For those who can't recall the details and outcome (like me): November 18, 2007. Dawson's kick tied the game at 30 and led to OT. Browns win in OT by another Dawson FG.
I like how the commentator explained that it went through but bounced back 1000 fucking times, and repeatedly circled the ball in yellow just in case we still didn’t understand.
Not to mention it was irrelevant whether or not it bounced back in because it's automatically good if it clears the cross bar. Just like a home run in baseball if it clears the wall but bounces back into the playing field. It's still a home run.
Oh man I remember this… for some reason I didn’t turn off the tv like I normally do when the Browns lose. The fact that they even got into field goal range was unbelievable, then to have that happen. I’ll never forget it. Go Browns!
The announcer that kept repeating where the ball came to rest clearly didn't get it lol. It went through. It was good lol. Doesn't matter of the ball bounced back to the 50.
@darkhorseash4337 Best I can think of is this. Somewhere on the discussion part the referee asked if either official actually saw the ball go past the cross bar...which it did" Once one said yes they ruled it was good. They couldn't go to replay but I think they were able to communicate with a "rules expert" to see what exactly rule was. The next year the league made fgs reviewable
So I saw something on espn a while back. The replay booth wouldn't let the head official look at it because at the time field goals couldn't be reviewed. He went to both the officials under the goal posts and asked them what they thought happened. One said he thought it hit the crossbar and the other said it hit the extension in the back and the head official went with the one that was more convincing which was part of the reason it took so long. I think you can kind of see it here but I'm not sure it looks like the judge on the left is looking right at the ball and the one on the right is looking forward. I'm not 100% sure on that part though.@@mikedecarlo9057
I was watching this game in a bar. I knew it was good. For the announcers: the tall things are the "goalposts", the horizontal thing is the "crossbar", the back thing is the "upright"!!!!! And you get paid to call NFL games?!
There’s no such thing as a “left crossbar” or “back upright”. It hit the left upright and landed on the stanchion before bouncing back over the crossbar.
2007 was just a bizarre year for cleveland. What could have been considered a new dawn for cleveland, was just an oddity that they would not repeat until 2020.
Been trying to find where they interview the Ravens kicker thinking the game was over and Dawson goes up to him and says "overtime". Can't find it but it was very funny.
I had wondered about this kind of thing from the first day they started using that kind of goal post. It finally happened decades later with this kick. Then, if I recall, it happened again later that night in the night game (or maybe it was the week after). Crazy.
If you look closely when the ball hit the post on the back bar it was then out of bounds and therefore could not come back into the field of play and be a live ball.
My Uncle was at this game. He refuses to accept that the Ravens lost the game 33-30 because he left after the "missed" field goal, so he continuesto claim he saw a 30-27 win.
Well then, he is an idiot. Missed a great finish and is refusing to accept the fact that the FG was good? Weird. Anyone with a brain knows the FG was good, nobody still argues that. Who leaves when the refs are clearly discussing it? Seems like he has some deep, deep issues.
By rule at the time that game should have been over in regulation. Because the refs looked at the video which by rule fgs were not reviewable. The refs should have reported the play to the nfl office and explain why fgs and pat's should be reviewable from this point on.
@@A_Notes I believe that's actually what happened. If you watch this video again the one official does go to the replay but never actually looks at it. He puts on the headphones and turns his head away from it. From what I understand he went over there to discuss it with a league official to get clarification on the rule.
And then a woman’s infant son falls from her arms and hurdles towards the astroturf, but Dawson kicks the baby up and back into the waiting mother arms… Mentos.
'after discussion on the field' interesting he said this instead of 'after review.' the play was not reviewable so he says "we will take a look at this play" and then there is a delay, then he gets on a headset with somebody obviously not on the field. it kinda feels like they did a review of a non-reviewable play. the right call was eventually made thankfully but Ravens have a legit gripe here.
I vaguely remember this game and that year bc they finished 10-6 with some crazy games from week to week. Anyway, I was at work, alone on a Sunday watching this on my little portable TV at the time. There was no replay allowed for what happened so I do believe they had to have a discussion. Also, more importantly, they never officially ruled the kick as no good. They never made a call but went over to each other to have a discussion.
I could argue this call pushed the ravens to 4-6 on the year and contributed to the ravens giving up on both billick and holler. Had they won this and been 5-5 who knows what would have happened rest of year and beyond.
No they don't. The field goal was good. Only 1 ref signaled no good, none of the others signaled anything at all. The Ravens KNEW the game was not over and that they were discussing the play but tried to leave the field in order to cement their win. Regardless, they literally had a chance to win the game in OT but failed, whereas the Browns did.
A browns player said Dawson went up to the referee and said this was a rule in the rulebook. Not a review but an actual rule no one but Phil Dawson knew at the time
For those who can't recall the details and outcome (like me): November 18, 2007. Dawson's kick tied the game at 30 and led to OT. Browns win in OT by another Dawson FG.
I was in AIT at Fort Gordon. I wiled out seeing this!
Such a great, memorable game.
This is the correct way to do a double doink
Pete Morelli is the GOAT for not running off the field
After discussion baby. He knew the rules.
This play is probably one of the reasons all networks now have a rules analyst. This would have been a prime moment of having them go over the rule.
I liked football better before the commentators would defer to some former referee every 2 plays.
I like how the commentator explained that it went through but bounced back 1000 fucking times, and repeatedly circled the ball in yellow just in case we still didn’t understand.
then berates the officials for not getting it right the 1st time, as if anybody knew it was a good fg at first
Pretty sure it's Greg Gumbel, insanely annoying
Well that is their job to explain what is going on.
It was confusing what happened, that’s why they were explaining it and showing it multiple times.
Not to mention it was irrelevant whether or not it bounced back in because it's automatically good if it clears the cross bar.
Just like a home run in baseball if it clears the wall but bounces back into the playing field. It's still a home run.
Oh man I remember this… for some reason I didn’t turn off the tv like I normally do when the Browns lose. The fact that they even got into field goal range was unbelievable, then to have that happen. I’ll never forget it. Go Browns!
Lmfao they were good this year. Had like ten wins
@@keisyisbeefy Yeah
Yeah and then everyone clapped
You can see both referees standing by the goal posts, staring at each other, confused onto what just happened.
Watching browns games for 24 years you see a lot of “I’ve never seen that before”
Do you think the ball bounced back onto the field of play? The color commentator wasn’t too clear on that
Correct me if i’m wrong, but that’s a good kick today right? as long as it goes through it’s good
edit: i finished watching 🤣
The announcer that kept repeating where the ball came to rest clearly didn't get it lol. It went through. It was good lol. Doesn't matter of the ball bounced back to the 50.
Ravens fan here, 100% correct call. It was good
Who are these guys that don't know the "Upright" from the "Crossbar" from the "Extension"?
who gives a shit
That announcer has no clue what going thru the uprights means.
This game also gave us the word "rickershay" 1:16
lol is he trying to say ricochet?
Yes@@quetzalcoatlz
The OG Double Doink
It didn't seem like anyone knew the rule....officials, announcers, players, coaches. Glad the right call was ultimately made.
Yeah like, I'd love to hear from the refs how figuring this out worked because I don't blame them for having NO idea lol
@darkhorseash4337 Best I can think of is this.
Somewhere on the discussion part the referee asked if either official actually saw the ball go past the cross bar...which it did" Once one said yes they ruled it was good.
They couldn't go to replay but I think they were able to communicate with a "rules expert" to see what exactly rule was.
The next year the league made fgs reviewable
So I saw something on espn a while back. The replay booth wouldn't let the head official look at it because at the time field goals couldn't be reviewed. He went to both the officials under the goal posts and asked them what they thought happened. One said he thought it hit the crossbar and the other said it hit the extension in the back and the head official went with the one that was more convincing which was part of the reason it took so long. I think you can kind of see it here but I'm not sure it looks like the judge on the left is looking right at the ball and the one on the right is looking forward. I'm not 100% sure on that part though.@@mikedecarlo9057
@@mikedecarlo9057I'd bet this was a big part of reviews being allowed the next year
I was watching this game in a bar. I knew it was good.
For the announcers: the tall things are the "goalposts", the horizontal thing is the "crossbar", the back thing is the "upright"!!!!!
And you get paid to call NFL games?!
There’s no such thing as a “left crossbar” or “back upright”. It hit the left upright and landed on the stanchion before bouncing back over the crossbar.
2007 was just a bizarre year for cleveland. What could have been considered a new dawn for cleveland, was just an oddity that they would not repeat until 2020.
Man Solomon Wilcots was a solid ass commentator, wonder what happened. I’d take him over many of the C squad color commentators they got now lol
If it goes through it should count, even if it bounces back.
Yeup because it going through is now out of bounds
Listen to fans boo because they would rather have it easy and discount the opposing teams efforts and not care if the Browns got cheated!
I remember watching this live. What a crazy run of events for us all.
Who is watching this after the Lutz double doink?
I hate it when it rickerchetes backs into the field of play
Wait til the Chizled Adonis sees _this!_
I don't get it. The replay booth said the play wasn't reviewable yet they did review it. So which is it?
They didn’t review it the refs got together and decided to overturn the call
"Rickershayed"
This is the most Cleveland Browns thing ever.
Yeah except we usually lose these
I don't understand the point of saying a play is "non-reviewable" if it can clearly be defined in film.
Correct call was made. Ultimately.
I remember this game. Great job by Pete Morelli.
Back when 51 yard field goals were considered long. Kickers are routinely hitting from 57-60 now.
It’s still considered long in some stadiums. But back then guys were still drilling from 55-60.
It is long. Kickers have been consistently trying for 55+ for at least a decade now.
Not For Long. NFL.
Been trying to find where they interview the Ravens kicker thinking the game was over and Dawson goes up to him and says "overtime". Can't find it but it was very funny.
That ball hit about a foot into the cross bar ontop of the middle bar that's coming from the ground holding up the post. Thats a GOOD FIELD GOAL!.
Usually these types of things don’t go the Browns way.
Who's here after Justin Tucker's record-breaker 14 years later?
I'm here alive and well
Man I remember watching this game as a kid in my bedroom going nuts thinking it was good was so devastated then thrilled all over again 😂
Excuse me your looking in the wrong area I make 51
i saw this live what a crazy game
Damn i was 11 years was mad as hell when they said he missed as a browns fan we don't get these type of calls to go ower way
Has there ever been another similar field goal where it hit the back of the goal post and it was good?
I had wondered about this kind of thing from the first day they started using that kind of goal post. It finally happened decades later with this kick. Then, if I recall, it happened again later that night in the night game (or maybe it was the week after). Crazy.
This is just like the James Harden dunk
The refs got it right
If you look closely when the ball hit the post on the back bar it was then out of bounds and therefore could not come back into the field of play and be a live ball.
This is the scenario I was looking for at 5:30 am
My Uncle was at this game. He refuses to accept that the Ravens lost the game 33-30 because he left after the "missed" field goal, so he continuesto claim he saw a 30-27 win.
Well then, he is an idiot. Missed a great finish and is refusing to accept the fact that the FG was good? Weird.
Anyone with a brain knows the FG was good, nobody still argues that. Who leaves when the refs are clearly discussing it? Seems like he has some deep, deep issues.
Your uncle is wrong
By rule at the time that game should have been over in regulation. Because the refs looked at the video which by rule fgs were not reviewable. The refs should have reported the play to the nfl office and explain why fgs and pat's should be reviewable from this point on.
@@A_NotesReview or not, the ball went through. Result. It's good.
@@A_Notes I believe that's actually what happened. If you watch this video again the one official does go to the replay but never actually looks at it. He puts on the headphones and turns his head away from it. From what I understand he went over there to discuss it with a league official to get clarification on the rule.
Its 2023, can refs use replay now for field goals? Seems reasonable
This officiating crew didn't want another episode of Bottlegate
I watched this live. I think I was with my dad. A great moment!
Basically 1/1million moment
Rickershayed😄
And then a woman’s infant son falls from her arms and hurdles towards the astroturf, but Dawson kicks the baby up and back into the waiting mother arms… Mentos.
what
NFL Refs: trying to screw the Browns since '99
The refs literally gifted them the past two games
'after discussion on the field' interesting he said this instead of 'after review.' the play was not reviewable so he says "we will take a look at this play" and then there is a delay, then he gets on a headset with somebody obviously not on the field. it kinda feels like they did a review of a non-reviewable play. the right call was eventually made thankfully but Ravens have a legit gripe here.
I vaguely remember this game and that year bc they finished 10-6 with some crazy games from week to week. Anyway, I was at work, alone on a Sunday watching this on my little portable TV at the time. There was no replay allowed for what happened so I do believe they had to have a discussion. Also, more importantly, they never officially ruled the kick as no good. They never made a call but went over to each other to have a discussion.
I could argue this call pushed the ravens to 4-6 on the year and contributed to the ravens giving up on both billick and holler. Had they won this and been 5-5 who knows what would have happened rest of year and beyond.
Legit gripe? 😂😂😂
No they don't.
The field goal was good. Only 1 ref signaled no good, none of the others signaled anything at all. The Ravens KNEW the game was not over and that they were discussing the play but tried to leave the field in order to cement their win.
Regardless, they literally had a chance to win the game in OT but failed, whereas the Browns did.
A browns player said Dawson went up to the referee and said this was a rule in the rulebook. Not a review but an actual rule no one but Phil Dawson knew at the time