Ravens/Browns 11/18 game: Ruling on bizarre FG?

[treis]

@whatami

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.

ETA: Here’s the link Nurse Carmen

I can’t get that video to play. I see the first frame, hit play, and it goes blank.

[mhendo]

@treis

I can’t get that video to play. I see the first frame, hit play, and it goes blank.

Do you have Firefox with Adblock?

If so, disable Adblock and it might work for you.

[treis]

@mhendo

Do you have Firefox with Adblock?

If so, disable Adblock and it might work for you.

We have a winner. Thank you!

[Randy_Seltzer]

@Weirddave

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).

Here’s the thing: if you watch the reply, the ref is careful never to say “we are reviewing the play.” He says first says “there’s a question about…” and “we’re taking a look at…” and a few seconds later, they come back with the decision, saying “after discussion…” instead of “after reveiw…”.

I’d certainly buy the argument that he went over to the booth to make absolutely sure, but was told that he couldn’t review it. So it seems kosher to me.

[BobT]

I’m not sure what the NFL’s official guideline is for declaring a game over, but in college football the game is not over until the referee (white hat) officially says it is.

Since the officials hadn’t left the field, you would have to assume that they were still discussing the play and the game wasn’t over. The Ravens should have realized this.

[Fugazi]

@Oslo Ostragoth

That’s the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in a football game.

Welcome to life as a Cleveland Brown fan. We’ve seen all manner of bizarre endings, including “the Drive” “the Fumble”, Rudd taking off his helmet, the Jacksonville game (where the refs decided to review a play after the next play had already been run).

There have been others not at the end, but they escape my feeble brain right now. I’m sure others could chime in.

[SenorBeef]

@Only Mostly Dead

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.

What I’ve read is that the official went to the booth, put on the headphones, and the guy on the other end told him it wasn’t a reviewable situation. There’s apparently no evidence (again, this is what I’ve read, not what I’ve seen conclusively) that the ref was ever shown actually reviewing anything in the booth.

@ZipperJJ

I think it’s weird that the two refs standing right there missed the call.

It seems clear they saw what happened. Or at least one did. Because their initial reaction was to look at each other in confusion. Then one hesistantly signalled no good. Seems like they saw what happened, but couldn’t remember what the rule was.

Why was it “unreviewable” by the way?

I think the list of plays/situations able to be reviewed is specifically enumerated, and field goals aren’t on the list.

@Weirddave

First of all, the call that was finally made was correct, that was a field goal, and I say that as a Ravens fan.

Cool of you.

However: The ref definitely DID go over to the review booth to review it before changing his mind

Are you sure about that? The ref entered the booth and stayed in there seemingly to watch something?

AND NFL rules state that that’s verboden, so by the rules the Ravens should have won the game on a bad call.

I’m not sure about that. There was no official ruling on the matter at that point, so who’s to say that even without any sort of review (and I’ve yet to see evidence that the ref actually saw an official replay although I’d imagine they were showing reviews on the jumbotron) that they wouldn’t have come to the same conclusion anyway?

The big problem here is that it took the refs 10-15 minutes to reverse their initial call-

IIRC it was actually 5 to 6 minutes

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).

It was clear that the game wasn’t over and the officials were discussing the issue. The SuperGenius took his team off the field in what seemed like a deliberate attempt to influence the refs to just call the game over. Any consequences from that they brought onto themselves.

[Trunk]

Supposedly there are photos of the ref under the hood with a headset on.

So, the play isn’t reviewable, and they claim they didn’t review it. I find it hard to believe that on their own, without any discussion from upstairs, that they realized minutes later that a ball that bounced back onto the field somehow went over the crossbar.

As to how the refs missed it. . .I know it’s their job and all, but they’re looking at a ball going at the upright, at the last second, it changes direction 90 degrees, and then hits on top of a bar and bounces in the opposite direction . If there was EVER a FG call that a ref was going to blow it was this.

[mhendo]

@Trunk

Supposedly there are photos of the ref under the hood with a headset on.

So, the play isn’t reviewable, and they claim they didn’t review it. I find it hard to believe that on their own, without any discussion from upstairs, that they realized minutes later that a ball that bounced back onto the field somehow went over the crossbar.

This SI article sums up my feeling about the play pretty well:

While the officiating crew clearly got the eventual call correct – as replays showed – there’s sure to be discussion about how and why an unreviewable play under the league’s replay system some how got an "unofficial’’ review. By someone, somewhere. Even if it was just by virtue of the game officials looking up and seeing the numerous replays of the disputed kick on the JumboTron screen at M&T Bank Stadium.

<snip>

How Morelli and his crew got around to making the right call on Dawson’s field goal certainly didn’t look good if you go by the book. There were replays of the kick all over the stadium scoreboards in those confusing and chaotic moments, and Morelli did go over to the sideline replay monitor and pull the headset on that one uses to communicate with the replay booth upstairs. It certainly appeared that he was trying to use replay to review the call.

But Morelli after the game said league replay official Howard Slaven did not give him any direction via the headsets, except to remind him that the play was not reviewable. Morelli also said he never went under the replay hood to view the kick, and afterward no video of him doing so was discovered.

But while the Browns obviously made the field goal, you have to feel a bit for the Ravens’ plight. Right or wrong, the call on the field was no good, and field goals are currently off limits to review. Game over, right? Wrong.

As a Ravens fan, i agree that the call was, in the end, clearly the right one. But i also agree that the officiating crew took far too long to come to this conclusion for an unreviewable play. This was sort of like a court case where you get the right result for the wrong reason. Justice was done, but was not really SEEN to be done.

[BMalion]

@BobT

I’m not sure what the NFL’s official guideline is for declaring a game over, …

It’s when an obese opera diva holds forth in terpsichordian muse.

[Trunk]

@mhendo's article

But Morelli after the game said league replay official Howard Slaven did not give him any direction via the headsets, except to remind him that the play was not reviewable. Morelli also said he never went under the replay hood to view the kick, and afterward no video of him doing so was discovered.

Today, Keith Mills was on the Mickey & Amelia show, and he said that a camera man from WBAL got a photo of the guy under the hood with the head phones on.

Mills was on the sideline. But, I haven’t seen such a picture at the websites of any of the local TV stations, or the Sun, or the Examiner.

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

Another question about hitting uprights: I know that if it hits the uprights and drops forward (without having broken the plane), it’s a dead ball. Was there ever a time when hitting the upright meant it was a dead ball whether or not it broke the plane? I know that there have been quite a few rules changes over the years (like incomplete forward passes drawing a penalty!).

[Northern_Piper]

I believe that is the rule in the CFL - as soon as the ball hits the uprights, it’s dead, regardless whether it then trickles across the plane.

[some_white_dude]

@Trunk

Today, Keith Mills was on the Mickey & Amelia show, and he said that a camera man from WBAL got a photo of the guy under the hood with the head phones on.

This doesn’t necessarily mean he was viewing a replay. As was stated before, the ref at the replay booth was supposedly told by the official upstairs that he couldn’t be shown the replay. Whether or not you choose to believe this explanation is up to you, but just because he was seen with a headset on doesn’t mean he was watching video of the kick.

I think Baltimore’s biggest mistake was kicking to Cribbs each of those last two times. What were they thinking?

[Weirddave]

@SenorBeef

Cool of you.

Hey, it was what it was. About the third time they showed the replay I said to myself “You know, that’s a good kick, they should get that”. I also thought of you. “Man, SenorBeef is gonna be PISSED”.

@SenorBeef

Are you sure about that? The ref entered the booth and stayed in there seemingly to watch something?

There’s no question that he went into the booth. Now, the NFL’s story is that he was told that he couldn’t review the replay, and I have no reason to doubt that, but clearly he WANTED to review it, and the replay, including closeup shots showing that the FG was good, was shown over and over on the big screens before he made his final call. Those screens are HUGE, there is no way he could have not seen the reply unless he was blind (which is kinda implied, innit? He’s an NFL ref after all. )

@Team of Scientists

I think Baltimore’s biggest mistake was kicking to Cribbs each of those last two times. What were they thinking?

You and me both brother. That guy was killing us on returns all day long. How do you not squib kick it in that situation? They do that and Cleveland doesn’t have time to get into FG range, 3 TO or not.

The worse thing about this for me wasn’t the loss, we’re not going anywhere this season anyway, but the fact that Kyle Boller once again got screwed. After a putrid first half, cause mainly by atrocious OL play, he comes back in the second half and plays brilliantly, leading the team to four scores, including what by rights should have been the game winning FG. It should have been a breakout game for him, establishing him as a bona fide NFL QB, instead it’s just more “Kyle can’t do the job” fodder for the haters. He’s one of the classiest men ever to play in the NFL, he looks like he’s finally coming around to be a descent QB (Not great, but pretty good), and he just can NOT catch a break.

[Trunk]

Boller also threw a terrible, “Bordy-Croyle-in-Hard-Knocks” kind of interception that went the other way for 6.

A guy was barreling down in his face, and I was going, “eat it. eat it. eat it.” He heaves it off his back foot, and it helped lose that game.

I also think this FG thing still stinks.

Why does it always sound to me like Peter King has gotten together with the NFL commissioner and worked out the best way to potentionally diffuse controversy? To wit,

@PK in MMQB

As you probably know by now, the kick was ruled no good by field judge Jim Saraceno. But back judge Keith Ferguson thought it was good, and Saraceno thought it wasn’t, and Ferguson convinced ref Pete Morelli with a more adamant argument.

THat’s not how it seemed to go down at all. Assuming S and F were the two officials under the uprights, F didn’t think it was good at all. At least he didn’t bring it up with the other one.

Then, later, kind of out of the blue. . .

@PK

It’s more important to be sure you can fix a potential bizarre game-changer like Dawson’s kick. Funny thing about that game, when it was over, ref Pete Morelli asked someone if they got the call right. Told they did, Morelli was very relieved.

Why is that a “funny thing”, Peter? That’s only a “funny thing” if you’re scared about accusations that Morelli got word from upstairs.

“Did we get that right? Oh we did? Good thing. Of course I would have known we got it right if I’d heard from upstairs.”

It’s like playing cribbage with an asshole. . .“oh, is that a double run? I didn’t even notice.”

[Trunk]

@Team of Scientists

This doesn’t necessarily mean he was viewing a replay. As was stated before, the ref at the replay booth was supposedly told by the official upstairs that he couldn’t be shown the replay. Whether or not you choose to believe this explanation is up to you, but just because he was seen with a headset on doesn’t mean he was watching video of the kick.

I think Baltimore’s biggest mistake was kicking to Cribbs each of those last two times. What were they thinking?

1. Yeah. Actually, I don’t know whether to believe it or not. The problem with that kind of thing is that that is what I’d expect them to say even if they broke the rule.

2. You are correct about kicking to Cribbs. Terrible kick coverage. It also burned the Steelers yesterday, and could have burned the Eagles. Why do so many teams have problems with it?

3. See, I’d have actually been happier if the refs just said, “fuck it, we’re looking at it. It’s too important a play.” Just like I would have liked to have seen David Stern let the Suns play with all their players last season. We humans made the rules in the first place. We’re absolutely at liberty to bend them when we expose a situation that exposes an absurdity.

[SCSimmons]

No kidding. Isn’t the most important thing that they actually got the call correct in the end? It was, in fact, a good field goal, as the refs ultimately decided it was. Griping over how they arrived at the correct call seems very petty …

[NurseCarmen]

@Oslo Ostragoth

That’s the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in a football game.

I’ve always like Brad Johnson’s touchdown pass to HIMSELF from about 8 years ago.

[mhendo]

@SCSimmons

No kidding. Isn’t the most important thing that they actually got the call correct in the end? It was, in fact, a good field goal, as the refs ultimately decided it was. Griping over how they arrived at the correct call seems very petty …

Yes, the most important thing is probably getting it right, but the process is important too.

If the cops beat a confession out of a criminal, or fabricate evidence against him, arguing that the criminal is guilty and that the cops got the right guy does not excuse or justify their actions. Justice needs to be seen to be done.