Skip to content

Last word on the Bengals-Browns field goal

We argued earlier that the officials working the Week Four game between the Bengals and the Browns should have reviewed the final kick via replay to confirm that Shayne Graham’s 31-yard field goal passed through the uprights.

Jets kicker Jay Feely has pointed out to us, Twitter style, the field goals that go above the uprights aren’t subject to replay review.

And he’s right.  Per Rule 15, Section 9, replay may be used for a field goal attempt “that crosses below or above the crossbar, inside or outside the uprights when it is lower than the top of the uprights, or touches anything.”  (Emphasis added.)

The only glitch here is that replay might be needed to determine whether the ball was above the uprights when it passed through the uprights.

And as we mentioned earlier, the league needs to utilize available technology to determine whether the ball passes through the uprights. 

Here’s a more radical, yet decidedly low tech, option:  Place a horizontal bar at the top of the uprights and require the ball to pass fully inside the rectangle.  It would add an intriguing degree of difficulty to chip shots, and it would have no effect on longer kicks.

Most importantly, it would make it much easier to determine whether or not a kick was good or bad.

Our first choice is the high-tech option.  But we frankly prefer putting a lid on the uprights to a system that currently relies too heavily on the naked eye tracking a shadow of leather near the top of a long pole.

Permalink 76 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Cincinnati Bengals, Cleveland Browns, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
76 Responses to “Last word on the Bengals-Browns field goal”
  1. Bigike55 says: Oct 9, 2009 11:52 PM

    even if it wasnt good its not like it will make the browns win the superbowl so it doesnt matter. refs make bad calls all the time nothing new in the nfl

  2. Tommy_Blah05 says: Oct 9, 2009 11:53 PM

    Who cares? The Browns suck anyway — Spoken like a true Bengals fan. (Which I am!)

  3. UrA_Feltcher says: Oct 9, 2009 11:53 PM

    Kick it through the Upright Box… BRILLIANT… I love the idea

  4. DaVikes says: Oct 9, 2009 11:56 PM

    Florio, you’ve got to be on serious cold medication to come up with something like that. Another low tech idea would be to make each upright another 10 or 20 feet higher.

  5. Akshun says: Oct 9, 2009 11:59 PM

    That above crossbar idea is the DUMBEST idea you ever tried to come up with.. a Complete FAIL!!! Stick with what you know.. gossiping about the NFL..

  6. bearsrule says: Oct 10, 2009 12:05 AM

    Here’s a more radical, yet decidedly low tech, option: Place a horizontal bar at the top of the uprights and require the ball to pass fully inside the rectangle. It would add an intriguing degree of difficulty to chip shots, and it would have no effect on longer kicks……..Yes Mike, it’s radical, and stupid.

  7. Yeahmuggz says: Oct 10, 2009 12:07 AM

    How about putting a laser or a camera inside each side of the goal posts?

  8. FumbleNuts says: Oct 10, 2009 12:09 AM

    Wide right…. the kick heard around the world.

  9. ZombieRevolution says: Oct 10, 2009 12:13 AM

    How often does this happen? Is this really an issue or is this one of the thousands of Florio generated problems?

  10. steveinohio says: Oct 10, 2009 12:13 AM

    how many more wacks at this dead horse is the media going to take. let it go. the game is over, and this is a non issue.

  11. giantphan says: Oct 10, 2009 12:21 AM

    i miss old fashion football, smash mouth, snotknocking, snow storm, football without all the high tech chit. no more excuses that there is no video evidence, or the helmet radio’s aren’t working….. i know some of the calls will suck but it usually balanced out …..
    get rid of the prima donna protection rules ….. no domes ….. bronco negurski, art donovan, deacon jones, jim brown, dick butkis, cold, snowy, rainy football where the the highest form of tech is stickum
    i miss stickum
    bring back madden and summeral
    phred

  12. JuicyMelon says: Oct 10, 2009 12:24 AM

    Having a rectangle for Field Goal kickers would require all kickers to change their style of play. I believe this was a good-kick. Video’s can be prone to error and there are two refs standing at the bottom of the posts looking up…What more does anyone need? Luck is part of the game and it always has been.

  13. NagaSwan says: Oct 10, 2009 12:27 AM

    Why not just eliminate Kicks all together. No kick offs (too dangerous), no FGs (or maybe people should stop complaining when they have no evidence), but keep punts.

  14. NoFootballtalk says: Oct 10, 2009 12:37 AM

    That’s retarded. Why the hell would you want kickers booting the ball through giant rectangles?
    I guess high tech would be the way to go if they made any changes, but even then, it’s expensive and technology has been proven to fail on random occasions. If I remember correctly, there was a play challenged in one of the past couple of seasons but they didn’t have a replay on the play so the team go their challenge back or something odd like that.
    I’m fine with the field goal rules now. Whatever is debatable gets reviewed, and most of the time, it’s never that close of a call anyway

  15. To Rush Quickly says: Oct 10, 2009 12:37 AM

    easiest way to solve the problem is a horizontal bar. I’ve thought that for a long time. People would cry over the break in tradition, but it’s better than a team getting screwed over it.

  16. SmackMyVickUp says: Oct 10, 2009 12:38 AM

    Chances are nothing will be done due to:
    1. The Patriots were not involved
    2. It was a regular season game that will not have any outcome on the overall season
    3. The Patriots were not involved
    What sucks is seeing this same issue replayed in the post-season and someone/some team gets royally screwed.
    Or (legal)bettors get screwed to the tune of somewhere around $30mil. (many figures floated around) cough*Polamalu/Chargers TD*cough

  17. daffy87 says: Oct 10, 2009 12:39 AM

    Just like my Browns…get screwed by the one tiny loophole in the rule. So just to clearify, they could have just as easily ruled it no good, and it wouldn’t have been elligible for replay either. Sounds a bit lame. Play for 75 minutes then end like that.

  18. TFBuckFutter says: Oct 10, 2009 12:39 AM

    Or just have a vertical camera underneath the goal post. And allow replay in that instance.
    But hey, who wants to actually get ALL the calls right easily?

  19. Route36West says: Oct 10, 2009 12:42 AM

    So your saying you think its more logical to put a lid on the uprights instead of say extend them? Wow I thought lawyers were smart.

  20. LewD says: Oct 10, 2009 12:44 AM

    that’s similar to the arena league ….
    in addition to the horizontal bar they add a net to the rectangle that “catches” the ball removing any doubt that it went thru …

  21. urbusted says: Oct 10, 2009 12:53 AM

    Here’s what I saw on replay. My DVR was recording the game. In slow motion I was able to stop the ball as it decended ( the camera was behind the uprights. ) still in the field of play. The ball was not visible as I froze the action as it was covered by what would have been the right upright. As I released the pause, the ball became visible to the left of the upright (right of from the field of play ) then passed past the camera view. The ball never passed in front of the upright from the rear view. In other words the kick was no good. I was able to o this twice so I’m even sure it did not go over the upright. What I saw was not possible had the kick been good.
    Having said all of this, we lost the game on several possessions prior to that so no sour grapes here. If we learn how to win we will win games like this. Until then, more of the same.

  22. Bird Man says: Oct 10, 2009 12:56 AM

    They should put a computer chip in the ball and have sensors everywhere…just like in that movie the “Quarterback of the Future.”

  23. ATLien says: Oct 10, 2009 12:56 AM

    How about just folding a piece of paper into a triangular wad and then having the kicker attemp to thump it through the “uprights” made by the opponent’s thumbs and index fingers.

  24. csloan99 says: Oct 10, 2009 12:57 AM

    Here’s a less stupid “low-tech” option: make the top of the posts 10 feet higher. End of story.

  25. luigiboy says: Oct 10, 2009 12:59 AM

    better yet, use a velco ball!
    If it sticks, it’s good!

  26. Jungle Juice says: Oct 10, 2009 1:15 AM

    That is one of the stupidest ideas ever. Maybe home runs should have a height limit also.
    It is pretty easy for the ref to look straight up and see if the ball is inside the upright.

  27. Colts18 says: Oct 10, 2009 1:23 AM

    Your purposing a extremely radical change like it wont have a big effect.

  28. Vince Drooley says: Oct 10, 2009 1:27 AM

    >>Here’s a more radical, yet decidedly low tech, option: Place a horizontal bar at the top of the uprights and require the ball to pass fully inside the rectangle. It would add an intriguing degree of difficulty to chip shots, and it would have no effect on longer kicks.

  29. Twiz says: Oct 10, 2009 1:50 AM

    So in other words, you had money on the Browns, they lost and now you got your panties all in a wad…..

  30. Igottz5onit says: Oct 10, 2009 1:54 AM

    Sounds like a rejected XFL idea to me. But what the hell, the way Jeff Reed is kicking this year it might be fun to make it erratic for the rest of the league as well.

  31. FBGeek77 says: Oct 10, 2009 2:20 AM

    Yeah I agree with Florio here. I’ve said for years that the league ought to put a horizontal cross bar across the top of the uprights … Would make the short field goals more interesting and I’d no longer feel compelled to fast forward through them on the TiVo :)
    Also, the NFL has plenty of money to address this problem. The reason the replay rule doesn’t apply to balls going over the uprights is that they know they don’t have cameras in the right positions to provide definitive angles on such plays. So instead of striving to make the system better, they try to hide the flaws behind the rules. Sad.

  32. Snowman2008 says: Oct 10, 2009 2:31 AM

    Bill Parcels said (sic) he was for any new invention that in the end would help refs get calls right.
    This is another example of all the little exceptions to allowing reviews that prevents that from happening.
    The NFL is comprised of some very bright people who love to act dumb. Start getting it right for cripes’ sake.

  33. Alex says: Oct 10, 2009 3:21 AM

    Hey special ed Florio, you can’t prefer adding another cross bar at the same time as having the high-tech option as your first choice. Lay off the Cosmopolitans.

  34. Bill.Polian says: Oct 10, 2009 3:26 AM

    Florio’s ridiculous ideas always amaze me.

  35. radioboy20010 says: Oct 10, 2009 4:04 AM

    Just what the NFL needs, Mike, is yet another gadget to slow down the game.(snicker). Football is like poker, at times, a game of chance. Sometimes Lady Luck falls your way, sometimes not.
    Eventually the game will be played by robots, with people at home moving the players via joysticks…a real-life Madden game. The human element of the game will be totally removed so as there are no “bad calls”. Computers, as we all know, are perfect all the time.(snicker).
    With your horizontal bar, we can have Australian-rules style droids dressed as refs who contort their arms into a rectangle when the kick is good.
    Have a nice day.

  36. Ben Bernanke says: Oct 10, 2009 4:18 AM

    LOVE THAT florio

  37. kgleits says: Oct 10, 2009 4:54 AM

    Florio just stop, seriously.

  38. Bob S. says: Oct 10, 2009 4:54 AM

    How about what commentor Rich Gannon doing that game said? He said when the Bengals called a timeout with 7 seconds left, “(para.) why did they call a timeout there and not run it down to a second then call the timeout because even if they make it they then still will have to kick off to Cribbs who could run it back for the win.” This was said by a former QB Gannon.
    The announcer Eagle quickly responded, “(para.) this is overtime – are you another McNabb?”

  39. Bleed Green says: Oct 10, 2009 5:03 AM

    lasers, florio. lasers.

  40. Tetsuo says: Oct 10, 2009 5:40 AM

    Gee, maybe make the uprights a bit taller. Problem solved without a LAME upper crossbar, or expensive high tech mumbo jumbo. Really… an upper crossbar? Dude…

  41. Mook says: Oct 10, 2009 7:13 AM

    Who gives a rat’s ass if the Bengals’ field goal was inside or outside the upright? What does suck is that there are just too many rules in football. It’s killing the sport.
    How about an NFL commission to eliminate the bullshit we’re subjected to these days and get the game back to its roots. So & so hit the QB half a second too late. The ball moved after the receiver fell down. That guy took his helmet off!, my dear! Illegal formation because the lineman was a half-a-step off the line. Watching football is fast becoming akin to witnessing an IRS audit. Stop the flags and let them play.

  42. pudgalvin says: Oct 10, 2009 7:18 AM

    I swear to god I thought about a horizontal bar as well. Perhaps I need a vacation from this site.
    But as JuicyMelon says, you could install lasers and sensors and various other gadgetry, or you could have a ref stand underneath each pole and simply look up to see if the ball goes through the uprights.

  43. griblets says: Oct 10, 2009 7:22 AM

    Mike Pereira covered this issue extensively on Week 4’s Official Review on nfl.com.
    http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d8133c7c4/Official-Review-Week-4-bonus-coverage

  44. firesnake says: Oct 10, 2009 7:33 AM

    Overtime used to be one challenge per team, not booth review. You are an i$|0#.
    I am still amazed that some of the commenters don’t get that Florio comes up with stupid ideas (most likely ones that he himself finds stupid) just in order to get these comments …

  45. HarrisonHits says: Oct 10, 2009 7:59 AM

    The crossbar idea is terrible.

  46. dracula58 says: Oct 10, 2009 8:05 AM

    Well said Phred, and while we’re at it let’s get rid of these silly celabratory dances and girations after making a simple play. I understand it’s the evolution of the modern era athlete and guys on my team do it too but it’s annoying. Guys like Butkus, Huff, Lambert etc. didn’t have to dance after a play to bring attention on themselves. The other team was damn well aware they were on the field.

  47. WestCoastBrwnsfan says: Oct 10, 2009 8:07 AM

    Check this freeze frame shot I captured from from NFNW video. Quality is not the greatest I did what I could… this shot would be telling if it was better quality. At .026 in this video the ball crosses over/through/or partially outside of the RT upright.
    Ball is just about to reach the uptright in this shot, kinda hard to see it a small dark blob, its the best I could do with the NFL vid paused..and capturing the video NON Full screen. I have great video card and pretty good graphics tools but FLASH dont like people grabbing things from their videos. So it is what it is…
    http://s940.photobucket.com/albums/ad246/AlgaeNator/?action=view&current=widert1.jpg
    This pic is pretty telling, as the Ball passes upright, you can see part of the ball OBSCURING a portion of the RIGHT Upright in this shot. Again kick was slightly angled L to R (kicked from L hash) which makes the ball look wider than it probably is even from DIRECTLY Infront of the kicker where this camera was. This effect is similar to how when you look at your car’s gas tank indicator NEEDLE (if you have that type) it looks less or more full at a given angle than it really is.
    http://s940.photobucket.com/albums/ad246/AlgaeNator/?action=view&current=widert.jpg
    My instincts and good eyes tell me the kick went OVER the upright basically as it passed it was RIGHT over the MIDDLE of the RT upright. Had there been an upright there, it would have ricocheted either in or outside of the Uprights.
    Which brings me to my question….

  48. Drat says: Oct 10, 2009 8:16 AM

    Here’s all you need to know for the “Last Word.” As mentioned in the previous story in passing, and as every football fan knows, a ref stands directly under each upright looking up. That is The Definitive Angle. You’re not going to get a better view on replay. There are no bodies flying around. There is no complexity. You stare up the pole and can see absolutely with certainty where the ball flies.

  49. WestCoastBrwnsfan says: Oct 10, 2009 8:17 AM

    Since the ball passed OVER the Upright it appears VS through them…
    My question for this forum is…
    What is the NFL rule for a FOOTBALL that is going over the infinite UPRIGHT? Is it a percentage thing? I human call?
    Does the ENTIRE ball have to pass WITHIN the INSIDE of the imaginary Extended Upright, or only PART of the ball?
    My argument for a ball that passes OVER the top of the upgright basically in the MIDDLE of the missing UPRIGHT (Like this ball appears to do) Is #1 its hard for REFS to see it, B If there WERE A REAL UPRIGHT there, the ball would have potentally BOUNCED RT or L off of the Invisible upgright. So who is to say which way it would go?
    If 3/4 or 1/2 of the ball is INSIDE it counts? And if this is NOT reviewable, and easily quantifiable, how are we to see and judge?
    People may say this is picking the fly poop out of the pepper, but we do this EXACT thing for endzone with the ball, with TD’s the question always is, does it extend over the infinite endzone line beyond the PYLON? The player must be inbounds (not being pushed) so the player himself is in bounds, but the BALL is out of bounds, above around, outside of the field and it crosses that infinite LINE at any time, it’s a TD.

  50. WestCoastBrwnsfan says: Oct 10, 2009 8:21 AM

    Another bone I have always had about TV coverage by networks, is POOR coverage= poor quality reviews, less angles to judge “evidence” of plays when challenged or reviewed. So losing teams get the shaft again for reviews and challenges.
    Im pretty convinced losing teams who arent respected by NFL community get worse TV announcer coverage teams, junky equipment and less of it, than popular winning teams do from the Networks.
    One glaring example of this was a few years back when HD was just coming out. I noticed losing teams were more often on the “standard def” lists.. Though they made it “seem” like it was random, it is not. In 06 I had HD TV but seemed like the Browns and a few other Sad Franchise, ALWAYS got the STANDARD DEF telecasts more than others. Very FEW were in HD. Back then about 4 games a week were NOT in HD. For WEEKS the Browns and other losing teams were often on that list I was PAYING Attention because HD was novel and new, and I had PAID FOR IT on DTV, but I couldnt get it. I purchased the special HD package and saw like 4 games of 16 in HD! Basically no fault of DTV, it was the NETWORKS who weren’t providing it for ME as they provide the cameras and other equipment on scene.
    That used to really piss me of to be honest.
    As for technology that could help…
    There is ALREADY pretty good technology out there its called a CAMERA on the goal post cross bar BEHIND the uprights (if it passes through the uprights and hits the camera or middle support its GOOD (Remember Dawson vs..Ravens Kick that went in and out?)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en65Ws1FNxE
    Usually this camera IMHO is used only on PRIME time MNF, or SNF, TNF playoffs etc.. Just like that TROLLY CAM.
    It Prolly should be used ALL the time for ALL teams, and installed ON all UPRIGHTS as STANDARD equipment. Same thing for a FIXED CAMERAS on each goal line.. directly lined up so NO weird angles skew that call.
    Just set them up, and then leave them on EVERY field.
    That camera on the cross bar gives you pretty much the vantage point of the refs if not a little better. They can swing that thing up and lock onto the ball as it clears or doesnt clear the uprights. and you can see if it clears it inside or out even if its ABOVE the upgright.
    So in the end fewer cameras = less coverage and or poor camera angles that mnake it VERY hard to see whats really going on on the field, including ALL replays.., and challenges , not just kicks..
    But, with close kicks its tough as fans to see whats what..unless you are DIRECTLY in front of the post close enough to see it above etc.. and or directly BEHIND the goal posts. Its esp tough when you are FACING the kicker when he attemps the kick from side hashes at an angle. Angles can do funny things to depth perception.
    That said,
    To complicate matters further, the kickers kick from right and left “HASHES” so even if the CAMERA is centered the ball is approaching at an angle.
    I think its a problem that does deserve some improvement, but it wont happen due a Browns game. Wait till its a top tier team that gets a bad call on a close FG there is no cross bar camera, and the losing coach is the head of the RULES Committee…
    Then changes and rules will be made..

  51. BigSnert says: Oct 10, 2009 8:23 AM

    LORDY, LORDY . . . . .
    Happy Birthday, Brett !

  52. Uncle Leo says: Oct 10, 2009 8:25 AM

    Florio,
    Why not take your remarkable suggestion one step further. Make every stadium have a different set of goal posts and obstacles. It would be like a travelling version of mini golf.
    Geez, you get paid for this?

  53. wvugrad00 says: Oct 10, 2009 8:28 AM

    Florio – that has to be the dumbest thing you have ever come up with.

  54. edman13 says: Oct 10, 2009 8:59 AM

    Everybody can relax on this one, the field goal was good. I have all games archived for replay on NFL World Pass (besides free healthcare one of the benefits of living in London) and have just watched repeatedly. This one was g-o-o-d.

  55. Barcid says: Oct 10, 2009 9:04 AM

    DaVikes, you beat me too it.
    Just make the uprights 10 feet higher, problem solved.
    This isn’t the first time I’ve seen a kick like that; seems like you get several each season.

  56. the26hawk says: Oct 10, 2009 9:10 AM

    A little goal area on top of the crossbar?
    Do you want a midget with a long goal stick to run across the crossbar, too? Batting down the kicks?
    You’re workin’ too hard Mikey, take a break for awhile.

  57. FloriosHairHat says: Oct 10, 2009 9:17 AM

    Kick thru a box?? WTF?
    Why not convert the entire upright into a skee-ball target, a series of rings with different points?!
    Just don’t forget the flashing lights and the ticket dispenser.

  58. Bill In DC says: Oct 10, 2009 9:29 AM

    “Why not just eliminate Kicks all together. No kick offs (too dangerous), no FGs (or maybe people should stop complaining when they have no evidence), but keep punts.”
    Sure, and, while were at it, eliminate tackling, go to flags. No blocking either just have the defensive linemen count ‘one Mississippi, two..’ and have the QBs all wear red shirts and tutus.

  59. stanjam says: Oct 10, 2009 9:31 AM

    The NFL has always been scared of technology and probably always will be. It would be nice to have detectors on the field goal posts. It would be nice for the NFL to have proper hi def cameras to see if a player broke the goal line plane or not during review. However, the NFL won’t do these things. They hate to spend the money, and are afraid of the technology. So unless someone else ponies up the cash for these types of things, they won’t happen.
    Better yet, why doesn’t the NFL use full time refs? There are simply too many mistakes made during games by refs. Some of the refs don’t even seem to understand clearly the rules, including when a player makes a catch and goes to the ground, or what constitutes an illegal hit on a quarterback. If the league simply went to full time refs we could solve some of this nonsense. Full time refs would have a lot more time to dedicate to their profession. They could spend more time reviewing their play and getting better, not to mention practice their skills, just like players. The game has gotten too big and too important to keep using part time referees. But that would mean spending money.

  60. Drat says: Oct 10, 2009 10:03 AM

    The only solution is to have the upright extend upwards for miles into the stratosphere. Except in the new Cowboys stadium.

  61. leatherneck says: Oct 10, 2009 10:13 AM

    Video is two-dimensional.
    Have you ever seen a golf shot on TV that looks like it sliced way off to the right, but was actually a beautiful, straight drive? It happens all the time.
    Two-dimensional television will never fully capture three-dimensional real life. That is why people like going to games in person.
    There was a referee directly under the goal post. That is the perfect angle to see if it went in. If you don’t trust that referee, why are you bothering to watch NFL football?
    Placing a camera near the goal post wouldn’t work all that great. Which side of the pole do you put it on?
    The only thing another camera would do would be to redundantly reconfirm what the referee already called anyway on about four field goal attempts per year at a cost of millions of dollars. On about half of those four field goal attempts, the camera would still be out of position to be definitive.
    Don’t make any changes in this area. The NFL is doing it right.

  62. Drat says: Oct 10, 2009 10:40 AM

    Have you guys noticed the technology used in tennis? It’s florking awesome. Several cameras are set up (six to ten), at different angles, and the images are sent immediately to a computer that integrates them into a 3-D reconstruction. It is so precise that line calls are judged to a fraction of an inch. Pro tennis players accept the system as the definitive word. If pro tennis can do it, the NFL can. If you’ve watched the tennis system, then you can imagine the computer slo-mo video of the football flying past the upright — it would be awesome. It might not work for all sidelines and goal line situations because flying bodies would get in the way of some or most camera angles.

  63. Drat says: Oct 10, 2009 11:00 AM

    Mook is right on.
    Too many itsy-bitsy specific rules. You just break the “plane” to cross the goal line. You have to have two feet down on a reception before you cross the out-of-bounds lines. The refs just decide where you are tackled for the first down line. Simplify: for any important line on the field, just touch part of your body down first. Integrate TDs, first downs, out-of-bounds. Hey, dudes, it is called a “TOUCH” down.
    The ground can’t cause a fumble. For a runner. If you’re a receiver with possession of the ball, the ground collision causes that to be incomplete.
    Hitting a QB has different rules than hitting anyone else. Hey, if it’s good for a QB, why do we let other players suffer the same hit? Be simple, be consistent.
    DBs can’t hit a receiver downfield. Unless the pass is “uncatchable.” Why force a ref to make a judgment? If the receiver is face down in the turf k, then of course it is uncatchable. New rule: Just don’t hit the damn receivers beyond 5.
    If the league went to “Minimum Rules” football it would be more fun to watch and involve fewer controversial calls.
    In any case, the florkin professional announcers on the networks should be required to read the rule book. It’s their job! I’m amazed that the talking heads have no idea what the rules are, they make them up based on vague opinions.

  64. jamaltimore says: Oct 10, 2009 11:04 AM

    No they only use instant replay on field goals when BALTIMORE IS PLAYING! I know another whining ravens fan but seriously it seems like all questionable calls go against us.

  65. giantphan says: Oct 10, 2009 11:45 AM

    have the good year blimp drop two lines down, attach one to each goal post ….. shine two lasers up so you can keep the lines equadistant and parallel ….. then you kick the ball really hard and hit the line to the blimp causing the blimp to slide downward hitting the jumbotron ….. at which point you reset the ball to its previous spot and set the clock back prior to the what it was before the kick ….. wait thats on punts in texas ….. i’m so confused ….. hey idea here ….. kick the ball ….. let the refs make the call ….. accept his call ….. shut up and move on …… then spend the next week letting florio post about it …..
    how about you just score a touchdown and take it out of the refs hands …. oh wait …. ed hockulee, san diego, sssiiiggghhhh nevermind ….. carry on
    phred

  66. Drat says: Oct 10, 2009 12:17 PM

    Giantphan,
    Right on! I see the NFL future. Man, am i ever happy that I live at this point in time when sports will become monitored and controlled by people who know what they are doing — accountants and lawyers! I hate it that sports are decided by mere athletes and amazing fit-ass old men called refs. I will love it when each NFL snap, each one, has its own lawyers, when files will be briefed (whatever the flork that means), when there will be requests for continuance, when DUI records will involve yardage penalties proportional to previous blood alcohol levels (retroactive to 35 years), when NFL officials are grilled on whether a ball that was caught in the air, possessed, controlled, became an incomplete pass later when the receiver hit the endzone and let the ball go. Maybe because they were on drugs or alchohol. Bring in all the big guns of the government. Bring in lawyers like Florio. Make each game just the preliminary setting of the real game, the post-hoc diatribes and burt-florking. I love it. Thank god for this.

  67. fjp says: Oct 10, 2009 12:23 PM

    Really!
    Your idea is to change the game?
    Remarkably foolish idea.
    Next- If you slow up the replay you see the ball partially obstruct the view of the top of the left side of the upright. So, it was good.
    I don’t care about either team. I am impartial. Take another look with open eyes. And don’t change the game!

  68. leatherneck says: Oct 10, 2009 12:47 PM

    Just remember. If something is hard to understand, just add lasers and it will automatically become perfect.

  69. Slow Joe says: Oct 10, 2009 1:03 PM

    I’m pretty sure Florio makes these dumb suggestions just to get more blog comments/hits.
    Mikey, how the hell do you think officials will be able to judge whethere they went through the rectangle from below the uprights? Why would you want to make field goals even harder?
    The best low tech idea is the one I suggested on the original post: Make the uprights 20 feet taller.

  70. Hammerstripes says: Oct 10, 2009 1:55 PM

    You don’t need to change anything with the goal posts. Geez poeple, there is an official standing right underneath the goal post looking straight up. It’s impossible to blow this call. In fact, this field goal was good by a few feet – no question about it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcPxAfIT5Bc

  71. Creeper says: Oct 10, 2009 3:45 PM

    what a flippin’ idiot . how about little platforms at the top of the posts just large enough for midgets to stand on . If said midget catches kicked ball without getting knocked off,kick is no good.If said midget gets knocked off,kick is good and add a point if he dies in the fall.About as realistic and brilliant as this jackass’ idea and much more entertaining.The saddest part though,seriously,is Browns’ superbowl hopes are all but gone now over this tragic call.

  72. WestCoastBrwnsfan says: Oct 10, 2009 4:38 PM

    This really isn’t about the BROWNS no one cares about us and our season this year is probably already over.. Any dunce can see that.
    Sure it was a meaningless game and call this TIME.. (to most other NFL fans ALL Browns games are meaningless)
    Just Wait till this happens to the “PET” popular winning teams out there costing THEM a game, playoff spot or season. Then it will MATTER trust me.. The outcry will be great and the rule will eventually be changed.
    Browns are GREAT at finding the most obscure NFL rules in the history of the game, and then landing on the LOSING side of them normally.
    Other fans will come CRYING in forums when it happens, (and it will happen again) and they will have a legit argument, just as the Brown’s fans have now.
    Nothing is more important in the NFL, esp in close games, than getting Late FG calls correct. They make or break teams and seasons.
    The original poster talked about the Rule section where above kicks cannot be reviewed under 2 min?
    This rule needs to be changed.
    But you MUST include increased cameras (like on the crossbar I mentioned) or the Review policy change will be limited by too few angles.. and we end up with “not enough evidence”
    to turn over calls garbage.. which really equals…
    “poor network coverage” more oft than not.
    Im not sure who FUNDs the amount of cameras in a game, my guess is its the Networks and NOT the NFL. Maybe the NFL gives them a budget in the telecast agreement to work with, I dunno, but the NW still have the choice I think what and where to place cameras, and how many and what quality.

  73. WestCoastBrwnsfan says: Oct 10, 2009 5:05 PM

    Trusting humans to make a right call?
    Refs get it WRONG on close plays about 50% of the time. Review turnover challenge percentages prove this out. Look it up, I did.
    I dont care if they are under the post on each side, if that ball goes OVER the tip of the upright, its no good according to one poster… (though I would like to see that part of the rules posted)
    Looking at my freeze shots, the ball is CLEARLY above/inside and above, the upright as it clears it. And the NFL itself ruled correctly and stated after the fact that it was ABOVE/higher the Post, and thus NON reviewable. My screen capture verifies this.
    At this point I am assuming the rules state:
    “The entire ball has to be INSIDE the posts (whether real or invisible) to be good. If any part of the ball passes partially OVER the post..when above them, then it’s No good”
    Ok what if HALF the ball ends up being inside as it crosses OVER the side/top of the Pole?
    Judging this when its directly over/ close to going over the middle of the post would be VERY hard to judge in a split second.
    I dont care how good you are, it would be hard to judge it correctly and get it right in a split second. The guy to the right on this play, also has a horrible angle of view on this particular play, so he is out.. The guy directly under it makes a split second call that the ball is COMPLETELY inside and not ABOVE it?
    And…You HOPE he is right? We should TRUST The call? Flip a coin you have the same percentages of the human getting it right.
    A better answer is a small HD camera placed and the BACKSIDE of the upgright facing upwards. They are fixed to each post, pointing up. Being fixed they cannot be THAT much money as less technolgy is used making them static vs moving like a crossbar camera.
    No fancy motion sensors or expensive bulky moving cameras.. Just fixed small HD cameras pointing up with fairly wide angle, and set to focus on the area above the tips of the POSTS.
    They are placed on the BACKSIDE of each of the posts and are NO larger than the posts so that a ball striking the post at that exact point in the front, will not be interferred with by the camera placement since the camera itself is on the backside. (barring some bizzare sideways ricochet that sends the ball partially behind the Upright)
    In that case, the ball would have passed BY them, and as we all know the ball would be GOOD if it passed the cross bar or inside the upright posts, due to “Dawson Rule.”
    So simple cheap fix, HD cameras on each vertical post.
    Change rules that OVER the post FG under 2min CAN be reviewed, and use the post cameras to do it.

  74. beaverdam says: Oct 10, 2009 6:25 PM

    I’m with Phred
    While some advancements are good, you have to keep in mind what the game is all about.
    He mentions Art Donovan. Have just been reading an excellent recent biography of Johnny Unitas and the author recounted a good story of some game where there was a big pile up after a fumble and everybody was rooting around trying to get the ball and one of the guys on the Colts at the bottom of the pile says to one of the guys on the Bears that they were all getting together at the hotel at 7 to drink and he wanted to make sure that they all came over too.
    I just don’t think those guys would get that excited about extra point calls either way. It is part of the game, the refs below have a pretty good view and those things do tend to even out.
    Play the game.

  75. who_dey_kid says: Oct 10, 2009 6:47 PM

    If anybody bothers to watch Hammerstripes youtube video, you will see the ball from the angle the refs saw it, which clearly looks like it was good.

  76. DidYouKnow says: Oct 13, 2009 7:57 AM

    Did you know that there IS TECHNOLOGY available to determine whether the ball passes through the uprights.
    It is technology that DOES NOT RELY ON THE NAKED EYE!!! It can be replayed to determine whether a ball above the uprights passed through the uprights.
    Did you know that all that needs to occur is the LEAGUE NEEDS TO UTILIZE IT!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!