So if we had scored a td on the blocked fg after the laterall............

Would they have then called it back because Clark had possession and his knee was down and was being touched by a GB player before he got the lateral out? You bet your but they would have. Then what is the difference? Why can't it be reviewed that he was down or not an a lateral that you then don't run it back?

 

Mute point. Because then it would have been a scoring play and possession would have been established. All scoring plays are reviewed, so of course they would have reviewed the play and determined he was down at the point of the lateral.


Since they "supposedly" ruled that he never had possession They managed to screw it all up. They wouldn't have had a chance to screw it up if he had taken a few more steps.

 

Clark is getting a bit of heat for that lateral, but as I said in the gameday thread, it's understandable. If Gay makes the catch, it could be a TD. Against Miami, we had two almost successful lateral-based plays at the end of each half. You've got to try it.

Sorry, not the point of the thread I know, but just wanted to air that out.

 

All Turnovers are suppose to be reviewed also. Failing to convert a 4th down is technically called a "Turnover on Downs". Especially if it was a blocked kicked. Refs should of been under the hood to make the right call on that play.

 

A turnover on downs and a turnover by interception or fumble are not the same freaking thing.

 

Are any of you guys old enough to remember
the Oakland/ Miami playoff game back in the 70's?
I believe the rule came into effect in that game.
Not sure but the play should have been reviewed
as Clark looked like he had possession and his
knee was down. Maybe I am wrong, but if he was down, doesn't that make the play done?Isn't
this reviewable?

 

No, whether he was down or not is moot since they ruled he didn't have possession and is not reviewable. Why is that so hard for some of you to understand?

 

I dont think that its hard for people to understand why they didnt review it, but more so why isnt that a reviewable play...isnt the point of review to get it right?

let me pose this to u...what is the difference between a WR having possession on a catch and the blocked fg play where clark had possession...

to me there is no difference...the point of replay is to get the play correct...the nfl rules "dropped the ball" on a play like that

 

Let me explain it and simplify it in three words. The refs suck. That's all there is to it. Possession should have been reviewed. It's the key to the entire play. It begins and ends there. Why would it be any different then if a RB had the ball and the same thing happened? Would they change possession if after he fumbled and there was a illegal batting?

 

I'm old enough to remember, and the game you are thinking of was not the Oakland/Miami game of 1974, but a San Diego/Oakland regular season game in 1978 when the Raiders scored on a fumble pushed forward. And that play was on offense, not like this one.

I also recall seeing a similar play around that time- at least, a play when a blocked kick benefited the offense. It was in a Patriots/Colts game. Mike Patrick, the Patriots punter, had a punt blocked. The Colts player picked it up, dropped it, then tried to roll it to another Colt- but a Patriots player picked it up and ran for the first down. I believe they changed the rules about being able to that too.

 

what are you going to do with them during the week, give them eye tests?

 

The refs completely blew the call on possession. If the steelers would have lost the game there would have been epic wailing and gnashing of teeth over that call on the MB.

 

That in essence the major screw up. You can give the refs a break on whether Clark was down or not, but it was so obvious that Clark did have possession. That alone should have made it Steelers ball with a possible penalty on Hood for slapping the ball forward.

 

Supposedly the NFL is going
the hockey route next year. There will
be no Zebras under the hood, all we be done
from upstairs.

 

The whole idea of indisputable evidence is bogus. They call what they see. I hate that every turnover and touchdown is automatically reviewed.

 

Thats why i think refs need to be held accountable for their calls on the field.

 

The only redeeming part of all this debate is that the B&G still won. That being said, the outcome that was decided on by the refs is only the tip of the iceberg - there are so many bizarre "what ifs" that could have happened with an "illegal batting" on that play based on the way the refs ruled it -

1. What if Packers recovered the batted ball in bounds and ran in for a TD? Would it have counted or would the play be dead when the illegal batting took place and they would have a FD at the 1 like they eventually did?

2. What if the Steelers had recovered in bounds after the batting and were down at the 2 YD line? Would it have been our ball at half the distance back after the penalty or would the play have been nullified dead and Green Bay still gets the ball and FD at the 1?

3. What if Packers had batted it forward instead - would it have been our ball on downs at the 2 by declining the penalty or was it a non-declinable penalty just as it was an non-reviewable play and they would have another shot at a FG pushed out to either the 12 or 17?

I got's ta know!

 

Well, there was, and still is.

Whether we won or not is entirely beside the point. The call was awful, and that's the issue. And as long as the call was awful, fans have every right to interrogate it.

 

Who the hell knows what would have happened?

 

Apparently the NFL can determine what would have happened as well as intent. Which is why Tomlin was fined $100k and the Steelers face the loss of a draft pick.

The slippery slope of over-enforcing.....