Baltimore -3 vs. Pittsburgh 2x
There is some question as to the rules interpretation here from Holmes' TD catch. The play was initially ruled a completion and down at the one. Then, Walt Coleman overturned the call. I've seen some people claim that a little known rule should apply that (From 951 on RMMB):
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.
Of course, WillyDuer found conflicting evidence:
Your hard copy is as recent as anything I can find online. NFL.com is useless, which is kind of surprising. The AP game recap cites page 776, which discusses the ball's location and not the receiver's feet. Perhaps there's still an exception that means that feet = touchdown, even though it's inconsistent with everything else.
Which is fine. I can accept that there may have been some gray area in the rulebook. What is absolutely not true is this (from Peter King's MMQB):
I called NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira, who'd spoken with Coleman and the replay assistant following the game. Now, I have to tell you that in my jobs at NBC and Sports Illustrated I have occasion to speak with Pereira nearly every weekend about a play or two from the games, either to clarify something for the Football Night in America show or for my column. Pereira calls them the way he sees them. My experience is that Pereira does not whitewash a bad call. And last night, I asked him point blank if he thought there was indisputable visual evidence that the ball broke the plane of the goal line. "Yes, I do,'' he said.
Bull. Shit. Not a single person in America except Walt Coleman and Mike Pereira believes that.
Whatever, I was still up 5x for the day. Enough bitching. Let's watch Syracuse win by 30.
2 comments:
There was no way in hell that was conclusive evidence. That being said, They probably QB sneak it into the end zone on the next play.
Oh sure, there was probably at best a 10% chance of getting a push there.
But that's not really my point. If they had called TD on the field and upheld it, I wouldn't be all that pissed, either. But to overturn the call was straight up ridiculous. I'm getting real sick of refs playing fast and loose with the definition of "indisputable."
Post a Comment