Roethlisberger Admits It Wasn't A Touchdown

[GotZoom]

Before David Letterman got to shave Ben Roethlisberger's beard Monday night, he got the Steelers' Super Bowl-winning quarterback to admit a little something that might rankle Seahawks fans even more.

Roethlisberger told Letterman that he didn't think he scored on a controversial play in the second quarter that put the Steelers ahead for good 7-3. Roethlisberger dove toward the end zone but didn't appear to get the ball to touch the goal line. But officials on the field signaled touchdown.

"I told Coach, 'I don't think I got in,'" Roethlisberger told Letterman. "But we were getting ready to go for it on fourth down anyway, and I would have run it again. So we would have found a way to get in."

The play infuriated Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren and has provided Seattle fans plenty of fodder for their fury over the game's questionable calls.

Referee Bill Leavy upheld the call after a replay review, and Holmgren then upbraided Leavy on his way off the field at halftime.

Holmgren walked over to Leavy, a fifth-year referee calling his first Super Bowl, and could be seen angrily telling him, "It wasn't even close."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5313884

 

[manu1959]

levy and holgren remember each other from a game years and years ago.........anyone wonder what went on in that game years and years ago

 

[jimnyc]

Roethlisberger Admits It Wasn't A Touchdown

Roethlisberger told Letterman that he didn't think he scored on a controversial play in the second quarter that put the Steelers ahead for good 7-3.

Big difference. He said he didn't think he scored. Considering he broke the plane by just a few inches it doesn't surprise me that in a split second he was unsure if he went across or not.

Nonetheless, the video I posted earlier shows he broke the plane.

 

[dilloduck]

Big difference. He said he didn't think he scored. Considering he broke the plane by just a few inches it doesn't surprise me that in a split second he was unsure if he went across or not.

Nonetheless, the video I posted earlier shows he broke the plane.

Agreed--He doesn't have the advantage of instant replay and it's not his call anyway. There was no way that call could be overturned since there was no indisputable evidence. I think this urban myth has been debunked---let's move on to the accusations that the fix was in.

 

[Gunny]

Agreed--He doesn't have the advantage of instant replay and it's not his call anyway. There was no way that call could be overturned since there was no indisputable evidence. I think this urban myth has been debunked---let's move on to the accusations that the fix was in.

Too many Americans involved for a fix. Two Americans involved is hoping for too much where secrecy is concerned. One's going to talk.

 

[USViking]

I watched that play on replay three times,
and I had a better view than Rothlisberger,
and the ball was in the end zone by inches.

As far as I am concerned anyone who did
not see it that way is blind.

 

[manu1959]

I watched that play on replay three times,
and I had a better view than Rothlisberger,
and the ball was in the end zone by inches.

As far as I am concerned anyone who did
not see it that way is blind.

not a touchdown .... not even close

 

[Mr. P]

I didn't see Jimmys vido, but I watched the play and re-play..over and over...
I don't think it was a TD. The ONLY bad call I saw.

 

[USViking]

not a touchdown .... not even close

I didn't see Jimmys vido, but I watched the play and re-play..over and over...
I don't think it was a TD. The ONLY bad call I saw.

Are you two sure you know the rules?-

The ball needs to break the plane
of the end zone, before the carrier's
body, except his hands, touch the ground.

Rothlisberger was parallel to the ground,
with only one hand possibly touching
the ground, as the ball broke the plane.

 

[manu1959]

Are you two sure you know the rules?-

The ball needs to break the plane
of the end zone, before the carrier's
body, except his hands, touch the ground.

Rothlisberger was parallel to the ground,
with only one hand possibly touching
the ground, as the ball broke the plane.

ball never broke the plane

 

[Mr. P]

Are you two sure you know the rules?-

The ball needs to break the plane
of the end zone, before the carrier's
body, except his hands, touch the ground.

Rothlisberger was parallel to the ground,
with only one hand possibly touching
the ground, as the ball broke the plane.

I'm sure I know that rule, and I'm sure I never saw the ball at all. There must be other angles out there.
The one I saw was pretty much from the sideline with a very very slight angle into the playing field.

 

[USViking]

I'm sure I know that rule,

OK

and I'm sure I never saw the ball at all.

Are you sure this is what you mean
to say?- if you never saw the ball,
then how could you form an opinion?

There must be other angles out there.

The angle I saw looked like it was
from a position perpendicular to the
plane of the end zone, and if it was,
then it was a true angle.

The one I saw was pretty much from the sideline with a very very slight angle into the playing field.

Looked dead on to me.

 

[USViking]

ball never broke the plane

It broke the plane in the shots I saw.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Before David Letterman got to shave Ben Roethlisberger's beard Monday night, he got the Steelers' Super Bowl-winning quarterback to admit a little something that might rankle Seahawks fans even more.

Roethlisberger told Letterman that he didn't think he scored on a controversial play in the second quarter that put the Steelers ahead for good 7-3. Roethlisberger dove toward the end zone but didn't appear to get the ball to touch the goal line. But officials on the field signaled touchdown.

"I told Coach, 'I don't think I got in,'" Roethlisberger told Letterman. "But we were getting ready to go for it on fourth down anyway, and I would have run it again. So we would have found a way to get in."

The play infuriated Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren and has provided Seattle fans plenty of fodder for their fury over the game's questionable calls.

Referee Bill Leavy upheld the call after a replay review, and Holmgren then upbraided Leavy on his way off the field at halftime.

Holmgren walked over to Leavy, a fifth-year referee calling his first Super Bowl, and could be seen angrily telling him, "It wasn't even close."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5313884

I saw the replay. It was a touchdown. The ball touched the goal line plane. It doesn't have to cross the width of the goal line - its a TD if any part of the ball crosses the nearest edge of the vertical plane formed by the goal line.


That's not to say the refereeing was good. They screwed up a lot of things. I think that offensive pass intereference was really not a good call, and they completely missed at least one offsides, maybe two, by pittsburg.





wasn't there a catch by Seattle that was fumbled, but ruled not a catch? I seem to remember it - it was distinctly a catch, there was no doubt that the ball was caught, if you looked at the reply. The call was not challenged. and I don't remember if Seattle or Pittsburg would have recovered it.

 

[-Cp]

Big difference. He said he didn't think he scored. Considering he broke the plane by just a few inches it doesn't surprise me that in a split second he was unsure if he went across or not.

Nonetheless, the video I posted earlier shows he broke the plane.

The video you posted does not show it breaking the plane... .

 

[dmp]

The ONLY bad call I saw.

In the game? wha?? did you not watch the game?

4 solid 'bad calls'.

 

[jimnyc]

The video you posted does not show it breaking the plane... .

If you say so.

21-10 Steelers are SB Champs!

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I saw the replay. It was a touchdown. The ball touched the goal line plane. It doesn't have to cross the width of the goal line - its a TD if any part of the ball crosses the nearest edge of the vertical plane formed by the goal line.

I'm glad to see we agree on something.

wasn't there a catch by Seattle that was fumbled, but ruled not a catch? I seem to remember it - it was distinctly a catch, there was no doubt that the ball was caught, if you looked at the reply. The call was not challenged. and I don't remember if Seattle or Pittsburg would have recovered it.

Yes there was, I remember the play, but can't remember the receiver. They showed the replay twice, and it clearly showed the receiver catch the ball and have it under control, he took two full steps, got hit and lost the ball. During the original play and after both replays, everyone where I was watching agreed it was a fumble.

Of course, that's just so the refs can cover their own conspiracy to make the Seahawks lose. Not that the majority here would notice, since they are too blind to see a football break the plane of the goal.

 

[Mr. P]

Okay, I watched the video Jim posted about 20 times. It is a different angle than I saw Sunday. The quality is poor and there is a slight angle on the goal line. However it looks like the ball may very well have broken the plane, but I can’t say for sure so I’ll accept the TD call. In the end it doesn’t matter, the next play would have been snapped at the edge of the plane and surly been a TD anyway.

21-10!​

 

[GotZoom]

Benny Boy should have kept his mouth shut about the questionable TD.

You know...showed a little class.