Touchdown?

[wesleydnunder]

Like Slip, I didn't care who won. The Cowboys weren't playing. That was the worst officiating I've seen in a long time. When Seattle threw the interception on the three yard line and the QB wound up tackling the guy he gets called for a low block. I saw several calls like that.

Mark

 

[Lila]

I'm glad the Steelers won, but I'm not happy with quite a few calls against the Seahawks. That touchdown they called back...should've been a touchdown. I mean really, interference?

I don't think the touchdown of thread subject was a touchdown.

Seahawks QB should not have been penalized for his 'personal foul' when he did a legal tackle.

But I'm not gonna get mad at the Steelers for bad officiating. C'mon.

 

[patoloco]

I don't fully understand football rules, but I saw that the ball landed outside and the player holding the ball strechted his arms -while lying on the ground-to pass the ball past the goal line. To my understanding, it should not be called a touch down.

In soccer, referees are not allowed to see replays, so they have to judge by their split second apreciation, but in football thay can watch the play over and over.

 

[Corax]

1 - Ben didn't get it in.
2 - The Seahawk OPI was bogus
3 - The clip by the Seahawk QB was bogus
4 - <waves his Terrible Towel> GO STEELERS!

 

[weldon]

I don't fully understand football rules, but I saw that the ball landed outside and the player holding the ball strechted his arms -while lying on the ground-to pass the ball past the goal line. To my understanding, it should not be called a touch down.

The key here is if he carried the ball far enough so that the tip of the ball crossed the front plane of the white line marking the end zone before he was down. It looked like he carried the ball very close to touching the plane of the end zone, was knocked backwards by the defender, and then moved the ball after he was down. The call was based on the furthest point the ball reached before he was down, not on him moving the ball after he was down.

It's a tough call, but it did seem like the tip of the ball may have just reached the edge of the end zone. It was close enough that I think it was the right call to let the play stand. The referee had a slightly different angle (and was closer) than the camera and could have seen that the tip of the ball did reach the end zone where the replay was inconclusive.

I think it was the right call to let it stand. The call of touchdown was too close to overturn the ruling on the field.

 

[hurricanejedi]

If you held up a ruler at the point where he was in the air the tip of the ball touches the white line. Therefore it was a touchdown.

 

[Corax]

If that TD was allowed to stand, the Seahawks TD should have been as well. As a Steelers supporter (notice I didn't say fan? They beat my Colts, so I wanted the *******s to at least win it for Bettis' sake) even I will admit that the Seahawks got screwed on several calls.

 

[patoloco]

The tip of the ball? I thougt it had to cross completely the white line, just as soccer. Well, I stated I don't really understand that game, and maybe was thinking with a round ball in mind.

 

[125gJoe]

The meaning of "fans" as used within this topic:

...an enthusiastic devotee of sports [syn: sports fan]


Anyway...
If the majority of "fans" were for the SeaHawks, I wonder if the outcome would have been different?

Sometimes it's way too obvious the games are "thrown". Just recently I saw an Extreme Fighting match "thrown" on the very first punch that never connected.

____________

 

[tomm10]

First, let me say I don't think it was a touchdown.

Now, the line judge thought it was. That's a pretty tough call for him to make so I see little fault with his decision as it was close and hard to see for sure in live action.

As far as the replay goes, the rule is, the referee has to see "Irrefutable evidence" that the call on the field was wrong if he is to overturn the ruling. When I watched the replay, I could not see the ball just before Ben was down. I could, however, make a reasonable estimate of where that ball was in his arm and where the ball should have been when he was down. The tip of the ball should have been over the line. In order for that referee to reverse the call, he actually would have had to see the ball not cross the line.

As a referee who only overrides the field call 23% of the time, I think he made the call in character. In a techical sense, I think he made the right call. The problem really lies with the initial call on the field which is a lot tougher to make in the moment.

Aidan thought the call was BS: