Steelers TD call was correct against Baltimore

Morgoth

According to the NFL rules "Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

The rule makes sense because sometimes a reciever standing in near the pylon would be either going OB or back towards the ball and the ball never would cross the goaline even if caught. In those cases that is why the two feet in the end zone rule was put into effect.

I wish someone would start pointing the rules out to the Bloggers and pundits on TV that should know them.

perkdog

Good then it was a TD- I was under the impretion that no matter what the BALL had to be across the goaline.

markj111

<< <i>According to the NFL rules "Should a receiver make a legal catch of the ball with both feet in bounds in the end zone, a touchdown shall be awarded even if no part of the ball was deemed to break the plane of the goal line while in possession of the receiving player."

The rule makes sense because sometimes a reciever standing in near the pylon would be either going OB or back towards the ball and the ball never would cross the goaline even if caught. In those cases that is why the two feet in the end zone rule was put into effect.

I wish someone would start pointing the rules out to the Bloggers and pundits on TV that should know them. >>




What part of the rulebook states that?

Dave99B

Walt Coleman:

"The ball broke the plane. He had two feet down. 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 two feet down, possession and control of the ball breaking the plane."

Conclusive? No way. Balt got screwed.

Dave

markj111

From NFL.com:

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.

I'm still looking for the explanation given by Morgoth.

css23

Rule 11 Section 2 Article 1
"It is a touchdown
(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 on or behind the opponents' goal line."
Rule 8 Section 1 Article 7
"(4) A pass is completed if the player has both feet or any other part of his body, except his hands, inbounds prior to and after the catch"

Morgoth

What I quoted was incorrect, I admit according to the leagues head official the ball does have to cross the plain of the goal line to be a TD.

Peter King called him after the game to confirm the rule. I haven't seen the King article yet but supposedly the league says that with other video evidence it is obvious the ball was over the goaline.

markj111

<< <i>Rule 11 Section 2 Article 1
"It is a touchdown
(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 on or behind the opponents' goal line."
Rule 8 Section 1 Article 7
"(4) A pass is completed if the player has both feet or any other part of his body, except his hands, inbounds prior to and after the catch" >>



Thanks. No 4 says the pass is complete, but does not say it is a touchdown. I could not find anything on it at nfl.com. Is the rule you quoted available online? I'll watch PTI when I get home-surely they covered it.

markj111

<< <i>What I quoted was incorrect, I admit according to the leagues head official the ball does have to cross the plain of the goal line to be a TD.

Peter King called him after the game to confirm the rule. I haven't seen the King article yet but supposedly the league says that with other video evidence it is obvious the ball was over the goaline. >>




Thanks for the update. I hardly believe it was conclusive, but my opinion does not count.

Ahmanfan

I'm sure they would have snuck it in from the 6 inch line if it in fact was an incorrect interpretation of the rule, so it's a bit of a moot point.

Morgoth

There is an overhead shot that is more clear but who knows what the officials got to look at, maybe they have special angles. It is clear though that the game wasn't "decided" on that play, it would have been either a goaline stand or OT.

perkdog

<< <i>I'm sure they would have snuck it in from the 6 inch line if it in fact was an incorrect interpretation of the rule, so it's a bit of a moot point. >>



No way you can assume that John, seriously anything can happen IE: a fumble or just not getting in- Baltimores D is NASTY.

css23

<< <i>

<< <i>I'm sure they would have snuck it in from the 6 inch line if it in fact was an incorrect interpretation of the rule, so it's a bit of a moot point. >>



No way you can assume that John, seriously anything can happen IE: a fumble or just not getting in- Baltimores D is NASTY. >>



If Baltimores nasty D hadnt let Pitt march down the field the call wouldnt be in question.

Ahmanfan

I understand that you can't assume that, but in the event that the ball did not cross the plane (which I think it did), or if the ball did not cross the plane, the event that the rule was incorrectly interpreted (I personally think it was a correct call judging by what I have read), and if you still think it should have been spotted a few inches short, the odds are in favor of Pitt punching it in anyway (I think they would have been able to), the odds are slim that any of the 3 would not have happened. Of course, it's just speculation, but that is what it is in my eyes.

John

FanOf390

If Pittsburgh had not been awarded a touchdown, they might very well have kicked a field goal to tie. The game was decided on a controversial call -- that's unfortunate for players and for fans.

lawnmowerman

<< <i>The rule makes sense because sometimes a reciever standing in near the pylon would be either going OB or back towards the ball and the ball never would cross the goaline even if caught. >>




Bad call. Inconclusive to say the least

Remember, the goal line stretches from "infinity to infinity" as they like to say lol. If someone in the endzone makes a reception going out of bounds, the ball did cross the goaline

grote15

The ball does not need to cross the goal line, just touch it. Having said that, the replay was far from conclusive, IMO. I just don't understand why refs are reversing calls on the field when the replay does not show conclusive evidence contrary to the call on the field. Don't these officials understand the rules? Most of these ridiculous calls (like the other reversal at the end of the SD-Pitt game) have no business being reversed. I'm wondering if all officials should be scheduled for a refresher class on the replay rule, or if they just abuse their power by ruling on situations that are inconclusive at best. Even a non-football fan would say that this play was tough to call. And there is no way you can assume that Pitt scores if the ball is ruled down inside the 1. Many teams have difficulty scoring from that close to the goal line, and Baltimore D is one of the absolute best.

Dave99B

Grote15 is 100% correct. Since it was not conclusive, at least by the angles I saw, you MUST go with the call on the field.

What a boner!

Dave