[vincesanity82]

The Baltimore Ravens hope a quarterback change can turn around their fortunes. One already has for the Cleveland Browns.The Ravens go back to Kyle Boller while the Browns hope Derek Anderson rebounds from a subpar performance when these AFC North rivals face off Sunday in Baltimore. Only one game separates Cleveland (5-4) and Baltimore (4-5), but the gap feels much wider given the opposite directions these teams appear to be heading. I have the Browns winning this one by 14 pts.

[Lefty Noob]

Looks like the Browns and Ravens are headed for OT tied at 30-30. Didn't expect that.

[Lefty Noob]

What a crazy finish in this one. The field goal that nearly wasn't, was, and Cleveland wins in overtime!

NFL - Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens Recap Sunday November 18, 2007 - Yahoo! Sports
BALTIMORE (AP) -- It was a comeback victory in every sense of the word.

The Cleveland Browns literally had to come back onto the field to complete a 33-30 overtime win over the Baltimore Ravens on Sunday after it appeared the game ended with a missed field goal by Phil Dawson.

The Browns trailed 30-27 on the final play of regulation when Dawson attempted a tying 51-yard kick. The ball hit the left upright and seemingly bounced off the crossbar before bounding into the end zone.

The officials called the kick no good. The Ravens ran off the field, celebrating a victory in which they scored 16 straight points in the fourth quarter, the last three on a 47-yard field goal by Matt Stover with 26 seconds left.

Many of the Browns walked off in stunned silence after Dawson's kick. Several Cleveland players, however, insisted Dawson's kick hit the curved center support behind the crossbar. They gathered in the end zone, pointing at the spot where the football struck before bouncing back.

They were right. After a lengthy discussion, the officials ruled the kick passed through the uprights and called the teams back onto the field.

NFL rules dictate that a field goal is not reviewable by replay.

Referring to the initial call, referee Pete Morelli said, "It was a ruling by one of the officials. The other official informed me that the ball hit the back of the extension of the goal post. ... We determined that was what it struck. Therefore, it made the field goal good."

The officials ultimately made the right call, but the controversy remains. Did they use replay on a non-reviewable play? Should Baltimore have won this game? And why the heck can't you review a field goal to see whether or not it's good, anyway? Well, what do you think?