The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Was anyone else watching the game live or see it during the highlights? I really didn't see any evidence to overturn the call no matter how it was called on the field. The spirit of the replay rule is indisputable evidence and this call was far from it in my opinion.

It looked to me like the ball broke the plane of the line.  If you consider the flight path of the ball, the catch was made when it changed direction from towards the end zone to away from the end zone.  If that's true, then as long as the ball breaks the plane during the play, its a TD. 

I agreed with the reversal but the replay was kinda sketchy.  It was hard to tell.  Of course there's probably Ravens' message boards all over the web calling bullshit on that one. 

I'm curious what the NFL will say.  I think this is a good argument for high-speed replay (a.k.a. super-slow-mo) for the refs' hood.

That is my point. The replay rule is for indisputable evidence. You just made my case.

I didn't thinnk there was "conclusive" evidence to show the ball touched the line. It was close but not obvious as I couldn't distinguish betwen his arm and the ball.  I would have left it as was made on the field.  

I also didn't understand how the "spot" challenge earlier wasn't reversed in that game.  

I have to admit I was stunned they overturned it from being a no-touchdown ball at the 1 inch line to a touchdown.

It didn't seem to me that the ball ever crossed the plane of the goalline, but also I blame Big Ben for spiking the ball on 1st and goal.  They had ample time there and if he didn't waste that down, we might not be talking about this. 

I didn't make your case at all.  I said sketchy, as in it wasn't clear but you could still make out colors, and there was clearly brown (ball) between his hands (white gloves) above the white line.  If the ball never cleared broke the plane of the line, how did the brown color get there?

It wasn't crystal, it was streaky, but it looked like a TD to me.

^^^Maybe we are using the word "sketchy" in different ways, but the use of that word made me believe that there was a doubt as in it was "sketchy". If there is a doubt you are not suppose to overturn the call on the field. Thus you made my point unless you mean sketchy in some other way.

I meant sketchy as in "not crystal clear because the camera was moving as the action was happenning.  Maybe "streaky" is a more accurate term.

Agreed.  Didn't look indisputable.  Some teams get those calls as Tommy likes to say.

Does anyone really think they would not have scored a TD if the ball was placed one inch from the goal line?

Maybe not, considering it was 4th down

Yep. Who knows?  Ravens D is nasty so it makes it interesting and it was in Baltimore so the stadium would have been rockin'.  It wouldn't have been a cake walk.

If this is true, then they should not have been down in the red zone in the first place.

What, you've never seen a goal line fumble?  "You gotta fight for every inch!" 

This is why I have to disagree with the call reversal.  There has to be INDISPUTABLE evidence in order to overturn a call.  By you saying the replay was "sketchy" or "streaky" you're saying that the evidence was not INDISPUTABLE. 

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Just because you can't see a clear outline of a ball, doesn't mean its indisputable.  How would you get a brown streak between two white streaks over the goal line if the ball wasn't in that spot at some point?

(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c69/b-rock19/pittsburgh.jpg)

You may not think its "indisputable," but if you watch the replay, you can clearly see the nose of the ball sticking over the goal line.  It didn't get it by much but it just has to break the plane. 

^^

That's a touchdown!

He has to have posession of the ball. Simply having it between hands does not mean there was a catch at that time.

the ball is in his hands,  his feet were on the ground.  the ball didn't come out when he hit the ground. at what point does it become a "catch"?  the "football move" rule was removed...

I never saw it myself, but there have been claims of a slight bobble.

i dunno, it looks clean to me.

Maybe it is not indisputable, obviously, since so many people are arguing about it.  It seems like they need a better replay system, possibly with permanently-mounted high-speed cameras at the goal line on both sidelines, high above the referee's head, simply for occasions like this.  This one single play has a huge bearing on the season, specifically the playoffs, and it all hinges upon a blurry panning shot of a bang-bang play.

You're right, maybe they do need a better system.  But for now, it's too hard to tell, therefore the call should not have been reversed.  And I'm not a fan of either team. 

The problem with the idea of "indisputable evidence" is that pretty much any play can be disputed.  There's always something that could be argued regarding when the ball actually secured, especially on a play where you're talking about inches on a spot.

I think they need a 3D system, where multiple (high speed) camera angles are used to generate a final 3D scene where the refs can rotate and get exactly the angle they want. Quickly. Play it, freeze frame, rotate to the angle you want.

In the short term, as a solution that could be implemented EASILY, RIGHT NOW, I wish they would sync all the cameras *really* well and provide side-by-side shots under the hood so the refs can get multiple angles instantly. As it is now, they switch between angles and "kinda feel" where the ball was when the knee hit the ground from another angle.

Let's just put sensors in the ball and across the goal line and take humans out of the equation all together.

This is something I was discussing earlier today.  Similar to the system they have in Tennis or maybe like the "k-zone" in baseball.  Seems like its something that would be easy enough to implement.  We have the technology, it'd be nice to put it to use.

I was being facetious.

I was not, I think its a good idea.  Take the guesswork out of it.  If you had a computer-graphic image of Santonio Holmes standing there with the ball in his hands, there'd be no question.  The concept of "indisputable evidence" goes out the window.

Has the "two feet in the endzone with possession of the ball" explanation been dismissed? 

^^^ Yes it has been clarified by the referee.

That is on a catch in the endzone not a catch and run or run into the endzone.

NFL Total Access "Official Review" with Pereira on the reversal:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80d68f82

I think the video shown makes a solid case for indisputable evidence. I didn't earlier, but it looks pretty solid here. I do wish they'd show it in high-def (the replay booth uses high-def this year). Even if their studio equipment during *this* broadcast cannot, you can always just use the high-def feed to zoom in and then show that (basically just cropping the high-def to fit on standard).

Funny thing is, there were two big controversial calls this year (this one, and the Ed Hochuli blown fumble call), that could very well decide two division races. 

I don't think it's fair to say that this reversal "decided" anything. Baltimore would still have had to prevent a touchdown from the 1 inch line. I'm assuming the Steelers wouldn't have kicked a field goal to force overtime, but instead have gone for the win (much higher percentage - OT is 50/50, 1-inch-line... much higher).

I'm not sure what this means.

Clarified how?  Yes or no?  It was a catch in the endzone ... wasn't it? 

The explanation I heard was "if the receiver has both feet in the endzone with possession then it's a touchdown". 

True?  False?

This is one of those rules that no one has ever heard of until it's needed ... much like the tuck rule, or no pass interference when the QB has left the pocket.

False.

Listen to the NFL VP of Officiating (see link in previous post). He clearly states that the ball needs to break the plane of the endzone.

Where the heck did  "if the receiver has both feet in the endzone with possession then it's a touchdown" come from?

As long as he lands in bounds, what's the big deal about having both feet down? 

To determine "if it's a catch" he has to have both feet in bounds,and demonstrate control of the Ball though out....

The ref should have given a better description of that catch. He didn't say anything about the ball having to break the plain. All he mentioned was that the receiver had possession.

If you catch the ball in the endzone you have to have both feet down and possession before you go out of bounds.  Any other catch, the ball only needs to break the plane of the goal line.

On a diving or falling catch the feet may never touch the ground until the player gets up.  Seems that the feet are only relevant going out of bounds, and even then not in every case.