I don't think it was reviewed because Evans did not maintain possesion of the ball but he did at least on initial reviews in my mind did get two feet down. I've refused to watch any of the highlights (terrible wording) so I can't say for sure. That being said the receiver needs to maintain possession of the ball through the entire play which he did not regardless of how many feet he got down. What pissed me off was I thought Moore either held, interferred with or should have been called for illegal contact on the following play.
It was reviewed, just not with a booth review. From NFL.com: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...s-ruled-incomplete?module=HP11_headline_stack The Lee Evans non-TD was two plays prior to the missed FG. The gameclock was stopped at that point, so they had no need to rush. They snapped the ball at 0:03 on the playclock (0:22 on the gameclock) and Flacco threw incomplete to Pitta. THEN Cundiff came onto the field and missed. So are you saying they got confused after the Evans drop, proceeded to call the pass to Pitta without knowing what down it was, then still couldn't figure it out afterwards? Keep in mind that 1:25 of real time passed between Evans' drop and Cundiffs miss, and the down markers on the sticks were correct the whole time.
These kickers are wacky people. Cundiff said he has a routine he goes through during each down to prepare himself mentally when he anticipates a kick. Since the guy has a crappy road record, add in the playoff pressure and the disruption of his routine so yes I can see it having an effect. However he and his coaches have to bear the blame on this. If anything was not right a timeout should have been called or someone should have pointed out the scoreboard (which is not official) didn't agree with the sideline markers.
This is all a bit whiny. The Ravens had the situation in their own control and blew it, simple as that. Anything outside that is irrelevant.
Seriously, even after the Boldin fumble, they had a 2nd-and-1 with 44 seconds left at the 14 yard line, and couldn't even manage to get 3 points out of it.
The Ravens were morons for not calling a timeout before the kick. Period. You can't take them home with you.
He runs on the field with 9 or 10 seconds... Their coach should have seen it would have been rushed...
This. If he hits it and they go to OT, timeouts don't "carry over" into the extra session. For a team that prides itself on being tough, the Ravens seem to be a little emotionally... fragile.
Sorry, my recollection was wrong - I had thought the Evans drop was on third down and the kick was right after. Still not buying the NFL "explanation" however... and yes they would have been under the hood for BB and Brady if it were swapped.
I don't know why it is so hard to believe. The call was close, but not arguable in my opinion. The rules state that the second foot has to be down WITH POSSESSION, and it never was.
I'm not disputing the "explanation" that its not a catch.. It probably isn't. I was referring to their "explanation" about how they looked at it. Review is in place for a reason... All season long we've had to wait for booth reviews but in the AFC Championship game on a late play THAT huge that is at least close enough for people to debate, they don't take 60 seconds to look under the hood?? Oh that's right that would be in the Ravens favor against the Patriots, I'm sure they "looked" at it very hard in the 4 seconds they did upstairs. Either way Evans is a P.O.S. for not hanging onto that... some players are constant losers for a reason. Enjoy your super bowl.
I'm not sure I understand how this whole "fixed down indicator" thing works, anyway. I mean, what the hell does the down and distance mean to a kicker who was just sent on to the field. Now, if you told me that the play clock or the game clock were running behind, then I'd start dialing the FBI.
It's funny you mention that, as they used to superimpose the play clock from the scoreboard onto the TV screen until a few years ago when I really started to notice how teams were snapping the ball AFTER the scoreboard play clock had expired a few seconds earlier. And no delay of game would be called. Players watch the scoreboard. It's the biggest and most prominent thing in their field of vision during a hectic and stressful event like a game. I would have loved to see the disparity between the play clock and the digital timer in the head official's hand.
Well it wasn't like there was a need for multiple angles or there was any real reason to send it down. The plays that go down to the field for review are usually ones where it is debatable or where there are conflicting angles, or it was clearly a missed call. They freeze frame it, see the ball out before the foot is down no reason to send it down.
That would be seriously serious. Like CRIMINAL. The other thing just strikes me as so much fluff. I mean, there either were 15 seconds left on the game clock, or there weren't. The play clock either was running down to zero, or it wasn't.
Honestly, I think a lot of the debate resulting from that play is simply caused by people not understanding the rules. Some people are confused by the fact that a ball-carrier scores a TD as soon as the ball breaks the plane of the endzone, and also by the fact that the difference between an incomplete pass and a fumble is often decided by an abstract assessment of whether the ball was in the receiver's hands long enough for "possession" and whether a "football move" ever occurred. A lot of the comments that I heard immediately afterwards were along the lines of "Well it looked to me like he held onto the ball long enough for a touchdown", which is an obvious case of not understanding the rules.
