Week 11: Cleveland Browns At Baltimore Ravens

[Drkraven]

Let me tell you this thread got interesting! I got into it late since I was at the game

[theFRANCHISE]

Let me tell you this thread got interesting! I got into it late since I was at the game

I feel bad for you.

I'm already having a hard enough time as-is with writing about my experiences, without thinking about what I read after I got back from the post-game conference room. It's still in the back of my mind as I'm recalling the positives of the day, sadly.

[Stover4Prez]

Drkraven,

Thanks for cleaning it up a bit. Hope you had a good time at the game. Did you stay for the REAL end, or did you get caught up in the mass exodus after we thought we won it? The guys on TV were saying the fans had all streamed out, and then as the OT started they were all streaming back in!! I can't imagine. I'm sure there was someone who got on the light rail thinking it was a W only to get home and realize we lost on the news!!!

Thanks again for trying to keep the forums to football only, and respectful.

Go Ravens!!!

2 weeks to Monday night! BEAT THE PATS!

[theFRANCHISE]

I saw the pandemonium behind the scenes FIRST-HAND.

I watched the supposed end of the game in the post-game conference area with some of the reporters, and I saw the Ravens rush into the locker rooms with huge smiles on their faces, celebrating what we all thought was a huge win.

When everyone had to be rushed back onto the field like cattle, though...

...well, you can read about that in my next post, coming soon. LOL

[thecitythatreeds]

This is my first post on here so here it goes:

I was at the game today, and what a game for my first time at M&T bank stadum. I just cant believe that Brian Billick is still in Baltimore. Why did he not run the ball to run out the clock so Stover could win the game for us? If we would have not passed it 3 times in a row, we would have WON!!!!! This is unacceptable to me.

Just one more thing before my rant is over....Lewis and Boller rule!!!

[Drkraven]

I stayed the ENTIRE game. Actually I was in the stands collecting cups and the giveaway's that people left behind! I don't like huge crowds and pushing, so I wait until the end always. I sit in the endzone where they were all conferring. A lot of people came running back, just like the Seattle game a few years ago. I always have a blast at the games.

[thecitythatreeds]

I thought people were selling those foam things after the game. If people bought those thats crazy lol.

[Drkraven]

They were in the seats when we got there, the gave one whole section those foam finger things--I kept thinking back to "the real men of genius--Mr foam finger maker man" :lol:

[Stover4Prez]

So since you were there, can you tell me if the Refs ever went under the hood to look at the video of the field goal, or just all talked together about it? Just curious since it has been a hot topic of discussion here today.

[TopDawg1977]

the first thing i wanna say is......you guys played really well in the second half. boeller looked better than mcnair has all season. onto the questionable FG. when it was kicked, the ref never waved it off. he made a hand motion that it went over and back. the refs conferred with each other to get the rule straight, that if the ball clears the crossbar, it is good. it's a shame you guys had to lose like that after such a great game, but in the end, the refs got the call right.

[Drkraven]

So since you were there, can you tell me if the Refs ever went under the hood to look at the video of the field goal, or just all talked together about it? Just curious since it has been a hot topic of discussion here today.

I did not see him under the hood, but if you recall the challenge Billick made that they could not get the replay to work in the 2nd quarter--I'm not sure if we lost the time out or not(The play stood, I was too busy umm voicing my displeasure with the refs.)-- I'm not sure if the the replay ever came back up. The ref was on the phone and they were all standing in a circle talking with the Browns head coach but that was all I saw.

[TopDawg1977]

one thing i forgot to add to my last post: had Billick made the right move and run the ball and let the clock run...he had 1 more timeout to call and set up a FG. we are fortunate that he messed that one up because had he done it right, stover's FG would have won the game.

[theFRANCHISE]

You can read about my Post From The Press Box experience here.

(Mods, could one of you please pin/sticky the thread for others to see in promoting the contest? Thanks)

[Jamal]

All the crazy endings aside, why couldn't we run on 3rd & 1? Even if we didn't convert we could have ran the clock out. Just horrible clock management from Billick.

[thecitythatreeds]

The ref's never went under the hood to review the kick. The initial call was no good and everyone thought we won and started leaving. Then the ref's stood at the end zone talking and came back and ruled the kick as good and the whole stadium booed them so you couldnt even hear his explanation.

Billick needs to go back to Minnesota where he came from...

[Mercury]

First of all, let me state that I am a Browns fan. I am rather impressed that a lot of the Ravens fans here do not blame their loss on the ref-ing. It was definitely an exciting game, and was well-played (and poorly-played) on both sides of the ball.

It does seem kind of odd to me that people would say the Browns did not "deserve" to win the game. Dawson kicks a 51 yard game-tying field goal on the road, and the Browns do not deserve to go to overtime? Did you "deserve" to lose your game on a questionable call that could not be reviewed? So the issue should not be whether or not the Browns deserved to win that game.

There is certainly some question as to how the refs arrived at their conclusion. Rewatching footage of the play, it appears at though one of the refs seems to nod indicating the kick was in fact good. The other signals toward the ground, suggesting it must have hit the front crossbar. The simple fact of the matter is, both of the refs must have seen the ball break the plane. However, when they saw it bounce forward, you have to question what you saw. I mean, prior to this no ref had seen a field goal bounce forward that had not hit the front crossbar. Because there was disagreement between the refs (and neither had a better view of the situation), the play was discussed. The head ref erred in trying to see a replay. Did he see a replay? None of us can say certainly, so anything said here is mere speculation. The fact of the matter is, there is no rule in the books that states a play on the field cannot be discussed. There is a difference between a replay review and discussion of the play. If he saw no video, then all that could have occurred was a discussion of the play. If video was shown, then a non-reviewable play was reviewed (though what is the NFL definition of 'review'? Does it require a challenge be issued from either a team or the box to be considered a review?), and that would constitute a violation of the rules.

But for those who are arguing with no concrete evidence that the refs violated the rules by watching a video review, I am sure you will put your full support behind enforcement of this rule as well:

"No player, coach, or other person affiliated with a club may remove that club

[thecitythatreeds]

First of all, let me state that I am a Browns fan. I am rather impressed that a lot of the Ravens fans here do not blame their loss on the ref-ing. It was definitely an exciting game, and was well-played (and poorly-played) on both sides of the ball.

It does seem kind of odd to me that people would say the Browns did not "deserve" to win the game. Dawson kicks a 51 yard game-tying field goal on the road, and the Browns do not deserve to go to overtime? Did you "deserve" to lose your game on a questionable call that could not be reviewed? So the issue should not be whether or not the Browns deserved to win that game.

There is certainly some question as to how the refs arrived at their conclusion. Rewatching footage of the play, it appears at though one of the refs seems to nod indicating the kick was in fact good. The other signals toward the ground, suggesting it must have hit the front crossbar. The simple fact of the matter is, both of the refs must have seen the ball break the plane. However, when they saw it bounce forward, you have to question what you saw. I mean, prior to this no ref had seen a field goal bounce forward that had not hit the front crossbar. Because there was disagreement between the refs (and neither had a better view of the situation), the play was discussed. The head ref erred in trying to see a replay. Did he see a replay? None of us can say certainly, so anything said here is mere speculation. The fact of the matter is, there is no rule in the books that states a play on the field cannot be discussed. There is a difference between a replay review and discussion of the play. If he saw no video, then all that could have occurred was a discussion of the play. If video was shown, then a non-reviewable play was reviewed (though what is the NFL definition of 'review'? Does it require a challenge be issued from either a team or the box to be considered a review?), and that would constitute a violation of the rules.

But for those who are arguing with no concrete evidence that the refs violated the rules by watching a video review, I am sure you will put your full support behind enforcement of this rule as well:

"No player, coach, or other person affiliated with a club may remove that club

[Mercury]

First of all I would like to commend you on your professionalism. But I would have to disagree with you. I, for one, fell that the Browns did not deserve to win the game because any other head coach in the NFL with half of a brain would have run out the clock before Stovers field goal and we would have won the game. If this would have happened, the Browns wouldn't have won! Its that simple. Boller did an excellent job in bring us back to nearly win, Billick just screwed up the play calling. That is why the Browns don't deserve the W.

I would agree that the decision not to run was a risky one. However, I would urge you to keep in mind that had they run the ball instead, the result was far from a forgone conclusion. On 2nd and 1, I don't think there is anything wrong with going to the air. A 47 yard field goal is certainly not automatic (especially under high stress conditions), so attempting to pick up some significant yardage to setup a better kick does not seem a poor decision to me. 3rd and 1 going with the pass is a risky call. Do keep in mind however, that while the Cleveland D is atrocious, we have had an uncanny knack this year for coming up with the big stops in short run situations. The hope was that going to the air would take the Cleveland D off guard when they were thinking run. If you run on both plays, there is the risk that our D stuffs the line and possibly takes you for a loss. We had all 3 timeouts to use if you went to the ground on 2 consecutive plays. So while it makes it less likely Cleveland can drive into field goal range, it also makes it less likely that Stover gets off a good field goal. And do keep in mind, that even if you ran it on both plays, Cleveland only has to burn two timeouts before the FG if we make the stop. We only needed one to get our game tying field goal.

So while different coaching may have changed the outcome of the game, I think it's hardly fair to say the Browns did not deserve to win that game. The fact of the matter is they drove downfield with 26 seconds left against a top-rated NFL defense that was shutting them down in the second half to make a 51 yard field goal into the wind on the road. I don't think it is fair to say that the "What if" of the play-calling justifies saying the Browns did not deserve that win. After all, do you think if Brian Billick was offered the choice to start the game up 30-27 and kicking off to the Browns with 26 seconds remaining in the game, that he would take that opportunity? The fact of the matter is the Browns came through at crunch time, and the Raven's D and Special Teams(unfortunately for you guys - Browns have been in those hard loss situations enough times to sympathize) did not get the job done. The Browns earned that win under adverse conditions, even if coaching may have altered the final result.

[thecitythatreeds]

I would agree that the decision not to run was a risky one. However, I would urge you to keep in mind that had they run the ball instead, the result was far from a forgone conclusion. On 2nd and 1, I don't think there is anything wrong with going to the air. A 47 yard field goal is certainly not automatic (especially under high stress conditions), so attempting to pick up some significant yardage to setup a better kick does not seem a poor decision to me. 3rd and 1 going with the pass is a risky call. Do keep in mind however, that while the Cleveland D is atrocious, we have had an uncanny knack this year for coming up with the big stops in short run situations. The hope was that going to the air would take the Cleveland D off guard when they were thinking run. If you run on both plays, there is the risk that our D stuffs the line and possibly takes you for a loss. We had all 3 timeouts to use if you went to the ground on 2 consecutive plays. So while it makes it less likely Cleveland can drive into field goal range, it also makes it less likely that Stover gets off a good field goal. And do keep in mind, that even if you ran it on both plays, Cleveland only has to burn two timeouts before the FG if we make the stop. We only needed one to get our game tying field goal.

So while different coaching may have changed the outcome of the game, I think it's hardly fair to say the Browns did not deserve to win that game. The fact of the matter is they drove downfield with 26 seconds left against a top-rated NFL defense that was shutting them down in the second half to make a 51 yard field goal into the wind on the road. I don't think it is fair to say that the "What if" of the play-calling justifies saying the Browns did not deserve that win. After all, do you think if Brian Billick was offered the choice to start the game up 30-27 and kicking off to the Browns with 26 seconds remaining in the game, that he would take that opportunity? The fact of the matter is the Browns came through at crunch time, and the Raven's D and Special Teams(unfortunately for you guys - Browns have been in those hard loss situations enough times to sympathize) did not get the job done. The Browns earned that win under adverse conditions, even if coaching may have altered the final result.

I understand your point and I take it into consideration but again, I must disagree with you. Willis McGahee was running all over the Browns defense the entire game. So yea, they may have used their time outs, and yea maybe they would have stuffed him...but I think that theres a better chance of a good outcome from running the ball then from passing it. Our offensive line is better at run blocking then pass blocking so there was a higher likely hood of McGahee getting a few yards closer then Boller had with passing. Boller had an Int. in the game for 100 yards, and McGahee had no fumbles in the game, so to me the logical choice is to go with the run game. Plus the passing game got them nowhere so even if they would have stuffed McGahee, the feild goal would have been the same distance...with less time on the clock.

And the other thing you are forgetting is that we have one of, if not the, top kicker in NFL history. A 40 to 50 yard feild goal for Stover is nothing. I know Billick has more faith in Stover then in Boller so there is no reason he should have passed.

[Mercury]

I understand your point and I take it into consideration but again, I must disagree with you. Willis McGahee was running all over the Browns defense the entire game. So yea, they may have used their time outs, and yea maybe they would have stuffed him...but I think that theres a better chance of a good outcome from running the ball then from passing it. Our offensive line is better at run blocking then pass blocking so there was a higher likely hood of McGahee getting a few yards closer then Boller had with passing. Boller had an Int. in the game for 100 yards, and McGahee had no fumbles in the game, so to me the logical choice is to go with the run game. Plus the passing game got them nowhere so even if they would have stuffed McGahee, the feild goal would have been the same distance...with less time on the clock.

And the other thing you are forgetting is that we have one of, if not the, top kicker in NFL history. A 40 to 50 yard feild goal for Stover is nothing. I know Billick has more faith in Stover then in Boller so there is no reason he should have passed.

McGahee did run all over the Browns, but 2nd and 1 and 3rd and 1 aren't about the running back, they are about the line. And somehow, some way, the Browns seem to make the big short yardage stops when they matter most. We even stopped Morris against Seattle on 4th and 1 in OT, when he was averaging even more yards per carry than McGahee (and with no runs over 12 yards). We had 4 stops against St Louis in key situations as well, including two 4th and 1 stops (after two 3-1 stops). I am not saying the Browns would have stopped McGahee. I am merely saying there is enough of a chance that you cannot simply dismiss the game as already won. Two rushing play calls would have been more conservative. But then again, if you complete one of those passes, you get a chance to run down the clock with better field position for the FG.

Billick took a risk, and the Browns found a way to make him pay for it. The play calling was debateable. However, there clearly is a rationale to justify the plays that were called (he did not want to kick a 47 yard FG and expected a D that was expecting rush). You may not agree with them, but had it worked, you probably would have a different outlook on it (the mark of unconservative play calling). More conservative play calling or better clock management may have altered the result of the game, but it certainly did not guarantee it. Thus I think it's hardly fair to say the game was already won and that the Browns did not deserve to win the game. There are plenty of "What If" decisions on both sides of the ball.

[MScottM]

I am brand new to this forum and I am only here to ask this one question. Before I start I want to make it clear that I am a Pittsburg fan so the outcome of this game means little to me.

My question is, Was the game called officially over? What exactly constitutes the end of a game? Is it when the Referee makes the call and blows the whistle with no time left on the clock?

We all know that the field goal was good. But it was called bad and the referee accepted the judges call on that. So when the Referee (who is the man in charge of the game) accepted that call did he end the game? The ravens seemed to think so and most of them left the field of play because of it.

So if the game was officially over, does a man that had no more authority (the referee) have the right to restart the game?

Now all of you Browns fans, before you get into a fit about this, please understand that I am asking this purely form a FOOTBALL fan viewpoint. We know that bad calls are made in many games and that is part of the experience. We all hate them but they happen all of the time, and in fairness this would have been a tremedously bad call for the game to end on. But if a Referee can go back at any time after a game has been declared over and say, "hey, there were bad calls in the game so we are going to restart it at some future time" when will a game truly be over?

[Guest Birdfan]

That's the same question we've all be asking this week. So far, no one has a clear answer. We'll have to wait on one of those infamous "memos" from the NFL.

If you look through the other threads, I'm sure you'll find plenty of discussion on this.

[TopDawg1977]

That's the same question we've all be asking this week. So far, no one has a clear answer. We'll have to wait on one of those infamous "memos" from the NFL.

If you look through the other threads, I'm sure you'll find plenty of discussion on this.

it's not just on the boards here...or even in football in-general lol. i was watching the Cavs game against Milwaukee last night and our local cleveland basketball broadcasters were mentioning it throughout the game. this is something that may never go away because of how poorly the officials handled it.

[MScottM]

That's the same question we've all be asking this week. So far, no one has a clear answer. We'll have to wait on one of those infamous "memos" from the NFL.

If you look through the other threads, I'm sure you'll find plenty of discussion on this.

I haven't read all of the posts but from what I have, all I see is the question of whether the officials reviewed the call of just discssed it. I don't care about that. The only thing that matters is if the Referee called the game. There has to be some tape on it but I haven't seen it. If he did call the game, then everyhting that happened from that point on is moot. He wouldn't have the authority to reconvene the game. So all I am asking is if the Referee called it or not. Someone that was there should know.

[TopDawg]

If he did call the game, then everyhting that happened from that point on is moot. He wouldn't have the authority to reconvene the game. So all I am asking is if the Referee called it or not. Someone that was there should know.

From what I understand, there's a hand signal (one I actually dont know...I'll have to research it I guess) that denotes the end of the game, and it was not given. No proof to back it up, but that's what I've gathered from everything I've read on the situation.

[Guest Birdfan]

I was there. The ref signaled "no good" and they announced that the game was over.

[TopDawg1977]

I was there. The ref signaled "no good" and they announced that the game was over.

only 1 official under the goal waved no good.......for a kick to be officially waved off, BOTH officials under the goal must wave it off. Not just one

[Drkraven]

I was there. The ref signaled "no good" and they announced that the game was over.

It happened 14 rows in front of me--I agree.

[MScottM]

only 1 official under the goal waved no good.......for a kick to be officially waved off, BOTH officials under the goal must wave it off. Not just one

I don't think that is correct. If one signals no good and the referee accepts that ruling and signals game over, then the game is over. Only the referee can make that call.

[JohnMichael35]

As much as i wanted the ravens to win that game they lost fair and square. Maybe if they didn't keep replaying it on the jumbo tron the game would of ended in our favor.