At the end of the Ravens vs. Browns game, with the Ravens up by three points, the Browns kicker lined up for a long field goal. The kick went up, hit the side post, ricocheting back within the uprights. It then did something truly bizarre and remarkable: hit the support bar behind the upright, and bounced back into the endzone.
The officials under the goalposts were confused, and after five seconds or so of dead still, one decides to call it “no good.” It had broken the plane of the uprights, but through a freak chance, bounced back into play. According to the talking heads, this was not a reviewable call, and the game should have been over, with the Ravens winning.
Now here’s the problem. The head official brought the officials together to discuss, but as part of the discussion, he clearly went over to the field review booth and looked at footage of the kick. On a non-reviewable call. After the “discussion,” the officials awarded the Browns the field goal, tying the game and sending it into overtime, in which the Browns subsequently won.
My question is this: could the winner of the game be overturned now that it is over, if the league rulemakers get together and talk it out? If the initial call of “no good” had stood, the Ravens would have won. With the call overturned, the Browns eventually did go on to win. The winner appears to hinge on the review of an unreviewable play. Since the head judge obviously reviewed the play as part of the “discussion” between referees, could the decision the refs made be rendered null and void by him making a decision potentially based on unreviewable game footage?
Since the game continued, the NFL is likely only to issue an apology for screwing up the call, not change the game result. I don’t think they’ve ever done that - and anger all the bettors and casinos who’ve already exchanged millions over the now-official game. Don’t kid yourself that they don’t consider the importance of gambling to the health of the business. Too, bad calls are part of sports, and sportsmen live with them.
But the rule is foolish - the only nonreviewable plays are supposed to be judgment-based. The ball being through the uprights is not, however, any more judgment-based than any other call, including all the reviewable ones.
I think it’s weird that the two refs standing right there missed the call. As a fan, I could not see that it hit the back post, so I assumed it hit the front of the crossbar and was no good.
If I’d seen it from where the refs were standing, I’d have said “oh, it crossed the crossbar therefore it is good, no matter where it ended up.”
It seemed to me that none of the refs on the field knew the rule. I decided that I knew the rule…because back in the day (from what I have seen on the TV) there WAS no middle pole and I just sort of assumed that the rules didn’t change when the design of the field goal changed, but that was just my ruling.
Seems like it was an error on the ref’s part. All of them. “Did it cross the crossbar, Joe?” “Er, uh…yeah I think it did. I dunno I wasn’t watching too close. I was looking for where it ended up. Uhm…here comes the head ref…I don’t know what to tell him.”
I wonder if those refs rely too much on the instant replay anymore…
In a European Championship rugby match a few years ago between Leicester Tigers and Llanelli Scarlets, Leicester needed a kick to win. There was about a minute left to play, and they had a penalty about 50 yards out.
The kicker, Tim Stimpson (without his captain’s permission :smack: ) told the referee he’d take a kick.
The ball travelled the 50 yards, hit the left-hand post, then the right-hand post, then finally went over. :eek:
[QUOTE=Only Mostly Dead]
According to the talking heads, this was not a reviewable call, and the game should have been over, with the Ravens winning./QUOTE]
What was the talking heads’ authority for this position?
As soon as this play happened, I ran to get my 2006 copy of the Official NFL Rules (I don’t have the 2007 version, but I think these two items are the same.)
In addition, in reference to reviewable plays, Rule 15, Section 9, (this is in italics after the section describing revews and whether they are initiated by upstairs or he coach. Either way, it doesn’t really matter.
So I don’t believe the play was “reviewed” in the typical sense. I think there was a discussion on the field by the refs and judges where the ref probably checked what they saw.
The ball clearly crossed the plane, so it was the right decision and a great job by the refs changing the call after discussion, even though they may get chastised for not making the right call in the first place.
Yup, it was reviewable after all, and the ball clearly hit the support post inside the uprights. The refs did the right thing, even if neither of the refs right under the goalpost was looking at the ball as it went through. What’s up with that?
They’re allowed to “dicuss” calls among each other and get them right. I guess that’s their cover. The bottom line is they got the call right.
I don’t know why you can’t review field goals. that sounds like a really stupid exception to me. It doesn’t involve any judgement calls and it’s something for which video replays would provide real clarity. It’s a stupid rule, therefore the zebras were right to ignore it.
I don’t consider that “cover.” The tuck rule game was covering (a snowy field leading to a wet and slippery ball coming out of the qb’s hand can’t be considered an intentional tuck, and I don’t care how long the NFL tries to get me to swallow that nonsense). As you said, this seemed to be the refs correctly checking with each other and getting the call right.
OK, heres the latest (from NBC)
One ref said it was good, the other didn’t
Other guy put on headphones. The upstairs guys say “It is not reviewable – I can’t help – you are on your own”
The guy who said it was good was more adamant than the guy who said it wasn’t.
So it was eventually called good.
My guess on the reason it is NOT reviewable is because of the occasions the ball is kicked over the field goal posts, directly (or close to) over the uprights. That would be a tough play to review with most camera angles they normally have available.
First of all, the call that was finally made was correct, that was a field goal, and I say that as a Ravens fan.
However: The ref definitely DID go over to the review booth to review it before changing his mind AND NFL rules state that that’s verboden, so by the rules the Ravens should have won the game on a bad call.
The big problem here is that it took the refs 10-15 minutes to reverse their initial call- and half of the Ravens team was already in the dressing room undressing. They had to throw pads and clothes back on real fast and race back onto the field to play the OT. The result was easy to predict: they had let down, already into post game, come from behind victory mode, and the Browns were able to march down the field and kick the winning FG pretty easily. THAT’S what fucked the Ravens, not the call itself (which, as I said, was ultimately correct).
I didn’t see it live, but it seems that it was reported that there was no official call on the field. The one ref signaled the miss to his partner, but I don’t think they head referee made a definitive call on the field. The Ravens seemed like they were trying to sneak off the field and get away with the apparent blown call. The other team stayed on the field until a call was made, so part of that issue is the Ravens fault.
I’d lay it more on the coaches, but if you watch the linked video(which is edited quite a bit, although it does show the ref going over to review the play), the official on the right clearly makes the horizontal crossed arms signal for “no good”. The announcers even called it that way. It wasn’t until several minutes later that they began to talk about reviewing the play.