Ravens Waste Another Effort
Where do I start? That was such a disappointing loss. To sit in the stands and watch the Steelers move down the field, you just knew what was going to happen in the end. Just like the Titans game, I almost considered getting out of there on that drive to beat the traffic and miss the disappointing end that I knew was coming.
Such a conservative gameplan. What a piss poor defense the last drive. How can we rush only three guys and have our DB's play so far back when the reason we stopped them in the first 57 minutes was by playing tight and rushing hard.
Why did the Ravens open up the game with a third down rushing play with eight yards to go for the first down? Why then did we try to pass on that last drive when everyone, including the Steelers, fans and millions watching on TV knew it?
It seemed to me that Cam Cameron was almost afraid of the Steelers defense so he designed a gameplan focused on trying not to lose, much less win. The conservative approach made me look through my binoculars to the coaching box to see if Matt Cavanaugh had taken over. What got the Ravens to this point of the season seemed to be abandoned last night. We had opened up our offense, thrown downfield, made the big plays as well as the trick ones, only to leave them on the practice facility floor before heading to the game. Extremely frustrating.
Equally frustrating to me is the way we Ravens fans whine and complain after we lose a close one. Rather than accept blame and give credit, we try to put it on the officials for a questionable call. (NOTE: I am watching the highlights on ESPN as I type. Ouch!) What happened to the fact that they drove 90+ yards on our supposedly tough defense that just rushed three and sat back so far behind the Steelers receivers? Just as the Titans did earlier this season, we couldn't get the stop or takeaway that we have been able to do all season against the lesser opponents.
I was going to continue writing more about this, but rather than regurgitate the obvious pain we are all reeling from today, read the posting below this story by raven, a regular poster on Baltimore Beatdown, who says it all and covers the frustration for every Ravens fan, or click here.
0 recs |
155 comments
Comments
The reason
Our DBs were playing like that in the 4th is cuz Fabian had left with a hamstring injury… His punk ass lost us the game, we didnt have no1 else to stick Holmes, he had been shutting him down all game
Life is nothing but Beats & Rhymes
by Matchz Malone on Dec 15, 2008 1:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
and the excuse for Rolle playing so far off...
…that he didn’t even know the ball was caught by the guy he was “covering” is…?
Rexx
by Rexx on Dec 15, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I told you
everything got messed up because rex had to rotate the defensive coverage last minute… anyway how do you post a pick here is it HTML or like forum coding?
testLife is nothing but Beats & Rhymes
by Matchz Malone on Dec 15, 2008 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
HTML works fine.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The prevent defense is not always a bad thing. Like you said though, “playing not to lose”. If the ravens coaches wanted the team to win they would have tried to stop the steelers. Instead the prevent is almost guaranteed to let the steelers be in field goal position. The coaches invited the overtime and got burned in the process.
If it’s any consolation, which it is not, we used to watch the steelers do that all the time. Just not this year.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 1:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
So true.
While I’m very frustrated over the TD call, it was a blown game, in many ways, by the Ravens. I don’t see any reason why Rex wasn’t calling more blitzes and being more aggressive with the receivers. Ward caught several short passes that went for 10-20 yards each! Why didn’t they have a LB jam him at the line and then release him to a DB? I don’t know if that would have worked, but it’s clear to everyone that there was an utter lack of aggression.
On the other side, you absolutely must give the Steelers credit. That game must have been what it was like to play the Ravens in the 2006 season. I don’t fault Cameron as much as I fault Ryan. Alot of the offensive calls were good. We can point at the “busted” plays now, but they were busted by the Steelers. I’m not sure anything would have worked last night. That was the best defense I’ve seen since 2006.
by BAL_Hawk on Dec 15, 2008 1:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The normally unflappable Flacco seem rather flapped during the game. He seemed afraid to put it into tight windows the entire game. Personally I’d put that on the coaches not trying to calm him down and putting him into positions that he needed to be perfect. The runing game averaged in the upper 3 yard range. Two runs to start drives would make it so much easier on a QB but they never really did that when it mattered most. That and not blitzing on the last drive probably cost the Ravens the game.
Either way great game and I hope to not see you all again in this season.
by archon095 on Dec 15, 2008 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can't agree that Flacco was "flapped"
His throw to Mark Clayton late in the game when we thought we were getting into field goal range before Cam playcalled us out of it was agreat throw into coverage. I just don’t think that the playcalling was good at all. Too many times Flacco had to throw in obvious passing situations that Cameron put him into and the Steelers defenders were ready. Throwing on third down rather than second played right into their hands. Way too conservative.
Rexx
by Rexx on Dec 15, 2008 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There is NO WAY tthat ball is across the white line. There is a good INCH gap between the ball and the goal line.
Life is nothing but Beats & Rhymes
by Matchz Malone on Dec 15, 2008 3:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
you have to watch a video, that is only one shot, a freeze in time, if you like half a second earlier or exactly when he catches the ball, it is over the line.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but you can't tell conclusively
if both of his feet are touching the ground with ball over the line…. even in the motion shot.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
read the link below i posted
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Look at the one I posted...
it has a high quality version.
(below)
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not the Rule...
The rule verbiage in the vid you posted is NOT THE RULE. The ball DOES have to break the plane.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I should post a youtube video just making shit up like that one.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
oh really, now look at here and see who is making shit up
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“To score a touchdown, the ball must be carried across the goal line into the end zone, caught in the end zone, or a fumble recovered in the end zone, or an untouched kickoff recovered in the end zone by the kicking team”
That line in your video is nowhere on that page. Not to mention it says “caught in the endzone” caught referring to THE BALL meaning the ball must have broken the plain
Life is nothing but Beats & Rhymes
by Matchz Malone on Dec 15, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah it is
you either have to break the plane with the ball or catch the ball with possession and your feet in bounds, the ball doesnt have to break the plane then.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The ball has to break the plane.
If the ball does make into the endzone it’s not a TD.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/beginnersguidetofootball
TOUCHDOWN = 6 POINTS
A touchdown is the biggest single score in a football game. It is worth six points, and it allows the scoring team an opportunity to attempt to get an extra point. To score a touchdown, the ball must be carried across the goal line into the end zone, caught in the end zone, or a fumble recovered in the end zone, or an untouched kickoff recovered in the end zone by the kicking team.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and it had to explain what a touchdown is to people like you guys
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stop making an ass of yourself and go read the complete rulebook. Or we could just keep quoting stupid shit off of the nfl.com site like this:
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions
"Touchdown: 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. "
Oh, I guess you’re wrong because on that one totally unofficial page it says you are. Wait, does that contradict the link you posted on the same site? I think it does. What do we do know, maybe you can post another awesome link off of nfl.com that is different.
I can’t wait!
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that is another way to score
there are multiple ways, that one is stating when a touchdown is scored, it clearly states that you can catch the ball in the endzone and a touchdown is awarded, of course your definition is a touchdown also. But the according to your definition and my definition, both means there was a touchdown as the ball was caught in the end zone and it broke the plane.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
did it actually break the plane
with official possession?
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
when you draw a line
from goal line to goal line, on the first milisecond he has possession of the ball then yes.
if you have a hi-definition tv you can see that.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
officially
possession is not awarded until two feet (or one knee if you’re John Madden) contact the ground.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it doesnt contradict
In fact he proved himself wrong when he posted that.
“Caught in the endzone” is referring to the ball, which was the noun in the statement. So some part of the ball must have been in the endzone for it to be a TD
Life is nothing but Beats & Rhymes
by Matchz Malone on Dec 15, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The question then becomes
What is “caught in the end zone?” Is a ball caught in the endzone when only a players body part is in the endzone and not the ball… or does possession actually have to occur inside the plane of the goal line? That’s a vague description of a TD.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it says
you can get a touchdown by not getting any part of your body in the endzone except by getting the ball across the plane, that is one way.
another way is to recover a fumble in the end zone
another is to recover an untouched kickoff in the end zone
and another is to catch a ball in the end zone while you are in the end zone with possession of the ball.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it’s just like if you catch the ball in the corner and the ball never crosses the plane but your feet are in the endzone and you knock down the pylon. as long as you catch it in the endzone its a touchdown.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Front corner or back corner.
If its back corner the ball does break the plane on the way to the receiver. If it’s the front corner and your body lands on the pylon with your feet in the endzone but your hands out of the endzone it’s not a TD.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/beginnersguidetofootball
show me a rule that says that if you catch the ball in the end zone it is not a touchdown then.
i clearly see the rule stating if the ball is caught in the end zone then it is a touchdown. Holmes is in the endzone, and he catches the ball while in the end zone so touchdown.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Again... from the "Rule Book for Dummies"
THE FUMBLE
When the ball carrier or passer drops the ball, that’s a fumble. Any player on the field can recover the ball by diving on it or he can run with it. The team that recovers a fumble either gets-or retains-possession of the ball.
What about when the offense fumbles on 4th down?
Then only the player who fumbled it can recover it and advance it.
I mean it’s quite obvious that the beginners rule book is very vague and can’t be turned to in every situation.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that one rule
doesn’t invalidate all of the rules in the playbook.
plus you can look and see okay if you look at the other rule stating the exact ways you can advance a fumble and cannot you will see that sure they retained possession of the fumble but lost possession of the ball because it was on 4th down.
Just think.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
More from the Rule Book for beginners
THE OFFENSIVE PLAYERS
The quarterback ("QB") passes or hands off the ball.
The center snaps the ball to the QB and blocks the defense.
2 guards and 2 tackles keep the defense at bay.
2/4 wide receivers catch the ball thrown by the QB.
1 or 2 running backs take the ball and run with it.
1 or 2 tight ends block the defense and can also catches passes.
I suppose that means a toss or pitch is an illegal move… The “wildcat” formation is an illegal formation… the unbalanced line isn’t allowed… running backs aren’t allowed to throw passes… and tight ends aren’t allowed to take a hand off?
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Holy SHIT! The refs totally dicked over the steelers all game!
!@#!!!
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
these a typical rules
it says that they can do the above following but it never said they couldn’t do other functions.
wow and i thought people were smart
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Only you. Everyone else is basically an idiot.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just making a point...
The lines you’re pulling from the beginners rules obviously don’t address situtations like the one being discussed.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well wait and see
what the almighty head official says, he knows the rules better than any of us.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, because steelers nation was totally happy with the refs call at the end of the SD game. Oh well, the head official knows the rules better than any of us.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to nail it down.
Touchdown: 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.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 16, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
his feet are in the endzone, not his hands with the ball
Ball HAS to tough the goal line, and I do not think there was good enough evidence to overturn that, and you guys know it to.
You have to hate losing more than you love winning
by Mr MaLoR on Dec 15, 2008 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m having a hard time finding the point. Even if you convince yourself that it was a referee error, which I believe overturning it was, what does that help? You’re right? Your team should have got a chance to stop the 4th down? We all have plenty of time so we can discuss anything, but I really don’t think there is any path that makes the ravens players, or fans, feel any better.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously
nothing will make up for this in our minds. The only thing that will make us feel better is if we meet you in the AFC championship and win. I’ve said it before. If the call on the field was a TD I wouldn’t have seen it being overturned either.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
trust me
Even if the NFL apologizes it won’t make anything better.
"Mike Pereira, the NFL’s head of officiating, admitted yesterday that his crew working the Steelers-Jaguars playoff game erred in not calling a holding penalty against Jacksonville on a crucial play that allowed the Jaguars to kick the winning field goal.
Quarterback David Garrard scrambled on fourth-and-2 from the Steelers 43 and made the first down. Three plays later, Josh Scobee kicked a field goal, giving the Jaguars a 31-29 victory. Several Steelers players complained there was blatant holding on Garrard’s run. Nearly three months later, Pereira agreed with them."
Thanks Pereira, I really give a shit.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't say anything about an apology...
I’ll be carrying this anger until we beat you again.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if you make the playoffs, yall have to beat Dallas first.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, the ravens can easily make the playoffs while not beating dallas.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't say easily,
but your point is noted
Thanks.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not really
if they lose to dallas they have 6 losses.
they will have to rely on a NE loss, NYJ loss, and a MIA loss.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Either NYJ or MIA will automatically lose, NE has a tough schedule to close out.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
TOUGH?
your telling me that buffalo and arizona is tough,
especially when arizona is at home????
LOL
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re telling me that NE is guaranteed to win out?
Let me guess, because they looked so impressive against OAK?
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not guranteed
but more likely to win out than Baltimore who has Dallas
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude! Check out that UFO in the background!
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
watch this and you will understand
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 3:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This guy usually posts about pittsburgh economic data, but because it’s pittsburgh…
http://nullspace2.blogspot.com/
Read it and bitch. The rules are ambiguous. The call was amiguous.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
(2) The Referee may award a touchdown when a palpably unfair act deprives the offended team of one.
That one gives refs far too much power.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve never seen it happen though. The closest is PI on the one yard line.
I think the defender would have to kick a guy in the nuts, punch him in the face, and crap on his chest.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thats a blog page, why would i read that, it is not as official as the nfl website, anybody can post anything on a blog website
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It links to the official rulebook asshat, which he quotes from. Or maybe the tribune made up the entire PDF. It’s a conspiracy!
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
just give me the link
to the official place he quotes from
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do the work yourself, or keep quoting from “rules for dummies”. I like that.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i have no time for that, so if you want your link respected then i advise you to do your work because i am not going to look to see your point you must present your point so it is easy to find.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha. You can search around nfl.com for the official rules but you can’t do a simple search on google for them or go to a blog that links to them? Yeah, you are so “busy” and don’t have time for that, when you’ve spent the last half an hour on here arguing football.
Busy busy.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yep
you got that right, what is keeping you from giving me a direct link?
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose then...
if a running back who has broken a play wide open runs down to the one inch line, lays on the ground and puts his feet into the endzone without the ball crossing the goal line, that’s a touch down too?
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no because he didn’t catch the ball in the end zone so he has to cross the goal line with the ball
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok. said running back
is laying in said position and the QB throws it to him and he catches it… TD? or not?
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it depends on who is reffing it, as of right now i am not sure where tehy would say possession is
but either way, your situation is not what happened on the field, only one part of his body was on the ground so thats where possession is, in your situation a new question would have to be addressed and that is where you count his possession. on his thigh? on his chest? on his elbows? on his legs?
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On pass play for a first down...
possession, or forward progress is marked at the furthest point the ball got to… not where the receiver’s feet are.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ambigious
its an ambigious game, you will never get rules to be specific enough, there will always be a case where the rules won’t cover it so get a life, the call is the call get over it
by tannofsteel84 on Dec 15, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no need to cuss lol! why are you getting mad at this? you aren’t being very successful
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s because you have a metal plate in your head and refuse to see reason.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no i see your reason
but i look into the official RULE BOOK and see that according to it, there is a touchdown
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wow it is sad when
you have to rely on name calling to try and prove you are right
just send me a LINK to let me know where you are coming from, name calling does NOTHING!
it just shows how immature you are.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rule 11: Scoring
Section 2 Touchdown
Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):
* (a) when a runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponents’ goal line (plane); or
* (b) while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the opponents’ goal line.
hmmm looks to me that santonio was in bounds, and caught the ball behind the goal line. he was behind the goal line and caught the ball, if it was the other way around it would be a touchdown too, he would have caught the ball in bounds and the ball would have been behind the goal line. SO both situations fall under your definition of TOUCHDOWN
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
again... vague
The rule doesn’t specify if the ball or just the receiver has to be on or behind the opponents goal line. Judging by the rest of the TD rules in the NFL one would assume, and rightfully so, that the ball has to cross the goal line.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 6:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it doesn’t state where the ball has to be because it doesn’t matter where the ball has to be. You can’t assume, just just read what the rule says and it says if the ball is caught in the end zone by a receiver who has possession in the end zone then it is a touch down.
The rule everyone assumes that applies is the rule that says if the player is moving forward out of the field of play with possession of the ball then the ball has to cross or touch the goal line. Holmes was not in the field of play but already in the end zone and the rule states that if a player is moving backwards or standing still in the end zone, they only need possession of the ball while in the end zone to declare a touchdown.
On top of this, Mike Peirara, the head official, has already said that the call on the field was the correct one. On Wednesday he will break it down for all of you guys who have NFL Network.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 8:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the call on the field...
or the reversal?
Besides… being that it’s not so obvious as in the Steelers’s game against SD of course he’s going to say that. If was blatant he’d have to reprimand the official.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 9:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Either was it wasnt conclusive :-/
Life is nothing but Beats & Rhymes
by Matchz Malone on Dec 15, 2008 4:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Matchz is right...
The point isn’t “was it a TD?” the point is that there wasn’t conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love hearing that... makes you feel all warm and fuxx inside
PAUSE
Life is nothing but Beats & Rhymes
by Matchz Malone on Dec 15, 2008 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
with the shots they had
and the HD tv sets they had, they obviously believed there was enough evidence.
so you guys can argue all you want but in the end, the call on the field was made, it didn’t really have as much of an impact on the game as you believe because we still have 4th down and possibly overtime to go to.
so cry about not wanting to read the beginners rule book but the fact is, is that it is a OFFICIAL rule book, and maybe you should just focus on next game because the last game is over. look for the official review on NFL Network, that might clear things up.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it is
its on NFL.com why would theyy not have an official rule book,
it is a condensed version so it is easy to understand.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And this call clearly falls into something that cannot be “easily understood”.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
where is your link
to an official rule book then?
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
honestly, what it comes down to...
is that ONE official should not be in charge of what’s irrefutable… The NFL should allow at least two, maybe even three, officials under the hood to watch the replay. If they can’t come to a unanimous decision about the correct call, the call on the field stands.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this may be true
it probably would be a good idea if more than one referree was required to put in their opinion but as of right now, all it took was irrefutable evidence for the head referee to overturn the call. Not irrefutable evidence that everyone agrees on, just for the head ref, everyone on ESPN is saying it is not enough for them but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t enough for the head ref. Obviously it was as he overturned it to make it a touchdown. So under the current rules, it was the right call.
But I do agree that more than one ref should put in their opinion but at the same time that will delay the game even LONGER and really break up the flow of the game. Hence, destroying one team’s momentum. So I don’t know, it is never going to be perfect.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nah...
Bring back the timer… if the two or three can’t make a unanimous decision within that time limit they play stands as called. It’s not really that difficult. I’d like to know what happened to 1:30 that used to be shown on challenges.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 9:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that still might not fix it because sometimes it may take longer than 1:30 to go through all of the rules in your head and look for them in a play.
A lot of pressure is on these refs and I mean I don’t know about the time limit, as long as they get it right is all I am concerned with. 1:30 time limit is not going to be supporting getting it right but just getting it over with. they should just try to do a better job with what they are doing right now, which isn’t bad. There hasn’t been but one call that has changed the outcome of a game completely.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 16, 2008 1:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the way it's done in the college games
a booth ref calls down and looks at the video in the booth and then HE tells the head ref what the call should be. He has all the views and the comfort of making the call in a private room. Just one of the two ways the pro game could follow and learn from the college one. The other, of course, is the OT rule.
Rexx
by Rexx on Dec 16, 2008 9:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes it was
I dunno if you seen this link but I think this should clear up some confusion.
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/beginnersguidetofootball
TOUCHDOWN = 6 POINTS
A touchdown is the biggest single score in a football game. It is worth six points, and it allows the scoring team an opportunity to attempt to get an extra point. To score a touchdown, the ball must be carried across the goal line into the end zone, caught in the end zone, or a fumble recovered in the end zone, or an untouched kickoff recovered in the end zone by the kicking team.
As you see all you have to do is catch the ball in the endzone and it is a touchdown. There is requirement for the ball to also cross the plain. When you catch the ball you have established yourself in the endzone and when you touch the ball the ball becomes apart of you so its a touchdown. End of story
Now stop your whining and get ready for those Cowgirls cause if you ain’t careful they’ll put up 30 points you ya.
by tannofsteel84 on Dec 15, 2008 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
look genius
Its a rulebook, its official, what more do you want?
by tannofsteel84 on Dec 15, 2008 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
its actually a GUIDE
Life is nothing but Beats & Rhymes
by Matchz Malone on Dec 15, 2008 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
okay and….
a guide is a model for others, so it shows you examples of what rules are and what not,
so what if it is a guide, its an OFFICIAL guide.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So..
Why would they put a guide on their website that is incorrect?
by tannofsteel84 on Dec 15, 2008 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I refuted this already
TOUCHDOWN = 6 POINTS
A touchdown is the biggest single score in a football game. It is worth six points, and it allows the scoring team an opportunity to attempt to get an extra point. To score a touchdown, the BALL must be carried across the goal line into the end zone, caught in the end zone, or a fumble recovered in the end zone, or an untouched kickoff recovered in the end zone by the kicking team.
The beginners rulebook DOES NOT help your case. The word caught is referring to the ball, not the guys feet/or possession. The ball was not CAUGHT in the endzone. the ball was caught JUST OUTSIDE OF the endzone. so regardless of his feet were in there or not, the ball wasnt in the endzone. Which even this Beginners GUIDE to football says needs to happen.
But im with steelguy regardless this isnt a real rulebook, its a guide to help people trying to learn the game
Life is nothing but Beats & Rhymes
by Matchz Malone on Dec 15, 2008 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
so that means..
You can’t understand the beginners guide
by tannofsteel84 on Dec 15, 2008 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if
you get an apology from the NFL then you have a legit case, like we did in the San Diego game.
by tannofsteel84 on Dec 15, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When he reviews it on Official Review (which he better) i wanna hear him say WORD FOR WORD, what the rule for catching a TD pass is. And it better be read straight out of the official rulebook that he should be holding a copy of in his hands.
Idk if you watch that segment but generally it sounds like he is exacting his opinion on the plays and generally always takes up for w.e his refs do. I think last week he said what someone did was wrong, but because it was spur of the moment or some crap like that that he wanted his refs to call it the same way EVERYTIME
are you kidding me???? I gotta go find that link, it had so pissed me off. How do you say its wrong, but be like call it everytime
Life is nothing but Beats & Rhymes
by Matchz Malone on Dec 15, 2008 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
like he said if there is an apology and it shoudn’t be a touchdown then okay it should not have been called a touchdown so you guys should have gotten a chance to block a field goal or stop a 4th down and then a chance to lose the game in overtime.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No it means you dont understand sentence structure
All grammar in my personal typing aside. Pretty sure Ball is the noun in that sentence, and “caught” (if i am using this word correctly, I believe i am) would be the modifier for the noun. So caught would have to be referring to the ball, which in tern would have to be in the end zone
Life is nothing but Beats & Rhymes
by Matchz Malone on Dec 15, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Yea i guess but he did catch it in the endzone right? The question is if it matters where the ball is.
by tannofsteel84 on Dec 15, 2008 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
caught
I thought that was a verb in the past tense…. i guess i am just dumb lol or wait
a verb is an action, catchin is an action wait its a verb lol
by tannofsteel84 on Dec 15, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hello either way caught is referring to the ball
Life is nothing but Beats & Rhymes
by Matchz Malone on Dec 15, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
here is a direct exerpt from the link steelguy provided
Rule 11: Scoring
Section 2 Touchdown
Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):
* (a) when a runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponents’ goal line (plane); or
* (b) while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the opponents’ goal line.
that means that holmes was in bounds, and caught the ball behind the goal line, hence a touchdown.
it didn’t say the ball has to cross the goal line in THAT situation, as long as he caught the ball behind the goal line
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
on or behind the opponents' goal line
is referring to the ball, not the player.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
referring to the player, as a already referred to the ball. B is referring to the player because it is a different situation, where the ball does not have to cross.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You can't say that
a is referring to the ball, therefore b must be referring to the player… b is referring to the ball as well. Why on earth in a running situation would the rule refer to the ball but in a passing or fumbled situation be referring to the player? That just doesn’t make any sense.
Another situation:
loose ball inside the 1 yard line… an offensive player jumps on the ball with his feet inside the end zone but the ball not crossing the plane. Is that a TD? No. Its fumble recovery inside the 1 yard line. If he rolls into the endzone with possession of the ball before he is touched down, then it’s a TD.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it depends
i am not an expert on fumbles but i am pretty sure you cannot advance a fumble if your team had possession of it prior to losing possession.
So you can only advance a fumble during times of possession changes, INT’s, kickoffs, punts. That’s why they met after Santonio muffed that punt, because they had to make sure we were allowed to advance the fumble, we could because it was during a time when possession was changing.
They are different scenarios because the NFL chose to make it so, when you are carrying the ball into the end zone you must break the plane, but if you are catching the ball in the end zone, you are in the end zone so that is good enough apparently for a touchdown.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 16, 2008 1:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Technically
you’re not ADVANCING the fumble if you just fall on it with your feet in the endzone and then get touched down. According to your view of the rule that’s a TD.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 16, 2008 8:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
seriously
You guys make me sick, you hope when there is nothing to hope for. There is no evidence that says you are right yet you shun all truth and close your eyes and just believe what you want. What will suffice? You must want the rule book to say something like this:
On 12/14/08 when Pittsburgh plays at Baltimore, ben snaps the ball on 3rd down in the 4th qtr. And he rules to the left then rules to the right then spots holmes in the end zone. Holmes catches the ball from ben but his feet is still in the end zone and it is hard to tell whether the ball crosses the plain. Its called a touchdown.
by tannofsteel84 on Dec 15, 2008 4:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
either way
i have not seen anybody present a rule that says that you must catch a ball in the endzone, with the ball breaking the plane in your possession in the end zone.
All of you guys are talking about how our rules are not official or whatever but yet i have not seen anyone present the rule above that would override the call that it was a touchdown.
of course you have to break the plane when running the ball but it never says it has to break the plane on the catch. I looked at steelguy’s link and even his link says:
"Rule 11: Scoring
Section 2 Touchdown
Article 1 It is a touchdown (3-38):
* (a) when a runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponents’ goal line (plane); or
* (b) while inbounds any player catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-3) on or behind the opponents’ goal line. "
so he is not disproving the touchdown at all, but actually supporting it if anything. holmes caught the ball behind the opponents goal line and was inbounds and it is obvious in the replay. Never does it say the ball actually crossing the goal line on the catch, only if the runner has the possession before he reaches the goal line, then he has to touch or cross it for it to be a touch down.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 4:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I had to immaturely take a break for a half an hour because I’m “super busy”, but now I’m back.
The point I made when I linked to this was just that the official rules are annoyingly ambiguous. The plane is only mentioned in rule “a”, and rule “b” has no mention of it. Then the question becomes does the catch count where his feet are, or where the ball is? For a first down it’d be where the ball is, for a touchdown, the same? Then the last question is if it’s where the ball is, and not where his feet are, was the ball in?
Look, I think it was a touchdown. I also would be pissed if the steelers were on the other side of this. The rules are vague of, the official explanation crappy enough, and the video evidence on the knife edge enough that I think you can argue it either way. Especially, especially, when the ruling on the field states that it was not a touchdown (if you look in the video you can see that the ref that called it a non-touchdown was blocked by a ravens player and didn’t have a clear view).
I just don’t think this can be argued 100% from either side, and I like to play devil’s advocate. It’s a lot easier arguing the ravens point of view because the steelers won and it was called a touchdown.
by steelguy99 on Dec 15, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you can think that
all you want but what matters is the head official’s opinion on the field and in the NFL and both agree that it was a touchdown, Mike Peirara has already said he made the right call.
B says yes it counts where his feet are, a first down is a different scenario and hence it is placed in a different section of the rulebook, if they had the same implications then they would probably be mentioned somewhere together but it is a different rule for the touchdown.
That should answer your first question, the rule says that if a player is still or moving backwards but already in the end zone, then he only needs to take hold of possession of the ball while he is in the end zone. Whereas I believe people are confused because of the common scenario that a person is carrying the ball into the end zone. There is a rule that says if a player has momentum coming from the field of play, he only needs to have the ball cross or touch the goal line, to declare a touchdown. But santonio was standing still into the endzone, not running towards it from the field so you have to go to the first scenario and he does hold possession of the ball while he was in the end zone so it is a touchdown and it is irrefutable evidence showing that.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So what...
is it like a backcourt violation in basketball? If a player has brought the ball over mid court and passes it to another player who is in the air but whose last position on the court was in the backcourt he is deemed to still be in the backcourt until he touches the front court, therefore it is a violation.
Show me in the rule book where it says once you have established presence in the endzone that is where passes caught are considered to possessed (even if you’re in the air and can’t officially have possession until your feet or another body part touch the ground) unless you have left the endzone.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 9:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this is not basketball
and if you want to compare it to something, compare it to football. Basketball is a totally different sport and is incomparable.
If you are making a catch and you are in bounds, your two feet are in bounds,but the ball is out of bounds, since you are in bounds, it is a catch despite the ball being out of bounds.
Now if you are out of bounds, and you make a catch and the ball is in bounds, it is incomplete because you are out of bounds even though the ball is in bounds.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 16, 2008 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
also
even in your description of basketball rules, the appropriate scenario would be as follows:
The ball is brought over mid court and passed to a teammate who is on the right side of mid court but catches the ball while the ball is in the back court. That is not a violation as long as the player who has possession of the ball is in the front court even though the ball is in back court.
so get your scenario right, santonio was not in the air when he caught the ball. He caught the ball while two feet were in the end zone, not in motion in the air. So he does catch the ball with two feet on the ground in the end zone.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 16, 2008 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
my scenario is right...
I’m not talking about being on the right side of mid court. I’m talking about a player’s position being established in the backcourt while he is in the air, jumping to the front court. If he catches it in the air it is a backcourt violation.
And there’s no visual evidence that BOTH of Holmes’s feet were on the ground in the endzone when he made the catch. They eventually came down to contact the ground in the endzone, but by that time the ball was not breaking the plane.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 16, 2008 8:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it just says when a player is in bounds and catches the ball in possession while behind the opponents goal line. Now it does not get specific and say the ball does not have to cross the plane but it does not get specific and say it does.
So in this case you must not assume that because the rule for a runner advancing the ball has to cross the goal line that the same rule applies.
What I am saying about the whole a vs. b matter is that they seperating a catch and advancing the ball for a reason, because there are different rules.
In section 2 article 1 it states that while inbounds any player catches the ball on or behind the
opponents’ goal line is a touchdown.
Now the subject at hand is the player because there is an action that the subject does, catches. So since the player is the subject at matter, the predicate is on or behind the opponents’ goal line. Since the ball is not the subject the predicate does not apply to the ball but instead the subject which is the player.
They made it a point to specify what the ball has to do in a because the ball in its sentence was a subject. when a runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponents’
goal line (plane);
there is a reason why they specified in this situation and not the b situation. That is because it does not matter where the ball is in the b scenario, as long as while inbounds any player catches ball on or behind the opponents’ goal line
Now the rule book is very particular in its meaning and while specify what it means in all situation so nobody is left to assume anything, therefore you cannot assume that rule 1 is still in effect onto rule 2 because the rule book would say it is. The rule book does not state that the ball must cross the plane if the player is in bounds and catches the ball with possession in the end zone so therefore the ball does not have to cross the plane if the ball is caught by a player who is in bounds and in the end zone.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 16, 2008 1:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
or perhaps
they figured people were smart enough to carry the same subject through both rules. The verb is catches… a player can’t be caught (in this sense) therefore the player is CATCHING the ball and the ball must be on or behind the opponents’ goal line.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 16, 2008 8:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If the ball doesn't have to break the plane...
why, then, would coleman feel the need to issue this explanation after the game?
"You have to have two feet down to complete the catch. [Santonio Holmes] had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line.
“…When he gained control of the ball, the ball was breaking the plane, and then he fell into the field of play. But to have a touchdown, all you have to have is a catch, which is the two feet down, possession and control of the ball breaking the plane.”
Coleman on why the original play was ruled to not be a touchdown:
“[Head linesman Paul Weidner] felt like when the receiver gained possession of the ball, the ball was not breaking the plane of the goal line.”
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 16, 2008 8:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i wouldn't be that pissed
because my offense, including BB has 50 seconds and 2 timeouts to drive the field from the 50 yard line and couldn’t do anything. They still had a chance. Plus when it is 4th and nanometers, i do like the offense’s chances of punching the ball in the end zone.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really hate to be the one who throws this out their but...
Can’t we all just get along
by archon095 on Dec 15, 2008 5:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It used to be
that there was a “plane of glass” that stretched along the goal line and beyond. You could dive down the sideline, reach your free hand over the goal line and the ball hand out of bounds but over the “plane” and it would be called a TD. The rule changed this year, to state the “plane” is limited to between the pylons.
This really has nothing to do with the play, but to me the big thing is the part of the rule that says “inconclusive evidence.” If it was called a TD, there wasn’t conclusinve evidence to overturn it. Same thing for the no-TD call, no obvious evidence to overturn it. Apparently everyone in the NBC and ESPN booths/studios said no TD. It was just too close to overturn.
That said, I have no problem with the loss. We let the Steelers march down the field and that takes away our ability to complain, in my opinion. At the same time, I’d have loved to see it called a no-TD and have Pittsburgh line up against us for a one-play, winner take all fourth down. If they made it, we’d have no argument and if not, they wouldn’t either. Too bad. Hopefully we’ll see them again this year, in Pittsburgh off course.
Rexx
by Rexx on Dec 15, 2008 5:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
There is no point of even talking about it anymore. We cant change the past. Ravens fans are gonna say the ball never crossed and Steeler fans are gonna say yes it did. If The Ravens scored this way, everything would be fliped flopped. The Refs should have lefted the call on the feild the same. It was to close of a play to say that he scored. The Game is over, the Steelers are the AFC north champs. Congrats.
FEAR THE NEVERMORE DEFENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Benji5203 on Dec 15, 2008 7:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
what is sad is that no, me being a steeler fan is not arguing with ravens fans who cannot accept the truth but actually a steelers fan.
If Mike Peirara has said it is a touchdown with all of the equipment and knowledge he has about the NFL Rules, which he knows all, then it is a touchdown end of story. And wait a minute, he has already so just wait for Wednesday for him to explain it to you with video since this guy doesn’t want to believe reasoning.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 15, 2008 8:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
like I've said...
to me, it’s not about whether the play was a TD. My main argument is that there wasn’t enough evidence to overturn that call, so to me the whole replay system is a farce. Indisputable means indisputable, and since there are thousands of people arguing it all over the eastern half of the country, it wasn’t indisputable
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 15, 2008 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it doesn’t matter if it is indisputable to everyone else, it matters if it is indisputable to whoever is under that hood who understands the rules.
The man under the hood does not ask thousands of people in the US what they think. He does not ask anyone in the stadium what they think except maybe one guy upstairs. I don’t even think he asks him, but either way it just has to seem indisputable to ONE person, the head official. He understands the rules the best out of everyone in that stadium, he has the best camera views and angles on a HD screen, better view than anyone can see at that time and slows it down and replays it from at least 2 different angles. It obviously was indisputable evidence that he saw that caused him to over turn the call.
Now earlier in the game when we were stuffed on 3rd and 1, he looked at it and did not see enough evidence to overturn the call on the field that it was a first down because you could not see where the ball was at all, from any camera view. Not saying I agree with the call but I also agree that you could not see the ball from any view so the call stood as on the field.
You can see the ball on the touchdown with santonio holmes, most importantly you can see his feet and see that he doesn’t bobble the ball and see he is well inside the touchdown. I do not think the ball has to cross the plane because
a. the referee did not mention the ball crossing the plane
b. the rule book does not state that if someone is catching the ball while they are already in the end zone, that they must make the ball cross the plane, it only says that if someone is carrying the ball into the end zone it has to break the plane.
so the referee must have saw that he got two feet in bounds, in the end zone, with possession of the ball and that is unquestionable and indisputable:
in·dis·put·able
Pronunciation: \ˌin-di-ˈspyü-tə-bəl, (ˌ)in-ˈdis-pyə-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin indisputabilis, from Latin in- + disputabilis disputable
Date: 1551
: not disputable : unquestionable
— in·dis·put·able·ness noun
— in·dis·put·ably \-blē\ adverb
THUS he overturned the call and the right call was made.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 16, 2008 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, Bleed, I'm surprised at you
of course the ball has to break the plane. That is Football 101. The ref admitted he gave the wrong explanation on the field when he overturned it. Hiis take was that the replay showed the ball tip had broken the plane. When scoring a TD from in bounds, on the field of play, the ball is all that matters, not the feet. The only time the feet matter is when the ball is caught in the end zone along one of the three out of bounds lines on the sides or end line.
Rexx
by Rexx on Dec 16, 2008 9:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m amused that just because I’m a steelers fan, I’m just supposed to see everything through the glasses that say that anything good for our team is correct. I guess I only sweat black and gold though, and don’t bleed it.
by steelguy99 on Dec 16, 2008 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
remember Masons TD in Pitt. that was ruled out of bounds and Harbaugh didn't challenge like an idiot...
we haven’t got a break all year and i was hoping against hope we would get a break..but deep down i know one makes their breaks. we haven’t.
by raven on Dec 15, 2008 10:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That wasn't the refs mistake
It was the rookie coach’es as I was screaming from my couch the moment it was called out of bounds, even before the replay, for him to throw the Red Flag. You ALWAYS challenge the close TD call, as the risk/reward is too great to overlook. That was one of the first few mistakes I’ve thought Harbaugh made this season.
Rexx
by Rexx on Dec 16, 2008 9:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It wouldnt have been called a TD anyway.
During any Ravens games, the headphones that the Reds put on go to a bright red phone where ever Roger Goodell is. It is called the F.O.R phone, standing for Fuck Over the Ravens. The Ref says that there was a TD caught but they called it out of bounds, hoping Harbaugh wouldnt make the challenge. So Goodell would tell them to no matter what, dont make it a TD. Also, he contacted the Refs during the Tenn game by text message and told them to call a roughing the passer on Suggs, even though his hand came down on the shoulder of Colins, while being blocked, while trying to sack the QB, while trying to swat the ball. He hit his shoulder, some rough and tough football right there.
Last year, Goodell was at out Pats MNF game, and made sure to put a magnet in the yellow flag. Bart was really just trying to pick it up and give it back to the Ref, but the high powered magnet was attracted to a piece of medal in the Stands.
So, with this previous weeks game, when they went to review the play, the headphones go on, the magic red phone, F.O.R, rings, Roger answers, “Hello, that was not a TD, but make sure to call it a TD. The Steelers are one of the faces of our league, god forbid we let a murderer and QB with one eye brow do well in this league, Thanks Walt. Hey Walt, do you want to come to my house tomorrow night and we can exchange wives for a night.?” Walt: “OMG that sounds so much fun, you bring the Ketchup, I will bring the Mustard, and we can make a Manwich!”
Sorry, Finals are driving me insane…..
You have to hate losing more than you love winning
by Mr MaLoR on Dec 16, 2008 9:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you told me that about Paul Tagliabue,...
…I’d believe you. He hated Baltimore and told us to take our money and build a museum instead of waiting for an NFL franchise. Which is why of course, we went after the Browns. Goodell seems pretty straight up to me.
Rexx
by Rexx on Dec 16, 2008 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i think a Raven
should dive feet first into the endzone next game and keep the ball just outside the endzone. That would be just as legitimate of a gripe, both plays would have A) had the players feet in the endzone and b) have the ball not cross the plane.
I’m also not making excuses, I think the Steelers would have gone for it and gotten the inch easily. I just think its funny how people will try to legitimize something so clearly incorrectly officiated, so long as it benefits them. Funny thing was, I was watching the game with a friend who is a die hard Steeler fan, in a bar with many other Steeler fans, and not one of them thought they could call that a TD.
Anyway, Go Ravens, we need some help to get to the postseason now.
by thedecline19 on Dec 15, 2008 11:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
okay?
just because they are a steelers fan and they do not think it is a touchdown does not make the touchdown not a touchdown.
I think it is funny that Ravens fans think it was a bad call just because it meant a score for the opposing team, if it happens to the Ravens i am like dang they scored, I don’t think its a horrible call because it was touchdown according to the rules.
Maybe you guys will shut up after Mike Peirara comes on NFL Network to show you that it is a touchdown. Look for that on Wednesday, the analyst on Monday Night Countdown has already asked him and he said it was.
by Bleed-Black&Gold on Dec 16, 2008 1:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Your are missing the point on all of this
You guys won, we give you credit for that. You had to drive 92 yards in 3+ minutes after being shut down all game, and you did. You deserved the win.
But to claim that we are only saying its a bad call because it was for the opposing team is asinine. If were just being bitter then why would non biased spectators such as Tom Jackson (+ many, many others who have nothing to do with the Ravens) question the call as well. Like people have repeatedly said, there was not indisputable evidence to overturn the call.
I can take the opposing stance and say the only reason your so sure it was a TD was because it was for your team. Since I’m sure you will disagree with that statement, please stop your claim, as there are other motives at play for us questioning the call rather the just blatant homerism.
Your beginners guide is not the end all rule book, I’m sorry to say. It is made for the casual fan to get a basic idea of the game. It is a condensed version and should not be taken word for word in complex situations such as this.
On your claim that Mike Peirara backed the call….. Of course he did. He is not going to throw his official under the bus unless it is 100% clear that a mistake was made. I cannot say for sure it was not a touchdown, but I don’t see how anyone can say for sure it was, especially after the call on the field was made. That being said, the official made a judgment call, which in his mind was the right call. Another official might have upheld the call on the field. It all depends on the situational variables at the time. Either way, if my employee made that call, I’d have his back as that’s what good bosses do in those situations.
Lastly, we are having a discussion about the call, trying to justify it’s questionable reversal. It’s part of post game analysis for any fan. We are not trying to take anything away from the Steelers, as I mentioned earlier, they are the deserved AFC North Champs. Why do you have such an issue with Ravens fans discussing a wrong call possibly being made? It is a huge national topic for a reason. It is totally reasonable for us to have this discussion on a Ravens blog. If it annoys you that we are discussing it, then stop posting on this thread. The worlds not all black and white, there’s a grey area in everything. You should check it out sometime.
by DT711 on Dec 16, 2008 9:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that call could have HUGE implications
on the AFC Playoff picture.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 16, 2008 9:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We are not the only ones discussing this call
Every ESPN and NFL expert I have seen since Sunday have been outraged at how the Ravens were robbed. It was the top stories on Around the Horn and PTI, as well was a huge topic on NFL Live, Sportscenter, last night’s halftime show, and is all over NFL Network. Point being is that, the officiating this year has been the worst this league may have ever seen. A lot of the calls have involved the Ravens, and it might show a disrespect and/or hate that the NFL has for our team.
We are not a popular team since we have only been in this league for 13 seasons. We win games by defense and never had an offense. The NFL does not like that, they love the Bradys, Mannings, LTs. The guys that sell the tickets and make the game exciting with their multiple touchdowns. I do not think anyone can appreciate a Raven victory like we can.
I agree that we could have done many other things to prevent that TD from happening, such as not letting them get a 92 yard drive. Rex had some bad calls on defense and Cam made some other bad ones. Flacco’s play action is way too easy to notice. We tried to not play the type of football we have the past 8 weeks. It was upsetting to see this happen the way it did, because it was our third game that we had been winning for 58 minutes, and lost it in the last 2 minutes, because of poor play AND BAD REFS!
You have to hate losing more than you love winning
by Mr MaLoR on Dec 16, 2008 9:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to say the same thing
that every sports channel and call in show is discussing this play as much as any in the league this weekend. We are not the only ones bitching but because it is our team we seem like a bunch of whiners, which I guess we are. I’m not whining because like I said this summer, you’ll never convince me that one play ever decides a game, although a lot of others, as well as you might disagree. I say win by enough and the refs can’t take the game in their hands.
Rexx
by Rexx on Dec 16, 2008 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
say win by enough and the refs can’t take the game in their hands
There’s another team out there being paid to prevent that. So the fact that a game comes down to one play is very plausible and an acceptable way of thinking. It’s not like you can impose your will on any and everything you want.
Kevbo: [to George Sherrill] George, you look a lot like Vin Diesel...
Flatbill: Let's get somethin' straight... Vin Diesel looks like me.
-From "The Making of Orioles Magic"
by dayzd toe on Dec 16, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well.....
the ref clearly, didn’t know what he was talking about. In his response for overturning the call on the field he says that the receiver had both feet in the end zone and secured possession after falling down. Never did he bring up did the ball cross the goal line. The review wasn’t intended for the catch but if the ball did indeed cross the goal line which replay after replay shows that there’s not enough conclusive evidence to say whether it did or didn’t. And on the play live in action both sideline judges ran in immediately and ruled the ball inside the 1. They agreed that the ball didn’t cross and Ed Reed’s hit made sure that he wasn’t gunna gain any forward process. Just terrible when a referee’s call alters the outcome of such a game that is so important of the whole conference not just the division. Now its time to make Cowgirls fans cry on Saturday Night and bring an early Christmas/ Hanukkah/ Kwanzaa present for the fans of the RaVeNs.
by iLL on Dec 16, 2008 1:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Good to see you iLL
NO NO NO NO……..NOTORIOUS!
You have to hate losing more than you love winning
by Mr MaLoR on Dec 16, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the ref didn’t fully understand what he was to review..when he realized (was told) his mistake he played it down by saying he didn’t explain his ruling properly…he didn’t know! whining is healthy..can’t keep it in. alls forgotten thursday when the Jaguars throttle Manning.
by raven on Dec 16, 2008 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 









