James Harrison 100 yard touchdown

[Gepetto 1,454]

James Harrison did not want to talk about that play.

 

It turns out Harrison was out of position. He was not supposed to drop into coverage.

 

Larry Fitzgerald took a path out of bounds to run him down. It is perfectly legal. Fitzgerald ran out of bounds it appears because there was more room there to run; however Antrel Rolle got in the way and prevented him from reaching Harrison until it was too late.

 

I found this really interesting since it was such a key play in the game that all of these factors came into play to allow it all to happen on the last play of the half.

 

Also, the head of officiating acknowledged there was a pentaly against the Cardinals on the play and the Steelers would have got the ball at the 1 inch line or so, and been allowed to run one more play.

 

Despite all of those factors, it was a great effort by Harrison and the blocking of the Steelers on the interception return. - my opinion; and most would agree I assume.

[frank 2,345]

Also, the head of officiating acknowledged there was a pentaly against the Cardinals on the play and the Steelers would have got the ball at the 1 inch line or so, and been allowed to run one more play.

 

I didn't think about that. I watched ESPN all day and they never mentioned it.

[jaxjag 43]

I didn't think about that. I watched ESPN all day and they never mentioned it.

 

That doesn't seem right. The penalty would have been declined? Or was it a personal foul? Also, the half couldn't end on a defensive penalty.. but that was offensive (prior to the pass).

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,543]

That doesn't seem right. The penalty would have been declined? Or was it a personal foul? Also, the half couldn't end on a defensive penalty.. but that was offensive (prior to the pass).

 

once possesion changes offense is now considered def, so a penalty on Cards would have given pitt 1 untimed play.

 

if it wasnt that way a AZ could just clip someone to end the half

[madd futher mucker 36]

First of all, I'd like to see the LINK where you say the ref made that comment about the play.

 

At any rate, I believe that this is an incorrect interpretation of the play.

 

Secondly, the tackle was in the endzone AFTER the TD was scored. So there was no reason to call a penalty after the TD was made - Don't you think it would have been declined? Even if the penalty could have been accepted, the penalty that otherwise would have been assessed would have been on the ensuing kick-off since the infraction occured AFTER the touchdown, NOT that the Steelers getting the ball on the 1 inch line. That is nonsense.

 

And because time had expired on the touchdown run, there was no 'ensuing kickoff' to penalize.

 

So it was a good non-call IMO.

[Gepetto 1,454]

First of all, I'd like to see the LINK where you say the ref made that comment about the play.

 

At any rate, I believe that this is an incorrect interpretation of the play.

 

Secondly, the tackle was in the endzone AFTER the TD was scored. So there was no reason to call a penalty after the TD was made - Don't you think it would have been declined? Even if the penalty could have been accepted, the penalty that otherwise would have been assessed would have been on the ensuing kick-off since the infraction occured AFTER the touchdown, NOT that the Steelers getting the ball on the 1 inch line. That is nonsense.

 

And because time had expired on the touchdown run, there was no 'ensuing kickoff' to penalize.

 

So it was a good non-call IMO.

 

The whole premise is if they had ruled him down at the one. This is the Head of Officiating. Mike Pier-whatever. I heard it on Sirius NFL Radio.

[Yippie Skippy 0]

First of all, I'd like to see the LINK where you say the ref made that comment about the play.

 

At any rate, I believe that this is an incorrect interpretation of the play.

 

Secondly, the tackle was in the endzone AFTER the TD was scored. So there was no reason to call a penalty after the TD was made - Don't you think it would have been declined? Even if the penalty could have been accepted, the penalty that otherwise would have been assessed would have been on the ensuing kick-off since the infraction occured AFTER the touchdown, NOT that the Steelers getting the ball on the 1 inch line. That is nonsense.

 

And because time had expired on the touchdown run, there was no 'ensuing kickoff' to penalize.

 

So it was a good non-call IMO.

 

That is nonsense.

[madd futher mucker 36]

That is nonsense.

 

Link me to that rule that applies here about penalizing the Cardinals for an 'illegal tackle' by voiding the Steelers TD and instead giving them the ball on the 1" line and I will be happy to retract. But I know that ain't gonna happen.

[madd futher mucker 36]

The whole premise is if they had ruled him down at the one. This is the Head of Officiating. Mike Pier-whatever. I heard it on Sirius NFL Radio.

 

That is different. But since they ruled it a TD, the premise is moot. I don't think that the officials blew the call and I think that Mike Pier-whatever was talking about 'what-ifs'. If I recall, they showed it from numerous angles, and it was clearly a TD as his knee never hit the ground, it landed on Fitz' leg. I don't think there was any call for a review, either.

[Bombs Away 4]

What are you guys talking about? The penalty was on #61, a guard, and it was a major facemask penalty.

 

ETA: Strike that, it was on #74. Also a guard. And it was back on the 9-yard line.

If anyone was thinking Fitz had anything to do with a flag, now ya know.

[madd futher mucker 36]

Are we not talking about the last play of the 1st half, the 100 yd interception return, where Larry came back in bounds to make the tackle (which, had it not been a TD may have been an 'illegal tackle')? I saw no face mask on that play, and I think YOU are talking about an altogether different play than I am.

[Bombs Away 4]

Are we not talking about the last play of the 1st half where Larry came back in bounds to make the tackle (which, had it not been a TD may have been an 'illegal tackle')? I saw no face msk on the play, and I think YOU are talking about an altogether different play than I am.

 

Nope. Same play. There was a flag on AZ #74 during Harrison's Pic 6, which was declined because the play was ruled a TD. Completely separate issue than Fitz's tackle, which should have been flagged as well.

[Yippie Skippy 0]

Are we not talking about the last play of the 1st half, the 100 yd interception return, where Larry came back in bounds to make the tackle (which, had it not been a TD may have been an 'illegal tackle')? I saw no face mask on that play, and I think YOU are talking about an altogether different play than I am.

 

That was my point. You do not even know what you're talking about. The penalty flag was thrown right after the interception, and that is the penalty that the rest of us are talking about.

[madd futher mucker 36]

Obviously that flag was picked up. I never saw it and neither the announcers nor the video - see YouTube video of the play at

made me aware of it. But since a TD was scored, the Steelers would have declined that penalty anyway. End of story.

 

But the poster was not talking about anything other than Fitz coming back from out of bounds to make the tackle, and his point was also only valid if the refs had ruled that it was not a TD.

 

Further, I believe that even as a 'hypothetical' the interpretation on the Fitz play would have been incorrect:

 

From another a 'rulesnik' on another board: "Section 8-1-7 deals with receivers being ineligible to catch passes after going out of bounds,

Section 9-1-5 deals with members of the kicking team being ineligible to be the first to touch the ball if they went out of bounds.

 

I do have an official NFL rule book handy, and I can tell you that there are specific rules on kicking plays. Interceptions ARE NOT kicking plays. I do not see anything about defenders being penalized for making a tackle after being out of bounds."

 

Oddly, from the video, there WAS an illegal block by LaMarr Woodley (at 12 seconds on the video) on the return which occurred almost at exactly the same point that Fitz went out of bounds. Another hypothetical: Had the block in the back been called, would the ball have been spotted back from the foul with the time on the clock at time of penalty, or would the half have ended as time expired at the end of the play? I believe the latter, correct? A half cannot end on a defensive penalty, but can on an offensive one. (Pitt obviously was on "offense" as they had the ball.) So I'm pretty sure that had the illegal block been called the half would have been over and the TD would not have counted.

 

To quote from an astute observer: "Probably the toughest play to call is the long return the other way on a play at the goal line. The officials are set up to be watching the goalline, the end line, and both boundary lines. They are grouped closely and are shifted a little toward the endzone. When that play comes back the other way they are starting out behind the play with the exception of one official who is in the middle of the field. Quickly these world class atheletes get past him and soon they are trailing a world of traffic as one after another guy rapidly outpaces him. These situations are ripe for missed calls. It happens all the time. This is the one scenario where it might make sense to allow penalties to be called by replay since there is really no way, absent installing much larger crews, that the oficails will ever be in position to make calls in this scenario. i doubt the league looks at this though since that would be opening Pandoras box."

[madd futher mucker 36]

That was my point. You do not even know what you're talking about. The penalty flag was thrown right after the interception, and that is the penalty that the rest of us are talking about.

 

 

PLEASE, re-read the ORIGINAL post by Gepetto. He wasn't talking about the flag at all. He is clearly talking about the Fitz going out of bounds issue before you tell me i don't know what I'm talking about. Also read ALL of my post right above this one.

[Gepetto 1,454]

Each of my sentences in the original post are all unrelated points that occurred on the same play. Sorry, I didn't transition at all from paragraph to paragraph.

[madd futher mucker 36]

Each of my sentences in the original post are all unrelated points that occurred on the same play. Sorry, I didn't transition at all from paragraph to paragraph.

 

LOL Thanks for the clarification. (I still don't buy any rationale for a 1" line ruling.)

 

But this was very interesting play with THREE potential penalty points. The interesting part is that the only one that was really relevant since a TD was scored was the illegal block to the back by the Steelers which was missed by the refs entirely. But if it HAD been called, then there would have been offsetting penalties I presume (against the early flag which I did not see right after the interception but which was pointed out above).

 

Does anyone know for sure what the ruling on the field would have been in that case?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

I thought it was amazing he managed to run it all the way back but had Harrison not been tackled in such a way that he rolls across Fitz's legs thus preventing him from being ruled down, there still was at least 1 or 2 seconds left with Pitt getting the ball on the 1 yd line.

 

Also, the Harrison TD was not a game winner. If the Cards scored, Pitt would have turned up the offense as needed to keep pace. One defining characteristic of the Steelers this season is that their offense will find a way to win. Those of us that have watched them this year know they have kept opponents in the game long after their offense should have put them away.

[Giants Fan 85]

Almost whenever a play like that happens, there was an illegal block somewhere that results in a flag for holding. I was sure that play was gonna get spotted at like the 50 with 1 second left.

 

And let me ask you this ... the flag was for unsportsmanlike .... on who? Musta been the Cardinals .... if it's unsportsmanlike against the Steelers, the TD counts ... but they hafa asses it on the kickoff ... in the second half. Right? What if they return it for a TD, and get another unsportsmanlike .... count that TD and then ... next time ... 30 yards?

 

I wanna see why the ref threw the flag on that play. I think he crossed the line, and it looked like a good TD to me .... and I think that's the play that won the game. On the other hand .... as a poker player ... I can tell when someone wants to shall we say ... sway things one way or another .... and those refs sure seemed quick to call plays for the Steelers, pretty much the entire game.

 

Matter of fact ... they called a TD that was REVERSED by a coaches challenge.

 

 

Makes ya go hmmmmmm.

[The Next Generation 11]

Greatest play in SB history, IMO.

[Bombs Away 4]

And let me ask you this ... the flag was for unsportsmanlike .... on who? Musta been the Cardinals ....

 

It's already been posted that the flag was a major facemask penalty on AZ guard #74. Check YouTube and watch it yourself.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

I think that there are a bunch of things that are intermingled in here.

 

The penalty on the Cardinals for the facemask was not definitely determined to be post-possession from what I heard. If it is before the interception, then there would be no extra play because the call was on the offense (at the time). If it happens post-possession, then it is on the defense.

 

The fact that Fitzgerald was out of bounds is not a penalty in itself. He would have had to go out of bounds on his own or not attempt to get back in bounds once he is out of bounds for it to be a penalty. More imporantly, if it was not called on the field during the play, it could not have been called upon review or after the fact. That is not a reviewable item.

 

All of it is moot because he scored on that play.

[Bombs Away 4]

The fact that Fitzgerald was out of bounds is not a penalty in itself. He would have had to go out of bounds on his own or not attempt to get back in bounds once he is out of bounds for it to be a penalty.

 

The reply showed that Fitzgerald went out of bounds purely on his own, and proceeded to run out of bounds for almost 30 yards. But you're exactly right, it's all a moot point since the play was called a TD, and correctly so.

[parrot 789]

Since we're piling it on, Warner was clearly held on the play.

[jerryskids 7,083]

LOL Thanks for the clarification. (I still don't buy any rationale for a 1" line ruling.)

 

But this was very interesting play with THREE potential penalty points. The interesting part is that the only one that was really relevant since a TD was scored was the illegal block to the back by the Steelers which was missed by the refs entirely. But if it HAD been called, then there would have been offsetting penalties I presume (against the early flag which I did not see right after the interception but which was pointed out above).

 

Does anyone know for sure what the ruling on the field would have been in that case?

Wouldn't it have to be offsetting, and the play never happened? Otherwise how do you enforce it?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

The reply showed that Fitzgerald went out of bounds purely on his own, and proceeded to run out of bounds for almost 30 yards. But you're exactly right, it's all a moot point since the play was called a TD, and correctly so.

It was a moot point also because there was no penalty called.

[Ras66not99 0]

however Antrel Rolle got in the way and prevented him from reaching Harrison until it was too late.

I heard about this on the Radio the next day and didn't even notice.... I'm looking forward to watching the game tonight on the NFL network and see if i notice it when it happens at full speed

 

fock Rolle, never liked him

[Ras66not99 0]

guess i should have read the whole link first ....whew Rolle's arse def. cost them that TD.... That block in the back by Woodley could have been called also... oh well...

[jgcrawfish 232]

guess i should have read the whole link first ....whew Rolle's arse def. cost them that TD.... That block in the back by Woodley could have been called also... oh well...

 

The penalties would have offset, however, I believe that since both occurred after a change of possession, the play would have stood anyway. It's a very odd situation in that there was one penalty called on the AZ lineman, there should have been one called on the block in the back on the Steelers, there should not have been one called on Fitz (and there wasn't) tackling from out of bounds, and there should have been one called on Rolle for standing on the sidelines which impeded Fitz. Crazy play. Greatest. Superbowl play. Ever.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Just watched the replay rules official on NFL Network who said due to the Personal Foul called against the Cards on that play, the half would have been extended even if Harrison had been downed outside the endzone. They would have given Pittsburgh one play as they would need to enforce that PF penalty. 1st and goal at the 1 inch line or something like that.

[Gepetto 1,454]

Just watched the replay rules official on NFL Network who said due to the Personal Foul called against the Cards on that play, the half would have been extended even if Harrison had been downed outside the endzone. They would have given Pittsburgh one play as they would need to enforce that PF penalty. 1st and goal at the 1 inch line or something like that.

 

I already said that in the original post. I'm not even sure why it's talked about as it doesn't matter since he made it into the endzone.

[Slobknocker 0]

I thing i never realized was the Arizona Cardinal on the sideline that got in the way of Fitz, and threw a pick, otherwise Fitz catches him at around the 15 yard line

[Ras66not99 0]

The penalties would have offset, however, I believe that since both occurred after a change of possession, the play would have stood anyway. It's a very odd situation in that there was one penalty called on the AZ lineman, there should have been one called on the block in the back on the Steelers, there should not have been one called on Fitz (and there wasn't) tackling from out of bounds, and there should have been one called on Rolle for standing on the sidelines which impeded Fitz. Crazy play. Greatest. Superbowl play. Ever.

was just watching the replay again on NFL Network.... anyone else notice that harrison lost control of that ball when he when he rolled into the end-zone and the tip of the ball actually landed out of bounds... (touchback type material )

[murf74 461]

was just watching the replay again on NFL Network.... anyone else notice that harrison lost control of that ball when he when he rolled into the end-zone and the tip of the ball actually landed out of bounds... (touchback type material )

 

You can see he clearly lost control, the ball is clearly laying on the ground, in fact out of bounds

 

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/phot...es/15.new.1.jpg

[Ras66not99 0]

You can see he clearly lost control, the ball is clearly laying on the ground, in fact out of bounds

 

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/phot...es/15.new.1.jpg

nice insight from you

[murf74 461]

nice insight from you

 

ummm, sarcasm guess you didn't see the photo link.