The League

Thanks Nostradamus for letting us know the Steelers were going to score if they went for it on 4th down. LOL

It doesn't matter what the rule is. I had no skin in that game, but if you looked at the replays looking straight down the line, at a point in the whole sequence the receiver had possession of the ball in his hands directly over the goal line. He may have first gained possession in his hands with the ball slightly outside the end zone -- like an inch or two -- but he pulled it over the stripe. I would estimate it was five to seven inches past the vertical plane where the white line began, meaning about half the ball had passed the plane. Both feet were on the ground about 18 inches in the end zone at that moment. (That really should have been irrelevant. Two feet down determines whether a catch has been made inbounds. There is no requirement that both feet have to have been down before or at the time the ball passed the plane of the goal line. When a runner is knocked out but touches the side of the marker with the ball, it's a touchdown because the ball by definition had to pass the plane to hit the side of the marker.) Of course, he fell with the ball more protected outside the end zone about a foot.

Split second? Sure, but that's irrelevant in slow motion. The ridiculous announcer tried to say he did not have possession until he had finished tucking the ball to brace for the fall, at which point his possession was outside the line, but there was no question whatsoever that he was merely transferring one form of possession (in his hands) to another form (tucking the ball) to brace for the fall and not lose possession on the fall. In slow motion replay, it was not even a close call. There is no requirement that possession means tucking the ball into a more secure position.

It is so annoying hearing announcers -- and almost all of them do this -- who have to talk-talk-talk all the time, and therefore make their confident declarations before they have seen everything -- and then refusing to back off when careful look shows they are dead wrong. That was incompetent announcing, whoever it was, and if I recall it correctly, gutless announcing by the color guy who didn't noticeably agree but did not challenge the main guy. The only possible way it was not a touchdown was if there was a bobble while he was transferring the ball to a more secure place for the fall. I saw absolutely none, he looked in complete control of the ball, and I have heard nobody say that.

There was nothing conclusive about the provided replays to warrant a reversal on the 4Q call by Coleman. But when you combine that decision with Coleman's failure to re-spot the call on the Ravens challenge of a first down earlier in the game (what could he have possibly been looking at not to overturn the spot), something has to be done with these old men, part-time referees controlling the action of the largest professional sports league in the world.

Challenge reversals are up this year, every announcer is softly questioning calls (if the networks were not partners with the NFL the legitimate criticism would be deafening - no excuse for the print media's silence), and no one seems to concerned about the situation. I believe this is a bigger problem than the recent baseball steriods problem.

Remember, San Diego would be leading the AFC West if Hochuli didn't screw the Denver game up in week 2. But the NFL is more concerned with the Pacman's of the world and fining players for making football plays than the integrity of their officials. Yet unlike the NBA, they refuse to publish referee assignments prior to games. That stinks.

Auggie2 you are a typical air headed steelers fan. read the rule book. THE BALL MUST CROSS THE PLANE TO BE A TOUCHDOWN PERIOD. The reason why receivers catch the ball for a TD in the back of the endzone and drag their feet is because, THE BALL HAS ALREADY CROSSED THE PLANE at that point! Your team was given a gift. You better pray the Ravens to face the Steelers in the playoffs.

>Think about the number of times a pass >has been thrown outside the end zone and >the receiver caught the ball, DRAGGED HIS >FEET, came down OUTSIDE the end zone,

Mark, am I sensing a little bit of bitterness, I'm guessing due to the Ravens all out domination of the Skins last weekend? ;) Also your logic is flawed. 'Ravens weren't wronged' And then you go on to say they shouldn't have overturned what happened to be the most crucial, most important play of the game. Also I think you are the first person other than the ref to say they think the ball crossed the goalline. Even Steelers fans are admitting the call was blatently wrong. Also the Steelers were given a 1st down gift earlier in the game. I've seen the refs giving the Steelers breaks the last 3 games. Must be easy to win with all those breaks. On the other end of the spectrum the Ravens consistently get the short end of the reffing stick. Remember the roughing the passer penalty given to Suggs against the Titans, which if wasn't called would have ended the game with a Ravens W. On the reply Suggs never touched Collins! The NFL is starting to remind me of the WWE. Certain favorite teams continually get help to win by the refs. If this continues I'll stop watching. In the meantime Mark, don't be bitter. Baltimore isn't that far away from DC. Become a Ravens fan and you'll be a happier person.

auggie2

The ball has to cross the plane even if the ball carrier does not. You are busy ranting at everyone else but you are the one incorrect. In yesterdays skins game had Sellers stuck the ball across the plane of the goal line in any way before he fumbled it would have been a TD but he lost control of it before he could extend the ball.

With that rational every bad call at the end of a game is justified because the team on the losing end had opportunities throughout the game to change the outcome where it does not come down to that play. The ravens could have also stopped them on forth down or blocked the kick. If the call initially was 4th down and without conclusive evidence the call was changed to a touchdown then the ref did not follow the rules based on how they were supposed to be used in those kind of calls. If the replay does not show conclusive evidence then you stick with the call on the field. He should have called it a TD on the field not after the review because the review was not clear either way.

Definition of a TD

When any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, breaks the plane of the opponent?s goal line, provided it is not a touchback.

I don't know how REF could say without a doubt the player had possession while the ball was breaking the plane

Augie2, learn the rules. The ball has to cross the plane of the end zone. Remember that the plane extends out of bounds to eternity. Thus, if a receiver catches a ball that's out of bounds, but beyond the plane of the end zone, and he gets his feet down, it's a touchdown.

What do you mean they weren't wronged? Your "analysis" admits that the replay was arguable and thus BY RULE the call should not have been overturned. The refs blew it. And don't write cr*p about how the Ravens have only themselves to blame because they put themselves in that position, etc. That could be said of absolutely every single replay situation. Replay didn't work in this instance, and it could have drastic implications for the teams involved.

The air-headed commentators, writers, and Ravens fans have been making a big deal out of a red herring.
LISTEN UP! On a pass play, the ball DOES NOT HAVE TO BREAK THE PLANE OF THE GOAL LINE. That applies only to runners, or receivers if they become runners.
PLEASE USE COMMON SENSE!
Think about the number of times a pass has been thrown outside the end zone and the receiver caught the ball, DRAGGED HIS FEET, came down OUTSIDE the end zone, and the refs called it a TD. The review wasn't about whether or not the ball broke the plane- that was uniformed bs on the part of the announcers.
Remember that when the replay offical came back, all he said was, "The receiver had two feet in the end zone when he had position of the ball."
Now all you Ravens' fans, shut up. Besides, if it weren't a TD, you weren't going to stop us on 4th down. You had 92 yds. and you hadn't stopped us yet.

Why is there no microchip inside the ball? Considering all the technology and cash in the NFL, it seems pretty silly that this play (and many others this season) would need to come down to a judgement call. Obviously the refs are still in charge and will still have to decide when the ball is down, but when it comes to the ball breaking the plane of the endzone, there shouldn't be any guessing involved. Not only did pro tennis figure this out a few years ago, but so did my local Giant to prevent cart theft.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/08350/935329-66.stm

Time to move on. Next?

Finally a sensible analysis of that play and the review. Thanks Mark.

Sorry, Mark, you're wrong. The bottom line is that there wasn't conclusive evidence to overturn the call, so it should have stood. The officials cannot apply the rules different ways in different situations (and for different teams).

Also, you cannot predict what would have happened next, meaning that you cannot guarantee 100 percent that the Steelers would have scored the winnng touchdown on the next play, especially against a defense as stout as Baltimore's. What if they had tried it and were thrown for a loss? What if they had kicked the tying field goal and given the Ravens a chance to score the winning points, or at least gone to overtime?

This was just the latest example of what a horrible year the NFL referees are having.