Confirmation of Reversal of Allen's TD
September 14th, 2009 at 11:19 AM ^
+1
Go Blue!
September 14th, 2009 at 11:20 AM ^
"Upon further review of WNDU's own video footage, Armando Allen appears to indeed have stepped out of bounds . . . regardless of the fact that Allen was actually out, the call probably should have stood as a touchdown."
Huh?
September 14th, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^
Referring to what the referees had at their disposal, not that I agree with the writer.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:27 AM ^
I believe they are saying that it should have been a touchdown because that was the ruling on the field and the officials didn't have this angle to definitively rule him out of bounds and overturn the call.
Basically, they are giving Weis his next talking point when this gets brought to his attention.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^
don't apply to Notre Dame, apparently.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^
Yeah, I saw that. Does anybody know what cameras the refs have access to? Is it just the ones the broadcast shows on replay? Also, I can't find those shots anywhere to even see whether they are conclusive.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:28 AM ^
I think they have the replay angles, but they also have access to other camera angles. There are always tons of cameras in the stadium and one of the ones may have picked it up. Just because ABC thinks X is the best camera angle does not necessarily mean it is the one that the refs use.
I could be wrong though.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:02 PM ^
Unless ND had a rogue cameraman taking the shot in that article, then the replay officials had access to the same shots.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^
ND rogue cameraman? What do you think it is some conspiracy?
In another article (from the same writer) on the same topic:
http://www.wndu.com/ndfootball/headlines/59199082.html
Upon further review, our WNDU cameras got a very good angle that shows Armando may in fact have stepped out. But our replay gives more evidence then replay officials actually got from the ABC/ESPN replays.Which basically says the replay officials didn't have the aid of WNDU's footage.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:46 PM ^
I guess that's confusing to me since I was under the impression they wouldn't be allowed to film the game.
That picture is the best B-roll he's ever shot though.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
indicated he was out of bounds. The stadium went crazy and RichRod then called a timeout in hopes of getting it reviewed. Even had some ND fans close by who knew it was coming back after the in stadium replay.
September 14th, 2009 at 2:48 PM ^
Since I can't edit, here is the shot from the replay,
http://www.lorenv.com/pics/conclusiveevidence.jpg
September 14th, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
As someone who's worked a couple of games at Michigan Stadium in ABC's truck: In the Big 10, at least, the replay official has ONLY the TV angles at his disposal. And not only that; he only sees the angles that are put out over the air. All he has is effectively a DVR to rewind and pause the network feed.
During the game, if an official review takes place, the official is on the phone with the production people in the truck, asking for specific angles to be played or whatever.
My only beef with this process is that it leaves just a little too much to chance. Until a replay review timeout is called, the official has no way to control what angles he sees. There are times when, for production reasons, say due to a sideline interview, a quick initial replay which could induce the replay official to call timeout isn't shown. (I also think it enables the TV people to control the outcome of a game by holding back angles... but in my experience they were always trying very hard to enable the right call.)
September 14th, 2009 at 11:23 AM ^
If they believe that Allen's foot "appears to indeed have stepped out of bounds" it clearly was conclusive enough to justify the ref's overturning the call on the field. Great timeout by Rodriguez.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:24 AM ^
The most important line of the attached article is the last one, "Notre Dame lost the game by four points." End of story.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:33 AM ^
ND logic! No one questions their one assumption: "No camera angle shown by ABC/ESPN showed anything conclusive enough to actual overturn the call." Yes, Angelo Di Carlo said so. And Angelo Di Carlo is unbiased. The referees are less experienced and making a call than Angelo Di Carlo and more biased.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^
ND logic? More like football fan logic. I seem to remember a year long argument after last years game.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:54 AM ^
No, ND logic. I may have held a belief that a bad call was made, but I would never - and most sane people would never - argue that even though the call was correct, it shouldn't have been made.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:48 PM ^
In any matter of college football there seldom are sane people arguing about a football game that is done and decided 2 days after the fact.
The question of what the referee in the booth saw in the replays from the game to be able to say there was incontrovertible proof that he was out of bounds, is still a very valid question.
September 14th, 2009 at 1:18 PM ^
2 fan bases, yes. But the implication of "the question of what the referee in the booth saw in the replays from the game to be able to say there was incontrovertible proof that he was out of bounds, is still a very valid question" is that the replay official didn't see incontrovertible evidence and yet still over-turned it. That's a big accusation, even if you and a certain unnamed head coach haven't made it directly. Because there's no middle ground here. There was either strong evidence in the replay the official saw, or the official blatantly and knowingly conspired against ND. Is that really what Notre Dame fans want to hold onto here, not knowing exactly what the replay official saw?
September 14th, 2009 at 1:44 PM ^
That is a very good point, but this call at the beginning of the game is what set the tone for ND fans for all the penalties that came later, justified or not.
What ref saw to make the decision to overturn the call is what I would want to know. If the answer to that is something as dark as "knowingly conspired against ND" it would be pretty sad and I don't even want to think about the fallout from it. No matter what the answer is, it is owed to our head coach.
September 14th, 2009 at 4:35 PM ^
if it's "owed" to the coach, per se, but it might go a long way in putting the debate to bed. I wonder if there's precedent? Sending a coach the video the booth saw?
Anyhooz, most of the posters here appreciate your perspective on mgoblog, so keep it coming.
September 14th, 2009 at 1:31 PM ^
I was drunk, at a bar, in Washington D.C., and I could tell he stepped out from the overhead angle.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:27 PM ^
Hey, you're back! Still confident in that stout defense of yours? :)
September 14th, 2009 at 12:49 PM ^
Yeah for the most part :)
September 14th, 2009 at 11:35 AM ^
I seem to remember seeing that camera shot being shown when the play was being reviewed. Am I the only one who remembers that?
September 14th, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
I saw the same thing. Then they contrasted it with the opposite camera, which was inconclusive.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
I don't agree that it was inconclusive because a different camera angle SEEMED to show otherwise.
When one angle CLEARLY shows the foot is out, another angle that looks like it's not doesn't matter. You have one absolute, incontrovertable data point.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:16 PM ^
I remember this angle from the broadcast. When the footage (no pun intended) was in motion it was hard to tell. I kept waiting for the broadcasters to do a frame-by-frame, but apparently that didn't occur to them. The claim that the refs didn't have access to this video is total BS.
September 14th, 2009 at 2:07 PM ^
They showed one camera angle first - which made me think the out-of-bounds call would be reversed - then they showed the camera angle that clearly showed his foot out of bounds.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:36 AM ^
"...the refs should have used the wrong call anyway."
Gotta love that logic. Sorry guys, looks like instant replay worked to me.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:41 AM ^
i.e., even though the right call was made, the officials were wrong to make it. Like Weiss's whiny rant about how they shouldn't have accurately removed another second off the clock because if he hadn't complained they wouldn't have caught it. Pathetic.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
whiny rant? it was a joke that he made at the end of his press conference and he wasn't the only one in the room who was laughing about it.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:30 PM ^
There appeared to be very little "joking" by Weis in his press conference. He was whining like an internet fanboy about the refereeing (although he "wasn't going to talk about it"). Nothing like crying about bad calls to motiviate your team after a tough loss!
September 14th, 2009 at 1:00 PM ^
No just no,
you obviously didn't watch the press conference and if you did it was just a snippet of what he actually said. Your drawing a conclusion off of either a few quotes in an article or a few seconds of video, and that isn't a strong base to build off of.
September 14th, 2009 at 1:13 PM ^
It's pathetic. Even assuming arguendo that in this specific instance he was joking, he should know the affect of such a joke. Come on, do you not acknowledge the idiocy of complaining about accurate calls (whether it be the foot out of bounds or the two seconds taken off the clock). Complaining about accurate calls is pretty low in dignity and class, and is an affront to the great history and tradition of that program.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:45 AM ^
Jamiemac, wanna lay odds on Weis (and the ND faithful) actually acknowledging this conclusive video evidence?
I'm no gambling expert, but I'm gonna say 10,000:1 that Weis owns up on this one.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
LOL, that's a winner! +1
September 14th, 2009 at 12:08 PM ^
i was not at game, but if this view was the one shown on the screen at the stadium then the officials hadit at their disposal. they have all feeds avialable in the stadium.
i love where the one comment says this does not show his foot is out. that running at that angle his heel would not be down but above the ground. wow, dillusional and pathetic.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^
I couldn't tell if his inside heel was actually down there, and was worried they would say it wasn't indisputable enough to overturn the call. From the single frame it looks like it is, though in the slow motion it's much harder to tell.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:08 PM ^
i was not at game, but if this view was the one shown on the screen at the stadium then the officials hadit at their disposal. they have all feeds avialable in the stadium.
i love where the one comment says this does not show his foot is out. that running at that angle his heel would not be down but above the ground. wow, dillusional and pathetic.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:16 PM ^
That's a beautiful shot of Allen's heal over the line ... someone with video skills has to find the old Brady Bunch episode where Greg's picture of the foot on the line saved the day and mash up a M version. Love it!
September 14th, 2009 at 1:41 PM ^
greg's shot didn't save the day. it was only solace, after the fact. he blew up the picture after he went home.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:21 PM ^
Thanks for the post. It's good to know the refs got it right...the second time.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:37 PM ^
to send that link to the ND athletic departments contact e-mail. Sorry, at work and can't do it.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
Did anyone see in High def the reversal angles shown by ABC. I think ABC was supprised it was being reviewed and didn't have the time to show all the angles that they had access too. Wasn't there a commercial in there.
September 14th, 2009 at 3:32 PM ^
They would have a play come under review and then jump to commercial without showing us the replay!!!!!
ESPN FAIL!
Pissed me the hell off...