Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. I Thought He Missed It, Too

I Thought He Missed It, Too

The Browns Board
31 22 3.0k

  • I'm surprised it wasn't more controversial. My buddy and I were jumping up laughing thinking it went wide...

    BrownIndianB 1 Reply
  • A AZBrowns

    Dude, getting a tie back could be crucial to the Browns playoff chances 😵

    @azbrowns said:

    Dude, getting a tie back could be crucial to the Browns playoff chances 😵

    It would piss off bungle fans, which I would enjoy.

    A 1 Reply
  • K Koa

    I'm surprised it wasn't more controversial. My buddy and I were jumping up laughing thinking it went wide...

    @koa said:

    I'm surprised it wasn't more controversial. My buddy and I were jumping up laughing thinking it went wide...

    me 2. I thought we had gone for a draw but was surprised to see that it went in.

    daydawg19D 1 Reply
  • ? Guest

    @azbrowns said:

    Dude, getting a tie back could be crucial to the Browns playoff chances 😵

    It would piss off bungle fans, which I would enjoy.

    AdaM said:

    It would piss off bungle fans, which I would enjoy.

    Touché

  • It's that a new rule that you can challenge field goals (Dawson rule?)

    Wonder why if it was even close, why we wouldn't have challenged it.

    I thought it was no good, but was at the opposite end of the stadium. The video I just watched made it look like it wasn't really even that close.

    The GipperT ? 2 Replies

  • This reminds me of the Karliss kick in "The Drive" game, which I would swear from the video was no good. And from the video here I would swear this kick was no good.

    Are these video angles this deceiving?

    Was there another video angle of this kick perhaps from the far end of the field? I know they have umpteen cameras taking these shots, why couldn't we see another angle like we get for any other on field play? Does the league suppress these shots once the refs make a call?

    Perhaps they should lengthen the goal posts. The Karliss kick, this kick and many others could benefit from taller goal posts.

  • The GipperT The Gipper

    This reminds me of the Karliss kick in "The Drive" game, which I would swear from the video was no good. And from the video here I would swear this kick was no good.

    Are these video angles this deceiving?

    Was there another video angle of this kick perhaps from the far end of the field? I know they have umpteen cameras taking these shots, why couldn't we see another angle like we get for any other on field play? Does the league suppress these shots once the refs make a call?

    Perhaps they should lengthen the goal posts. The Karliss kick, this kick and many others could benefit from taller goal posts.

    @the-gipper said:

    This reminds me of the Karliss kick in "The Drive" game, which I would swear from the video was no good. And from the video here I would swear this kick was no good.

    Are these video angles this deceiving?

    Was there another video angle of this kick perhaps from the far end of the field? I know they have umpteen cameras taking these shots, why couldn't we see another angle like we get for any other on field play? Does the league suppress these shots once the refs make a call?

    Perhaps they should lengthen the goal posts. The Karliss kick, this kick and many others could benefit from taller goal posts.

    I was thinking the same thing.

  • ATENEARSA ATENEARS

    It's that a new rule that you can challenge field goals (Dawson rule?)

    Wonder why if it was even close, why we wouldn't have challenged it.

    I thought it was no good, but was at the opposite end of the stadium. The video I just watched made it look like it wasn't really even that close.

    @atenears said:

    It's that a new rule that you can challenge field goals (Dawson rule?)

    Wonder why if it was even close, why we wouldn't have challenged it.

    I thought it was no good, but was at the opposite end of the stadium. The video I just watched made it look like it wasn't really even that close.

    I believe it is only challengeable if the ball strikes the goal posts and bounces around. Here it was apparently a pure judgment call on whether the ball "would have been" inside the goal posts IF the posts had extended higher.

    Again, my point is: why not just extend the height of the posts? I mean, won't they be straight if you make them taller? Will they bend or snap under their weight?

    What is preventing the extension of the posts?

  • They could solve this VERY easilly....

    All they need to do is put a half inch wide reflective strip from top of the inside goalpost, down across the cross bar and up the other side.

    Put a chip in the ball, if the chip doesn't break the plain of the reflective strip, or laser system or what have you, its no good.

    You wouldn't even need ref's to have a say in it.

  • After a bunch of pause/plays on that NFL highlight link above, it sure looks to me like it went just outside the top, not over the top, of the goalpost. Might have even barely clipped it.

    Oh well, game's over.

  • AdaM

    excellent idea.

    Let's take the guesswork out of the judges hands.

    Win or lose I would feel better if it wasn't just someones opinion.

    Jibz Actions4photographers.com I will bleed Orange & Brown till my last breath!

  • Pushed it right.

  • ATENEARSA ATENEARS

    It's that a new rule that you can challenge field goals (Dawson rule?)

    Wonder why if it was even close, why we wouldn't have challenged it.

    I thought it was no good, but was at the opposite end of the stadium. The video I just watched made it look like it wasn't really even that close.

    @atenears said:

    It's that a new rule that you can challenge field goals (Dawson rule?)

    Wonder why if it was even close, why we wouldn't have challenged it.

    I thought it was no good, but was at the opposite end of the stadium. The video I just watched made it look like it wasn't really even that close.

    You can challange a FG (Dawson rule if you will that went into effect last year).

    In OT all reviews must come from the booth. It's the same rules as inside 2 minutes in the 4th QTR (i.e. no coaches challanges in OT). On top of that, if this was the 4th QTR inside 2 minutes (instead of inside 2 mintues in OT), it couldn't be challanged by the coach.

  • BrownIndianB BrownIndian

    @koa said:

    I'm surprised it wasn't more controversial. My buddy and I were jumping up laughing thinking it went wide...

    me 2. I thought we had gone for a draw but was surprised to see that it went in.

    @brownindian said:

    me 2. I thought we had gone for a draw but was surprised to see

    that it went in.

    Did it? 🤔

  • I find it pretty laughable that they DIDNT review it.

  • Probably a dumb question, but could the league review this and proclaim a tie? Or is it a "what's done is done" thing?

    I too thought he missed it when I was watching live and was surprised when the refs raised their hands.

  • N NigelTufnel

    Probably a dumb question, but could the league review this and proclaim a tie? Or is it a "what's done is done" thing?

    I too thought he missed it when I was watching live and was surprised when the refs raised their hands.

    @nigeltufnel said:

    Probably a dumb question, but could the league review this and proclaim a tie? Or is it a "what's done is done" thing?

    I too thought he missed it when I was watching live and was surprised when the refs raised their hands.

    I think it's been to long to try to make the NFL over turn the call.

  • The best you will get from the NFL is "sorry".

  • Same here...big time cheering we tied then it was announced good...i proclaimed it looked no good then just assumed it was a bad angle on film...lol

    We have been rebuilding since 1964, Why stop now? GO BROWNS!

  • My dad was the referee that signaled the field goal was 'good' ... I'm so ashamed that I'm moving to Tampa so people stop making fun of me.

    R 1 Reply
Log in to reply