the judgment of their official makes perfect sense to me.

[Jackass]

I thought he had possession while the ball was over the goal line, and it should have been a TD. if the best argument you've got is that it may have been ovr the goal line, but it is not "incontrovertible" or whatever, to me that is a weak argument. you've got crystal clear evidence to make the ruling one way or the other. you stick with the call on the field when the video replays don't have a clear angle allowing you to overturn the call. but a really close play is not the same as one where the replays you have access to are inconclusive. this is one rare instance where the NFL's statement reflexively backing the judgment of their official makes perfect sense to me.

 

I agree with the above. It looked like a TD to me. I think the argument is that some think the overrule should only be if there's 100% certainty and i can see why some would make that argument. On the other hand, 95% certainty or thereabouts, which is what it seems to me in this instance seems good enough for me to accept an overrule.

[Grits and Shins]

I thought he had possession while the ball was over the goal line, and it should have been a TD. if the best argument you've got is that it may have been ovr the goal line, but it is not "incontrovertible" or whatever, to me that is a weak argument. you've got crystal clear evidence to make the ruling one way or the other. you stick with the call on the field when the video replays don't have a clear angle allowing you to overturn the call. but a really close play is not the same as one where the replays you have access to are inconclusive. this is one rare instance where the NFL's statement reflexively backing the judgment of their official makes perfect sense to me.

 

First off I disagree that he had possession of the ball in the end zone. He came out of the EZ to make the catch and it was ruled no TD on the field. Then the replay official did not say a single word about the ball breaking the plane. He said the WR had possession of the ball with two feet down in the EZ. All the stuff about the ball breaking the plane came this morning when the refs realized that the rules require the ball break the plane NOT that the feet be down in the EZ.

 

The simple fact that there is a debate at all today on whether or not the ball broke the plane means the call should not have been reversed. The evidence was not clear enough to reverse the call. And I'd be saying the exact same thing if they had ruled TD and reversed the TD.

 

If ten people watch the same replay and half the people see it one way and the other half see it the other way this is not irrefutable evidence. But apparently the ref.s are making it up as they go.

[NavinRJohnson]

First off I disagree that he had possession of the ball in the end zone. He came out of the EZ to make the catch and it was ruled no TD on the field. Then the replay official did not say a single word about the ball breaking the plane. He said the WR had possession of the ball with two feet down in the EZ. All the stuff about the ball breaking the plane came this morning when the refs realized that the rules require the ball break the plane NOT that the feet be down in the EZ.

 

The simple fact that there is a debate at all today on whether or not the ball broke the plane means the call should not have been reversed. The evidence was not clear enough to reverse the call. And I'd be saying the exact same thing if they had ruled TD and reversed the TD.

 

If ten people watch the same replay and half the people see it one way and the other half see it the other way this is not irrefutable evidence. But apparently the ref.s are making it up as they go.

 

Agree 100%, the refs are back-peddling at full speed now. The Ref saw possession and 2 feet down in the endzone and reversed the call based on that. Just like he said on Sunday. Now, on Monday, we've got a new story. Plus, look at this picture that I referenced earlier. http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2008-12/43876070.jpg Holmes is 5' 11' his tiptoes are on the goal line and his body is stretched over the field of play. I don't know how one can claim, indisputably, that he had possession of the ball in the endzone.

[Squeegiebo]

Plus, look at this picture that I referenced earlier. http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2008-12/43876070.jpg Holmes is 5' 11' his tiptoes are on the goal line and his body is stretched over the field of play. I don't know how one can claim, indisputably, that he had possession of the ball in the endzone.

 

Unless you are claiming that this photo is of the first instant that he had possession, then it is not relevant.

[NavinRJohnson]

Unless you are claiming that this photo is of the first instant that he had possession, then it is not relevant.

 

It's before Reed hit him, so it's pretty close to the first instant....

[Squeegiebo]

It's before Reed hit him, so it's pretty close to the first instant....

 

No it's not.

[Vet]

He never had possession of the ball in the endzone.

 

The initial call on the field was correct.

 

There was not sufficient evidence on the replay to overturn the call.

 

The refs overturned it anyway.

 

The Steelers got a cheap, undeserved win. (Another!)

 

I'm glad they did.

[Rovers]

Here is my understanding of it:

 

In order to have possession, he must get 2 feet down and with control of the ball. Then, at that instant, if the ball so much as grazes the ANY PART of the white line of the end zone, ANY part of the white line that is the goal line, that breaks the plane.

 

I've watched the replays at least 30 times. At the moment his second foot came down, the ball was about an inch over the white goal line. I see the play the same way the ref saw it. Close, but definitely a TD.

 

This is rare, but I agree with the overturn ruling this time. I think the ref got it right.

 

That photo in this thread is WAY after the point as which possession was clearly established. Basically, as to the ruling, that photo is meaningless.

[AtomicCEO]

In order to have possession, he must get 2 feet down and with control of the ball.

 

Did you think he had control of the ball the very instant it hit his hands? Or did he have control when he tucked it into his body?

 

If control happens the instant it hits your hands, then there should be a lot more fumbles and a lot fewer incomplete passes.

[Grits and Shins]

Did you think he had control of the ball the very instant it hit his hands? Or did he have control when he tucked it into his body?

 

If control happens the instant it hits your hands, then there should be a lot more fumbles and a lot fewer incomplete passes.

 

This is where I am.

 

Establishing the exact time when he had control/possession of the ball is purely subjective. I can't count how many times I've thought a WR made a catch but it has been ruled an incompletion by the ref. So in this instant the ref has to establish EXACTLY when the WR had control/possession of the ball AND had to determine at that time if the ball had broken the plane. I will never believe that by reviewing the tape there is irrefutable evidence that Holmes had control of the ball while in the end zone ... especially since if the ball was EVER in the end zone it was by the merest of centimeters.

 

The ref on the field never even considered the plane of the end zone. He specifically said both feet were in the end zone when the WR caught the ball and therefore it was a TD. He didn't know the rules and blew the call.

[Vet]

I've watched the replays at least 30 times. At the moment his second foot came down, the ball was about an inch over the white goal line. .

 

Incorrect.

 

The camera angle you saw was not right on the goal line.

 

You can't tell from any of the angles shown on television if the ball was over the goal line when the receiver obtained possession of the ball.

 

Inconclusive evidence. By rule, the ruling on the field stands.

 

Unless you're the Steelers, of course.

[kcmast]

If ten people watch the same replay and half the people see it one way and the other half see it the other way this is not irrefutable evidence. But apparently the ref.s are making it up as they go.

I thought that the replay was so close the original call should have been upheld (no matter which way it was initially called). Half the time I thought he was in and then on the next replay I thought maybe not.

Edited December 16, 2008 by kcmast

[kcmast]

Incorrect.

 

The camera angle you saw was not right on the goal line.

 

You can't tell from any of the angles shown on television if the ball was over the goal line when the receiver obtained possession of the ball.

 

Inconclusive evidence. By rule, the ruling on the field stands.

 

Unless you're the Steelers, of course.

Good point. Camera angle may have looked like it was on the goalline, but if it was slightly off the "in by an inch" could be deceiving.

[Grits and Shins]

Here is a link to the video : http://blacksportsonline.com/index/2008/12...oversialtd.html

 

I've watched it several more times ... I still do not see the irrefutable evidence.

 

Again .. you can hear the referee specifically say that it is a TD because the WR had possession of the ball with two feet in the end zone.

 

The ref didn't know the rules and blew the call.

[Grits and Shins]

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afcnorth/0-1-30...-the-plane.html

 

Tomlin himself did not see conclusive evidence when he reviewed the coach's tape.

[Vet]

Good point. Camera angle may have looked like it was on the goalline, but if it was slightly off the "in by an inch" could be deceiving.

 

 

I was watching the game, and at one point they actually showed a replay taken from the blimp!

 

I had to laugh outloud at that.

 

Now were going to have to start doing triangulation analysis - figure out the exact coordinates and altitude of the blimp at the exact moment of possession, and calculate whether or not the ball broke the plane of the goalline while the receiver had possession.

 

Please.

 

Inconclusive. The ruling on the field stands.

 

Unless, of course, you're the Steelers.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Vet

[AtomicCEO]

Unless, of course, you're the Steelers.

 

Your avatar indicates that you are not good at letting things go...

[Vet]

Your avatar indicates that you are not good at letting things go...

 

I just haven't gotten around to changing it yet.

 

Avatars aren't a big deal to me.

[Skippy]

Unless, of course, you're the Steelers.

It's good to be the Steelers. It is good to be a Steelers fan. I mean why do they even bother showing up for the games when it is so obvious that after a 92 yard drive they will give the game to the Steelers instead of putting them on the 1 inch line.

 

I love the refs cause I am a Steeler fan.

 

I am pretty pissed at the one that did not call all the holding on Harrison though. Is he not with the program or what?

[Menudo]

It's good to be the Steelers. It is good to be a Steelers fan. I mean why do they even bother showing up for the games when it is so obvious that after a 92 yard drive they will give the game to the Steelers instead of putting them on the 1 inch line.

 

I love the refs cause I am a Steeler fan.

 

I am pretty pissed at the one that did not call all the holding on Harrison though. Is he not with the program or what?

 

Don't worry, it's being taken care of.