Posted on 02/08/2006 5:18:46 AM PST by mcg2000
ditto - where's the ball?
I'm not confused here, the endzone is inside the lines ergo you must cross the line completely to enter into it.
That's breaking the imaginary plane formed by the goal line.
By the examples given by some here if a center moves the ball foreward at the goal line he scores a touchdown.
We all know that is not so.
Bad rules exist (and I think the tuck rule is idiotic), but they should call the rules as written and consistently interpretted. This particular rule, which I think is bad, was applied in the SB as written and interpretted the same way it was twice against the Steelers in the regular season.
As much as I hate the "tuck rule" (and really, who likes it?), I'm still left with the dilemma: how do you re-write the rule without putting the official in the position of having to "read the passer's mind", so to speak? In other words, what objective critera can be used to indicate when a forward pass attempt ends, and a "tuck" begins?
Dang. You are prone to hyperbole aren't you? You are way off on you assumption that the only people who think it was pass interference are Steeler's fans. I gave you a quote from an article on Yahoo! from an AP writer as just one example. You can make your point without resorting to ridiculous statements. It was a "questionable" call that could have gone either way. Such is the game of football.
No any part of the ball has to cross the line the interior of the line. If the center moved the ball over the line that would be a false start or illegal snap.
Of course the ref from Pittsburgh didn't have a preference for which team won. That's what I was saying.
Did you miss post 207? I link to the NFL rulebook. You are very confused.
By the examples given by some here if a center moves the ball foreward at the goal line he scores a touchdown. We all know that is not so.
That is not so because the center is not in legal possession of the ball. He must snap it backwards in order to begin play.
He can not advance the ball on his own.
SD
Yes, you are confused. The entire line is part of the end zone -- by rule. It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, it matters what the rule book says.
You're thinking of soccer or hockey, where the entire ball/puck must cross the goal line. That's not true in (American) football.
The defender was grabbing the reciever. If you were going to make a touch call, it was defensvie pass interference. Of course if you weren't watching when the intial contact was being made by the defender, you could call the offensive interference.
Ummmmm. The end zone is crossed when any part of the ball crosses the forward part of the goal line. That is and always has been the rule. Furthermore, the goal line extends beyond the edges of the field and if you cross it, before coming down out of bounds, and have any part of your body in bounds across the goal line, it is a touchdown. That very thing happened in a Monday Night game with the Falcons and Michael Vick. The ball was in his left hand 3 feet out of bounds and he took off in bounds and scooted his right hand over the top of the pylon and was correctly ruled a TD.
No you're implying sarcastically that he had bias. Funny for a guy that likes to accuse others of spinning just how fond you are of Clintonian word games. It was a clear cut obvious case of interference that should be called every time it happens, the ref attempted to throw the flag immediately but missed. Those are the visually obvious FACTS. You implication of bias is just sour grapes whing.
Bull. All of the contact was initiated by the receiver. The defender has every right to where he is standing.
There was some contact around the goal line when the receiver came out of his break on the post and before he reversed to follow Hasslebeck when he started to scramble. That could have been called, sure, but the officials might have thought it incidental as happens on nearly every pass in every NFL game. Pass Interference is a tough rule because it is very subjective and heavily tilted towards the receiver and against the defender (I used to play DB). Just as in basketball, when the offensive player extends the arm, he's going to get whistled for a charge. Same with the receiver in football.
Look closely at the two photos.
The clear photo is BEFORE impact. The defensive player is not making contact yet. Therefore, the QB was moving forward at the time. How far did he move from that point, enough to break the plane?
In other words, this comparison is just like the replay: no conclusive evidence.
The ball did not break the plane. The angle on the picture is skewed.
Believe what you want. But Ben didn't get in. He has even said so.
Roethlisberger told Letterman that he didn't think he scored on a controversial play in the second quarter that put the Steelers ahead for good 7-3. Roethlisberger dove toward the end zone but didn't appear to get the ball to touch the goal line. But officials on the field signaled touchdown."I told Coach, 'I don't think I got in,'" Roethlisberger told Letterman. "But we were getting ready to go for it on fourth down anyway, and I would have run it again. So we would have found a way to get in."
No, he didn't. He said that initially he did not think he got in. That is different from maintaing now, three days later that he never got in.
SD
I saw the video on Letterman. Ben stated that he did not get in. I agree with him. If you have any quotes that he has since retracted what he said on Letterman, let them be forthcoming.
He didn't get in.
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.