^Maybe that's why the booth did signal for it. No one was close to him at the goal line, yet the on-field call was down by contact. :idunno:

 

You very well could be right, regarding the whole play being reviewed. I don't know one way or the other, I just assumed they only looked at a portion of the play.

Well I can't find it anywhere, the only thing I keep finding in the rule book and in other places is just the type of plays that can be ruled. So maybe I am wrong, since I can't prove it yet.

 

However as we know the replay came from the booth right? Well if the goal line was suppose to be the only thing they were looking at, then the booth would have never signaled for it to be reviewed because there was no one even near him by the goal line. Common sense has to come into play here and realize that the booth called for the review because they were not sure if he was touched in the backfield or not. I really wish the person in the booth would talk about why they decided to have it reviewed. I would think the replay guy told him to replay it to see if he was down by contact before he crossed the goal line. Which means the contact that caused him to go down could have happened in the backfield even though he fell by the goal line. I think Triplett probably misinterrupted what the booth even said, and for some strange reason only did look at the goal line. Either way you look at it Triplett did screw it up, and the NFL even recognizes it.

 

I will keep looking into if the whole play can be reviewed or not because I have heard that many of times. However right now you are right because I can't find exact proof right now.

 

I take this all back, I found proof that officials are allowed to review the whole play and don't have to just review the call on the field.

 

The question then became whether indisputable visual evidence existed to overrule the on-field decision that Green-Ellis was down. Triplette, who presided over the Week 13 Sunday night first-down clusterfudge in Washington, determined that the call on the field was wrong.

 

Triplette’s decision seemed to ignore the possibility that Green-Ellis was tripped up in the backfield by a Colts player, causing Green-Ellis to stumble and ultimately fall. As it turns out, Triplette’s decision did ignore that possibility; Triplette said after the game that he looked only at the end of the play.

 

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told Tom Pelissero of USA Today that Triplette had the authority to review the entire play. Triplette, however, admitted to a pool reporter after the game that Triplette didn’t.

 

 

But that’s not the standard. The question is whether Triplette detected indisputable visual evidence that Green-Ellis wasn’t tripped up or otherwise touched by a defender on the way to the ground. Triplette necessarily failed to apply that standard because he didn’t even consider the visual evidence regarding the events that caused Green-Ellis to stumble and fall.

 

Triplette?s blunder highlights the need for centralized replay review | ProFootballTalk

 

Now we know for sure refs can and in cases like this should review the whole play. Which is why the NFL said he got the call wrong. He completely ignored the reason why Green-Ellis fell and didn't even both to look at why that could have been. Which if it is being reviewed is definitely something that should be looked at then. Which there was definitely not visual evidence that he was not touched, so there was no inconclusive evidence that it was a touchdown. Hence the reason why people and the NFL said he got it wrong. He failed to look at the whole play like he should have.

Alright, you guys are killing me on this, but I think we getting caught up on semantics. Let's look at who may have seen what, and what their call was.

 

I'm pretty sure that with the ball at the goal line, the umpire is shifted back over to the defensive side, so there's only the referee in the offensive backfield. His main responsibility is the QB. He's going to follow him (even if for just a quick second) to make sure there's no late hit, or if perhaps he still has the ball on a play fake. Therefore, he may very well have NOT seen (or even been looking for) the nose guard's reach into the backfield to trip up BJGE. IF there was contact made by the NG, then it was NOT blatently obvious to the referee. And I believe Triplett was confident in what he saw (or didn't see)...which explains why he didn't go back to a point earlier in the play when he went to the review.

 

The head linesman would've been stationed on the line of scrimmage, but on the end opposite of the direction the play went. When you see the replay looking down the line (towards him), you'll see him actually leaning away from the Bengals' backfield, so that he could look down the goal line. It seems doubtful that he would've been looking into the backfield once the play began...and therefore, wouldn't have seen (or been looking for) the nose guard's reach.

 

The line judge is most likely the one we need to be focusing on. The play came pretty much towards him. But, like the head linesman, his focus is on the players on his side of the field...NOT in the offensive backfield where the NG might have made the play. Plus, when you see the sideline replay, it's pretty obvious that he was likely screened off from any contact that could've been made back there anyway. You had Pollak pulling around for a kickout block on Indy's #41, plus you had Peko as the lead blocker coming through as well. I would be willing to bet (if I was a betting man) that HE IS THE ONE, who denied the original touchdown, because he believed he saw contact by one of two players...either #41 reaching out as he was going down, or #52, who was initially being blocked by Eifert. All he saw was BJGE falling/diving/sliding towards the end zone...and believed he saw contact made by a defender before the runner crossed the goal line. He wasn't concerned by HOW BJGE was going down...only the fact that he was touched by a defender prior to scoring.

 

So, when Triplett conferred with the line judge (who signaled the ball short of the goal line)...it's the line judge who would've been the one who'd claim "down by contact". Triplett was already confident in what he thought he saw in the backfield...so that's why when he went to the monitor, he focused on potential contact at the goal line in front of the line judge. And when there was indisputable evidence contrary to what the line judge thought he saw...the play got reversed.

 

In all honesty, it probably would've been better for Indy to not have ANY defenders around BJGE once he went down. THEN the focus would've been on WHY he went down in the first place. And at that point in time, they would've gone all the way back to when he first got the ball.

Alright, you guys are killing me on this, but I think we getting caught up on semantics. Let's look at who may have seen what, and what their call was.

 

I'm pretty sure that with the ball at the goal line, the umpire is shifted back over to the defensive side, so there's only the referee in the offensive backfield. His main responsibility is the QB. He's going to follow him (even if for just a quick second) to make sure there's no late hit, or if perhaps he still has the ball on a play fake. Therefore, he may very well have NOT seen (or even been looking for) the nose guard's reach into the backfield to trip up BJGE. IF there was contact made by the NG, then it was NOT blatently obvious to the referee. And I believe Triplett was confident in what he saw (or didn't see)...which explains why he didn't go back to a point earlier in the play when he went to the review.

 

The head linesman would've been stationed on the line of scrimmage, but on the end opposite of the direction the play went. When you see the replay looking down the line (towards him), you'll see him actually leaning away from the Bengals' backfield, so that he could look down the goal line. It seems doubtful that he would've been looking into the backfield once the play began...and therefore, wouldn't have seen (or been looking for) the nose guard's reach.

 

The line judge is most likely the one we need to be focusing on. The play came pretty much towards him. But, like the head linesman, his focus is on the players on his side of the field...NOT in the offensive backfield where the NG might have made the play. Plus, when you see the sideline replay, it's pretty obvious that he was likely screened off from any contact that could've been made back there anyway. You had Pollak pulling around for a kickout block on Indy's #41, plus you had Peko as the lead blocker coming through as well. I would be willing to bet (if I was a betting man) that HE IS THE ONE, who denied the original touchdown, because he believed he saw contact by one of two players...either #41 reaching out as he was going down, or #52, who was initially being blocked by Eifert. All he saw was BJGE falling/diving/sliding towards the end zone...and believed he saw contact made by a defender before the runner crossed the goal line. He wasn't concerned by HOW BJGE was going down...only the fact that he was touched by a defender prior to scoring.

 

So, when Triplett conferred with the line judge (who signaled the ball short of the goal line)...it's the line judge who would've been the one who'd claim "down by contact". Triplett was already confident in what he thought he saw in the backfield...so that's why when he went to the monitor, he focused on potential contact at the goal line in front of the line judge. And when there was indisputable evidence contrary to what the line judge thought he saw...the play got reversed.

 

In all honesty, it probably would've been better for Indy to not have ANY defenders around BJGE once he went down. THEN the focus would've been on WHY he went down in the first place. And at that point in time, they would've gone all the way back to when he first got the ball.

 

Aren't all refs confident in their calls at first? Who cares if Triplett was confident on what he saw when the live play happened. His job once he is under that review roof is not to go by what he felt confident on live. Hence the reason why we have replay, because what refs see live doesn't always end up being right. Watching the replay it is obvious something caused him to fall. So it is his responsibility to at least take that into consideration, since he IS ABLE to look at the whole play.

 

I am really surprised we are still talking about this. The NFL wouldn't go out of its way to even say it was wrong, because they try to defend their officials as much as possible. So that shows he was wrong, since they openly came out and said it was wrong. If it was even a possiblity of him being right, they would have backed him up.

FC this isn't too difficult. Nobody called him down because of contact made at the line. They didn't look at that possible contact b/c they didn't call that. They called him contacted at the goal line. They know what they called and looked at and why.

FC this isn't too difficult. Nobody called him down because of contact made at the line. They didn't look at that possible contact b/c they didn't call that. They called him contacted at the goal line. They know what they called and looked at and why.

 

Your right SSC its really not that difficult to comprehend that a whole play is able to be reviewed. Yes obviously BGE fell by the goal line, so it doesn't take to much common sense to think hmmm I wonder what made him fall. Maybe I should also look at that too, because maybe that would make him down by contact. As stated once a review is in place, you don't have to only look at that part of the review. That is where the ref messed up and also why the NFL even said its ref got it wrong.

 

If there was even a possibility of their ref being right in his call, they wouldn't come out and say he was wrong. Only times they come out and say their refs are wrong, are when their refs are definitely wrong. Its not hard to understand, and for the reasons I stated.

Your right SSC its really not that difficult to comprehend that a whole play is able to be reviewed. Yes obviously BGE fell by the goal line, so it doesn't take to much common sense to think hmmm I wonder what made him fall. Maybe I should also look at that too, because maybe that would make him down by contact. As stated once a review is in place, you don't have to only look at that part of the review. That is where the ref messed up and also why the NFL even said its ref got it wrong.

 

If there was even a possibility of their ref being right in his call, they wouldn't come out and say he was wrong. Only times they come out and say their refs are wrong, are when their refs are definitely wrong. Its not hard to understand, and for the reasons I stated.

 

Just keep ignoring the fact that they didn't call him down by contact at the line. It makes your argument stronger.