Pittsburgh-Baltimore call reversal

[Phishfan]

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

[StL FinFan]

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

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

[fyo]

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).

[YoFuggedaboutit]

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. 

[fyo]

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).

[run_to_win]

^^^ 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.

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.

[fyo]

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

True?  False?

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.

[run_to_win]

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? 

[bsfins]

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....

[stinkfish]

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.

[StL FinFan]

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.

[run_to_win]

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.