NFL Officials got it RIGHT by overturning Cleaveland's first down (my title)

ESPN ^ | December 17, 2001 | Associated Press

[TexRef]

To all of the official bashers out there, time to eat a little crow... Take a look at the following excerpts from NFL reviewing end of Browns-Jaguars game (Click the link to read the entire article).

According to the article, the NFL reached a conclusion today that the "...correct procedures were followed and the correct decision made when replay overturned what had been ruled a fourth-down catch by Cleveland's Quincy Morgan."

BUT, BUT... All the Cleveland fans whine -- you CAN'T challenge a play when another play has been run -- EVERYBODY knows that.

Well, turns out that's not really how it played out. NFL's Director of Officiating Mike Pereira described what happened:

"The Browns were in a no-huddle offense trying to get to the line of scrimmage to snap the ball and stop the clock. Things were moving very quickly. When the pager went off (just before the snap), the referee allowed the play to take place before confirming with the umpire and the replay assistant that he was paged for a review."

Now you can sit here and debate about the rule all you want, but the fact is that the officials got it right AGAIN!

[Tall_Texan]

Quarterbacks are allowed to spike the ball and waste a down, saving a little time from the old practice of taking the sanp and throwing it at the sideline. It's part of the "protecting the quarterback" mantra.

Where Coughlin and ESPN were talking about grounding on the play is that Couch appeared to double-clutch the spike, drop back a few steps and then spiked the ball. Quarterbacks are allowed to fake a spike but they must then follow through with a play. If I had reffed yesterday's game, I would have penalized Couch for intentional grounding. Of course, the review and reversal made the point moot so we'll have to see if the situation ever arises again.

Personally, I think the refs were going to review the play, they needed to blow the whistle BEFORE the snap. After all, they set the ball back into play. Cleveland has a legitimate beef and they should have been allowed to continue.

[Chi-townChief]

From the replays that were shown here in Chicago, it looked like a catch and most of the sportscasters agreed that the video did not have the evidence to overturn the call on the field.

[Rustbelt]

The NFL's (and the national sports media's) spin campaign on this is worthy of Xlinton's greatest efforts. What is so hard to understand about no play can be reviewed after the ball is snapped again? So it's the Browns' fans fault that NFL refs are making up rules as the game goes along?

The fans who chucked things on the field were out of hand, and wrong.

Having said that, where's the outrage over the refs' mega-blunders?

Fans in other towns may go home whining after something like Sunday's debacle. Browns fans are different.

What the NFL wants: pay your eighty bucks and sit in the stadium like a zombie while they blast you with ads and lame music. That stuff doesn't fly in Clevetown. Cleveland is the only city that fought for and got their team back.

Check out www.browns.theinsiders.com. Run by self confessed Evil Republican, Arthur Bietz. Find out what obsessed Brownie fandom is all about.

[TexRef]

From the replays that were shown here in Chicago, it looked like a catch and most of the sportscasters agreed that the video did not have the evidence to overturn the call on the field.

Really? From the video I saw the ball clearly hit the ground before he had control.

[copycat]

IMHO, in retrospect, the only error was that the ref should have instantly waived his arms when he felt the buzzer. Even the head of officials later said that he wished it had happened that way.

Had the ref waived his arnms immediately, the Cleveland fans would not have mistakenly believed that a play had occurred. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

FReegards...

[knowtherules]

I might not be able to referee an NFL game, but I do know how to spell Cleveland.

[TexRef]

If I had reffed yesterday's game, I would have penalized Couch for intentional grounding.

That's why you're not a referee :)

Personally, I think the refs were going to review the play, they needed to blow the whistle BEFORE the snap.

It seems that they did not have time to do that... Look at how quickly they ran, spotted the ball, etc. Imagine if you are the referee or umpire and are just getting buzzed a half second before the play is going off...

By the time that you are blowing your whistle the ball is being snapped. However, the actual buzzing took place before the snap, which is what the rule calls for.

[knowtherules]

Only if you choose to disregard the NFL's own rules.

[connectthedots]

I used to ref college volleyball in one of the major conferences (The Conference of Champions) for several years making $70 per match + travel expenses. At that time, you did not do it for the money, but for the pride of being one of the best at it.

I also reffed HS basketball and the one call that I never had to make, but would have if it ever came up was this one. The situation is a played takes a shot as time is expiring, the shot is partially after the shot leaves the shooters hand, and then the ball goes in the baskets after time does expire. What is the call (at least at that time, about 14 years ago? Basket is no good because a shot attempt is over when the ball is touched by an opposing player.

[TexRef]

Having said that, where's the outrage over the refs' mega-blunders?

Did you even READ the excerpts from the article that I posted?

The buzz (notification of review) happened BEFORE the snap. According to the Director of Officiating, THAT is what the rule calls for -- it is NOT dependent on when the officials blow their whistle.

[TexRef]

I might not be able to referee an NFL game, but I do know how to spell Cleveland.

So do I... Just typing a little too fast when posting the article.

[Chi-townChief]

From what we saw here, the ball did hit the ground but it looked like Morgan had possession first with both feet down and in-bounds.

[copycat]

PS How do you explain the "equipment malfunction" story that was first given. Kind of sounds like "a bird flew into the engine" to me.

[knowtherules]

Fair enough.

[TomB]

But they got the play right, didn't they?

OH irony of ironies!

The Brown fans are pissed that they didn't win on a bad call.

[TexRef]

The situation is a played takes a shot as time is expiring, the shot is partially (blocked) after the shot leaves the shooters hand, and then the ball goes in the baskets after time does expire. What is the call (at least at that time, about 14 years ago? Basket is no good because a shot attempt is over when the ball is touched by an opposing player.

I don't know about 14 years ago (I'll look it up), but that is NOT the rule today -- at any level. A defensive touching of the ball does NOT end the "try" for goal.

[codder too]

The guys in THE BOOTH said that they had a report from the field that there was a problem with the equipment and that the officals couldn't communicate temporarily. So, who had the problem? Why didn't they call an officals time out until the TECHNICAL problem was resolved.????

[copycat]

From what we saw here, the ball did hit the ground but it looked like Morgan had possession first with both feet down and in-bounds.

That's what I saw too. It looked like he recovered his own fumble.

[TexRef]

PS How do you explain the "equipment malfunction" story that was first given. Kind of sounds like "a bird flew into the engine" to me.

That's a good question -- and one that I'm surprised took 33 posts to come up :)

I'm not sure... Perhaps the officials never even said that and it was just something that the media invented. I can tell you that MANY times coaches/players/fans think that an official said or did something and it just didn't happen that way.

As soon as I see anything addressing that I'll let you know...

[classygreeneyedblonde]

There are refs that cheat in every game out there from lil league to pros and it happens every week.

And why was it the fans the reporters ,the newscasters all said the same thing ,buttttttttttttttt the refs just happen to be right..........maybe we all were at a different game than the refs....refs should be ashamed of themselves teaching kids it's ok to cheat..