Indiscernible evidence to over turn the call on the field.
End of story,but just like vs Hawks in Superbowl the Steelers are bread and butter to NFL marketing.
Kind of like a stewards inquiry at the track they will move the favorite up as more patrons will cash and be merry and love the sport.
Something you have to put in to your handicapping equations?
End of story,but just like vs Hawks in Superbowl the Steelers are bread and butter to NFL marketing.
Kind of like a stewards inquiry at the track they will move the favorite up as more patrons will cash and be merry and love the sport.
Something you have to put in to your handicapping equations?
strangest thing is that i dont even think the referee explanation mentioned anything about the ball breaking the plane. i think he focused on having possession and feet down in the endzone. almost seems like he didnt even know why the play was being reviewed. weird. pitt is the luckiest team in nfl by far. could easily be .500 this season.
Im so pissed. I watched that whole game with my dad who is a huge ravens fan and long time baltimore football fan and to see us lose that game at the end over that call really hurts. I had that feeling the whole game the steelers would do something to win it. Now its gonna be tough just for the ravens to make the playoffs.
When the play happened I said to my self touchdown.
And I still think it was but not called that way.
Watching the fucking thing 20 times in 10 different speeds I see where the official could call it not a TD.
So what I saw was no indiscernible evidence to over turn the call on the field.
Now I have calmed down a little bit I am wondering this same thing now, but have to say I am not sure on the exact ruling in this situation.
The way I saw it, the ball did cross the plane (just!) but I dont think the reciever had complete control and possession till it was back out of the end zone again but once he did get control both his feet were down in the end zone - even if the ball never crossed the plain again.
So does the TD count because:
a) The reciever had possession while he was in the end zone - even though the ball itself never broke the plane while he was in possession.
b) The ball was judged to have crossed the plane while in possession of the reciever (which it didn't look like to me).
c) It shouldn't have stood.
Personally I dont know the exact rule here, but if (a) is indeed correct then I can at least take it on the chin and say fair enough - it's not gonna get me my lost money back, but at least I could move on and wouldn;t be stewing about it...
