Quote: @Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
All about the angle. Overhead (which in reality was about 20 yards behind the play) looked like an obvious touchdown. He was in by a yard. But then they quickly flash the sideline angle and it was much much closer, probably not enough to overturn the original call. Interesting to note that ref on the goal line, the best view in the house, called him short.
The only angle that should matter are the goal line shots to show if he broke the plane. The ref on the goal line called him short and you couldn't see where the ball was or that he definitely broke the plane WITH the ball. What happened to needing irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field? I didn't like that they overturned it.
I didn't like that they kept using that deceptive angle. Makes me wonder if the review ref got to see the goal line angle. Because there was a huge difference between the two.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
All about the angle. Overhead (which in reality was about 20 yards behind the play) looked like an obvious touchdown. He was in by a yard. But then they quickly flash the sideline angle and it was much much closer, probably not enough to overturn the original call. Interesting to note that ref on the goal line, the best view in the house, called him short.
The only angle that should matter are the goal line shots to show if he broke the plane. The ref on the goal line called him short and you couldn't see where the ball was or that he definitely broke the plane WITH the ball. What happened to needing irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field? I didn't like that they overturned it.
I didn't like that they kept using that deceptive angle. Makes me wonder if the review ref got to see the goal line angle. Because there was a huge difference between the two.
makes you wonder why they kept using the deceptive angle, typically we would have seen about 5 or 6 angles on a review, we got what...2? why werent they showing the rest of the angles?
The lack of cameras around the goal line just confirms my theory that the NFL willingly wants drama, controversy, bullshit. $20 billion industry, can't seem to have enough cameras nor pay its refs for full time jobs. It's setup for "human error" versus eliminating it.
They sell crack to crack heads, they know we will keep coming back for more.
I think they wanted to close the gap score wise but the angles were crappy.
Quote: @Skodin said:
The lack of cameras around the goal line just confirms my theory that the NFL willingly wants drama, controversy, bullshit. $20 billion industry, can't seem to have enough cameras nor pay its refs for full time jobs. It's setup for "human error" versus eliminating it.
They sell crack to crack heads, they know we will keep coming back for more.
I am wondering where the money on the O/U ended up for yesterdays game... IIRC the point was 44.5, they needed that TD to get to the over. maybe vegas called in a favor?
Quote: @Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
All about the angle. Overhead (which in reality was about 20 yards behind the play) looked like an obvious touchdown. He was in by a yard. But then they quickly flash the sideline angle and it was much much closer, probably not enough to overturn the original call. Interesting to note that ref on the goal line, the best view in the house, called him short.
The only angle that should matter are the goal line shots to show if he broke the plane. The ref on the goal line called him short and you couldn't see where the ball was or that he definitely broke the plane WITH the ball. What happened to needing irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field? I didn't like that they overturned it.
I am with Wetlander, eventhough I thought he got in from the goal line view, I couldn't see the ball and wonder how they found evidence to overturn the call on the field. That makes no sense.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Waterboy said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
Pick up @11:46. With the camera angle directly on the goal line, tell me that it was irrefutable video evidence. (The supposed standard to overturn a call). The deceiving overhead camera angle from 5 yards back made it look like his entire upper body had crossed the goal line.
It was irrefutable.
No it wasn't. The only view that showed it crossing the goal line was angled from behind and that skewed the perception. If you looked at the goal line shot and watched whites helmet and compared that to the overhead view its very clear that the overhead was not an accurate depiction of where the ball and player actually were. We needed more camera angles to say it was a score and they never showed those angles. So its definitely refutable.
It’s a ridiculous argument. He was clearly and easily in with the ball in sight. You can argue to your hearts content, but neutral fans would laugh at people asserting that wasn’t an irrefutable td.
Quote: @Waterboy said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Waterboy said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
Pick up @11:46. With the camera angle directly on the goal line, tell me that it was irrefutable video evidence. (The supposed standard to overturn a call). The deceiving overhead camera angle from 5 yards back made it look like his entire upper body had crossed the goal line.
It was irrefutable.
No it wasn't. The only view that showed it crossing the goal line was angled from behind and that skewed the perception. If you looked at the goal line shot and watched whites helmet and compared that to the overhead view its very clear that the overhead was not an accurate depiction of where the ball and player actually were. We needed more camera angles to say it was a score and they never showed those angles. So its definitely refutable.
It’s a ridiculous argument. He was clearly and easily in with the ball in sight. You can argue to your hearts content, but neutral fans would laugh at people asserting that wasn’t an irrefutable td.
...and if the glove don't fit, you must acquit!
Quote: @mgobluevikes said:
Pick up @11:46. With the camera angle directly on the goal line, tell me that it was irrefutable video evidence. (The supposed standard to overturn a call). The deceiving overhead camera angle from 5 yards back made it look like his entire upper body had crossed the goal line.
In the goal line shot at 11:45 you can't see the ball but the front of his body is clearly crossing the plane. The ball in other shots is pinned to his chest with both hands as the pile gets pushed in. I don't see any mystery here, it was a td.
Quote: @comet52 said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUijPSVoX_c
Pick up @11:46. With the camera angle directly on the goal line, tell me that it was irrefutable video evidence. (The supposed standard to overturn a call). The deceiving overhead camera angle from 5 yards back made it look like his entire upper body had crossed the goal line.
In the goal line shot at 11:45 you can't see the ball but the front of his body is clearly crossing the plane. The ball in other shots is pinned to his chest with both hands as the pile gets pushed in. I don't see any mystery here, it was a td.
I look at that shot and compare his helmet to the far goal line marker, while the helmet barely gets to the marker, the ball would not be to it and he gets pushed back from there. But like the rule states, there needs to be video evidence to ov we rule the call on the field and that evidence isn't there. In no shots can we see the ball or enough proof that the ball broke the plane, just bad camera angles or obstructed views. Call should have stood IMO, not saying it would have been the right call, but it wasn't irrefutable proof to the contrary as another poster claims.
|
