Touchdown Rules

[UNHWildCats]

Doesn't the ball have to break the plane (sp) of the endzone to count?

[CrackerRiley]

I assume this topic comes up because of the Ravens/Steelers game. I've always thought any part of your body as long as you have possession. The ball is part of your body when in possession.

[UNHWildCats]

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.

the call would be correct if on the side or back of endzone cause the plane is just the front so even though the ball is outside the endzone, they player is in and the ball broke the plane.

but this happened at the goal line, yes the players feet were in as he caught it, but the ball never broke the plane.

I shound't complain, cause it helps the pats, but Baltimore got robbed

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

That call was bad but not nearly as bad as the first down call in the first half when the Steelers weren't even within 4 feet of a first down yet even after a review they gave Pitt a 1st.

[nwFL Griz]

That call was bad but not nearly as bad as the first down call in the first half when the Steelers weren't even within 4 feet of a first down yet even after a review they gave Pitt a 1st.

Agreed...that was the most bogus uphold of a call I've ever seen.

[TheValleyRaider]

Yeah, 2 pretty rough calls went against the Ravens there...

I really don't get the TD call. I mean, on a similar goalline play, say a RB dive over the line, it's only a TD if the ball crosses the plane. If you put your helmet over, it's not good enough

The plane appears the only line that matters though, because you can catch a ball that's technically over the line and out of bounds, but you're in as long as your feet are. Maybe they're ruling it similarly there, but that doesn't make sense. At the very least, the ref did a poor job of explaining the decision

[tribe_pride]

I thought the ball made it over after it was caught so I think the right call was made BUT I didn't see conclusive evidence to support it so in that way, I think it was the wrong call since they overturned the original no TD. That said, it would have been 4th and inches and I think they would have gone for it anyway with a QB sneak.

[Gil Dobie]

As they say, the goal line is like a pain of glass extending from the ground to straight up. If the ball touches the glass it's a TD. From the replays they showed, it looked like the ball would have touched the glass.

[UNHWildCats]

As they say, the goal line is like a pain of glass extending from the ground to straight up. If the ball touches the glass it's a TD. From the replays they showed, it looked like the ball would have touched the glass.
Fine, if they conclusively found that the ball broke the plane whatever, but the referee ruled both feet were in the endzone with possession of the ball, he didnt say the ball broke the plane.

[93henfan]

I did not see "indisputable visual evidence" to overturn the call made on the field of no touchdown. The ball must break the plane. I believe the ball did break the plane, but before the receiver had possession. He was falling away from the goal line and I would say the ball was four to six inches off the line when he established possession. Had I been the replay official, there is nothing I could see in any of the replays to say indisputably that the ruling on the field was incorrect, therefore fourth and goal from six inches out for Pittsburgh (or head official's discretion on the spot).

The call was not nearly as egregious on third down though as it would have been on fourth down. I still think Roethlisberger sneaks it in on fourth for the win if the on-field call is upheld.

[UNHWildCats]

I did not see "indisputable visual evidence" to overturn the call made on the field of no touchdown. The ball must break the plane. I believe the ball did break the plane, but before the receiver had possession. He was falling away from the goal line and I would say the ball was four to six inches off the line when he established possession. Had I been the replay official, there is nothing I could see in any of the replays to say indisputably that the ruling on the field was incorrect, therefore fourth and goal from six inches out for Pittsburgh (or head official's discretion on the spot).

The call was not nearly as egregious on third down though as it would have been on fourth down. I still think Roethlisberger sneaks it in on fourth for the win if the on-field call is upheld.
Ya but does Pitt take a chance going for the win or just kick the FG to tie it?

[93henfan]

Ya but does Pitt take a chance going for the win or just kick the FG to tie it?

You don't get too many chances to even get in Baltimore's red zone, let alone six inches from the goal line. You go for the win.

[appfan2008]

bogus call... the ball has got to cross that imaginary line...

[gmoney55]

I don't see how they could have overturned the original call either way, there was no clear evidence for TD or no TD.

[andy7171]

You guys should tune into Baltimore Sports Talk on the net. The call definately took the sting off my Skins loss, slightly.

[93henfan]

You guys should tune into Baltimore Sports Talk on the net. The call definately took the sting off my Skins loss, slightly.

Link? Or just tell me the station, I may be in range.

[andy7171]

You should be able to get 105.7 all the way through Delaware on your ride home. Anita Marks will be whining about it all afternoon.
1370 after Rome will be local crying as well along with 1570. 1300 is just ESPN national now.

[JMU DJ]

Only touchdown Jesus knows... and he's not telling anyone

http://thenastyboys.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/touchdown_jesus.jpg

[Hoyadestroya85]

It's getting to the point where there should be a sensor in the ball and on the goal line that detects whether the ball is in.. any margin of error within that would be well worth it.

[93henfan]

It's getting to the point where there should be a sensor in the ball and on the goal line that detects whether the ball is in.. any margin of error within that would be well worth it.

Nope. The Patriots would find a way to alter the signal.

[UNHWildCats]

Nope. The Patriots would find a way to alter the signal.
"Cassel completes it to Moss just past midfield.... whats that, a touchdown signal"

[siuham]

It probably was a TD, but the call on the field getting overturned was a shock to me.

They would have kicked the FG, though, and taken their chances with OT. They had the momentum at that point and could have carried it to OT.

[TheValleyRaider]

Only touchdown Jesus knows... and he's not telling anyone

http://thenastyboys.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/touchdown_jesus.jpg

Actually, from the looks of it his position on the issue seems rather clear to me... xreadx


:p

[GannonFan]

It probably was a TD, but the call on the field getting overturned was a shock to me.

They would have kicked the FG, though, and taken their chances with OT. They had the momentum at that point and could have carried it to OT.

Call on the field shouldn't have been overturned - apparently "irrefutable evidence" has lost its meaning.

However, I don't think they would've gone for the FG there - that was the only drive they had all day and there'd be no guarantee of repeating that in the OT - momentum means nothing. They would've been inches away from the endzone with a huge QB able to fall into the endzone on a sneak. I think they would've gone for it (and I think they would've made it too).