Since the other three ECB contributors are busy crying into their Cheerios this morning over heartbreaking losses (the Skins going down to the Bengals for Russell and Jeremy, the Ravens blowing a late lead at home to the Steelers for J-Red), it falls to me to get a post up this morning.
The climax of the Steelers' game-winning drive was shrouded in controversy as Santonio Holmes caught a pass while standing in the endzone, but was tackled with the ball near the 1-yard line. On the field, the officials ruled the ball down inside the 1 (making it 4th down). Watching the replays on TV, it looked like the ball may have been over the goal line as Holmes gained posession, but it was very, very close. After review, referee Walt Coleman reversed the call saying:
"After reviewing the play, the receiver had 2 feet down in the end zone, with possession of the ball. We have a touchdown."Of course, Jim Nantz and Phil Simms were totally confused at that explanation (along with much of the viewing audience). Coleman made it sound like having two feet in the endzone meant Holmes scored a touchdown even if the ball didn't cross the plane of the goal.
"A player with the ball in his possession scores a touchdown when the ball is on, above, or over the goal line."That makes it clear that the crucial point of whether or not a play results in a touchdown is the location of the ball. Having two feet down in bounds only establishes posession, not the spot of the ball.
"He had two feet down and completed the catch with control of the ball breaking the plane of the goal line."To me, this sounds very different from what he said on the field, and leaves open the question of whether he misinterpreted the rule while he was under the review hood, only to realize his mistake later.
7 comments:
Without delving into too much legalese, I'll accept that reasonable minds could differ on whether the point of the ball was over some part of the goal line at the moment Holmes gained "possession" (which is actually two feet down and an additional "football move", even in the end zone. See Todd Heap at Denver on a Monday night a few years ago). The issue is that the standard in NFL replay review is whether there is "incontrovertible visual evidence" to reverse the call made on the field. The call made on the field was down an inch out. That was reasonable based on the replay.
Walt Coleman obviously has superhuman vision, along with ESP. Earlier in the game he nullified an illegal formation penalty against the Ravens because he determined that Willie Anderson had not intentionally lined up illegally, but rather was "confused" in Coleman's words. He has an amazing ability to get into players' minds. He must have known Holmes had possession at the instant the ball was perhaps over the goal line by reading his thoughts.
Also earlier in the game, Coleman was true to the "incontrovertible visual evidence" rule when he upheld a first down gained by the Steelers. Coming off a touchback, the Steelers needed the 30 yard line for a first. The replay showed the ballcarrier clearly never obtained the 30, yet Coleman upheld the bad spot based on his replay review. Later in the same game he decides to add his own spin to the call on the field. That, to me, is unforgiveable.
What makes matters worse is that the big picture favored upholding the spot on the field. The Steelers would have been down 9-6 an inch out with 24 seconds and a time out. Neither team would have been inherently prejudiced by leaving a guessed call as it stood.
All in all the Ravens had chances to put the Steelers away, but the mistakes made by Coleman, along with a muffed Steelers punt return that actually netted them 30 yards and an unfortunate tip-up interception, sealed the comeback for the Steelers.
The bright side for the Ravens is that their playoff road would likely be @AFC East champ, @Tenn and @Pitt. Both the Tennessee and Pittsburgh home games were taken from the Ravens by objectively erroneous calls.
And to the Seahawks fans out there remembering Roethlisberger's phantom TD in Super Bowl XL, at least the ball was visible in the replay we got screwed on. Yours was still worse.
I think it's pretty obvious that he had two feet down, that he had possession with two feet down, and I agree that the sole issue is ball breaking the plane. I have to say that on replay, I believe that the ball broke the plane. But, in the legal world, there are very clear standards... "beyond a reasonable doubt"... "by the preponderance of the evidence", etc. Here, applying the NFL standard for replay, I can't argue that there was "indisputable evidence" to overturn the call on the field. I believe what I saw, but I certainly don't think it was "indisputable."
I agree that there were some very odd calls in that game. The "he was confused" call was especially strange.
The muffed punt was weird because Simms claimed that the ball would be spotted at the point the Steelers first gained possession during all the replays, then refused to admit he was wrong when they allowed the muff to be advanced.
I thought a muffed punt could not be advanced, but I think the rule is only that it can't be advanced by the kicking team, as they are the possessing team.
I did notice that Simms said one thing for three minutes, then there was an awkward 30-second silence while a producer was clearly explaining to Nantz and Simms, and then they picked up talking like the spot was exactly what they had said all along.
As sad as it was to watch this game in a bar FILLED with Steelers fans, even if the ref botched the call, we deserved to lose the game.
The Ravens have a way of filling one with dread at the ends of games... I had a similar feeling on the last drive as I did watching the Pats game last year.
We should never have let it come down to that. The fact that this particular ref was obviously blowing calls all day long adds to my frustration, but he didn't lose the game for us.
That said, he shouldn't work the playoffs. Sit his ass down for the post-season so we don't have more of this crap.
There has been more league wide drama with the refs this season than any in recent memory. It seems like every few weeks there is something.
Post a Comment