Posted on 02/08/2006 5:18:46 AM PST by mcg2000
The ball had already broken the plane.
The delay in the call happens all the time while the ref process what he just saw.
It was a TD, period.
You assume WAY too much, sir.
I cannot quote the replay rule verbatim, but I agree that there was not enough evidence to reverse the call made on the field. I still disagree with the call, but the process worked as it was intended.
You should take care to use words more accurately, and calling "dive" a football term meaning "leap" is inaccurate. In football parlance, a dive is a running play where the ball is handed to a running back and the running back runs through a hole between the tackles.
It can be a lot of fun to debate these nonserious issues with passion, but I grate whenever one side starts denigrating the other because they disagree. In my previous post I used the term "idiots". Please accept my apologies for that - it was uncalled for.
However, I stand behind my sarcastic response concerning your choice of terms! ;-P
BTW - I am not a Seahawks fan. I'm a Jets fan (don't ask me why) who thought the officiating stunk in the Super Bowl. However, the fact remains that the Steelers ended up with a win. I just wish the game had been better officiated - so that there wasn't such a sour taste in my mouth regarding the state of the game in the NFL.
Have a good day.
Of course it broke the plane. The plane is the red line in the picture. It crosses right over the football. I had no dog in this fight, but anyone should be able to see it was a TD.
Exactly, the ref gave them the TD because Ben wisely slide the ball forward after he was down. I stated that yesterday, but was ripped a new one by a few Pittsburgh fans who can't admit the ref was fooled by Ben. It was a great play by Ben. Players do stuff all the time to try fool the refs. Nothing wrong with that, it is part of the game.
I would have had to uphold the call on the field as well. I don't think he made it, but opinions are like... well - You know the saying! ;-P
With regard to the line judge: I rarely (if ever) have seen the ref run in like that to signal TD. The only was I can reconcile the action is if he was trying to run in to make sure the ball was still in the player's possession - a line of reasoning that I haven't heard anything about.
You would be right if that was a football crossing the red line.
Sigh. I remember those days. Pastorini's apparent touchdown pass to Renfro was ruled out of bounds.
Very true. Seattle was on the bad end of almost every close call. That is not arguable. I will even agree that on the holding call, the Pittsburgh rusher that was held was clearly offside too.
The only bad call against Pittsburgh was the Non-call on the clear Block in the Back of Rothlesberger after the interception.
I will also agree that this was one of the most poorly officiated games I have ever seen. The Refs injected themselves on calls that should not have been made, ignored clear penalties on both teams on other plays (as they say, you can call holding on every play if you so desire).
But, despite all the bad calls, Pittsburgh would have won the game anyway. Seattle just made to many mistakes. Poor time management, dropped passes, missed FG's, etc. Pittsburgh made the big plays when they had too.
Pittsburgh also bowed up in the 4th period and ran the clock down with a running game that Seattle had stuffed all night, but could not stop when they has too. Which goes right to what I was saying, Seattle played good football all night, except when they HAD TO.
Ah. I knew that. I was thinking there was some new rule that stated a QB cannot get a first down if he slides- which, of course, doesn't make sense.
When? There is not one picture of the ball breaking the plane. The only time the ref could have seen the ball in the endzone was after been scooted it there. Unless the ref has x-ray vision and could see the ball through his arm, but it is still questionable if the ball ever made it.
Not enough evidence to overturn, the ruling on the field stands.
And the reception that was fumbled but ruled incomplete.
Are you telling me that those bastard refs dug a hole to keep his knees from touching?!?
Thank you, I had completely forgotten about that fiasco. I guess the ref thought the guy was "making a football move" LOL
"it disregards the arm in front of the ball."
No it doesn't. As I stated, the elblow is clearly on the other side of the line. With the ball tucked behind the elbow it can only follow that the ball has broken the plane.
Don't make yourself look dumb by being dumb.
It was without a doubt the Star Mangled Banner.
B and C!
OK. Then I'll admit I would be wrong if it's not.
Top-notch debating technique, there. /sarc
Actually, his elbow clearly broke the plane - the front side. The exact positioning of the ball with respect to his elbow is not revealed by the photo, but in correlation to other photos it can be shown that the ball trailed his elbow by the thickness of his forearm (plus the angular distance from the inside crook to the ouutside point of his elbow).
His forearm is at least 3-5 inches thick, meaning that his elbow lead the ball by at least that much, and probably more like 5-7 inches.
As I have stated elsewhere, I don't think he made it in. BUT, I also don't think there was enough proof to overturn the call on the field. It's a shame you apparently can't accept a difference in opinion without calling names.
And to clarify, I stated that one can appear dumb by making large assumptions on behalf of one's debating opponent. One can also appear dumb by using direct insult in place of logic.
What's the matter, the truth bother you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.