FGs not reviewable

[Triumph]

Is this true?

Baltimore Ravens' winning field against New England Patriots not easy call - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

 

[Steve102]

Mike Pereira would be considered by many to be THE expert on officiating. His explanation is in agreement with what was said last night in the broadcast. In short, I would say, yes.

Collinsworth, I believe, said that between the uprights is reviewable, over is not.

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

Is this true?

Baltimore Ravens' winning field against New England Patriots not easy call - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

from above (meaning looking down on either side post to figure out if it was inside or out)....not reviewable...

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

"Here is the rule: In order for a field goal that crosses over the top of the upright to be good, the entire ball must pass inside the outside edge of the upright extended."

This is interesting to me. Seems to me there are three choices -- the ball either needs to be inside an imaginary line from the inside of the upright, from the center of the upright, or from the outside of the upright.

I personally would choose the center. I think the inside is too small. A ball that passes over some small portion of the upright would usually be good if it were lower -- it would hit the upright and bounce in. But a ball that is merely inside the outside the upright would usually not be good -- it would doink off the upright. You shouldn't get an expanded zone merely because you kick high.

The kick looked good from every angle I saw. If that kick had been called no good for the Patriots, I'd be mad.

I'm ok with the rule the way it is -- stuff that obviously fixable using replay should be, but judgment calls shouldn't. You might remember that there was a game a few years ago where the ball hit off the camera, and the officials called it no good. In stadium replays showed it clearly. At the time, the play was nonreviewable, but nevertheless, the officials got together and "conferred" and reversed the original call. They claimed not to have been influenced by the replay, but of course they were. It was after that game that over the cross bar was added to reviewable plays.

 

[Deebs]

But why didn't NBC have that "up-angle" view of the FG, looking up from beneath the cross bar? They almost always have that angle for the Sunday afternoon games. Why wouldn't they have a cameraman positioned underneath the uprights for the week's biggest game, on what was a game winning or losing moment? Usually NBC is a lot more on the ball than that. They even had a kicker-freeze time out to get a cameraman over there.

 

[nekromantique]

its not reviewable, but this makes a good case that it should be, especially since it was game-deciding, and very questionable (not saying it was or was not good).

either that, or extend the uprights, because going through pereiras tweets, there have been quite a few similar situations recently.

 

[TruthSeeker]

"Here is the rule: In order for a field goal that crosses over the top of the upright to be good, the entire ball must pass inside the outside edge of the upright extended."

The kick looked good from every angle I saw. If that kick had been called no good for the Patriots, I'd be mad.

.

Interesting, I showed the kick (Youtube Video), to Jet's fans, who obviously don't like the Pats, A Steeler's fan, who hates the Pats, AND Giant's fans, and they all thought it was no good. I'm biased obviously, being a Pats fan. Yes the kick is incredibly close, almost too tough to call, and IF the used Instant Replay, they might not have reversed it, BUT, you can tell from the reactions of the Ravens themselves, half the team just stood there (maybe in disbelief because they thought he missed it), and the other half started cheering once the refs called it good. What did Al Michaels call it ?

 

[Pujo]

There were a lot of officiating problems in that game, the kick was not one of them. It was the right call. As to why it's not reviewable, probably because the officials under the goalposts have the best view, and the TV camera angles are likely to have an angle that would make it look different on the replay. If stadiums had officially placed (and aligned) cameras somewhere, I could see them making it reviewable, but not with just the TV feeds.

 

[fgssand]

There were a lot of officiating problems in that game, the kick was not one of them. It was the right call. As to why it's not reviewable, probably because the officials under the goalposts have the best view, and the TV camera angles are likely to have an angle that would make it look different on the replay. If stadiums had officially placed (and aligned) cameras somewhere, I could see them making it reviewable, but not with just the TV feeds.

Not reviewable, period:


Mike Pereira ?@MikePereira
A FG that goes over the top of an upright is not reviewable because you cannot determine when exactly the ball is directly over the pole

 

[Pujo]

Not reviewable, period:


Mike Pereira ?@MikePereira
A FG that goes over the top of an upright is not reviewable because you cannot determine when exactly the ball is directly over the pole

Right. I was saying that the rule may be different if there was an aligned, objective camera angle to go off (say, two cameras at 90 degrees) with a shared timecode so that you could tell when the ball was over the pole. Just my speculation, though.

 

[DarrylS]

I haven't seen the video, but according to one mediot I was listening to, the refs raised their arms before it crossed the plane of the goal post...

They could have at least conferred... appease the masses.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Field Goal Rules: Misinformation?

After the field goal "went in" last night, the broadcasters were quick to point out that if a ball goes above the uprights and it's even with the post, the kick counts. Their explanation was that the post extends to the heavens, and therefore the kick counts.

I scoured the NFL rulebook, and I'll admit that I could have missed something. I also googled several strings such as "field goal above the upright" etc. You know what I found? Nothing.

So, here is the problem. There is a rule that states when the ball goes over a long, yellow pole, if it is exactly at the same angle and likely would have hit the pole, it is a HOME RUN. Yes, in baseball, hitting the foul pole, the ball is correctly ruled a home run, as the foul pole is in play.

In football, there is no such rule. Except that logically, you have to put the ball IN BETWEEN the two uprights. I've yet to see a football bounce off the upright, fall back into the endzone, and see the field goal count.

Am I saying the Pats got shafted? I don't know... it doesn't matter. But I would at least like to get accurate information. It is inaccurate to say that a ball flying exactly above an upright should count as a successful kick. Perhaps the NFL should address this issue in the rulebook.

 

[juny]

Re: Field Goal Rules: Misinformation?

found this on foxsports.com. basically the ball has to be entirely inside the outside edge of the post. the fg call i have no problem with, it's the rest of the game that was a joke.

Baltimore Ravens' winning field against New England Patriots not easy call - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I haven't seen the video, but according to one mediot I was listening to, the refs raised their arms before it crossed the plane of the goal post...

The guy under the goal post in question raised his arms pretty quickly, but I don't think it was premature. The proper mechanic is for the two refs to make eye-contact and nod at one another and then signal good or to shake the head, and if they differ to consult before giving a signal. I didn't see that last night, or if it happened, it happened very quickly. Don't get me wrong -- I'm sure he was delighted to call it good. Even for a very seasoned big time official, making a no good call on the road there is not something you want to do. The regular NFL guys don't give a crap -- they'll call it like they see it. And I imagine that guy did too, but I can virtually guarantee he wanted it to be good, which is probably why he raised his arms so quickly without, apparently, making eye contact with his partner.

If it were my job to train officials, though, I would tell them not to confer on that situation in all but the most extraordinary of circumstances. For a ball over the post, I want the guy under that post making the call, right or wrong, without input. Any input is just going to potentially introduce greater error. There's nobody in the world better positioned to make the call -- it's his and he has to live with it. It would be like the home plate ump asking the second base ump for help with a play at the plate. It's his call and he has to wear it.

Now, if he needs help, it's his job to ask for it. If a bug flies in your eye, or you get distracted, or you're straightlined, or whatever, you ask for help. And the ref always has the right to override or seek a consult. But I would think on this particular type of call, that should be extremely rare -- as rare as a home plate ump asking for help on a play at the plate.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Mike Pereira would be considered by many to be THE expert on officiating. His explanation is in agreement with what was said last night in the broadcast. In short, I would say, yes.

Collinsworth, I believe, said that between the uprights is reviewable, over is not.

Why would it need to be reviewed if its between the uprights? If its between its good, if its over, thats when its tought to tell whether its good or not. Sounds bass-ackwards.

 

[Steve102]

Why would it need to be reviewed if its between the uprights? If its between its good, if its over, thats when its tought to tell whether its good or not. Sounds bass-ackwards.

that was pretty much my thought. It's either through the uprights or not. Not a whole lot to review.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

For better or worse, the idea of NFL instant replay is that it should be used in all circumstances where error is detectable, but not for judgment calls.

The theory of replay is that whether or not the ball passes over the cross bar between the uprights is at least possibly detectable, but the question whether a ball above the upright is good or not is always going to be a judgment call.

The way the rule is written, the primary use of video will be whether the ball went all the way over the cross bar. There are basically three situations where review theoretically could be used on field goals under the current rule: (1) ball hits back of field goal stanchion and is called no good (or hits cross bar and is ruled good for having hit stanchion or camera). (2) Ball hits upright and comes straight down, and review can tell whether or not it went in front or behind cross bar. (3) Ball is blown by a gust of wind -- did it entirely cross the plane before being blown out?

Obviously, number 3 is very rare and it's unlikely video would be conclusive enough to overturn whatever call is made on the field.

There are other theoretical reviewable plays on field goals. If a player attempted to goaltend the goal, there might be an illegal touch.

Edit: Number 3 above is incorrect. Forgot they changed the rule a while back that if the ball passes through the plane of the crossbar and uprights, but is blown back through the goal, and then hits the ground, it is no good.

 

[Haley]

Re: Field Goal Rules: Misinformation?

I don't have a problem with the call. It was everything that followed (and a number of things that preceded) the FG that was a problem. No communication, no review, no nothing. I was listening to Belichick about it this morning and he said it was reviewable. He went on to say he was part of a game back in the year 2000 where the game ended, people went to the locker room, call was reversed, and everyone suited back up for a final play. There should at minimum have been some communication offered by the refs to Belichick after the game ended.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I scoured the NFL rulebook,

Rule 11, Section 4, Article 1 Successful Field Goal (subsection c):

"The entire ball must pass through the vertical plane of the goal, which is the area above the crossbar and between the uprights or, if above the uprights, between their outside edges."

Rule 15, Section 9 (Reviewable Plays) Notes.

"Note: Non-reviewable plays include but are not limited to . . . (7) Field-goal or Try attempts that cross above either upright without touching anything."

 

[Dodie]

But why didn't NBC have that "up-angle" view of the FG, looking up from beneath the cross bar? They almost always have that angle for the Sunday afternoon games. Why wouldn't they have a cameraman positioned underneath the uprights for the week's biggest game, on what was a game winning or losing moment? Usually NBC is a lot more on the ball than that. They even had a kicker-freeze time out to get a cameraman over there.

Because they were too busy eying Belichick grabbing the refs lol

Seriously, can the Pats sue the league for this? It's a game changing play it's what we fans pay for and players play for..and also can they sue the league off those dubious calls that caused them the game? (i.e., 4&2 on Mayo and Interferance on DMc)?