The NFL replay system can officially be called a joke. Anyone who saw the Steelers-Ravens game Sunday understands. Overturning the call on the field to make Santanio Holmes' last catch a TD was ridiculous. For this reason: There was no clear visual evidence that the ball crossed the plane. Replays are supposed to be obvious. Take a quick look, make a decision and get it right. The rule was designed to correct calls that were obviously wrong. That one wasn't. Referee Walt Coleman treated the replay like it was the Zapruder film, and overruled a call without clear visual evidence to overrule. It was a joke.
Nobody expects much from the Browns tonight. I did not make the trip to Philadelphia, but will watch on TV and provide quarter by quarter updates from TV viewing — for those interested.
I expect the Browns' players to be professionals and put forth 100% effort tonight.
I also expect Romeo Crennel to exhibit consistency by mismanaging game situations as he's done most of the season, and to not be creative in attempting to win the game.
Oh, for the days of "Metcalf Up The Middle". Never thought I'd write those words, but… it is what it is.
You are a clown. If you watched the halftime show on NBC last night, Collinsworth showed a shot of the catch with a yellow line over the top. Holmes had the ball in possesion with both feet on the ground. Since the decision was against what you wanted to happen, you think the sytem is a joke. YOU ARE THE JOKE.
This has nothing to do with instant replay or it's short comings or its comparisons to the Zapruder Film. On that last note, I'm not quite sure what analagy to the Zapruder Film McMannamon is using anyway. Never-the-less, the situation in reference has nothing to do with the replay or some film and everything to do with the interpretation of the rule for a touchdown. What was in question was NOT whether the ball had crossed the plane of the endzone – debatable for sure – but rather had Santonio Holmes feet established position in the end zone while maintaining possession of the ball. The review is a akin to looking at a review of a catch by a receiver on the "side" of the endzone, where the ball does not happen to cross its plane (crossing the plane in flight is actually an irrelevent point), but the receiver stretches "outside" to catch the ball and still maintains both feet within the endzone before falling out of bounds. The comparsion that you should appropriately use in your retort would be that of a running back who leaps over his offensive line at the goal and attempts to place the nose of the ball over the plane of the endzone. Again, in this case, there would obviously be some debate as to whether the plane was crossed or not. Now that this is resolved, perhaps we can read about the Browns in this on-line format without the perspective of a revisionist. Further, I find it so amusing that Browns fans are most vocal when their team is in the crapper and the Steelers are marching toward a conference championship -again.
yep, apparently it wasn't a replay issue but a rule interpretation issue. but it was a steelers/ravens game. who cares who beats who? the best any browns fan can hope for in that game is for both teams to have uncontrollable bouts of diarrhea on the field.
Excellent comment, Terje! I was a little more violent in my hopes: That the Steelers and Ravens would maul each other, with many key players taken off the field by the trainers. (Did the Romans know about football? Forget the gladiators.) After careful thought, I decided to root for the Steelers, as the thought of the Ravens in the playoffs was just too much to take. Which forces me to also hope Belichicken's Patriots win all of their remaining games to squeeze the Modellites out of the sixth plyoff spot. What a miserable NFL season!!
i had much worse thoughts also. like mid-air plane collisions and the survivors resorting to cannibalism.
i was also rooting for the steelers. i don't understand browns fans who still hate the steelers like the old days. sure, it sucks to lose to them but it's not like they are a stolen football franchise. baltimore should be the rival of the expansion browns. but i also remember the day the ravens first came to the new stadium. the cowards of the "dawg pound" acted like they had seen a ghost. a roman catholic mass had more crowd noise. a new name and new team colors would have been the way to go. orange and brown should have been buried next to modell's final resting place. some day i will make a pilgrimage to piss on that man's grave.
I just saw the "full" on-line article about this controversy just posted at Ohio.com but in much greater detail and opinion that the morning blog. To this I provide the following opinion and background – also in much greater detail – that will hopefully assist Mr. McManamon and other writers from continuing to makes fools of themselves:
A running touchdown:
For a running touchdown or a two point conversion to be scored, a player with the ball has to break the plane of the goal line with any part of the ball while it is in his possession. This means that the ball can be on, above or over the goal line. The end zone corners each have an orange pylon in them. A player may reach over and touch the pylons in the front half of the end zone with the ball to score a touchdown as long as he has not been ruled down by the officials and as long as he has not stepped out of bounds before doing so.
Now pay close attention to this next section:
A receiving (conversion) touchdown:
Touchdown and conversion receptions in the end zone are made when a receiver catches a legal pass and has possession of the football as well as both feet in bounds within the end zone. A player mush simultaneously have possession of the ball as well as have both of his feet down in the end zone before going out of bounds.
This is call is NOT a controversy. It is not about replay, it is not about the referrees communication skills or judgment abilities, nor is it about the Steelers.
The referree made a call, the replay booth reviewed it, changed the call, and the referree explained it poorly – but it is the RIGHT call. Steelers win. What I find controversial are the number of writers and "analysts" that haven't taken the time to actually review or research the ruling. Go ahead – google this play -and see how many bone heads are declaring how unfair this call was.
Here's a video of Pat since he got the columnist gig. Duck!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovoTgUCf7_E
I agree with you Pat.
It really is a joke when you don't have an obvious clue. Then how can it be overturned?
I don't get it either.
Pat,
The replay booth got it right. The ref didn't explain it correctly. The only question was whether both feet were down in the end zone. It didn't take long for the replay booth to see that both feet were, indeed, down in the end zone. Result, touchdown. No controversy here.