Did Rothlessberger score?

[mgteich]

Did you all see uncontrovertable proof that the ball did not cross the plane before Rothlessberger bounced back a yard, and his arm touched the ground?
I didn't. I wouldn't have overruled the ref's call. Was it a close call? Sure. Could the ref's call gone either way? Sure! But the call shouldn't have been overruled.

Again what the poster wanted was for the review booth to ignore the rules. Even better, posters want what Belichick has requested, cameras on the pylons, and more cameras focused oalong the goal line. Are the posters right? Of course, they are, with regard to needing more camera angles.

 

[Na_polian]

Did you all see uncontrovertable proof that the ball did not cross the plane before Rothlessberger bounced back a yard, and his arm touched the ground?
I didn't. I wouldn't have overruled the ref's call. Was it a close call? Sure. Could the ref's call gone either way? Sure! But the call shouldn't have been overruled.

Again what the poster wanted was for the review booth to ignore the rules. Even better, posters want what Belichick has requested, cameras on the pylons, and more cameras focused oalong the goal line. Are the posters right? Of course, they are, with regard to needing more camera angles.

Ask Big Ben. He'll tell ya: "I don't think I got in, but I would have on teh following play of the refs didn't gimmee the first one...".

He knew. He knew at the time, when he moved the ball forward afterwards. You could see the look on his face. He knew.

That settles that argument, I would think.

 

[mgteich]

The person LEAST likely to know what happened was the player at the bottom of the pile. Of course, Ben moved the ball forward after he was down. The question is whether the ball crossed the plane before he was moved back, and whether there was incontrovertable proof that the ball did not cross the plane, as was ruled on the field.

What I see now is that the refs should not bother to ref. they should simply ask the players what they think happened.

Ask Big Ben. He'll tell ya: "I don't think I got in, but I would have on teh following play of the refs didn't gimmee the first one...".

He knew. He knew at the time, when he moved the ball forward afterwards. You could see the look on his face. He knew.

That settles that argument, I would think.

 

[Na_polian]

The person LEAST likely to know what happened was the player at the bottom of the pile. Of course, Ben moved the ball forward after he was down. The question is whether the ball crossed the plane before he was moved back, and whether there was incontrovertable proof that the ball did not cross the plane, as was ruled on the field.

What I see now is that the refs should not bother to ref. they should simply ask the players what they think happened.

Na. I'd like them to ref - but I'd like them to do it fairly, in a consistent manner. If you are calling "Holding" on one team, you damn well better be calling "Holding" on the other team when they do it. Anyone else here think that the Stealers never would have had that 70+ yard run for a TD if there was no holding on the line? I bet if we look at the film again, we'd see blatant holding on that play. Was it called? No.

How many penalties did the Steelers have? Two False Starts in the first quarter, and one other one? Yeah, like I believe that is legitimate. Just like I believe that the Colts are so disciplined that they had no Pass Interference calls against them for the entire season until the ONE they got in the playoffs - and it was a meager 5 YD penalty or so. Yeah. Like I believe that was legitimate.

Secondly, with regard to Ben - the ref really looked unsure of himself. He ran in, like he was gonna spot the ball, and then when he got near Ben he raised his other arm to signal the TD. So, no, I don't think he got in, or got the ball even a millimeter over the line. Neither did the ref, at first, apparently.

 

[flutie2phelan]

Na polian is correct when he points out how the original official waffled on the call ... and thus cancelled the spot of the ball he already was in the act of making.

Mgteich is correct that the replay presented no "indisputable visual evidence" upon which to overrule.

This play was important to the game. But it is NOT important to the question of How Badly Did The Refs Do?

Now that i've seen some general-interest messageboards discussing this play, a remarkable fact has become clear. Folks defending the officials are acting as if ... merely because there was insufficient evidence to overrule this one call ... that makes all the gritching and hair-pulling about the officiating simply sour grapes. "Get over it!"

You wouldn't know it from our board, but that appears to be the Steelers' fans' motif.

 

[Pats_Bryan]

In a case like this, I think you really have to go with the insticts of the official on the field. At the time, he called the touchdown, apparently believing that the edge of the ball crossed the edge of the line. I personally didn't think he got it, but I was watching from TV. I wasn't there.

Calling a TD is the safe call, since the replay can always overturn it if it's a mistake. But in this case, the replay didn't offer indisputable proof, so you have to uphold the call on the field.

So was it a TD? Yeah, technically, sure. But I can't prove that the ball actually broke the plane, and neither can anybody else. It's like determining who has posession after a fumble under a scrum. Unless you have x-ray vision, you can't really know. Everyone is fighting for possession under the pile. The ball may technically already be down, but they still fight for it. You have to go with the judgement of the officials. No way around it.

Just my opinion

 

[skri65]

He didn't get in. I dont think it should have been overturned. That's that.

 

[flutie2phelan]

In a case like this, I think you really have to go with the insticts of the official on the field. At the time, he called the touchdown, apparently believing that the edge of the ball crossed the edge of the line. ....

None of us has any problem with going with the eyes on the field. But we do tend to develop problems when the linesman comes loping in from the side ... marking an intended spot with his right hand ... before he changes to a touchdown signal overhead.

Innumerable replays show that this must have happened just after R'burger - flat on the ground - shoved the ball a yard forward across the line ... and looks imploringly at his pal in stripes.

Just like the backjudge didn't call offensive PI ... until the safety begins lobbying ... pleading! ... for an unwarranted flag.

 

[jczxohn1]

I thought on the replay the ball MIGHT have crossed the front edge of the goal line while Ruthlessburger was in the air, before he was knocked back. That said, the camera was not on the goal line, so a straight, undistorted view wasn't available.

 

[Joker]

The ref ran down the line with his right arm up indicating 4th down...THEN when he saw Roth with the ball over the line he signaled TD...stop making crap up...THAT's what happened...he NEVER signaled TD while Roth was up...NEVER HAPPENED

 

[jczxohn1]

The ref ran down the line with his right arm up indicating 4th down...THEN when he saw Roth with the ball over the line he signaled TD...stop making crap up...THAT's what happened...he NEVER signaled TD while Roth was up...NEVER HAPPENED

If you're referring to me, I don't make crap up.

 

[Hoodie]

Ya know how BB is always calling for goal line cameras. Do you think a goal line camera would have helped on this one ? (assuming the ref's weren't actually trying to help the Stillers win.)

BTW -- he didn't get in.

 

[jczxohn1]

Ya know how BB is always calling for goal line cameras. Do you think a goal line camera would have helped on this one ? (assuming the ref's weren't actually trying to help the Stillers win.)

BTW -- he didn't get in.

That was my point! And no, I didn't think he got in either.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Thing is when in doubt, no call is the right call. In this case no call equals no TD. If you're clearly wrong, replay will show it. If it's too close to call either way on replay, as most say this was, then it never should have been called a TD to begin with. As Ben claimed they were prepared to go for it on 4th down, you can continue to persue something denied. But once points are awarded the irrefutable evidence standard is an extremely tough nut to crack.

If the line judge believed he saw the ball cross the plane in the air he should have stood his ground and called TD right then and there. By running in to check the pile, he killed that argument. He was withholding judgement until he checked the pile - where unfortunately Ben was caught on camera sheepishly pushing the ball forward over the line seconds after he was down. Only then did the line judge call it - after assessing the position of the ball and the player when he arrived at the pile. If he felt he needed that view to "confirm" something else he believed he had seen seconds earlier, then the confirmation he thought he got was bogus.

What the replay did show pretty clearly was Ben didn't get in low on second effort because a defender drove forward and killed his forward progress from below as the pile sank.

Believe me, if Ben remotely thought he'd made it he would have said I think I was in.

 

[stcjones]

this IS the main point

Ask Big Ben. He'll tell ya: "I don't think I got in, but I would have on teh following play of the refs didn't gimmee the first one...".

He knew. He knew at the time, when he moved the ball forward afterwards. You could see the look on his face. He knew.

That settles that argument, I would think.

Rottenburger HIMSELF, KNOWS that he DIDN'T get in!!!! On all the replays I have seen....he doesn't look like he got in....then you watch his face and next actions.......he is right as he said on letterman...."I didn't score"......at least i appreciate his honesty......

 

[ilduce06410]

tat's wat i taw

The ref ran down the line with his right arm up indicating 4th down...THEN when he saw Roth with the ball over the line he signaled TD...stop making crap up...THAT's what happened...he NEVER signaled TD while Roth was up...NEVER HAPPENED

i don't know about all the "making crap up" stuff
but whatever the linesman was signalling, i'd bet my left nut it wasn't "touchdown".
he ran in from the sideline, and then didn't raise his arms for maybe a full second. during that time, ben sneaked the ball over the line.
i don't blame ben one bit. it's what any of us would do.

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

Did you all see uncontrovertable proof that the ball did not cross the plane before Rothlessberger bounced back a yard, and his arm touched the ground?
I didn't. I wouldn't have overruled the ref's call. Was it a close call? Sure. Could the ref's call gone either way? Sure! But the call shouldn't have been overruled.

Again what the poster wanted was for the review booth to ignore the rules. Even better, posters want what Belichick has requested, cameras on the pylons, and more cameras focused oalong the goal line. Are the posters right? Of course, they are, with regard to needing more camera angles.

I think this play wasn't one of the ref's screw ups. In my eyes, when Ben was flying in the air before he got hit backwards...I seen the ball at least touch the edge of the white line. He went forward again to try for more yards. I think he got in. But that is my opinion.

Where Jackson touched the defender, then the defender touched him back...that should have cancelled each other out. Maybe not a touchdown...but it was almost as inane as Samuels PI on Lelie in the brokebacks game. Lelie was touching Samuel WAY MORE...if anything, it should have been called offensive PI. That call made me LIVID.

 

[shakadave]

It was clear to me that he got it in. Just barely in. Certainly not overturn-able.

 

[Michael]

It was clear to me that he got it in. Just barely in. Certainly not overturn-able.

From the side view (which we all know is not on the goal line and therefor skewed) you can not make the call because the ball is tucked between his arm and his chest. The Seahawk player's (Lewis I believe) arm is in front of his arm with the ball. And they both come down just outside the line. That is clear from the low camera by the end zone. That is a clear reference point where the ball can be clearly seen. That eliminates any optical illusion from skewed angles. I've watched it in hi res back and forth many times and I'm thoroughly convinced with Rothlisberger himself that he did not get in.

 

[Steel77]

Rottenburger HIMSELF, KNOWS that he DIDN'T get in!!!! On all the replays I have seen....he doesn't look like he got in....then you watch his face and next actions.......he is right as he said on letterman...."I didn't score"......at least i appreciate his honesty......

The play was so close how would Ben know if he got in or not? Go on any Steeler MB, there are a number of threads devoted to this showing still frames from the play where it CLEARLY shows the ball breaking the plain of the goalline. The call is difficult because it is so close and the way Ben has the ball, his arm is obscuring the tip of the ball, but it's obvious he scored after looking at the photos IMO...

BTW, the photos on this page show Ben after he broke the plain and they're from a HORRIBLE angle as well. Nice going...