yet more questionable bullshit ... Ravens vs Steelers ... Steeler receiver catches the pass, with his feet in the endzone but the ball does NOT break the plane of the goal line as he was running back into the field of play ... it is ruled as down at the half yard line, which was the correct call from what I saw
after review, it is ruled to be a touchdown because, as the idiot zebra said "the receiver had both feet down in the endzone, it is a touchdown" ... he never mentioned the ball, or that it had or had not broken the plane, so it would appear he was too f*cking stupid to realize that in fact was a key part of the play
now come on ... I have seen this type of play in many other games too, and just because the feet are in the endzone doesn't make it a TD unless the ball is too, or at least breaks the plane
the Steelers would have probably kicked the field goal and gone into overtime, or maybe they would have been ballsy and went for it ... but from what I saw, there was no way the original call should have been overturned as there was absolutely no indisputable evidence ... and the ref's explanation it was a touchdown simply because his feet were in the endzone was clueless at best
I'm not a fan of either team, so have no interest one way or the other ... but how can these officials continue to be so increasingly stupid even after watching the replay?
more clueless shit from NFL officials
Moderator: wab
-
Otis Day
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8076
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:43 pm
- Location: Armpit of IL.
- Has thanked: 122 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
Saw that as well. Felt replay was inconclusive and call should have stayed no TD, ball at the 1/2 yd line. That was one of those under 2 minute reviews. Replays dudes blew it.
-
Xee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3866
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:47 pm
- Location: Hoffman Estates, IL
- Has thanked: 66 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Found a good article on the play and replays in general:
Patrick McManamon: Upon further review, NFL replay system should go
By Patrick McManamon
Beacon Journal sports columnist
POSTED: 02:38 p.m. EST, Dec 15, 2008
The NFL's replay system is a joke.
It's such a joke it actually puts a writer from Northeast Ohio in the position of defending the Baltimore Ravens.
Let's face it, there's no way that last pass to Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Santonio Holmes on Sunday should have been called a touchdown by replay. Perhaps it could have been called a touchdown live, but not by replay.
The call on the field was not an obvious mistake that needed to be corrected. It was a close call that could have gone either way, which means the call on the field should have stood.
Only the NFL can take the words ''obviously correctable'' and ''clear visual evidence'' and make them meaningless.
Nobody knows what these referees see when they go under those hoods, but I'm starting to wonder if it's not the producer of 60 Minutes telling them via closed-circuit to get a move on.
Either that or old Foghorn Leghorn cartoons. ''I say, I say boy . . . '' Foghorn actually makes more sense than these refs announcing replay decisions.
On Sunday, the Steelers trailed the Ravens 9-6 in the final minute. Ben Roethlisberger — could this guy be an MVP candidate? — rolled left, then back right and found Holmes right at the goal line.
Holmes reached for the ball, got both his feet down in the end zone and landed at about the 1-yard line.
Head linesman Paul Weidner, standing on the goal-line, ruled Holmes never crossed the plane with the ball, a key criteria in determining a touchdown. Weidner gave the Steelers the ball three inches short of the goal line.
It appeared to be as accurate a call as any guy could make in the heat of the moment.
Especially since the official had to look around a Ravens defender to get a clear view. It also set up what would be a fascinating fourth-down play, when surely the Steelers would have gone for the touchdown.
But the replay official upstairs signaled for referee Walt Coleman to take another look, and he did.
Now, the point of replays, as explained in the original meeting when the rule was passed, is to correct the ''obviously wrong'' calls.
It's to find ''clear indisputable evidence'' that a call needs to be changed.
The league even put in a time limit of 90 seconds to watch a play so the game would not be delayed.
The rule made sense. Take a quick look, see if the call was right or wrong and fix it — provided it was obvious. As NFL coach Mike Holmgren once said, correctly and accurately, it's the kind of thing where 50 guys in a bar can watch the play and easily agree what they saw.
In my book obvious means ''with very little doubt,'' and ''clear.'' Dictionary.com calls it ''easily seen, recognized or understood'' and ''evident.''
The NFL rule book apparently has its own definition: Something we can decide after looking at a film in super-slow motion with those ridiculous gizmos that draw lines on the screen determining where things are as they move in super-slow motion.
Replay was never designed to be treated like the Zapruder film. It's not supposed to be broken down frame by frame.
It's designed to correct the obvious wrong call right, and it's designed so that officials can watch the tape and quickly decide what the call should be.
If there is not evidence to overturn, the call stands.
Walt Coleman, Gary Coleman and Coleman Young could each look at the replay of Holmes' catch 100 times, and they might see the ball break the plane of the end zone on 51 of them. But that's not obvious, which means it's not enough to overturn.
Walt Coleman overturned it.
In some ways this should not be surprising.
This is the same guy who robbed the Oakland Raiders of a sack and turnover in the snow in New England in the infamous playoff game in 2001.
Because of Walt Coleman we now have the infamous ''Tuck Rule,'' which is just some more gobbledygook put forth in the NFL rule book.
That rule states a quarterback can throw, decide in mid-throw he's going to put the ball away because the receiver is not open and not be charged with a fumble if it's knocked loose because the original motion was to throw.
You thought an IRS tax form was tough?
That decision in New England cost the Raiders a playoff game. This decision in Baltimore might cost the Ravens a playoff spot.
Guys work all week, spend countless hours and days and weeks lifting weights to prepare, then fight their hearts out on Sunday only to be done in by some dopey referee under dark of the replay booth making a judgment on a game of speed based on a super-slow-motion replay of a play.
Said Coleman: ''He had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line.''
Balderdash.
There simply was no way to make that judgment. Less, of course, Coleman had a microscopic view of things — or a plane to catch.
Football is a fast game played by strong men who move quicker than seven-year-olds going between houses on Halloween.
Players will make mistakes. And so will officials.
The replay system as first instituted made sense. Make reviews quick, don't quibble over the fine lines and fix the calls that are obviously wrong.
But the way it's evolved, replay has become a farce, a caricature.
Judgments are made on the finest of lines. It's like that annoying kid with the black glasses in seventh grade who always had to point out that the way the teacher graded problem seven on the math test might be wrong because he didn't multiply by two on the seventh addition.
Everyone remembers that guy.
If games and playoff spots are going to be decided on fine-line criteria on slow-motion replay, the NFL would be better off without replay.
If it can't use replay for its original purpose, it's time for replay to go.
Patrick McManamon: Upon further review, NFL replay system should go
By Patrick McManamon
Beacon Journal sports columnist
POSTED: 02:38 p.m. EST, Dec 15, 2008
The NFL's replay system is a joke.
It's such a joke it actually puts a writer from Northeast Ohio in the position of defending the Baltimore Ravens.
Let's face it, there's no way that last pass to Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Santonio Holmes on Sunday should have been called a touchdown by replay. Perhaps it could have been called a touchdown live, but not by replay.
The call on the field was not an obvious mistake that needed to be corrected. It was a close call that could have gone either way, which means the call on the field should have stood.
Only the NFL can take the words ''obviously correctable'' and ''clear visual evidence'' and make them meaningless.
Nobody knows what these referees see when they go under those hoods, but I'm starting to wonder if it's not the producer of 60 Minutes telling them via closed-circuit to get a move on.
Either that or old Foghorn Leghorn cartoons. ''I say, I say boy . . . '' Foghorn actually makes more sense than these refs announcing replay decisions.
On Sunday, the Steelers trailed the Ravens 9-6 in the final minute. Ben Roethlisberger — could this guy be an MVP candidate? — rolled left, then back right and found Holmes right at the goal line.
Holmes reached for the ball, got both his feet down in the end zone and landed at about the 1-yard line.
Head linesman Paul Weidner, standing on the goal-line, ruled Holmes never crossed the plane with the ball, a key criteria in determining a touchdown. Weidner gave the Steelers the ball three inches short of the goal line.
It appeared to be as accurate a call as any guy could make in the heat of the moment.
Especially since the official had to look around a Ravens defender to get a clear view. It also set up what would be a fascinating fourth-down play, when surely the Steelers would have gone for the touchdown.
But the replay official upstairs signaled for referee Walt Coleman to take another look, and he did.
Now, the point of replays, as explained in the original meeting when the rule was passed, is to correct the ''obviously wrong'' calls.
It's to find ''clear indisputable evidence'' that a call needs to be changed.
The league even put in a time limit of 90 seconds to watch a play so the game would not be delayed.
The rule made sense. Take a quick look, see if the call was right or wrong and fix it — provided it was obvious. As NFL coach Mike Holmgren once said, correctly and accurately, it's the kind of thing where 50 guys in a bar can watch the play and easily agree what they saw.
In my book obvious means ''with very little doubt,'' and ''clear.'' Dictionary.com calls it ''easily seen, recognized or understood'' and ''evident.''
The NFL rule book apparently has its own definition: Something we can decide after looking at a film in super-slow motion with those ridiculous gizmos that draw lines on the screen determining where things are as they move in super-slow motion.
Replay was never designed to be treated like the Zapruder film. It's not supposed to be broken down frame by frame.
It's designed to correct the obvious wrong call right, and it's designed so that officials can watch the tape and quickly decide what the call should be.
If there is not evidence to overturn, the call stands.
Walt Coleman, Gary Coleman and Coleman Young could each look at the replay of Holmes' catch 100 times, and they might see the ball break the plane of the end zone on 51 of them. But that's not obvious, which means it's not enough to overturn.
Walt Coleman overturned it.
In some ways this should not be surprising.
This is the same guy who robbed the Oakland Raiders of a sack and turnover in the snow in New England in the infamous playoff game in 2001.
Because of Walt Coleman we now have the infamous ''Tuck Rule,'' which is just some more gobbledygook put forth in the NFL rule book.
That rule states a quarterback can throw, decide in mid-throw he's going to put the ball away because the receiver is not open and not be charged with a fumble if it's knocked loose because the original motion was to throw.
You thought an IRS tax form was tough?
That decision in New England cost the Raiders a playoff game. This decision in Baltimore might cost the Ravens a playoff spot.
Guys work all week, spend countless hours and days and weeks lifting weights to prepare, then fight their hearts out on Sunday only to be done in by some dopey referee under dark of the replay booth making a judgment on a game of speed based on a super-slow-motion replay of a play.
Said Coleman: ''He had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line.''
Balderdash.
There simply was no way to make that judgment. Less, of course, Coleman had a microscopic view of things — or a plane to catch.
Football is a fast game played by strong men who move quicker than seven-year-olds going between houses on Halloween.
Players will make mistakes. And so will officials.
The replay system as first instituted made sense. Make reviews quick, don't quibble over the fine lines and fix the calls that are obviously wrong.
But the way it's evolved, replay has become a farce, a caricature.
Judgments are made on the finest of lines. It's like that annoying kid with the black glasses in seventh grade who always had to point out that the way the teacher graded problem seven on the math test might be wrong because he didn't multiply by two on the seventh addition.
Everyone remembers that guy.
If games and playoff spots are going to be decided on fine-line criteria on slow-motion replay, the NFL would be better off without replay.
If it can't use replay for its original purpose, it's time for replay to go.