Phil Dawson's field goal

[bigboydan]

I've seen some crazy field goals over the years, but this one yesterday most definitely takes the cake.



<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rlQPEE51N6Q&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rlQPEE51N6Q&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[SBR Lou]

yeah it was a trip

[slacker00]

I think they should paint the non-live part of the goalpost a different color, such as black or green or the home team colors. That's really what started the confusion for me. I thought anything painted yellow was live and in play, same as any part of a basketball rim. I'm glad they called it the way they did, though, because that really is in the best interests for the spirit of the game.

[pavyracer]

The funny thing is if this happened in the middle of the game it couldn't be reviewed with a challenge.

[patsfan2727]

The funny thing is if this happened in the middle of the game it couldn't be reviewed with a challenge.

everyone keeps saying that they just discussed it, never actually "reviewed" the play...but I watched the game, and unless I'm mistaken, the zebra put on a headset and watched a replay...am I right here?

[slacker00]

everyone keeps saying that they just discussed it, never actually "reviewed" the play...but I watched the game, and unless I'm mistaken, the zebra put on a headset and watched a replay...am I right here?

You're right. They were careful about the wording when the ref explained wtf was going on, but the Ravens may have a case to at least file a grievance to the league. Obviously, the game result will not be changed, though, so I don't see the point, especially since the "right" call was made in the end anyway. It's really just arguing about semantics, I think.

[bigboydan]

They sure need to do something to prevent this type of thing happening again.

[Dark Horse]

Ravens should have refused to return to the field. Or at least should have contacted the NFL head office before doing so.

[Illusion]

everyone keeps saying that they just discussed it, never actually "reviewed" the play...but I watched the game, and unless I'm mistaken, the zebra put on a headset and watched a replay...am I right here?

From what I have heard, no video was actually sent down for him to view.

[onlooker]

What is even crazier, is something similar happen in that Patriots/Bills game. Where it hit off the goalpost camera, and bounced out of the goalposts. On the same day no doubt.

[Illusion]

What is even crazier, is something similar happen in that Patriots/Bills game. Where it hit off the goalpost camera, and bounced out of the goalposts. On the same day no doubt.

You go years and years without these types of incidents and then bam. This should be corrected next season by the competition committee.

[slacker00]

What is even crazier, is something similar happen in that Patriots/Bills game. Where it hit off the goalpost camera, and bounced out of the goalposts. On the same day no doubt.

I've seen the ball hit the goalpost camera before. I can't remember if it bounced back through the uprights onto the field, though. I think it did, but not certain. I think it must've been last season during one of the prime time games.

[rugbybdyb]

It was a crazy field goal day.....I think that these things should be allowed to be reviewed if need be because the refs have shown many times that they are not perfect and I would hate for a team to be edged out of a playoff spot because they made the wrong call on the field.

[SBR Lou]

You go years and years without these types of incidents and then bam. This should be corrected next season by the competition committee.

They should just add a line allowing a booth review for any kick that's in question. The coach shouldn't have to challenge what should be an automatic call by the officials.

They also really need to do something about pass interference, so many phantom game changing calls lately. You need to be able to challenge these.

[alta]

There should have been no problem had the two blind mice standing under the goalposts made the correct call to begin with. The ref put the headset on to communicate with upstairs but did not review a replay. What the ref heard from upstairs on the headset was, what the fuk are those two clowns under the goalposts thinking!

[RageWizard]

I can't believe that this type of thing is not reviewable. They need to change that rule like today. It almost cost me in my one and only super nova lock of the moment play, that even this year hasn't lost ever or since 2001 when I started it. I would have been pissed if they called it they other way because I would have seen the ball go through the goal post and then to have the kick called no good would have ripped me a new one, especially with the season that I'm having. Today on the NFL network, they will be talking with Mike Perrara ( last name is probably wrong) the head of the NFL zebras about all of the questionable calls over the weekend. It will be interesting what is said about this call.

[patsfan2727]

I can't believe that this type of thing is not reviewable. They need to change that rule like today. It almost cost me in my one and only super nova lock of the moment play, that even this year hasn't lost ever or since 2001 when I started it. I would have been pissed if they called it they other way because I would have seen the ball go through the goal post and then to have the kick called no good would have ripped me a new one, especially with the season that I'm having. Today on the NFL network, they will be talking with Mike Perrara ( last name is probably wrong) the head of the NFL zebras about all of the questionable calls over the weekend. It will be interesting what is said about this call.

Did anybody catch "Around the Horn" where Blackistone made a suggestion about some sort of "cyclops" system to automatically judge field goals? He got made fun of, but I think he has a damn good point. There's a whole different issue with field goals going OVER the uprights, on an angle. More often than not, these field goals are deemed NO GOOD, but its very difficult to judge if it passed to the left or right of the upright as it passed OVER it. Furthermore, if the zebra's cant tell the ball hit the "support" piece, which is only about 15 feet off the ground, how the hell can they judge a ball passed to one side of the top of the upright like 50 feet off the ground????? shenanigans!

[Doc JS]

Yeah, the reason it wasn't reviewable is the NFL doesn't want to review field goals to see if they were good - did it go over the upright or not?

Now I think it would be relatively simple to install cameras or an infra-red beam on the top of the uprights and then it would be simple to tell if the field goal went inside, over or outside the upright to tell if field goals are good or not.

[Doc JS]

Ravens should have refused to return to the field.

Why? Because the officials got the call right?

DH been drinking the Brian Billick kool-aid!

[bigboydan]

I can't I blame Brian Billick for laying into the NFL over this one.

NFL says officials didn't use replay to overturn FG call

The officials got the call right, deeming Browns kicker Phil Dawson's game-tying, 51-yard field goal against Baltimore with no time left on Sunday to be good. It's how the officials went about making the decision that has the Ravens scratching their heads.

On Monday, Ravens coach Brian Billick indicated that the team will file a report with the NFL over Sunday's unusual circumstances.

"We'll lodge the normal concerns we had not only with the way the end of the game was administered, but also a couple of calls leading up to that and let the appropriate people handle it," Billick told reporters, according to the team's Web Site. "For us, it's a matter of moving on. Very disappointed, surely as unique a circumstance as I've ever been a part of.

"There's nothing I can add in terms of what they did, what did they see, what actually happened, what should have been done. I'll let the officials communicate that, as I'm sure they will, responding to our memos and in their TV shows. So, I'll try not to supersede that."

The Browns trailed 30-27 on the final play of regulation when Dawson's kick hit the left upright and seemingly bounced off the crossbar before dropping into the end zone.

The officials called the kick no good, and the Ravens celebrated a victory in which they scored 16 straight points in the fourth quarter, the last of them on a 47-yard field goal by Matt Stover with 26 seconds left.

But the officials didn't leave the field. Instead, they huddled in the end zone to determine if Dawson's kick hit the curved center support behind the crossbar before bouncing back.

NFL rules dictate that a field goal is not reviewable by replay. So, after a lengthy discussion, the officials ruled the kick passed through the uprights and called the teams back onto the field.

WMAR-TV in Baltimore filmed referee Pete Morelli and field judge Jim Saracino at the replay booth on the field but not under the hood. Morelli did have a headset on.

However, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello, speaking for Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating, told the Akron Beacon Journal that Morelli only talked to replay official Howard Slavin, who confirmed to him that a replay cannot be reviewed.

''Pete Morelli went to the headset to make absolutely sure with replay assistant Howard Slavin that the play was not reviewable,'' Aiello said in an e-mail to the Beacon Journal. ''Slavin confirmed that to Morelli. That was the extent of the discussion.''

Aiello told The Morning Journal of Lorain, Ohio, in an e-mail that situtations like this will be reviewed by the NFL's Competition Committee in the offseason.

''It will be reviewed by the Competition Committee in the offseason as to whether there should be a distinction under replay for this type of situation where a field goal try hits something,'' Aiello told The Morning Journal.

Referring to the initial call, Morelli said, "It was a ruling by one of the officials. The other official informed me that the ball hit the back of the extension of the goal post. ... We determined that was what it struck. Therefore, it made the field goal good."

Billick and half his team was in the locker room when a team official told him the game wasn't over. Linebacker Ray Lewis, who returned an interception for a touchdown earlier, was in the process of getting undressed when told he might have to return.

"It's over. We won," he said.

The Browns (6-4) took the kickoff in overtime and drove 43 yards in nine plays before Dawson kicked a 33-yard field goal with 9:10 left. His final two kicks Sunday served as redemption from one week earlier, when he missed a potential game-tying, 52-yarder in a loss to Pittsburgh.

"We talk many times in training camp about preparing your team for the inevitable things," Billick told reporters Monday. "I was remiss in covering what we do when we've won a game, go into the locker room and are told to come back out again. That's not one scenario that I've covered. So, I don't know that I had them adequately prepared."

[Sportsgirl]

There should have been no problem had the two blind mice standing under the goalposts made the correct call to begin with. The ref put the headset on to communicate with upstairs but did not review a replay. What the ref heard from upstairs on the headset was, what the fuk are those two clowns under the goalposts thinking!

I think it was only one blind mouse, as one of the officials appeared to call the kick good, and one called it bad. The differing calls is what prompted the conversation amongst the officials as to what the correct ruling was. I saw Morelli with the headset on, but never saw him or anyone else in stripes looking at video and since talking is allowed, I'm not sure what the big stink is? No one looked at video, two officials under the post made two different calls, the officials conferred, as they often do, and the correct call was made. Done deal.

[Dark Horse]

Why? Because the officials got the call right?

DH been drinking the Brian Billick kool-aid!

When the game is over, the game is over. But I understand that concept is very difficult to comprehend.


Of the two officials near the goal posts one signaled 'no good', the other did NOT signal 'good'. Where is the argument? A FG is not reviewable. The main zebra stuck his head in the camera hood, and with the ref score 'no good versus neutral' wants us to believe he didn't review the play... LMAO.

For the record, even if someone upstairs reviewed the play and then gave his opinion over the head phones, that's still reviewing. So how did we get from one no good and one neutral to two good?

The play was reviewed. If you're ok with that, fine. I'm not. If you want to change the rules that a FG should be reviewable, great. Let's do it. But not retro-actively.

[BatemanPatrickl]

When the game is over, the game is over. But I understand that concept is very difficult to comprehend.

You are bitching about it because it cost you a bet; if you had the Browns you would be doing cartwheels. Refs got the call right and justice was served.

[Dark Horse]

I'm just going by the rule book. There are reviewable and non-reviewable plays. If a play is non-reviewable that always overrules the correctness or incorrectness of a call. And you know it.

[BatemanPatrickl]

I'm just going by the rule book. There are reviewable and non-reviewable plays. If a play is non-reviewable that always overrules the correctness or incorrectness of a call. And you know it.

I am 110% sure that you would be singing a different tune IF the Ravens had won.

[Dark Horse]

The Bengals?

Gotta love it.

I can assure you 111% that I would be singing the same tune.

[Dark Horse]

The officials called the kick no good, and the Ravens celebrated a victory in which they scored 16 straight points in the fourth quarter, the last of them on a 47-yard field goal by Matt Stover with 26 seconds left.

NFL rules dictate that a field goal is not reviewable by replay. So, after a lengthy discussion, the officials ruled the kick passed through the uprights and called the teams back onto the field.

However, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello, speaking for Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating, told the Akron Beacon Journal that Morelli only talked to replay official Howard Slavin, who confirmed to him that a replay cannot be reviewed.

''Pete Morelli went to the headset to make absolutely sure with replay assistant Howard Slavin that the play was not reviewable,'' Aiello said in an e-mail to the Beacon Journal. ''Slavin confirmed that to Morelli. That was the extent of the discussion.''

Enough said.

[Dark Horse]

You missed the pink episode, but let's zero in on that pinked phrase.

The head referee turns to, of all people, the replay assistant (!) to make absolute certain that the play is not reviewable.

If you believe that I have a bridge somewhere that you might be interested in.

[Doc JS]

You missed the pink episode, but let's zero in on that pinked phrase.

The head referee turns to, of all people, the replay assistant (!) to make absolute certain that the play is not reviewable.

If you believe that I have a bridge somewhere that you might be interested in.

Referring to the initial call, Morelli said, "It was a ruling by one of the officials. The other official informed me that the ball hit the back of the extension of the goal post. ... We determined that was what it struck. Therefore, it made the field goal good."

OH! So, you're saying the NFL lied?

[Dark Horse]

The pink print will tell you all you need to know. Unless you can't read between the lines, which is not my problem.

[SBR Lou]

Guys,

first of all, there's no chance in hell the NFL will acknowledge the official actually being shown the replay OR being told to reverse the decision because the game is on the line and you guys screwed up.

there's no way the NFL is going to come right out and say that. I didn't even have a bet on the game but some of the stuff being said about this is just annoying me, YES the right call was made but there was no system in place to make that call.

if this is no big deal and what occurred was an acceptable method of ending the game/resuming the game and reversing the call, tell me WHY will there be modifications made to this rule in the offseason by the competition committee? I'll wager any amount that adjustments are made that allow kicks to be reviewed by officials when there's one under immense scrutiny. What happened here was wrong.

[Doc JS]

I'll wager any amount that adjustments are made that allow kicks to be reviewed by officials when there's one under immense scrutiny.

On that point, you'll get no argument from me!

[Dark Horse]

Referring to the initial call, Morelli said, "It was a ruling by one of the officials. The other official informed me that the ball hit the back of the extension of the goal post. ... We determined that was what it struck. Therefore, it made the field goal good."

Morelli says whatever he has to say to cover up the fact that the play was reviewed. (see also the pink print).

It's about the on-the-spot decision. One ref signaled 'no good'. Did you see the other with his arms up? I think not. If he thought it was good, why didn't he have his arms up? Then we would have an argument. One good, one no good; let's talk it over (without reviewing!).

I've eaten plenty of horrendous decisions that were not reviewable, and accepted those under the rules. In this case we had refs who decided to break with the rules about what is reviewable and what is not. This could be a very important point in football, because these refs placed themselves above an existing rule. No longer can we rely on what is reviewable and what is not. The new definition is: "the play is non-reviewable, unless we decide differently."

Refs can make up their own rules. Ain't that great?

[ShamsWoof10]

Where did you at any time see an offical get under the hood and look at video..? Yeah for a short moment he had the headset on but that does NOT mean it was reviewed...

Ok cry baby since you think they reviewed it ..can you tell me what they reviewed..??? if you don't get my point let me make it clear DH.. WHAT ABOUT THE KICK WOULD THEY REVIEW...?? We all know WITHOUT A REVIEW that the ball hit the upright then the goose neck and then back in the endzone...

WHAT THE F*CK ARE THEY GOING TO LOOK FOR IN THE GOD DAMN VIDEO DH THAT THEY and YOU DIDN'T SEE LIVE ????

[Dark Horse]

Ok bud, you made my ignore list. Good job.