Steelers at Ravens(-1.5)

[BuckNutty]

Pittsburgh at Baltimore(-1.5)

 

[iambrutus]

another great game on slate here, should be very low scoring with these two defenses

 

[BuckNutty]

Steelers-Ravens equals no love, but ton of hate

Ravens-Steelers rivalry generates lots of fun, albeit heated games, but not a mutual admiration society
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Not once but twice yesterday coach Mike Tomlin referred to the division rivalry between the Steelers and Baltimore Ravens as one based on "mutual respect."

Where has he been the past dozen years?

Mutual hate would more aptly describe the annual two-game series between these franchises since the Ravens moved to Baltimore from Cleveland in 1996, a carryover from the old Browns-Steelers game. As Steelers receiver Hines Ward once said, "The coaches hate each other, the players hate each other."

Respect? Tell that to a wounded Joey Porter, who challenged Ray Lewis to step off the Ravens' team bus at Heinz Field after he felt the Baltimore linebacker, mocking his "boot," made fun of him being shot outside a Denver bar in 2003.

Respect? Ben Roethlisberger probably does not think that's what Bart Scott was paying him when the Ravens' linebacker slammed into him in 2006 then later described the hit thusly to Sports Illustrated: "I heard him make this 'ungh' sound, like air rushing out. I jumped up and did my bird dance, then looked back and saw Ben was still down, and I'm like, 'Yeah, I knocked him out of the game.' "

Nor could Ward feel much respect when Scott threatened to "kill" him after Ward had the audacity to block the linebacker last year.

"I threatened him," Scott said. "If I see him again, I'm going to threaten him again."

That's OK, because Ward has been threatened by the best of them, including former Steeler Rod Woodson when the receiver drew the safety's ire by -- what else? -- blocking him.

Respect? Tell that to Baltimore's Todd Heap when, as the obviously injured tight end limped to the line so his quarterback could spike the ball and kill the clock, he was knocked to the ground by Porter in 2004. Even Bill Cowher admonished Porter for that one.

Explain to Ward the respect that Terrell Suggs paid him when he said on a national radio show this year that he and some others on the Ravens' defense placed bounties on him and rookie Rashard Mendenhall. Said Suggs, "Hines Ward is definitely a dirty player, a cheap-shot artist."

Then tell Mendenhall about the respect Lewis had for him when, after he broke his shoulder with a clean hit in the third game this season, the Ravens' great linebacker exulted. Lewis later admitted that "I wasn't screaming, 'He's hurt,' I was screaming, 'He's done!' "

Ahh, if this series had no mutual respect, it would have nothing at all.

Here was how Tomlin described the rivalry yesterday:

"I know that this is a big-time football game for us. More than anything, it's because they play football the way we play football. It's a heated rivalry. I think it's born out of mutual respect, or at least I can say that it's born out of respect on our standpoint. We respect those guys.

"They're a physically tough, mentally tough football team. Those are things that we honor and desire to be and in order to do that, you've got to line up and play these guys and play that style of game. I'm sure it's going to be that style of game. I'd be shocked if it's not."

When the word "hostile" was mentioned about the environment the Steelers will face in Baltimore, Tomlin said, "A lot of colorful words could be used to describe it.

"I hope that the fans appreciate the level of mutual respect and I think that's what makes this such a heated rivalry more than anything else is the desire to play the brand of football that both teams do. It's great."

It's great and it's hate, and that's mutual.

 

[JXC]

Wow...confused about the ruling here. If you have two feet in the endzone, but not the ball...that's a TD???

 

[daveeb]

That was a great football game. If the Steelers win out, they will clinch homefield through the playoffs. They control their own destiny. It was awesome to see Santonio get the late game heroics.

 

[Stang909]

Great game but I think the Steelers are trying to kill their fans with high blood pressure lately. Either way I'm just glad they won.

 

[Buckeye Buh Nim]

Wow...confused about the ruling here. If you have two feet in the endzone, but not the ball...that's a TD???

I don't know about that, but if you are running towards the endzone, keep both feet inbounds, even with the ball and the rest of you being out of bounds, isn't it a TD?

again the above is a SWAG

 

[billmac91]

if you watch the replay, its pretty obvious the tip of the ball is over the goalline. I guess the question is whether you consider the moment the ball striking his hands a reception. He controlled it immediately, so I don't see anything wrong with the call.

 

[JXC]

I don't know about that, but if you are running towards the endzone, keep both feet inbounds, even with the ball and the rest of you being out of bounds, isn't it a TD?

again the above is a SWAG

Not if the ball doesn't break the plane.

if you watch the replay, its pretty obvious the tip of the ball is over the goalline. I guess the question is whether you consider the moment the ball striking his hands a reception. He controlled it immediately, so I don't see anything wrong with the call.

And I watched the replay at least 20 times on my DVR. It definitely isn't obvious to me that the ball breaks the plane. It's very close, but i'm not 100% sure he controlled it right away, and even if he did, I still don't think there is "indisputable visual evidence" to show the ball broke the plane. No way. We are disputing it. Everyone is. Replay shouldn't be used like it was there. Replay sometimes causes more problems then it solves.

What was really weird is that the ref when reversing the call said the reason was because "the reciever had two feet down in the endzone with possession of the ball". And that is not the rule. The ball has to break the plane of the endzone.

 

[billmac91]

Not if the ball doesn't break the plane.



And I watched the replay at least 20 times on my DVR. It definitely isn't obvious to me that the ball breaks the plane. It's very close, but i'm not 100% sure he controlled it right away, and even if he did, I still don't think there is "indisputable visual evidence" to show the ball broke the plane. No way. We are disputing it. Everyone is. Replay shouldn't be used like it was there. Replay sometimes causes more problems then it solves.

What was really weird is that the ref when reversing the call said the reason was because "the reciever had two feet down in the endzone with possession of the ball". And that is not the rule. The ball has to break the plane of the endzone.

they have a new angle on NBC tonight, from overhead, and its obvious the ball was over the plane.

They didn't say whether or not that angle was used by replay officials, but I assume it was. They were directly above the goalline, and magnified the catch. The ball was over the goalline.

I can see the argument that maybe he didn't have control when the ball hit his hands though. I still think it was the right call...I think it was a TD.

 

[JXC]

they have a new angle on NBC tonight, from overhead, and its obvious the ball was over the plane.

They didn't say whether or not that angle was used by replay officials, but I assume it was. They were directly above the goalline, and magnified the catch. The ball was over the goalline.

I can see the argument that maybe he didn't have control when the ball hit his hands though. I still think it was the right call...I think it was a TD.

If it was obvious the ball was over the plane, then why did everybody on NBC's halftime disagree with you? Why do I disagree? If it were obvious, there would be no disagreement. CBS had this same overhead angle that NBC had. It's from the blimp. The blimp is over like the 30 or 40 yard line...so the angle is VERY skewed. Definitely NOT directly above the goalline. I even rewound and looked at it again. There was no camera directly above the goalline. You can't use skewed angles, they can really make the ball look like it is somewhere it isn't. All the NBC analyist knew this, and agreed it shouldn't have been overturned. From looking at it on the side you can see that it is VERY CLOSE. And that is a true angle. I can't tell. If it were called a TD i'd say it should stand. But it wasn't.

 

[billmac91]

If it was obvious the ball was over the plane, then why did everybody on NBC's halftime disagree with you? Why do I disagree? If it were obvious, there would be no disagreement. CBS had this same overhead angle that NBC had. It's from the blimp. The blimp is over like the 30 or 40 yard line...so the angle is VERY skewed. Definitely NOT directly above the goalline. I even rewound and looked at it again. There was no camera directly above the goalline. You can't use skewed angles, they can really make the ball look like it is somewhere it isn't. All the NBC analyist knew this, and agreed it shouldn't have been overturned. From looking at it on the side you can see that it is VERY CLOSE. And that is a true angle. I can't tell. If it were called a TD i'd say it should stand. But it wasn't.

the overhead angle, CLEARLY shows the ball over the goalline. The angle looks like it was about the 20 yard line.....but you can EASILY see the ball crosses the goalline.

So I agree with the head official, who decided it was indisputable video evidence.

 

[JXC]

the overhead angle, CLEARLY shows the ball over the goalline. The angle looks like it was about the 20 yard line.....but you can EASILY see the ball crosses the goalline.

So I agree with the head official, who decided it was indisputable video evidence.

How can it CLEARLY show the ball over the goalline if the angle is the 20 yard line??? That's going to distort what it looks like by at about a yard at least. There is no way the blimp is over the 20 either...just cuz that's where the left side of the picture is. Like I said...if it was CLEAR then the sideline view would show how clear it was. Look at his head in the overhead shot, and his head in the sideline shot. Look how much the overhead shot moves it.

Well...you and the head official were wrong. It is VERY disputable video evidence.

 

[billmac91]

How can it CLEARLY show the ball over the goalline if the angle is the 20 yard line??? That's going to distort what it looks like by at about a yard at least. There is no way the blimp is over the 20 either...just cuz that's where the left side of the picture is. Like I said...if it was CLEAR then the sideline view would show how clear it was. Look at his head in the overhead shot, and his head in the sideline shot. Look how much the overhead shot moves it.

Well...you and the head official were wrong. It is VERY disputable video evidence.

the deceiving portion of the Sunday night breakdown is the still picture which clearly shows the ball out of the endzone, to show where the line judge is. That picture isn't a good indicator.....why didn't they show a still picture of the furthest point of the football?

I'm still 100% certain that football crossed the goalline....and I as much as I hate to say it, was pulling for Baltimore.

Did you know San Diego was discovered by the Germans in 1904 and the literal translation is a "Whale's Vagina"?

On a sidenote, did you see the Denver - Carolina game today. There was a call in that game that had me scratching my head. Cutler was initially ruled for fumbling the ball, but they overturned b/c of the "Tuck Rule". I thought it was BS, b/c even though his arm was going forward, he held onto the football to the point where when it was released from his hand, it actually became a backwards pass. Of course the announcers (Dan Fouts among them) were too caught up in being the "tuck rule" to notice it was actually a backwards pass.

Does the "Tuck Rule" take into account a QB who has an arm going forward but throws the ball behind himself? If you didn't see that play, it's difficult to envision I'm sure...

 

[JXC]

the deceiving portion of the Sunday night breakdown is the still picture which clearly shows the ball out of the endzone, to show where the line judge is. That picture isn't a good indicator.....why didn't they show a still picture of the furthest point of the football?

I'm still 100% certain that football crossed the goalline....and I as much as I hate to say it, was pulling for Baltimore.

Did you know San Diego was discovered by the Germans in 1904 and the literal translation is a "Whale's Vagina"?

On a sidenote, did you see the Denver - Carolina game today. There was a call in that game that had me scratching my head. Cutler was initially ruled for fumbling the ball, but they overturned b/c of the "Tuck Rule". I thought it was BS, b/c even though his arm was going forward, he held onto the football to the point where when it was released from his hand, it actually became a backwards pass. Of course the announcers (Dan Fouts among them) were too caught up in being the "tuck rule" to notice it was actually a backwards pass.

Does the "Tuck Rule" take into account a QB who has an arm going forward but throws the ball behind himself? If you didn't see that play, it's difficult to envision I'm sure...

I have a pause feature on my DVR. I think it's french for stop. And I paused it when the ball was at it's furthest point. I'm not relying on them pausing it for me. And I can't tell. I'm 100% sure I can't tell. I'm 100% sure it's disputable.

A bigger problem then this is the ref explaining that two feet were down in the endzone when possession was gained. That is not important at all. Which makes me worried that they were ruling on the wrong thing. I'm worried they messed up the rule. And now are going to cover it up saying it was indisputable that the ball was over the goal line (WHICH IT WASNT) and that's what they were ruling on, and the ref just said the wrong thing. I find it highly unlikely the ref would just say the wrong thing.

Yeah...it was a backwards pass. Not an incomplete pass. Bad call keith.