Controversy Ends Steelers-Ravens Game
December 14, 2008 by David Kindervater
Filed under Baltimore Ravens, Pittsburgh Steelers
National Football League Blogcast, NFL Blogcast
I love the idea of instant replay in the National Football League. It exists, quite simply, to get the call right. And most of the time, I think it does. In a crucial AFC North game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and Baltimore Ravens (to essentially decide the division) this afternoon, however, instant replay came into play near the end of the game and the final decision is causing quite a bit of controversy.
On third-and-goal from the Ravens four-yard-line, Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger’s pass to receiver Santonio Holmes was ruled down at the one or two inch line. Santonio was in the endzone (at least most of him was), but the catch was made — seemingly — just outside the end zone. Everyone knows (or should know) the ball needs to break the plane of the goal line to be a touchdown, so it looked like 4th down for Pittsburgh. Referee Walt Coleman went to review the play and according to the rules, he would need indisputable visual evidence that the ball was caught in the endzone to overturn the call. Apparently, this is what he felt he saw because he overturned the initial call on the field and awarded the Steelers a touchdown, which gave them the lead and eventually the 13-9 win.
There are a couple things to consider here. The rules state that a touchdown occurs “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 rules are very clear on that. So, the ruling on the field seemed to be the correct call. After watching the replay a number of times, however, I feel it was a touchdown by the slimmest of margins. And there is no way an official could pick that up in real time. After looking at the replay, the ball appeared to be caught at the very outer edge of the goal line for just a split second. So, when referee Walt Coleman went “under the hood” to review the play himself, he saw what he considered to be indisputable visual evidence. Or did he? I’m not sure Walt knew what the rule was because his announcement went like this: “After reviewing the play, the receiver had two feet down in the end zone with possession of the ball, we have a touchdown.” That was an incorrect announcement of the ruling. If he actually decided the replay based on that incorrect interpretation of the rules, the Ravens really got cheated. If he just announced it incorrectly, that’s another matter. But even if he did look at the ball rather than Santonio’s feet, I’m not sure that is what I would call indisputable visual evidence because it was most definitely disputable. It will be interesting to hear the explanation tomorrow.
Source: NFL.com
Very disappointed with all the line calls during the Steelers-Ravens game. The Ravens challenge earlier in the game regarding the placement of a 3rd and 1yrd play, the officials said the ruling on the field stands. I felt pretty confident that over-turning this ruling on the field would NOT happen. What is going on with the quality of NFL officiating? Again, Very disappointed.
If you have the technology at your house to replay that down in slow motion, it will be very clearto you that the overturn was justified. The nose of the ball clearly crossed the actual plane of the end zone.
Look, the call cannot be changed at this point. The rules are very clear; possession and both feet in the end-zone. Which even if only for a split second these two variables occur it constitutes for a touchdown. With the technology and multiple camera angles that the NFL has for each game, the referees should have no problem making the proper call. Think about the controversy if he had ruled it 4th and inches… don’t you think there would have been just as much scrutiny on his call, since he had both feet in and split second possession? I am just playing devils advocate here. Overall I would have been upset if I was a Baltimore fan, but at the same time you have to respect the referee’s call, because he was right.
actually the ref explained correctly according to rules. here is the link with the rule. GO STEELERS. hopefully we quit pulling them out at the last minute
http://blog.pengoworks.com/index.cfm/2008/12/15/The-SteelersRavens-game-and-the-NFL-Rulebook
Actually, the referee explained INCORRECTLY according to the rules — he never said the magic words you speak of in the NFL rulebook — goal line — the ball must touch the opponents’ goal line (plane). It doesn’t matter if the receiver has two feet in the endzone with possession of the ball if the ball is possessed outside the goal line. As it turns out, Walt Coleman did know the rule. He just announced it incorrectly. And it was his judgement that Santonio “possessed” the ball right at the goal line (plane). And I agree. That’s the way it looked to me, too. But the argument will continue as to whether there was enough visual evidence to overturn the call on the field. It’s a tough one. Walt felt there was enough visual evidence and, you know, it’s hard to argue with that.
SORRY STEELER FANS, NOT ONLY WAS THE REF WRONG IN OVERTURNING THE CALL ON THE FIELD, BUT HE WAS ALSO WRONG IN HIS EXPLANATION ASWELL. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE BALL CROSSED THE PLAIN BECAUSE THE PICTURES WERE SO GRAINY THAT ONLY GOD COULD TELL THE TRUTH, GOD AND ME HA HA HA HA HA. AND AS FOR MR. GO STEELERS
ALLS I HAVE TO SAY IS THE BALTIMORE RAVENS WERE CHEATED. THE BALTIMORE RAVENS ARE A MUCH BETTER TEAM,AND HECK WE JUST PLAIN RULE. THE RAVENS RULE.
The replay in use today does not put a lie to yesterday’s judgment any more than those made by referees or umpires in all the games past.
The important thing is that a third party made the call under the conditions extant, regardless of what help, if any, was avaailable – so long as it was on the spot, honest and not predisposed.
That’s part of the excitement of any game. Left to the discretion of the old Brooklyn Dodgers fans, they would have “killed the umpire” many times over – and probably have been wrong in the process.
All in all it was not the most exciting game that Pittsburgh teams ever won – which speaks for the competence of both teams that produced a boring “defensive” battle on a cold, dreary night- Pothalamu, notwithstanding.
Let’s hope and pray that the Baltimore player caught in a man-to-man collision of helmets recovers completely. That type of contact warrants more than a penalty – it should be prohibited by expulsion, , regardless of intent.
have you gone insane.? maybe you should stick to ping pong! That hit as unfortunate as it was was legal. that is exactly what was expected of that game and at times that is what we got! Of all the bad calls made in both games this is what you chose to rant about? This is AFC football at its best. Just as exciting as UFC. Real men going toe to toe and battling. Hats off to the Ravens as they fought hard and actually had a win within grasps.I am a Steelers fan but i will be the first to say that Baltimore got some bad calls! especially the ruffing the kicker penalty! that was a horrible call, but as the same time Pittsburgh got some bad calls also. But that hit was just hard nose football by two hardnose teams.