JohnnyC

After reading the rule on the disputed TD, I think the Refs got it right:

Section 2 Touchdown
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 (3-2-3) on or behind the
opponents’ goal line.

http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/...20RULEBOOK.pdf

The ball only has to "break the plane" when it is in the posession of a ball carrier and they are about to enter the endzone from the normal field of play. This is why you see running backs stick the ball out ahead of them to break the plane if they don't think they will make it.

For wideouts, the catch made by Holmes is no different than one made on the sidelines of the endzone or around the pileon. It doesn't matter if the ball has broken the plane or not, as long as the reciever has posession and has two feet down inside the end zone (which Holmes clearly had). The receiver is an extension of the ball, which explains why you can catch a ball that is outside the plane (out of bounds) and still have a TD as long as you have posession and both feet in the endzone.

It turns out everyone was focused on the ball breaking the plane, which didn't matter. They reviewed to determine if he had posession and both feet in (which is what the ref reported after review).

TNTramair

iTrader: (15)

lol...that was BS. if they make such a big deal of the ball breakin the plain all the time and than all of a sudden on this play it didnt matter?? c'mon!! ive seen instances where a running back gets turned around and his whole body makes it in the endzone but the ball didnt and they called him down before the goal line. when they make a catch in the end zone on the sideline with 2 feet in thats a differant scenerio. i mean it is what it is and nothing can happen now, but i dont think it was a good call...i think they had it right originally. doesnt effect my team either way but i enjoyed watching than game and to have it end like that kinda ruined it. it was an important game and the refs took the decision out of the coaches hands.

tektrans

iTrader: (23)

I disagree. It's not the same as both feet in bounds.
With the both feet in bounds it's where the ball is when you establish possession with both feet in, where the body is or falls is irrelevant-it's where the ball is. It's no different in the end zone-ball has to be advanced to a spot in order to get that placement on the field of play regardless of where the body is.
On replay it did look to me like the ball did cross the plane a bit-but enought to overturn the play?, I didn't think so.

TNTramair

iTrader: (15)

I concur!!

CamaroRacing12

iTrader: (5)

x33333333

JohnnyC

You are all wrong and need to re-read the rule:

Whether the ball crossed the plane is irrelevant! The NFL has reviewed it yesterday and agrees with the reversed call.

The plane only matters if you are a ball carrier and are running into the endzone from the field of play. Otherwise, you just need to have possession with two feet in the endzone.

JohnnyC

Which would be the correct call per the posted rules. The running back already has possession and is trying to score from the field of play. He must break the plane of the endzone with the ball before he is ruled down. The location of his body does not matter - it is the location of the ball when the runner is ruled down that matters.

Recievers are different because they enter the endzone before they actually have possession of the ball. They must then catch and possess the ball and get two feet in bounds in the endzone, regardless of the position of the ball.

ShevrolayZ28

iTrader: (4)

Very close play that could have gone either way. That said, there was not indisputable evidence on the replay and the call on the field should not have been reversed.

As a NE fan, I'm happy the Ravens lost. Hopefully they'll lose again in Dallas!

JohnnyC

^again, you are missing the point. The indisputable evidence was that he had possession and both feet in the end zone - not that the ball crossed the plane.

The evidence was there and they correctly reversed the ball in accordance with the rulebook. I think alot of people don't understand this rule, which is why so many of us focussed on the ball crossing the plane instead of the possession and two feet in (which is what really matters).

ShevrolayZ28

iTrader: (4)

No, I understand the rule. I am bias and just repeating what I've heard in the press. In all honesty, I find most Steeler fans intolerable and arrogant. How's that for a bit of truth? lol

JohnnyC

Yes, I am arrogant and intolerable. I tried to overcome this by actually posting the rules, but I was unable to overcome these sad truths.

325trooper

iTrader: (2)

Incorrect. The ball has to cross the plane.

ShevrolayZ28

iTrader: (4)

Below is the league's explanation. BTW, the ball does have to break the goal line. So, while I may be bias, I still think there wasn't indisputable evidence to the point where the call on the field should have been overturned.

Who is your source for the interpretation? Some random guy who's email was read on-air by Shannon Sharpe?

ShevrolayZ28

iTrader: (4)

This is ALWAYS the case, though the Yinzer interpretation will vary.

325trooper

iTrader: (2)

And when the ref overturned the call, he did not give the explanation that the ball crossed the plane, which is what would have been needed to make the correct call. The ref blew it. And I'm not a Raven fan.

ShevrolayZ28

iTrader: (4)

Read the quote above. Coleman said, ""When he gained control of the ball, the ball was breaking the plane and then he fell into the field of play."

Where I disagree is that Coleman felt that there was indisputable replay evidence that the receiver had control of the ball while breaking the plane of the goal line. It was too close to tell, indisputably, IMO.

325trooper

iTrader: (2)

The original announcement was that receiver Santonio Holmes had both feet in the end zone and possession of the ball, which supposedly made it a touchdown whether the ball broke the plane of the goal line or not.

Of course, the rule is that the ball must break the plane, so referee Walt Coleman told pool reporter Jamison Hensley that he misspoke originally and the ruling was that the ball did, in fact, break the plane, even though there wasn't a single replay that showed that conclusively. Remember, the ball was not ruled a touchdown on the field, so the replay is supposed to show overwhelming evidence that the call was incorrect.



http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/spor..._cloud_of.html

JohnnyC

Sorry if I pushed a few buttons guys, but the result has been a better conversation.

OK people - the reality is that myslef and many much smarter football people are confused about this rule. The refs weren't sure about the rule, the media isn't sure about the rule, the players aren't sure about the rule, and even the coach of the Ravens needed someone to attempt an explanation. I created this thread to start a discussion on the rule and to see how many people actually have given it any thought.

O.K. - Most people's first instinct is to say that "everyone knows that the ball has to break the plane". This seems correct at first, but begins to get cloudy after you really analyze the situations.

The reality is that there are MANY TD's that are called TD's when the ball doesn't break the plane: Recievers tip-toeing around pileons to catch ***** that are technically in the air out of bounds. Receivers that catch ***** that are out of bounds in the endzone and drag two feet in before falling out of bounds themselves.

Clearly, a player already in possession of the ball in the regular playing field must break the plane with the ball for a TD to score. We can probably agree on that.

The cloudy area for me is whether the goal line itself is treated the sameway as the out of bounds lines for recievers who catch the ball and get two feet in bounds. The rulebook kinda talks about the recievers getting possession and two feet in, but it never distinguishes a difference between the goalline and the sidelines in the endzone.

Should the goalline be treated the same for receivers as the out of bounds lines? This is the real question that lies at the heart of the conversation. The answer is that nobody really knows because the rules are vague. This allows for interpretation and debate - and here we are. The football "experts" lol.

ShevrolayZ28

iTrader: (4)

No man, you're cool. I was the one being an a-hole lol. Sorry about that.

Here's my take:

With the caught ball at the side-line and clearly in the endzone, you have possessed the ball and it is across the goal line.

The same can not be said of the play in question. I think this is where the confusion lies. He's got to catch it and still break the plane.

The overriding rule is breaking the plane...always must break the plane while possession.

325trooper

iTrader: (2)

In those instances the ball in fact breaks the plane inbounds and only goes outside of the side boundry after it has crossed the goal line, between the plieons or directly above one, in the air. If it crosses the goal line in the air outside of the plieon it is not a score. And the receiver tiptoes around the pileon because he has to stay inbounds obviously. The ref blew the call and covered it up by claiming he misspoke.