Dolphins-Steelers: gutless refs blow another one

[tommy]

Did anyone see the final minutes of this game? Steelers down 2 with a little over 2 minutes to go, 3rd down, inside Miami's 5. Big Ben calls a QB draw, gets hit right about the goal line, fumbles. Scrum. Officials quickly signal that Ben crossed the plane, so it's a TD, no fumble.

Replay. No, he didn't. It was definitely a fumble. But then they cop out and say "well, because we couldn't tell who recovered the fumble, we're giving it back to Pittsburgh at the 1/2 yard line. Kicker kicks an easy FG to win the game. (yes, Miami failed to come back with a 2 minute drill w/ no timeouts left)

Totally bogus. Replay clearly showed that all 3 guys who were the first to dive on the ball were Dolphins. The guy who came out of the pile with the ball was a Dolphin. And several Dolphins said after the game that, almost immediately after the fumble and the dives after the ball, several refs were heard to shout "white ball! white ball!" Miami wore white.

Absolute killer for a Dolphin team that needed a real quality win, especially at home. Just too many good teams in the AFC to compete when a win is taken away like that. Season killer.

[Acymetric]

That was really bad, I couldn't believe it. Totally blew that game there.

Refs in the night game were only slightly better.

[hurleyfor3]

Got to finally watch the Steelers for the first time this year since they weren't playing at the same time as the god-awful Broncos. (You want a season killer? Try living in a teevee market whose team gave up 59 points in three quarters. At home. To an equally terrible team. Oh well, Arapahoe Basin opens today.)

As the play was originally ruled a touchdown, there would have been nothing to rule on once the ball crossed the plane of the goal line, right? At that nanosecond the ball would have been dead without possibility of a change of possession. Maybe they got the call wrong, but a ruled touchdown ends the play. Perhaps that was why no Steelers went after the ball. :lightbulb:

Anyway, if the original call had been a fumble and Miami recovery, the Steelers would still have had all three timeouts plus the two-minute warning.

[blazindw]

There was a call blown in the Bears-Redskins game too. Replays showed Jay Cutler clearly crossed the plane of the goalline with the ball before he fumbled, with the Skins getting the ball at the one. He was ruled to have not crossed the plane. Lovie Smith, having wasted a challenge on the previous play, decided not to risk another one and the play stood.

[JasonEvans]

There was a call blown in the Bears-Redskins game too. Replays showed Jay Cutler clearly crossed the plane of the goalline with the ball before he fumbled, with the Skins getting the ball at the one. He was ruled to have not crossed the plane. Lovie Smith, having wasted a challenge on the previous play, decided not to risk another one and the play stood.

I hate the limited challenge rule. Just let each blown challenge be a timeout so a coach has 3 challenges for a half. Frankly, the way refs blow calls left and right, there is nothing wrong with an extra challenge or two.

And the refs really blew the Dolphins-Steelers game though I am not sure what they can do within the rules. It is correct that the Steelers did not go after the ball because it was ruled a TD. I dunno how to fix this mess.

-Jason "of course, Miami could have fixed it by driving for the game-winning FG -- the Steelers have won some very close games this Year" Evans

[OZZIE4DUKE]

On the other hand, the Charlotte Panthers finally won a game. Will wonders never cease! :cool:

[Acymetric]

I hate the limited challenge rule. Just let each blown challenge be a timeout so a coach has 3 challenges for a half. Frankly, the way refs blow calls left and right, there is nothing wrong with an extra challenge or two.

And the refs really blew the Dolphins-Steelers game though I am not sure what they can do within the rules. It is correct that the Steelers did not go after the ball because it was ruled a TD. I dunno how to fix this mess.

-Jason "of course, Miami could have fixed it by driving for the game-winning FG -- the Steelers have won some very close games this Year" Evans

I dunno, the Steelers definitely looked like they were trying to get the ball in the video...of course it also definitely looked like Miami recovered it (maybe you couldn't see that they did recover it, but you could see that the only 2 people who had a chance were Miami players). Regardless of what the various rules are, the final call was wrong. Either fix the refs or fix the rules because that shouldn't have happened.

Also: Hey, the Panthers won!

[tommy]

And the refs really blew the Dolphins-Steelers game though I am not sure what they can do within the rules. It is correct that the Steelers did not go after the ball because it was ruled a TD. I dunno how to fix this mess.

-Jason "of course, Miami could have fixed it by driving for the game-winning FG -- the Steelers have won some very close games this Year" Evans

The Steelers absolutely went after the ball. It's just that their first guy to get there jumped on a pile of 3 Dolphins who already had the ball secured.

And the refs didn't even offer the "the play was blown dead as of the moment it was (erroneously) called a TD" defense. No, they said that had they had enough video evidence of Miami recovering the ball, it would've been Miami ball. Not a dead ball at all.

And then of course they ignored the fact that the Dolphin player came up with the ball, and did so quickly. That's the way all fumble scrums are figured out. Whoever comes up with the ball gets it. There's no video evidence of who had it first underneath the scrum. Never required, except here.

And to complete this piece de resistance of refereeing incompetence, they then conflated the issue of the replay on the Big Ben crossing the line issue with the fumble recovery issue. Indisputable video evidence is needed to reverse a call on the field that is challenged. Fine, they had that in this case, reversing the call on the field that Big Ben crossed the plane.

But as to who recovered the ball, there was no call on the field to reverse. So why was video evidence required, when there was nothing they were potentially going to be reversing?

And why was there some sort of presumption that, in the absence of video evidence that the Dolphins recovered, the Steelers get the ball? Why did the presumption work in that direction? Why wasn't there a presumption that the Dolphins recovered (especially given that they ended up with the ball) that would require video evidence in favor of the Steelers in order for them to get the ball?

I dunno. It seems like every week there is some sort of new, obscure rule being presented to cover up for the latest refereeing incompetence. Never an NFL rule book offered, unlike MLB. Just a "we may need to look at amending this for next year" and move on. Makes you wonder sometimes, right Calvin Johnson???

[killerleft]

The Steelers absolutely went after the ball. It's just that their first guy to get there jumped on a pile of 3 Dolphins who already had the ball secured.

And the refs didn't even offer the "the play was blown dead as of the moment it was (erroneously) called a TD" defense. No, they said that had they had enough video evidence of Miami recovering the ball, it would've been Miami ball. Not a dead ball at all.

And then of course they ignored the fact that the Dolphin player came up with the ball, and did so quickly. That's the way all fumble scrums are figured out. Whoever comes up with the ball gets it. There's no video evidence of who had it first underneath the scrum. Never required, except here.

And to complete this piece de resistance of refereeing incompetence, they then conflated the issue of the replay on the Big Ben crossing the line issue with the fumble recovery issue. Indisputable video evidence is needed to reverse a call on the field that is challenged. Fine, they had that in this case, reversing the call on the field that Big Ben crossed the plane.

But as to who recovered the ball, there was no call on the field to reverse. So why was video evidence required, when there was nothing they were potentially going to be reversing?

And why was there some sort of presumption that, in the absence of video evidence that the Dolphins recovered, the Steelers get the ball? Why did the presumption work in that direction? Why wasn't there a presumption that the Dolphins recovered (especially given that they ended up with the ball) that would require video evidence in favor of the Steelers in order for them to get the ball?

I dunno. It seems like every week there is some sort of new, obscure rule being presented to cover up for the latest refereeing incompetence. Never an NFL rule book offered, unlike MLB. Just a "we may need to look at amending this for next year" and move on. Makes you wonder sometimes, right Calvin Johnson???

Excellent analysis! Once it was determined that Ben fumbled before scoring, the refs should absolutely be required to make a call on possession solely on what they saw AFTER the fumble. Even if the evidence is only circumstantial, that is obviously better than giving the ball back to Pittsburgh. It was NOT their ball to keep.

The refs either totally blew the call, or the refs are no longer equipped with the freedom to make the correct call. These silly rules-wordings are NOT helping.

The incomplete pass rule so recently exposed for the stupidity it represents is another example. As written, a player can catch a ball while falling, roll over 10 times, and if he drops the ball on the 10th rollover, well that's an incompletion. Give the refs the freedom to interpret the video. Nothing will make the system foolproof, but presently the refs are looking really foolish.

[Mal]

Isn't the "easy" answer that once an official's arms went up in a TD signal, the play is deemed dead? Time is effectively stopped at that point, so while you can review the actual crossing of the plane (or not), what happens after a ref watching the goal line has determined that the ball is in the end zone doesn't really happen? Ergo, Pittsburgh ball at the half-inch line? They didn't even allude to that theory? Seems like that would have quieted people a lot more. Cold comfort for Dolphin fans, but better than what they got.

I did read that this is the same crew from the Calvin Johnson non-TD, didn't I? Imagine my surprise that it wasn't these same guys who overturned the obvious Visanthe Shiancoe TD in last night's game, then.

[JasonEvans]

Did everybody see the TD catch that was disallowed yesterday because the receiver did not get both feet down. It appeared he did, but one of his feet landed on the foot/leg of a defensive back (who was in the end zone). Landing on a player -- even one who is in bounds- is not the same as landing in the end zone so the TD was disallowed.

This raises a question for me. If a reciever went up to catch a pass and the defender caught him in the air and walked out of bounds while holding the receiver up, would this not count as a TD? Does that make any sense at all?

-Jason "NFL rules are mystifying and often stupid" Evans

[A-Tex Devil]

Isn't the "easy" answer that once an official's arms went up in a TD signal, the play is deemed dead? Time is effectively stopped at that point, so while you can review the actual crossing of the plane (or not), what happens after a ref watching the goal line has determined that the ball is in the end zone doesn't really happen? Ergo, Pittsburgh ball at the half-inch line? They didn't even allude to that theory? Seems like that would have quieted people a lot more. Cold comfort for Dolphin fans, but better than what they got.

I did read that this is the same crew from the Calvin Johnson non-TD, didn't I? Imagine my surprise that it wasn't these same guys who overturned the obvious Visanthe Shiancoe TD in last night's game, then.

This is the right answer, isn't it? Similar to Hochuli's premature whistle in the San Diego game last year. Dead ball when the arms go up, so if they review it and determine he didn't get in, they can reverse the touchdown, but not the fumble.

The refs have been given a directive in the past to be slow with the whistle on plays like these, but if the description above accurately describes the situation, then, unfortunately, its the right call, regardless of how the refs end up explaining it.

[Mal]

This raises a question for me. If a reciever went up to catch a pass and the defender caught him in the air and walked out of bounds while holding the receiver up, would this not count as a TD? Does that make any sense at all?

Not if I'm reading you correctly - wouldn't this be the same as a receiver coming down with the ball and being pushed out of bounds before he can get his feet in? I'm pretty sure that's ruled a touchdown, but it's hard to say these days!

Nonetheless, the obscure rule you note seems to me to incentivize defensive backs to lie down on the ground underneath a leaping receiver near the back of the end zone. That way, they'll come down and land on top of the defender and probably roll out of bounds before their feet hit the gound. Which would be rather bizarre and clearly unfair.

All I know is I think, shockingly, that Brad Childress stated the issue correctly last night in his postgame request for league fines, alluding to the "hundred drunks in a bar" test. If it looks like a touchdown to a bunch of regular guys, it should just be a touchdown. I'd even be in favor of the college one foot down rule here. Why does a ballcarrier have to not even set foot in the end zone as long as he's holding it and the ball crosses the plain, yet a receiver needs not one but two feet down in the end zone? Can we just get microchips in the ball already?

[rasputin]

Excellent analysis! Once it was determined that Ben fumbled before scoring, the refs should absolutely be required to make a call on possession solely on what they saw AFTER the fumble. Even if the evidence is only circumstantial, that is obviously better than giving the ball back to Pittsburgh. It was NOT their ball to keep.

The refs either totally blew the call, or the refs are no longer equipped with the freedom to make the correct call. These silly rules-wordings are NOT helping.

The incomplete pass rule so recently exposed for the stupidity it represents is another example. As written, a player can catch a ball while falling, roll over 10 times, and if he drops the ball on the 10th rollover, well that's an incompletion. Give the refs the freedom to interpret the video. Nothing will make the system foolproof, but presently the refs are looking really foolish.

I saw a clip of a Big Ben interview, and he said he had recovered the fumble (in the end zone), that the ref told him not to worry about it because it was already a TD, and that he tried to get out of the pile to avoid getting hurt, and that's why he didn't come out with the ball. I don't know if this is true or not because I didn't see enough video of the play's aftermath.

[tommy]

This is the right answer, isn't it? Similar to Hochuli's premature whistle in the San Diego game last year. Dead ball when the arms go up, so if they review it and determine he didn't get in, they can reverse the touchdown, but not the fumble.

The refs have been given a directive in the past to be slow with the whistle on plays like these, but if the description above accurately describes the situation, then, unfortunately, its the right call, regardless of how the refs end up explaining it.

I don't think so. In making their announcement, the refs purportedly were applying a rule. The rule was: without sufficient video evidence that the defensive team recovered the ball, it goes to the offensive team at the point they lost possession. The rule was NOT stated to be: the ball was dead at the instant a touchdown was declared, so nothing that happened after that was relevant. If there had been sufficient video evidence in their minds (how there wasn't, I can't fathom -- but that's another story) that Miami recovered it, then Miami would have been entitled to the ball. They just found that the video evidence was lacking. But they assuredly were not saying the rule was "dead ball at the moment of the touchdown."

[tommy]

I saw a clip of a Big Ben interview, and he said he had recovered the fumble (in the end zone), that the ref told him not to worry about it because it was already a TD, and that he tried to get out of the pile to avoid getting hurt, and that's why he didn't come out with the ball. I don't know if this is true or not because I didn't see enough video of the play's aftermath.

Patently absurd. For several reasons. First, the ball squirted away from Ben and while he did make an attempt to get into the scrum, it was a belated attempt. Miami already had 3 guys on the ball -- the only 3 guys on it.

Second, would anyone really believe that the following sequence of events actually occurred:

1. Roethlisberger belatedly joins a scrum and outfights 3 Miami big-and-uglies for possession of the ball when the Miami guys each got there before he did.
2. While still underneath the pile, and in the midst of mass chaos, as this is clearly a potentially game-deciding play in front of a raucous crowd, Roethlisberger is told by the refs to "not worry about it" because it's already a TD.
3. While still underneath the pile, Roethlisberger somehow hears the ref say that and then voluntarily just decides to give the hard-fought ball up and let Miami come up standing with the ball, because he's afraid he's going to get hurt if he doesn't.

If you believe all that, I've got some very exciting swampland in South Florida you may be interested in . . .

[Deslok]

Lets see... first of all, that interview just helps confirm that Roethlisberger is a lying... ahem... yeah, there's a reason he was suspended. Miami ended up with that ball, anyone with half a brain could see that - but apparently replay couldn't keep going 5 seconds after the fumble to see who recovered it definitively.

The point about the receiver landing on the DB with his 2nd foot and being ruled out of bounds(in the Buffalo-Baltimore game) was 100% the correct call. I think it was for last season, but they recently changed the rule that got rid of the "in the referees judgement the receiver would have come down in bounds but was pushed out." Either you get 2 feet in(or other appropriate body part), or you don't. There's no judgement to be made. This is a trend across sports really, to make calls definitive and not judgement. Even though making the call is always a judgement, on replay then all calls can be seen as correct or incorrect, not maybe... it seems, etc. It does mean that if a DB could "catch" a WR he could carry him out of bounds and negate the catch. But I'd like to see someone try to carry Randy Moss across the field.

And there was one other play that irked me this weekend(well, being a Chargers fan, many plays have irked me this season, but one that pertains to refereeing issues)... for anyone who saw the game, I thought it was pretty clear that Rivers swing pass to Hester did in fact go forward about 0.5 yards and was not a lateral, but refs ruled it a lateral and hence a fumble. I can understand the the initial call, but being upheld on replay surprised me. Am I wrong?

[Acymetric]

Lets see... first of all, that interview just helps confirm that Roethlisberger is a lying... ahem... yeah, there's a reason he was suspended. Miami ended up with that ball, anyone with half a brain could see that - but apparently replay couldn't keep going 5 seconds after the fumble to see who recovered it definitively.

The point about the receiver landing on the DB with his 2nd foot and being ruled out of bounds(in the Buffalo-Baltimore game) was 100% the correct call. I think it was for last season, but they recently changed the rule that got rid of the "in the referees judgement the receiver would have come down in bounds but was pushed out." Either you get 2 feet in(or other appropriate body part), or you don't. There's no judgement to be made. This is a trend across sports really, to make calls definitive and not judgement. Even though making the call is always a judgement, on replay then all calls can be seen as correct or incorrect, not maybe... it seems, etc. It does mean that if a DB could "catch" a WR he could carry him out of bounds and negate the catch. But I'd like to see someone try to carry Randy Moss across the field.

And there was one other play that irked me this weekend(well, being a Chargers fan, many plays have irked me this season, but one that pertains to refereeing issues)... for anyone who saw the game, I thought it was pretty clear that Rivers swing pass to Hester did in fact go forward about 0.5 yards and was not a lateral, but refs ruled it a lateral and hence a fumble. I can understand the the initial call, but being upheld on replay surprised me. Am I wrong?

I would make the point that I think the rule should be changed such that having a foot come down on a body part where it would have come down in bounds otherwise should be ruled a catch. I'm pretty ok with the force out rule being gone otherwise, but what in that case I think the receiver deserves the catch.

[DevilHorns]

As a Dolphins' fan, this game hits me hard.

I swear, if you switch the exact scenario and have chad henne fumbling at the one, and palomalu jumping on the ball...

Ya, exactly. Complete BS.

And I know the Dolphins had their fair share of opportunities for TDs instead of FGs, but thats besides the point. If this game played out how it should've, the Dolphins regain possession on that late fumble.

[JasonEvans]

I would make the point that I think the rule should be changed such that having a foot come down on a body part where it would have come down in bounds otherwise should be ruled a catch. I'm pretty ok with the force out rule being gone otherwise, but what in that case I think the receiver deserves the catch.

Exactly-- the receiver has come down in bounds, he just has not physically touched the ground itself. Landing on a body part of an opposing player that is in bounds is the same as being in bounds. The fact that you stepped on someone's foot instead of the turf is incidental to you possessing the ball in bounds. This is beyond obvious...

...to anyone except the NFL.

-Jason "I wonder -- honestly -- if the NFL does not secretly like officiating controversy because it generates interest in the league" Evans

[hurleyfor3]

Isn't the "easy" answer that once an official's arms went up in a TD signal, the play is deemed dead?

This was my point too, and the former supervisor of nfl officiating agrees.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5726781

"Because the touchdown was overturned, only the video review could determine which team recovered the fumble, said Pereira, now the officiating analyst for Fox. Any ruling on the field as to which team recovered was irrelevant, because the play is considered over when a touchdown signal is given, and the officials don't continue to officiate."

He then goes on to say the video must show a player recovering the fumble; it's not sufficient that someone runs out of the pile with the ball.

Anyway, in the annals of nfl officiating mysteries, on a scale of 1 to 10 this is only like a 2 or a 3, with "did Bradshaw's pass go off Jack Tatum or Frenchy Fuqua" a 10. Again, the game was far from over at that point.

[Mal]

The point about the receiver landing on the DB with his 2nd foot and being ruled out of bounds(in the Buffalo-Baltimore game) was 100% the correct call. I think it was for last season, but they recently changed the rule that got rid of the "in the referees judgement the receiver would have come down in bounds but was pushed out." Either you get 2 feet in(or other appropriate body part), or you don't.

Wait, I'm not following: so now it's legal for a defensive back to shove a leaping receiver out of the back of the end zone after he's made a catch, and it won't be a touchdown? That's an idiotic rule change if so.

[pacificrounder]

Wait, I'm not following: so now it's legal for a defensive back to shove a leaping receiver out of the back of the end zone after he's made a catch, and it won't be a touchdown? That's an idiotic rule change if so.

That's correct. The NFL eliminated the force-out rule, so you must come down in bounds.

[tommy]

This was my point too, and the former supervisor of nfl officiating agrees.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5726781

"Because the touchdown was overturned, only the video review could determine which team recovered the fumble, said Pereira, now the officiating analyst for Fox. Any ruling on the field as to which team recovered was irrelevant, because the play is considered over when a touchdown signal is given, and the officials don't continue to officiate."

He then goes on to say the video must show a player recovering the fumble; it's not sufficient that someone runs out of the pile with the ball.

Anyway, in the annals of nfl officiating mysteries, on a scale of 1 to 10 this is only like a 2 or a 3, with "did Bradshaw's pass go off Jack Tatum or Frenchy Fuqua" a 10. Again, the game was far from over at that point.

I don't think it's a mystery at all. It's a huge screwup, totally unfair, but not a mystery.

The question I haven't seen answered is this: he says the video must show a player recovering the fumble in order to award that team the ball. The officials here said that the video did not sufficiently show "a player" recovering the fumble. So why did Pittsburgh get the ball? They weren't shown to have recovered the fumble any more than Miami was, right?

This is not like when a fumble goes out of bounds where, when nobody gains possession of it prior to it going out of bounds, the offense keeps it. Where is it written that the offensive team gets to keep possession in the Miami-Pittsburgh situation where no player is deemed to have recovered the fumble via video evidence. Why is there (or is there, in the rulebook if one exists) a presumption in favor of the offensive team keeping the ball when neither team is seen to have recovered it?

[TampaDuke]

This is the right answer, isn't it? Similar to Hochuli's premature whistle in the San Diego game last year. Dead ball when the arms go up, so if they review it and determine he didn't get in, they can reverse the touchdown, but not the fumble.

The refs have been given a directive in the past to be slow with the whistle on plays like these, but if the description above accurately describes the situation, then, unfortunately, its the right call, regardless of how the refs end up explaining it.

I seem to recall a rule change several years ago which involved the situation where an official blew the play dead due to "down by contact" when in reality a fumble occurred. Under the rule change, if I remember it correctly, the players are allowed to continue to scramble for the ball after the whistle and the officials are allowed to review who had possession of the ball and award possession (assuming they first overturn the down by contact call).

In that case, my recollection is that the officials are still supposed to make a call on the field regarding who came up with the ball and then that, too, could be reviewed by replay even though all of that action happened after the play being whistled dead.

Assuming my recollection on this rule change is correct, why would there be a different result in the endzone after a hand signal (which the players are less likely to see than they are to hear a whistle) ends the play such that no call is made as to possession thereafter? In my opinion, the mistake the referees made on this play (aside from ruling it a touchdown during the play) was that they made no call (albeit conditional) on the field as to possession. They didn't even attempt to determine possession at that time.Had it been a down by contact play in the middle of the field, they would have done this and then the other team would have needed indisputable evidence to overturn the conditional possession call.

[bjornolf]

Yes, you can now challenge a non-fumble and players can go for the ball.

Yes, the force out rule is gone. It was used for a couple years, but was gotten rid of because people were complaining about "judgment calls." The funny thing is that someone on 1st and 10 (NOT Skip Bayless, though he didn't correct the guy) argued that about the Vikings game, saying that if Moss had caught it and been forced out at the end of the game, it would have been a touchdown. I immediately thought "that guys thinks the force out rule is still around." Yes, if a player is strong enough, he COULD carry a player out of bounds and negate a catch. Unlikely, but legal again. There are SO many rules that favor the offense, I'm willing to give the defense this one.

By rule, a player is NOT considered part of the field of play. Therefore, if you fall on a player and then go out of bounds without body parts touching the ground, it's not a catch. By the same token, if you ride a defensive player like a body board but your body never touches the ground, you can keep running on the other end. You are not down until some part of your body touches the ground, and you are not in bounds in possession of the ball until two feet (or a knee, or an elbow, or your butt) touch the ground. This is to REMOVE ambiguity.