The League

And this call was just idiotic. The feet don't need to break the plane, the ball does. That's what you expect from bad luck baltimore, but wow. Steelers get homefield on that call? I can't believe it.

I think things were better when there was no instant replay. If you can't get it right then why waste all the time. This season has been evidence that things were better off before. Football seems like a courtroom nowadays with all the review and discussion. Just let them play the game. Sometimes you get a call some times the call goes against you. In the end it all evens out.

The evidence was in no way conclusive? How do you know? I have no idea what the referees were looking at when they overturned this call. Do they have access to camera angles that t.v. viewers don't? Take a look at the overhead camera view and then tell me it wasn't a touchdown. But, of course, that won't stop Raven fans from playing lawyerball. Why didn't they win? Perhaps it had something to do with recovering a fumble at the 16 and having to settle for a field goal, or not having your quarterback get sacked and lose the ball so that they end up out of field goal range, or just perhaps the much hyped Raven defense could have stopped a 90 yard drive with three minutes left in the game. Wouldn't want to blame the team for losing, would we? That wouldn't be the Baltimore Raven Fan way. It's always the referees who are to blame.

Lionel,
I am a Ravens fan and the Steelers beat them yesterday. You don't win football games when you don't score a touchdown. However, the question is about the officiating and whether the call should have been overturned. The rule is that there should be conclusive evidence that the call was wrong. If you watched the entire game, there was a challenge earlier in the game about a spot and Walt Coleman would not overturn the call because he said it was not conclusive. How he could say the TD call was conclusive and not the earlier call, only God knows. I guess it just depends on what your definition of INDISPUTABLE is.

Page 776 of the rules digest in the NFL fact book reads: "A player with the ball in his possession scores a touchdown when the ball is on, above or over the goal line." What I saw in all the replays is that the ball was clearly on the goal line when both of Holmes feet were in the end zone. Am I missing something?

Head of officials in NY backed up the ref, telling Peter King that there was "conclusive evidence" to overturn the on-field ruling.

Recall earlier the same ref rejected the Raven's challenge on the spot of the ball for a first down when I believe it was Russell rushed on 3rd & 1.

While I agree with the TD call (not the 1st down one), I think the NFL will eventually be forced to adopt certain aspects of the NHL system, where NHL HQ monitors all of the games and oversees all official reviews -- mostly for goal/no-goal situations. There is just too much money and emotion riding on these games to allow even one blown call to stand.

How come I know the rules better than the refs? This is just ridiculous. "His feet were in the endzone". What????? And the "ball was clearly over the goal line". Really? Man, that should not have been a touchdown because there was no clear evidence to overturn the call on the field. That's the rule, plain and simple.

I wish all you Media analysts would learn to read, it should be a requirement since you write for a living.

THe rules as per the NFL rulebook state:

NFL rulebook:

"The plane of the goal line extends indefinitely, and remains active so long as ANY part of the BALL CARRIER remains in bounds and crosses the goal line.

"A receiver is deemed to be in possession of a catch when both feet touch down in bounds while the receiver demonstrates control of the football.

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

Please do some reasearch before chastising anyone about something you know little about. I make 30,000 a year and i can do your Job better than you apparently for alot less than what you make!

All comments I have read have some merit. The ball was clearly right above goal line as Holmes completed possession although the one earlier comment that how can you say that is inconclusive is reasonable. Your comment that the refs were definitely wrong is improper. What is totally ridiculous is your comment the the refs "gave" the Steelers the AFC North title. The Steelers played great defense and had a great drive. Even if the TD call does not stand, the Steelers have the ball at the 3 inch line and would have easily snuck it in.

Man, how I love to see the Ravens' fans whine!

I can't understand how so many people who are discussing this topic, including many sportscasters who should know better, can't grasp this simple play call.

1. The ball CLEARLY DID break the plane of the goal BEFORE Holmes began to catch it.

2. The ball was brought back over the goal line while he was in the process of catching it.

3. His feet remained in the end zone.

4. He maintain possession all the way to the ground.

Now......

Let us change the scenario only to make the sideline in the endzone the line that was crossed.

If he had caught the ball with the ball being outside the sideline, but kept his feet inside the endzone, what would it be?

A touchdown.

It is exactly the same ruling here.

The ball crosed the goal line.

It was caught by a receiver who maintained possesion with his feet in the end zone.

Touchdown.

The ball does not have to break the plane a second time.

This is really not that hard a call.

Once the referee saw in the replay that the ball HAD crossed the line all he had to do was confirm that the receiver's feet stayed in the end zone.

Move on.

Not to mention that 1st down the Refs gave them earlier and didn't even bother bringing out the chains. This game looked crooked to me and I'm an Eagles fan, so I could really careless about the outcome.

It was the right call. Because it's impossible to make the wrong call if you have instant replay. At least that's what they tell me.

Well Gene, are you going to admit you got it WRONG? Or just leave your inaccurate column up there?

Oh yeah, this is the WahPooh, so I guess I know the answer to that one....

This is crazy... this is more hatorade. Walt Coleman, DID say that the ball broke the plane of the goal line. It is obvious, that you want to perpetuate a plain lie. The officials did not GIVE the Steelers anything and everyone, even those who disagree, say it was the right call, just not indisputable. Now, if HD TV shows that the ball is across the goal line AND that Holmes' feet was down, how can he just say no TD, when he knows it is.

Now people like you want to call it a bad call and take the credit away from the Steelers and their awesome 92 yard drive against a nasty defense. To whine about a game that is now in the books is just useless. You're only doing this to get the bad taste out of your mouth, but it doesn't work does it?

Let me help you: The Ravens LOST and the Steelers WON. Period!

Looks like there are more then a few folks that don't know how to read. It's called a rule book, and from Peter King on down, read it before letting emotion over run your position.

Can I now have a pay raise as well?

"The ball CLEARLY DID break the plane of the goal BEFORE Holmes began to catch it. The ball was brought back over the goal line while he was in the process of catching it....

...The ball does not have to break the plane a second time."

So, Tromba, if there is a fumble and the ball rolls into the end zone, then gets knocked back out and is recovered at the one yard line, it is a touchdown? That's crazy talk.

As you are apparently unaware, the 'Plane of the Goal' runs across the front of the end zone, perpendicular to the length of the field, and has nothing to do with the two sidelines and the backline in the endzone.

Receivers routinely catch passes where the ball is out of bounds, but their feet (sometimes - spectacularly - just their toes) are still in bounds. There is no 'plane' when it comes to the sideline, however there has to be a plane when it comes to delineating the endzone from the field of play. Thus, your second scenario is invalid, despite your over-eager presumption of the contrary.

Just wanted to mention a point Bill Belichick recently made about the replay system. He advocated that the NFL should specifically place cameras aimed across each goal line, and others aimed up the sidelines, so that the referees would have access to a standard set of views of every play. The current NFL replay system is an appendage of the TV coverage. At best, coaches can only guess at whether an appropriate replay exists before throwing a challenge flag, and at worst, a bad call stands because there is no camera view to capture the error. Sounds like a good idea to me. It's time to professionalize the instant replay system in the NFL, and take it out of the hands of the TV producers...

Hey, all you Ratbirds fans...

Read this!

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

All you can do now is dream of a Wild Card Berth! Get over it! Move on.

Go Steelers!

For what it's worth, and from watching the frame-by-frame replay, I think the initial call was wrong and that it WAS a touchdown -- but I think overturning it was wrong too because you are supposed to have "indisputable evidence" that the call was incorrect, and I don't think the evidence was there.

But, being a Steelers fan, I'm happy anyway.

For all those bent out of shape over a simple blown (or not) call: get a life. Why do these bimbos take these silly games so seriously when we are losing the country? Not enough beer in their diet?

livingthrudying: "Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player"

You made that up!

That is NOT in the NFL rulebook. Among other things, it violates the definition of a touchdown, which involves the ball breaking the plane of the goal line.

I have a hard time arguing with the call. I think in all honesty that one or two inches of the ball WERE over the top of the goal line when Holmes caught it. But I think that the proper call was still "inconclusive; the call on the field stands."

clearly a touchdown. he had possession inside the endzone - touchdown, period!

the commentators were the morons here - it was obvious - yet they didn't think he was in ... gimme a break hire new color commentators for these games.

HE SCORED.

GO STEELERS

Plane? Don't you mean plain? or was it meant to be a clever play on words? In either case it is another sign that we grow dumber as a nation every day.

They are using an intentional misspelling as "plane" as in the rule that the ball must break the plane of the goal line for it to be a touchdown. Personally I think the bigger issue is that the Ravens defense should have prevented the Steelers from marching the length of the field during that final drive.

The replay showed that the ball (at its most forward progress) was caught by the player on the goal line. He didn't bobble it, and he got both feet down. That is a TD. Period. It was the right call. Just b/c it was close doesn't mean it's a "bad call". So Peter King and Pencil-neck Collinsworth and the Plastic Haired Buffons Dan Patrick and Keith Obermann, and all the whiners/complainers out there don't get a say. Unless you are the ref under the hood, your opinion about what is "conclusive" or not doesn't matter - THAT is the rule.

LionelMandrake-
The oficials don't have access to cameras we don't see. What to you think, their are secret NFL cameras in the stadium? Also, the 'overhead camera' was blimp at 3,000 ft. and was over the center of the field.

Earlier, the 3rd down play was challanged and the ruling was obviously wrong, but CBS did not have it's camera on the line of scrimmage, so there was no definitive angle.

This isn't about costing the game, it's about making the right call. You are a moron.

"Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."
Please do some reasearch before chastising anyone about something you know little about. I make 30,000 a year and i can do your Job better than you apparently for alot less than what you make!
Posted by: livingthrudying | December 15, 2008 1:00 PM

Sorry buddy, but you are the one who is wrong.

That rule is meant only to cover the situation of the player catching the ball w/feet in the end zone, AND falling out of bounds. It has NEVER been used to mean that you can catch the ball before the end zone and still score. That would be contrary to the other rule that the ball MUST cross the plain of the goal line.

As you can see by the officials revamping his opinion after the game, and the league's later explanation, the 2 feet in the end zone was dropped in the explanation. It is fully irrelevant. A touchdown in scored even if not a even finger nail of the player enters the end zone so long as the ball touches the goal line.

This was written by another blogger:
Looks like there are more then a few folks that don't know how to read. It's called a rule book, and from PETER KING on down, read it before letting emotion over run your position.
Can I now have a pay raise as well?
Posted by: nstein1 | December 15, 2008
***********************************
I did not believe that Peter King would have made a comment supporting the belief that the rule book allowed for a touchdown w/o the ball crossing the goal line so I looked at Peter King's comments on today's S.I. site. Here is a sample of what he said on that subject,
"The replay rule mandates indisputable visual evidence to change a call -- if 20 people are watching a play, they see the same thing. THIS WAS NOT ONE OF THOSE PLAYS." (emphasis added)

Sorry nstein, perhaps you have a coworker named P. King, but it's not the one who writes for SI. The ball MUST cross the plain. If you want to argue that it did, fine, but don't site a fictional rule claiming that the ball need not cross the goal line, and don't say that it was obvious. Too bad about your not getting that pay raise!

The call was a good call. Two feet in and the ball broke the line! That's That. Baltimorons don't see straight when it's not their Ravens. I couldn't care less who won that game but Ravens fans would be crying foul if it was their WR and it was reversed. GOOD CALL!

I'm a Steelers fan and I'm not sure Holmes got the ball over the end line. I don't think Gary Russell got the first down either. I also think that James Harrison was being held constantly and it was never called. Bad refereeing happens and this season it seems to be happening more than ever. The League needs to address this immediately. The instant replay rule does not seem to be working, either they just get it wrong, they don't know the rules, or certain plays are not eligible for review even though the replay clearly shows what happened. The system is busted and maybe it should be junked or majorly overhauled. As it stands right now it is messing up the game.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

This is just more sour grapes from the hometown GNUSpaper of the Deadskins.

Just review the play and you can clearly see the Steelers did indeed get a touchdown.

The Super Steelers didn't need the win, they were still going to the playoffs, again. But now they have a bye and home field advantage.

Don't expect much from next week's game though. Pittsburgh has a slight incentive to win and get home field advantage straight through to the Super Bowl. But no one wants to get hurt either.

After all, the winning strategy is to get into the playoffs with as many healthy players as possible.

Speaking of healthy players, hey Dannyboy, during the off season, how many superstars are you going to lure away from other teams with multimillion dollar contracts, and then next season turn them into has beens and bench warmers?

Just asking.

Now that's a winning strategy.
HA!

The camera angle was to the right of the goal line, so it looked like the ball touched that magnificent plane by a few millimeters. If you could center your view on the line (mind you, where the line judge who made the initial call was standing), then I am not sure that is what you saw. Furthermore, feet down only matter when you are falling out of bounds, not back into the field of play. I would trust the line judge over an off-center camera angle. Regardless, there was not indisputable proof to overturn it, and the ref by citing the feet down rule made it seem like he did not understand what he was supposed to be lookign at.

The Steelers were given the benefit of the doubt on an earlier third and one challenge that was even more ridiculous. Apparently to this particular game ref, the Steelers project an aura that extends three feet beyond where their physical bodies end.

I am not really a fan of either team, but stuff like this makes me really hate football and want to turn it off for the rest of the season. Which is what I am doing.

They could just put a chip in the ball to determine these things. Even if it is on the fritz sometimes, it would be extremely valuable times it is working.

I applaud Ray Lewis for his comment that the call did not win or lose the game for Baltimore. Lewis is far from my favorite player in the NFL, but his comment is evidence of a true leader on the field.

The fact is that you play precisely to make certain that calls like that don't affect the outcome of the game.

I was looking forward to seeing the Ravens in the playoffs though. Defense like that is very impressive to see in action.

I still want to know what the rule is. The ref said two feet in the end zone with possession.

I admit it is not conclusive the ball crossed the line -- actually it only had to touch the vertical plane at the front of the line.

Which is it officially? Does two feet in the end zone with possession trump breaking the plane?

You can email me at barrydbowen@yahoo.com if you have a definitive answer. I don't want opinions, I want soneone who knows the rules.

If the refs got it wrong, there should and may be sanctions.

The gambling syndicates have got it made, life is good, and so is the money....

With refs in your pocket and the NFL sanctioned "replay" to make positive that the refs control the winner... not the players on the field?

How many outright "examples" do you need? Every week there is another.... and another.... and another.

In the early going the announcers were giving us their "lock of the week" winner!

It sure didn't take long for that to come to a screeching halt with failure after failure. What a joke!

Which is it officially? Does two feet in the end zone with possession trump breaking the plane?

Posted by: barrydbowen | December 16, 2008 10:57 AM
*******************************************
Barry, you only need to pay attention to the written opinion given well after the game. There, the ref did not state that the feet in the end zone was an issue, only that he had control and he "believed" that the ball crossed the plane.

Your confusion and everyones is due to the ref messing up the original explanation and talking about the feet in the end zone. He's the same guy who made the infamous "tuck rule" call. I definitely don't believe that he should be a lead ref, he seems to choke under pressure.

The rules are more complicated than they need to be. Everyone who's ever been in a playground football game knows that you don't need a rulebook the size of a phone book and a crew of officials as numerous as either of the teams on the field. And what do you get with all this folderol? The ball is in play for twenty minutes; the rest of the time (three hours!) is spent huddling, arguing, or waiting for commercials to end.

There are dozens of ways to simplify the game. The endless measuring, challenging, bickering, etc., about where to spot the ball would be ended by simply putting a transducer inside the ball and locating it radiometrically. But no, that isn't done. Long ago, Bert Bell decreed that we have to keep this primitive system of flags and chains (like 18th-century surveyors!) and seat-of-the-pants guesswork.

Ok.... let me clear this all up for you folks.
The reason you are confused about this call is simple. The ref was answering one question and you are asking another.

The question the ref answered is is this:
Was he in the end zone and was it a catch?

The questin you are asking is:
Did he have control while the ball was breaking the plane?

To him there was no question that the ball broke the plane and that the player had control so he did not answer that question. He did not go into the review to see if the player broke the plane, he went into the review booth to see if the player had control and if he was in the end zone.
The question was about the placment of the ball. When he reviewed, he saw enough evidence to prove to him that the ball should be placed on the goal line... hence a TD.

He made the right call. You are just asking the wrong question.

As to did the ball actually break the plane? Yes it did.

We took the sideline video, parsed it out and there is no doubt that the ball did break the plane by a half ball length.

Did he have control?
How else could the ball have moved backwards if he did not have control? Again, from the front view it is seen that the player had control from the instant he caught the ball. It did not bounce off his head. It did not bobble between his hands. It was grasped at contact and therefore a catch at the point of furthest travel... which was 1/2 of the lenght of the ball over the goal line plane.

It was a good call, and a legit TD.
Thanks

It was grasped at contact and therefore a catch at the point of furthest travel... which was 1/2 of the lenght of the ball over the goal line plane.
It was a good call, and a legit TD.
Thanks

Posted by: cmartin4 | December 16, 2008 1:44
*************************************************
Really, you were able to see that "1/2" of the ball was over the goal line all from your seat in your living room? Amazing!

So why is it that several football people including Chris Collingsworth and Peter King to name two, who make a living discussing this stuff, say the opposite from you? As I said, Amazing!

The reason he reversed the call beyond conclusive evidence was because he didn't know the rule. When he said his feet were in the end zone, that was wrong. It doen't matter where your feet are or where any part of your body is. It's where the ball is when your down. The only maybe tough call is when your out of bounds when the ball crosses the goal line. But if your not down then the ball can cross the goaline when it's out of bounds.