(Not) upon further review ...
It's been two days since Phil Dawson's kick broke the plane of the uprights and crossbar at M&T Bank Stadium, and a lot has been said and threatened. But the most basic question of it all has not been answered, and it's been raised over and over again: Why in the world are field goals not reviewable?
Again, this isn't the first time it's been asked; probably a few thousand asked it immediately Sunday night when they realized there was no point in Pete Morelli even going in the direction of the hood. It was raised again this morning when I appeared on the Comcast Morning Show on WNST-AM, with Drew Forrester, the first of regular appearances on the show. (Shameless plug.) The Ravens players looked perplexed about it after the game, although they had a lot of reasons to look perplexed, and why the kick wasn't allowed to be reviewed was sort of down the list. Higher up, certainly, was why they kept kicking to Joshua Cribbs.
Even in this CBSSportsline.com story, referenced in this morning's Sun, NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira offered no explanation for why field goals and extra points aren't covered in the review policy -- except to specify that they are not covered.
Every single other situation that has to do with boundaries and planes is reviewable. This isn't a judgment call, like pass interference or holding. You can review touchdowns and out of bounds calls and the spot of a ball, but with the single biggest visual on the field available, the gigantic yellow field-goal apparatus, video review isn't allowed. The only time the whole breaking-the-plane issue would be a problem would be if the kick went over or near an upright, and admittedly, that could be a tough call -- but not with cameras mounted in the right places.
As Matt Stover said after the game, "the wind could blow the ball back through the uprights, and it still would be good.'' That proved he understood the rule better than everybody else in the building, seemingly including the officiating crew. But when asked why field goals can't be reviewed, all he could do was shrug.
Of course, in the big picture, it doesn't matter so much that place kicks can't be reviewed; it matters more that someone decides in the offseason to make them reviewable. I'd have to think the NFL's competition committee will bring it up. I'd like to think, meanwhile, that this is the direction the protest, or discussion, or clarification, Brian Billick alluded to yesterday is aimed at getting at, instead of what it appears to be on the surface: a claim that the Ravens should have been given the win on a blatantly bad call, because the process of getting it right was faulty.
I mean, I want to give the Ravens the benefit of the doubt on this. I'd like to think the fans who keep calling and e-mailing, who are ignoring the fact that the zebras got the call right and focusing on the fact that the players were already in the locker room cutting off the tape, are in a distinct minority. I want to believe that radio analyst Stan White knows he's missing the point when he talks about how "there's little doubt'' in his mind that the refs twisted the rules to make their ruling.
It was a confusing, frustrating and disruptive situation, and it's another symptom of a bad system (enough with the red flags and timeouts and the rushing to the line to snap the ball before something can be reviewed). But everything going on now is still far superior to the prospect of the original call being left to stand and the Browns being denied what was rightfully theirs. That would have been completely unacceptable under any circumstances, and completely indefensible. Seriously, you'd be OK with winning a game because you got to the locker room too fast for the refs to catch either you or their own mistake?
It's refreshing to see The Sun's online poll revealing that fans don't believe the Ravens got a raw deal on the play, by a landslide. As of this posting, nearly 10,000 have voted and nearly 82 percent are OK with what happened. Results are not scientific, though, and who knows how many Browns fans have Googled the poll and jumped on it? Not to accuse anybody or anything, just saying.
One last anecdote: in the middle of the third quarter, right around the time Kyle Boller threw the pick that was returned 100 yards for a touchdown, the joke in the press box was that this game was highly unlikely to show up on this week's NFL Replay on NFL Network.
Guess what game is airing at 8 tonight?
Comments
While few people disagree that it was an actual field goal, there has to be a better process for the referees to get their facts straight. Even Romeo Crenel started shaking hands with other players after the kick, assuming the game was over. What's the hierarchy for who among the refs gets the final say-so? Did any ref signal the end of the game?
All of this confusion should have been straightened before anyone left the field. The refs SHOULD KNOW that field goals are not reviewable, so why anyone had to strap on a headset and confer with a higher-up about this is beyond me.
For instance, if a ref blows his whistle to signal the end of a a play, like when he thinks a ball carrier's knee touches the field while he is being tackled, then he can't reverse that decision upon review and award the runner a touchdown if the player continued running into the endzone. IT IS THE REFEREES' responsibility to know the rules and the procedures for making a call, reversable or not, so that the players on both teams can have a fair chance to play afterwards.
Posted by: Ray Venn | November 20, 2007 2:06 PM
Here's why people are upset: The NFL maintains a system, noot unlike our court system where evidence is admissable or not. Even though evidence exists, say in a murder trial against the accused murder it may be denied because it was gotten outside of the laws, rules or procedures. I think you know where I am going. In the NFL's case, the evidence, if you will of the field goal was gained outside of the NFL's process. If you ignore any element of the process then you ignore all of the process. Why, for example can't we then go back and review the holding of Quinn Sypnewski on the third and one, which would negate the whole issue of the field goal to begin with. Think about it.
Posted by: Ed from Pennsylvania | November 20, 2007 2:23 PM
Good to see that the press is so neutral during the game. One professional group of reporters we have. What a joke you guys have become.
Posted by: Jon | November 20, 2007 2:41 PM
A few points sans emotional parochialism:
1. To be a sucessful field goal the ball does not have to "break the plane" like a TD. The crossbar and uprights are a "line". The ball must pass over the line - entirely. That is why a ball hitting the crossbar, bouncing around, and falling back in play is not a FG even though it may have "broken the plane". Under NFL rules, the Dawson FG met the standard for a valid FG - that is indisputable.
2. While the FG is not "reviewable" via instant replay (under the instant replay rules), the ruling of ANY play is overturnable by the referee. It is his job to make sure the correct application and interpretation of the rules are adhered to. If any official makes a ruling that is not in agreement with the rules of the game, the referee can - and should - intervene and overturn the ruling of the official.
The Dawson field goal was an example of point #2. No - it was not reviewable via instant replay (and the referee claims he did not use IR); however, if the referee, after consultation, believes that the official mis-applied the rules as to what is a valid field goal, he should (and did) overturn the call.
Way too many bitter Ravens fans are under the assumption that a non-reviewable call is also irreversible - that the ruling must stand as called. That is not the case and it seems to be the genesis of much of the wailing and complaining. Any ruling can be changed by the referee if it violates the rules of the game.
The referee got it right. He consulted with the officials, determined that the rule was mis-applied or mis-understood and changed the ruling.
How about the pass-interference such as in Game #1 you say? That's a totally different story. That is a judgement call. The referee is not going to overturn the official because, in the official's judgement, the contact did not meet the standard for interference. The rule (and the spirit of the rule) was adhered to - whether or not you, the coach, the referee, or another official may have judged that the contact meets YOUR standard for interference. Take a look at the interference rules...you will see that they are largely subjective and left to the discretion and judgement of the official (e.g., was the contact incidental, did the contact materially impact the receiver's ability, etc.). It's the same with holding - can you imagine a review on EVERY play because coach A thinks there was holding? What a mess that would be. Those calls must be left to the official's judgement and discretion otherwise we would have no human officials - only an army of folks in a booth looking for infractions via video on each play.
Now...perhaps certain Ravens fans, Billick, and Stan White can claim a consipiracy, a cover-up, or a general vendetta by the NFL against the Ravens (yes...I've actually heard that one.) The time and energy is mis-spent.
Maybe those folks should go back to looking for shadowy figures on the grassy knoll or proof of an alien landing at Area 51 - the time spent would be just as fruitful.
Posted by: Statman | November 20, 2007 4:03 PM
According to the rule of what makes a good field goal, it was a good field goal. I am sorry if my opinion in unnerving, but the buck stops there for me. If the play is not reviewable, it is not reviewable. The referee went over to the booth, and while he could not look in on the footage, he was having the played reviewed anyway from guys through the headset. That should not be allowed for a play that is not reviewable. If the referees were not sure of the call, they should have immediately ordered all players to stay on the field while they sorted it out. Instead, they made the call as no-good and then they let it linger before deciding to discuss it further and Ravens players, who were in the locker room thinking the game was one, were left with no chance emotionally to pull this game out in overtime. Why don't we just begin reviewing everything. Why don't we just begin reviewing pass interference penalties and so forth. It's already bad enough that we see more commercials in the designated three hour timespan than we do actual football. The league is going to open a big mess up if they begin to review field goals.
Anyways, it should be a rule that the ball must completely pass through the goal post on the way down to be considered a good field goal. If it hits an upright and and falls through the back hitting the ground, that's good. If it hits the back end of the goal post and bounces around the uprights, rather than back through them, that is good. It should not be a good field goal if it not only does not clear the goal post, but bounces back through the uprights. That should be the new rule right there. Otherwise, the league just does not know what it is getting itself into by allowing reviewable field goals. It would be like touchdowns when the ball just has to cross the plane. Think about how many footballs hit an upright and despite coming back onto the field of play, actually have part of the football clear the upright on the back in? I don't like it at all. It is a bad direction this league is headed in.
Posted by: Doug | November 20, 2007 4:43 PM
I personally believe that there shouldn't be a plane issue at all when it comes to field goals. I think the ball should go through and land beyond the goal post. That would make it good. If the ball bounces back and lands in front of the goal post it isn't good.
Posted by: Charles Russell | November 20, 2007 6:07 PM
I agree that the field goal was good and the Browns won despite ignoring the existing NFL rules. Not surprisingly, the national media and general NFL fan population is pouncing on this opportunity to call the Ravens players and fans cry-babies - EVEN THOUGH the fan poll and players say otherwise.
\
Ravens fans/players remember 11/18. When the fan-favorite, precious, do no wrong, Patriots or Packers are in the same situation as the Ravens on 11/18, let's see how the the national press reacts. "The Patriots / Packers were robbed!!! The NFL rules and must be followed! Yes, the other team probably won, but the integrity of the EXISTING NFL rules MUST be respected!!!"
Just wait...it will happen.
Posted by: bkinpa | November 20, 2007 6:22 PM
Actually, according to what has been posted about a ball being blown back by the wind WITHOUT HAVING MADE CONTACT WITH ANYTHING, it's NOT a good field goal. That was the whole point about Dawson's FG -- it DID make contact with the support of the crossbar.
Posted by: skaybaltimore | November 20, 2007 10:46 PM
Isn't this the second time a field goal ruling cost Baltimore a game. At least this one was proven correct. How many remember a game which caused the Colts to miss the post season. Remember the one Matte was the quarterback against Green Bay.
Posted by: Paul | November 20, 2007 11:20 PM
That field goal was ruled no good correctly and overturned improperly. The rule 5c states something about the kick being good even if it comes back through only if it hits the ground or some obstruction. Bouncing off the upright and around and out of the goal post it self, should not have been determined a good kick anyway. But to do it after making the call of no good and the fans and players leaving and starting interviews, only to be dragged back into action against a team with a second chance and possession of the football, was more than just a violation of the spirit of the rules. It was an actual violation of the written rules. The only discussion allowed had to happen immediately with no head sets, before the call on the field was made.
Posted by: jeremiah w | November 20, 2007 11:31 PM
The point is that the means don't justify the ends. Everyone else is not missing the point, they are just looking at it from a higher level
Posted by: ravens4life | November 21, 2007 5:31 PM
Statman,
Under your interpretation, If the ball goes thru and hits photographer on the head and bounces back thru, it is not good.
If it were to hit a camera mounted on the support, which has happened in the past, it is ruled as as made FG.
Posted by: EC | November 25, 2007 11:25 PM