It took five days, but it finally happened.
A member of the Browns organization is questioning whether the 31-yard field goal from Bengals kicker Shayne Graham in overtime failed to pass through the uprights.
The three points gave Cincy a 23-20 win, with seven seconds left in the fifth quarter.
Defensive coordinator Rob Ryan, doing his best “I just run the plays that are called” imitation of T.O., has suggested that the ball perhaps missed the mark.
“You could watch the tape, that would be great,” Ryan said during a Friday press conference. “I’m not saying
anything, but man, maybe the posts were crooked. [But] I don’t want to
get fined. I pay enough money on a house I don’t even live in in
California. . . .
“I don’t want to make this a big story, but I was
disappointed. Of course, I’m not an expert. That’s why I’m saying maybe
somebody else should look at it.”
The NFL has looked at it, and spokesman Greg Aiello stands by the decision made on the field.
“The field judge standing right underneath the upright
called it good, and we have reviewed multiple video from different
angles and seen nothing to dispute the call,” Aiello told the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
We’ve watched the video, several times. From the end zone view, the ball moves right to left, and it obscures the tip of the left upright for an instant. This suggests that, when the ball passed by (and possibly above) the uprights, it was fully inside, as required by rule.
But it’s a close call. And that leads to the bigger question: Why wasn’t replay used to review the decision made on the field?
In overtime, the coaches have no ability to throw the red flag. All replays are initiated by the booth. But the booth didn’t call for a replay review.
The CBS crew working the game didn’t point out that it was a close call, even while showing another angle that only made the question of whether the kick was good more vague.
Instead, Ian Eagle said during the live play that Shayne Graham “drills it,” and Rich Gannon described it as a “great kick” after the fact. (In fairness to Gannon, he possibly was distracted by the building excitement for the coming kickoff return from Joshua Cribbs.)
So that’s the real concern that we have on this one — why wasn’t replay used?
In a roundabout way, the decision not to go to the hooded box evens out a questionable call from which the Browns benefited two years ago, when the officials by all appearances used replay at a time when replay wasn’t permitted in such circumstances to determine that a 51-yard attempt from Phil Dawson that struck the stanchion and bounced back out onto the field was in fact a good kick. The corrected call forced overtime at Baltimore, and the Browns went on to win the game.
This time around, the officials properly could have used replay, and didn’t.
Either way, it wouldn’t have made a difference, if the referee had applied the “indisputable visual evidence” standard. None of the available replays are clear, primarily because the kick went higher than the uprights — and because the league has yet to equip the top of the uprights with electronic sensors that would determine whether the ball passed inside (good), outside (bad), or over (bad).
Maybe that’s the biggest question. Why in the hell haven’t they done this?
JEZUS FLORIO
First McNabb and now Gannon?? It’s safe to say that 100% of Americans don’t know 100% of their respective jobs. Give it a rest!!!!
I needed the FG and I remember as soon as it was hit I said to myself, he missed it. Then the officials raised their arms and I was a happy camper.
I still think he missed it though.
I wondered why they didn’t review it too. I was yelling at my TV that it was no good, but as usual the guys inside the tv didn’t listen to me. Apparently if it passes over the upright like that they didn’t wanna waste anyone’s time reviewing it because there wouldn’t have been enough evidence to overturn it? Does that mean if they had said no good they wouldn’t have overturned that either? It’s a FUBAR situation.
inside (good), outside (bad), or over (bad)
“Over” would be considered good, dear sir.
There’s no good reason that the league doesn’t have sensors and cameras on the uprights, the sidelines, and even more importantly on every goal line.
You seem to have used the word hell a lot more recently, someone is feeling spunky.
Amen Brother!!!
Why does this charade still go on? They have the technology. Sensors on the posts, on the tips of footballs, review of all fumbles, etc. … will it lengthen the game? Yeah, who cares?
Get ‘er done!
I should be shot for that last sentence, I know.
It sure looked like a miss on TV, but I’m glad it wasn’t. It was an integral part of my five-team, money-line parlay. Who Dey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I thought he missed it too.
It looks like it went wide to me but that is just from the angle I saw on the video.
Watching the game , I thought it was no good, but a ABC affilate in Cincinati had tape under the goal posts of the kick, it went inside by about a foot.
Pereira said it’s not reviewable on the last “Official Review”… he gave some lame excuse about the airspace above the goal posts not reviewable.
Im a Bengals fan and I thought it was very close. That being said, no angle in replay is going to be better than the view coming from standing below the upright itself.
If I remember right, whether a kick is good or not is not technically a reviewable play, so therefor they can not use the replay booth to look at it.
The bigger question is, why do NFL games have the possibility to end in a tie? Just do a college style OT after the ‘fifth quarter’. For the Browns, it means nothing whether or not the kick was good because if the game ended in a tie, it wouldn’t be any more exciting than a loss.
Why don’t they just use the technology they use in tennis to tell if a ball is in our out. Just extend up the goal post virtually and have a computer determine if it’s good or not. With all the money going into the game it’s criminal that they don’t make better use of available technology.
Florio if you look at the attached picture you will see that that the ball was not above the goal post. Since the baall is clocked by the uprights it’s clear that the kick was no good. Why do you think that this woudl not be strong enough visual evidence to overturn the call? In the long and short it may not be all that important. But Cleveland fans might disagree if they should 0 and 16
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3458/3996505070_898849f3bf_o.jpg
I would assume that the problem with using sensors on the goal posts would be the ease at which the readings could be interfered with by, say, cell phone signals and such.
I saw it only once but it looked like he missed it.
That particular field goal ruling is not reviewable. It was explained by Mike Periera(sp) on Official Review this week that whether the ball went through the uprights is not reviewable whenever it is a judgement call pertaining to a ball sailing higher than the goal post.
I agree. This should have been looked at closer. 0-15-1 is much less embarassing than 0-16…
Ryan is dead wrong on this one. From the angle used in the broadcast it looks almost too close to call, but from another angle I saw it was clear that the kick was good by at least 5 feet. Also, look at the reaction of the players on the field. The Browns players put their heads down and the Bengals players their arms up about 2 seconds before the refs made any the call.
But I can forgive Ryan because he looks exactly like The Dude.
Hobbyman.. got a link for that?… Watching the video over and over I just don’t see that kick good.. Pause the video at the 5:28 the ball is clearly in front of the post and wide of it.. hit play and watch it continue to clearly push wide of the post
The Bengirls are the worst 3-1 team in the NFL. Clearly, the ball didn’t pass through the uprights and it should have been reviewed. Anyone with a set of eyes should be able to agree with that.
Bottomline, the Bengirls will get what those Cincy Cissies deserve this week, a lashing at the hands of the Ravens.
Go Steelers!
Three events that somehow flew under the radar and didn’t get called out, until recently, if at all:
(1) Damione Lewis drilling Donovan McNabb after he was three yards deep in the end zone, snapping part of his cage (I still don’t know how Lewis got some kind of pass on that garbage);
(2) Graham’s “game-winning” field goal against Cleveland – sure didn’t look good to me from my vantage point;
(3) Ogunleye’s horse collar on Stafford (how obvious does it have to be to be a friggen violation?)
Amazing.
However, ONE player is evidently very protected by the rules … and then some. Apparently, the NFL has a crack team of engineers and designers working ’round the clock to create an invisible force field around Tom Brady, but for now – the refs are tasked with keeping Brady upright with no shortage of embarassing garbage calls that get lauded as “wisely erring on the side of protecting the quarterback.”
Epic. I wish I had a job where I could constantly butcher my performance, but had an endless supply of Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free cards.
i didn’t think to question it, because like stated, the official was right underneath the post, but i honestly thought it was no good, from the TV angle….. maybe bellicheck should push the issue of more camera’s, instead of each corner of endzone AND goaline camera’s, lets put them in the parking lot, locker rooms, hell lets put them everywhere!! Everybody for cams in the skybox suites, raise their hands!!
Man, you guys are a bunch of idiots.
A field goal is not reviewable.
The players from both teams knew it was good before the refs signaled.
Anyone with the last name Ryan should never have a microphone in front of their mouth cause only stupid shit will be said.
And Steelers fans need to quit crying. The worst 3-1 team in the league (according to you) beat you, so what does that make you? Man up and accept that you lost and quit being a bitch.
You techno-dorks are leaving out a much simpler solution that zillion dollar laser sensors on the goalposts: Why not just make the stupid uprights about twenty feet taller?
I can remember being at live games and swearing a close kick was no good, bootom line, if two guys underneath the posts plus multiple camera angles can’t get it done, then maybe they should package a revision that also sponsors full time cameras facing straight on the goaline
Maybe they should take a play out of Jerry Jones’ playbook and put a scoreboard above it so it can’t go higher than the posts. That way, no kicker will ever try to kick it “straight up”.
Instead, Ian Eagle said during the live play that Shayne Graham “drills it,” and Rich Gannon described it as a “great kick” after the fact. (In fairness to Gannon, he possibly was distracted by the building excitement for the coming kickoff return from Joshua Cribbs.) I’m confused here, is Gannon that dumb? it was overtime.
Twindaddy,
Clearly, you’re the idiot. Field goals are reviewable by replay.
enorton,
Yeah, Gannon made a comment about the Bengals stopping the clock with too much time (7 seconds) remaining because it gave Cribbs a chance to bring one back. It was funny…he knows the rules, but how often do OT games go until the last few seconds?
(In fairness to Gannon, he possibly was distracted by the building excitement for the coming kickoff return from Joshua Cribbs.)
I’m confused here, is Gannon that dumb? it was overtime.
——————-
Yes, he is.
“I’m curious why they called a time out with seven seconds left,” Rich Gannon of CBS said after the Bengals killed the clock late in the overtime period. “Because what’s gonna happen now is you’re gonna be forced to kick the ball off to Joshua Cribbs.”
“No, it’s over,” said Gannon’s on-air partner, Ian Eagle. “You win.”
Gannon agreed and apologized for the blunder, and Ian Eagle gave Gannon a little of the business.
“Is Donovan McNabb in the booth,” Eagle said. “Where’s Donovan?”
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/05/the-morning-after-week-four/
Brownstown – b/f you call anyone an idiot, make damn sure you’re right. As has been reported on this website, no field goal where he ball crosses above the vertical poles is reviewable.
But I can forgive Ryan because he looks exactly like The Dude.
=========================
Thanks, I just shit myself, lmao
Here’s a great video of a kid, probably under the age of 10 by the tone of his voice, watching the game and calling out Rich Gannon for thinking the Bengals would have to kick the ball off if they scored. The video also ends with a camera angle that clearly shows the ball going through the uprights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiuUPdPhjdY
Rash,
I was simply responding to twindaddy’s blanket statement saying ‘a field goal is not reviewable’. That is an incorrect statement, therefore he has no basis for calling us idiots. Like all plays, some things about the play are reviewable and other things are not (penalties, whether a ball was catchable, and yes, if it passes over the uprights, it is not reviewable). The fact remains, field goals ARE reviewable, provided they meet the criteria.
@ TwinDaddy — When your team can demonstrate consistency, the ability to win with / without injuries and loss of key star players year in and out (check out the Cowher days in Pgh when the defense was rebuilt almost every year and we actually won with Kordell at the helm), the ability to participate in the NFL postseason more than once every 10-15 year, then we can have an intelligent back and forth discussion over the Bengals.
Fact of the matter is that luck brings wins early, but not late in seasons. Limas Sweed is a complete dud — if any other receiver had been in his situation againts the Bengals in week 4, we would have put the game away and run, run, run the rest of the game. If the Browns actually had any offensive talent, they would have put the Bengals away when they clearly couldn’t muster a 1st down for over 3 quarters. While the Bengals had a lot riding on the game in Baltimore yesterday, they played pretty well defensively, but the Ravens offense looked like that of old.
For now, enjoy your “star” QBs ability to run an efficient 2 minute drill against prevent defenses. I’ve always been against prevent and think one of these games, if the other team hasn’t put the Bengals away, they will find the ability to sack the highly immobile Palmer and the Bengals will not be pulling out games they should be losing.
On the bright side, why don’t you join me in Pittsburgh on November 15th. We’re hosting a Bengals roasting and perhaps Steelers fans can return the utter nastiness and poor sportsmanship displayed by Bengirls fans after their recent win. By the way, that was the 1st time you beat the Steelers at home since 2001. Hmmmm …. seems like you have a very short memory.
Also, when Bengals fans actually learn how to respect the game and root for their team during good and bad, I might actually respect their fan base. For now, the team needs to win convincingly and for more than 2 minutes for me to believe they’ll playing in February 2010.
Signing off and looking forward to roasting some Bengirls in Pittsburgh on November 15th!