Stupid Pitt play

[BuffaloWings]

Two feet = one ball?

 

Actually, I guess that makes sense. If a guy makes a catch at the back of the endzone where he reaches over the back line and drags his feet, it's a TD. I guess we just aren't used to thinking of it from the perspective of the front of the EZ.

Because in the back of the end zone, the ball...obviously...has crossed the plane of the goal line.

 

In the front of the end zone, they need to be sure the ball crossed the plane. I don't see why it would be any different on this play. There was also possession...I didn't think the receiver had it until he came down, when the ball was not across the plane. I think the refs got this one wrong - they made an assumption about the play when I don't think there was enough visual evidence to give Pittsburgh the TD.

[Simon]

Yup, at the core it's a rules question. If two feet and possession (without breaking the plane) is NOT a touchdown, than it was a bad reversal. But that's what the ref specifically said in his explanation of the reversal, hence my original post on the subject.

If the ball doesn't break the plane it's not a TD, regardless of possession or where any part of his body is. That's a hard and fast rule.

I think the reason he threw that into the explanation was that a) it's not considered possession until your feet touch the ground and b) he was trying to establish possession the millisecond the ball touched the WR (because his feet were already on the ground) before momentum carried him clearly outside the plane.

I agree he had no business overturning the head linesman's spot, which I thought was exceptionally good.

[KD in CA]

So if theoretically, a QB rolls out (and his LT makes a block -- ha ha) reaches the sideline and throws on a line whereby the ball is out of bounds during the whole pass and a WR in the endzone reaches over and catches it (still over the out of bounds territory) but with both feet in bounds, that is not a TD? Seems like there's a disconnect here somewhere.

 

But if you guys are right about the rule, than it was a bad call. I expect we'll hear something about this from the league.

 

Personally, I would have liked to have seen that 4th and goal play.

[Simon]

So if theoretically, a QB rolls out (and his LT makes a block -- ha ha) reaches the sideline and throws on a line whereby the ball is out of bounds during the whole pass and a WR in the endzone reaches over and catches it (still over the out of bounds territory) but with both feet in bounds, that is not a TD?

 

If the ball was beyond the plane of the goalline when he caught it, it is a TD.

If he had to reach back outside the endzone to the 1yrdline, it's spotted at the 1.

 

Personally, I would have liked to have seen that 4th and goal play.

That is exactly what I said when he announced the overturn.

That was going to be a great play cuz I think they'd have gone for it.

[BuffOrange]

If the ball doesn't break the plane it's not a TD, regardless of possession or where any part of his body is. That's a hard and fast rule.

I think the reason he threw that into the explanation was that a) it's not considered possession until your feet touch the ground and b) he was trying to establish possession the millisecond the ball touched the WR (because his feet were already on the ground) before momentum carried him clearly outside the plane.

I agree he had no business overturning the head linesman's spot, which I thought was exceptionally good.

 

Particularly given that a Steelers 3rd&1 "1st down" run on their first FG drive was a clear half yard short but there somehow wasn't enough evidence to overturn that spot.

How Walt Coleman still has a job is sickening.

[KD in CA]

That is exactly what I said when he announced the overturn.

That was going to be a great play cuz I think they'd have gone for it.

 

I definitely think they were going for it on 4th. Too bad we missed seeing that one.

[ajflutie]

Particularly given that a Steelers 3rd&1 "1st down" run on their first FG drive was a clear half yard short but there somehow wasn't enough evidence to overturn that spot.

How Walt Coleman still has a job is sickening.

 

that was the call that was worse than the TD call.....

[MattM]

Who was the biggest beneficiary of all of this (after the Steelers, of course)? None other than the New England Cheatahs, who look to likely be out of the running for the AFCE title and now must rely on a wildcard birth they're chasing along with the Ravens. Had the Ravens won they'd likely have pretty much sealed the Cheatahs' fates--I'm used to seeing bad calls in their own games go their way, but this is a new low (as anyone watching that play saw, there was no way in h*ll that there was enough visual evidence to overturn the call on the field in Pittsburgh).....

[billygoats]

Could it be because the ball crossed the plane prior to the receiver establishing possession? So, that once he caught the ball, even though the ball was no longer in the endzone both his feet were. This would make the scenario just like in the back of the endzone. The ball crosses the line, the player catches it and gets both feet in the endzone even though the ball is across the out of bounds line as he establishes possession. In both scenarios the ball crosses the line prior to possession and is actually never in the endzone while the reciever has possession. But in both scenarios a TD is scored because the criteria of a TD are meant 1. The ball crossed the goal line and 2. the player established possession in the endzone.

[KD in CA]

Who was the biggest beneficiary of all of this (after the Steelers, of course)? None other than the New England Cheatahs, who look to likely be out of the running for the AFCE title and now must rely on a wildcard birth they're chasing along with the Ravens. Had the Ravens won they'd likely have pretty much sealed the Cheatahs' fates--I'm used to seeing bad calls in their own games go their way, but this is a new low (as anyone watching that play saw, there was no way in h*ll that there was enough visual evidence to overturn the call on the field in Pittsburgh).....

 

Hate to say it, but the Pats* are in a decent position to win the East. They play a realing AZ at home and than an obvious lock at Buffalo, so they will finish 11-5. The Jets and Fish both play on the road next week and then against each other, so one of them needs to finish with W-W to beat out NE*.

[Simon]

This would make the scenario just like in the back of the endzone.... In both scenarios the ball crosses the line prior to possession and is actually never in the endzone while the reciever has possession.

The difference is in the front of the endzone scenario the player never had possession while the ball was past the goalline, while in the back of the endzone he does.

 

And I just heard a TV talking head referring to an obscure rule referring to possession with feet in the endzone that he deemed to mean the goal plane was a moot point in this scenario.

I didn't notice what show/network/analyst it was but none of the other former players or coaches seemed to have know anything about it either.

I also caught a little of Harbaugh's postgame pressconference and he said during the review he asked the side judge if the ball had to break the plane in that situation and the ref told him Yes, it does.

Lots of conflicting analysis going around.

[ganesh]

I always thought the ball had to cross. Guess not.

 

The Ball needs to be in the same plane as the end zone line...It does not have to cross...The Steelers benefited from it in the SB too when Ben plunged in for the TD and the tip of the ball was in line with the endzone line.

[Tcali]

The Ball needs to be in the same plane as the end zone line...It does not have to cross...The Steelers benefited from it in the SB too when Ben plunged in for the TD and the tip of the ball was in line with the endzone line.

yeah but many claim that it didnt hit the plane of the goal line...no one says(exc that guy u r responding to) that it has to go over.The ball just has to touch the plane. This is commonly referred to as crossing the plane altho that is grammatically incorrect.

[olivier in france]

Whatever the call, it was a great game to watch. Defensive football at its best IMO. It's, i think , the fourth time i saw the Steelers this season, and their D is really something... Hard fought football each time... i really like that team... wish we could have that kind of warriors bunch...

[R. Rich]

Big Ben is looking very JPish in this game.

 

 

Which way:

 

A. The ZERO turnovers he had?

 

or...

 

B. The 7-11 for 89 yds, 1 TD when his team absolutely needed it?

 

 

The guy didn't look great for the entire game, but he also didn't cost his team a win by turning the ball over. I can only wish any of our QBs would play the same way.

[Cookiemonster]

Two feet = one ball?

 

Actually, I guess that makes sense. If a guy makes a catch at the back of the endzone where he reaches over the back line and drags his feet, it's a TD. I guess we just aren't used to thinking of it from the perspective of the front of the EZ.

At that point, the ball has already crossed the goal line, in the Pitt game, the ball never broke the plane of the goal line,

and if it did, to me, there did not appear to be indisputable physical evidence to over turn it. If the call on the field was a touchdown, then it should stay that way, but the call on the field was not a touchdown. They do what they want. They are the NFL, remeber?

[Beerball]

Which way:

 

A. The ZERO turnovers he had?

 

or...

 

B. The 7-11 for 89 yds, 1 TD when his team absolutely needed it?

winning %

[stuckincincy]

winning %

 

It's a 2005 deja-vu-all-over again, like the Jerome Bettis Victory Tour.

 

PGH is this seasons' chosen darling, replacing NE*.

 

Did you see that 1st down during the game, clearly short of the mark that the BAL coach challenged yet awarded to the Steelers?