To: kevkrom
"Call on the field was a TD. The replay was inconclusive -- I would say it was not clear enough to overturn the call either way (i.e., had it been ruled short, the replay would not have been enough for a TD, either). Pittsburgh would likely have gotten the 0.1 inch needed on 4th down anyway."The problem was that the call on the field was called a touchdown. You saw the same angle as the referee and the referee should not have called it a touchdown because the ball did not clearly cross the plane. As a matter of fact, the referee did not even signal a touchdown until after big Ben pulled the ball out from under his belly and placed it across the line.
Not a fan of either team, just ticked off that I wasted time with another poorly played (and officiated) game.
To: Hatteras
The problem was that the call on the field was called a touchdown. You saw the same angle as the referee and the referee should not have called it a touchdown because the ball did not clearly cross the plane. As a matter of fact, the referee did not even signal a touchdown until after big Ben pulled the ball out from under his belly and placed it across the line. TD signals are frequently late. I'm not sure why -- officials are checking to make sure there wasn't a fumble? I dunno, but the late TD signal happens in almost every game I watch.
For the record, I thought he did get the nose of the ball to the goal line. But what I think vs. what can be proved on replay are not necessarily the same thing.
109 posted on
02/06/2006 6:59:16 AM PST by
kevkrom
("...no one has ever successfully waged a war against stupidity" - Orson Scott Card)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson