Fitzgerald Toussaint thinks this is the most accurate toy ever for starting your children early on a promising career path.
That looks about right.
Nice. But I do feel a little bad for him. He should have gotten credit for officially putting the dagger in OSU's chest.
Pretty clearly a touchdown, and at the very least inconclusive. Horrible call. I'm glad it didn't cost us.
The problem with that camera angle is that the camera itself is not on the line, it's maybe a yard in the end zone. If the camera was ON THE GOAL LINE like it's supposed to be for replay reviews, the goal line would be vertical in the image.
Never mind the fact that you don't see any knee pad compression in that screen shot above, but this angle shouldn't have been used in the first place.
1. The knee pad doesn't have to compress, it is very clearly touching
2. Even though it is slightly off line, there is a pretty definitive gap there that wont go away by skewing the angle. Want to know an easy way to correct for it? Take the end of the ball and go straight down to the ground until you are level with where his knee is hitting. That will give you a conservative picture of where the end of the ball is.
why you are wrong.
In the first picture, if you employ the same "technique" (i.e. take the end of the ball and go straight down to the ground until you are at ground level) you would have to conclude the ball is touching the goal line. The second picture looks like it's short. Therefore the video evidence is inconclusive.
Why do the two views seem to conflict? How can the ball appear to be both on the goal line and short of the goal line from two different angles? Why is this dancer spinning in both directions at the same time?
I don't get what it is with you guys and that first picture. His knee is already down in it, it shows absolutely nothing. Hell I can go get a picture of him laying down in the end zone, that doesn't mean he was in before his knee touched. You need a pic of his knee still in the air to have a point.
His knee is already down in it, it shows absolutely nothing.
Neither does your picture, especially because it's NOT clear his knee is down. It's an optical illusion due to the geometry of the situation; the ground is not where it first appears to be.
Go look at the original replay. There's clearly nothing "indisputable" about this situation and it was called a TD on the field.
Hey, you can argue if his knee is down in that pic or not if you want, im fine with that. To me its pretty clearly down, but whatever we won anyway. But people need to stop looking at that first picture as proof of a TD. Thats like a couple years ago when ND fans pulled up pictures of Armando Allen's foot still in bounds as proof that he never stepped out.
You're saying he needs to produce another piece of evidence in order to prove his point. A piece of evidence you yourself don't provide to prove yours.
The issue is that you think the knee in your picture is touching the ground but I could argue that it isn't. The reason you think it's touching is due, most likely, to your observation of the knee in relationship to the left foot. It looks like the knee and the foot are on the same plane thus they must both be touching the ground. However this picture is 2D and doesn't effectively show that his leg is not straight up and down. A 3D camera would show more clearly that it's flared out to the left. Which means that his knee could look like it's on the same level as the bottom of his foot and actually be several inches higher. The vertical angle of the camera lense in relation to the knee and the turf also skews the actual position of the knee.
Adding to the confusion are the 2 divergent horizontal camera angles. One closer to the end line and the other closer to the 1 yard line. The camera closer to the end line shows the knee further away from the goal line and the other camera shows the knee closer. The fact that the 2 camera angles show different results means that the call on the field should stand since neither angle is conclusive. Result = TD
His knee pad is not " very clearly touching." If you go back to the replay, his knee drops further as he moves farther ahead and the ball crosses the front edge of the goal line. The only frame that shows his knee "very clearly touching" (from the opposite angle) indicates a touchdown. Thus, his knee probably isn't touching in this picture. It's an optical illusion. Bottom line - inconclusive evidence means the play on the field stands. As refereeing expert Pereira pointed out, the call to overturn was incorrect.
Referee's ass would be in way. There's a ref standing on the goal line at each sideline. Where would you put the camera?
Replay wil never be perfect. That said, the only correct call here is inconclusive video evidence. Crappy call.
Bull. Here's the screen grab from the end of the Wisc/MSU game where the camera is high above the action and on the plane of the goal line:
You can see that the vertical pylon is inline with the goal line on the image, meaning the camera is in the correct position to translate the 3D plane onto a 2D screen. There's plenty of room for the refs' fat asses if you raise the camera.
the problem with raising the camera is it's great for something like a ball crossing a goal line but not so great for seeing things like a knee making contact with the turf.
and the ruling on the field was TD. Therefore, the play should stand as called. It would have been the same, had the refs ruled no TD.
The refs wiped out two Michigan touchdowns on one drive, called two penalties on one play to try and keep the game tight, and then gave Braxton Miller one of the most generous spots in the history of the rivalry, and Ohio fans are still bitching that the refs "favored Michigan."
The referees were really bad. The spotting for several of Ohio's plays was ridiculous, not to mention Watson (I'm pretty sure that was him) just blocking his guy and getting called for the personal foul. Probably the worst officiating I have seen in a long time.
Both penalties on that play were unfortunately the right calls. The holding was obvious, and Watson JACKED that dude well after Denard had made it into the end zone. The point remains, however, that that play should never have occurred because there is no way you could overturn Fitz's TD.
The holding was legit (although there were about a hundred holds left uncalled on OSU that were much worse), but I have never seen what Watson did at the time he did it called a personal foul.
Denard was about 4 steps in the end zone when Watson blasted his guy. Also the holding call was correct. It sucked but in the end it only maters in Vegas.
However, if the play ended in a TD that call would have been assessed on the PAT or on the kickoff and no one would have cared. Instead, due to the hold, It's a dead ball tacked onto the hold. None of this should have happened since the replay of the previous play was clearly inconclusive as from one side it looked to be a TD and from the other side it looked to be short.
the bars are too plumb for a B1G official. you would confuse them.
I would replace the square with a circular kaleidoscope of red, green and blue. that way, even if you have 1/3 of a shot at answer, the kaleidoscope format means that you never ever know the odds. Kinds like UM/Iowa, or UM/Ohio.
Same officiating crew. Nice to know that the Big Ten sends the JV squad to referee important games.
What's the difference between the Fitz TD and the MSU Hail Mary ???? If the MSU pass was a TD then Fitz's run has to be a TD too !!!!
we are Michigan and this particular officiating crew seems to have something against us.
The crews are listed in the box scores on mgoblue.com. I don't think the replay officials are listed though. Yesterday's crew was the same as the MSU game not the Iowa game. At least there weren't any backward lateral calls to screw up.
his name was Spartan Bob???
What I don't understand (besides the fact it was a touchdown the first time) is the ensuing spot. There's no way, based on where the ball was, that the ball should have been placed at the "one foot line." Total joke.
i think that it might influence the voters too. a 40-34 win and 44-34 win is a big difference, and that might have been a part that factor into Wisconsin jumping us in the rankings this week
I think the reason Wisconsin jumped us is they beat a 9-2 team by 5 scores and we beat a 6-5 team by one score. Whether we won by 6 or 10, Wisconsin had every right to be higher than us in the polls this week.
I hate replay. It takes up 10-15 minutes of each game and they screw up the call a third of the time. It's a waste of time and kills the "flow" of the game.
that we would be screwed far more often without it. Replay takes some degree of objectivity out of officiating.
i guess with that replay official, you're right. but i still suspect you meant subjectivity.
You feel that way because you didn't watch the 78 Rose Bowl. If you had you would never complain about the replay system.
Michigan lost, Bo lost, 17 -10 because Charles White fumbled before crossing the goal line.
It still hurts 33 years later.
I saw the ball come out at the 3 but because it was at the Rose Bowl, it was a TD. I still am pissed about that call. I remember it well.
So I dont mind them reviewing and then arguing about a very close Fitz TD call. Look up the White TD and everyone will think this call was minor. Bo is still screaming abou this.
I agree, that one still honks me off after 3 decades.
Former head of NFL officiating says it shouldn't have been overturned:
The review and resulting comments from the announcers never cease to amaze me. They marvel at two different cameras showing one in, and one short. Neither camera is directly on the line, therefore the ball's relationship to the goal line isn't true. Without a camera straight on the goalline, which my friends have heard me call for since replay was brought to the Big Ten, it's a matter of interpreting the ball's relationship to the line, which due to the geometry involved is not straight.
i don't know why they don't have a computer program that uses the geometrical relations to help figure out whether the ball is over or not
From the "short" side, it appeared to me that, from the point where they stop it and call him down, when they continue, his knee continues moving downwards. It's very brief but the ball is coming forward at the time and I think that, more than anything, was the difference between the two views.
It's a pretty common error when announcers are reviewing a call on replay. It happens in soccer all the time--they'll freeze a frame with boot almost to ball to prove somebody wasn't offside but if you go forward one frame the ball's still on the ground not quite kicked and the player's moved past the line.
There will be a frame where the foot is pushing into the ball before it moves off the ground, that doesn't mean he wasn't already kicking it.
It doesnt matter if it keeps moving downward, its as soon as it touches. Meanwhile there is significant give in the knee pad and the turf he is landing on so he will continue to press downward as 200+ lbs push on it.
why the B1G doesnt mount cameras on the flags or on the goal line. Hell charge me an extra 50 cent to help pay for the $37.99 camera from Best Buy.
I believe the reason there is no camera ON the goal line is because that's where the line judge stands - and it's his job to be the eyes on the line. He called a TD, and, given that the cameras weren't conclusive, his opinion should have held.
Remember that the cameras used for replays are there to record the game for TV, not for the purpose of replays. Maybe the league should start having cameras installed on the line for replay use - but you'd still have the problem of how to stick camera equipment there without getting in the way of the line judge.
If there was an indisputable evidence to overrule the TD, there was no reason to spend 10 minutes for the review. Period.
Gotta spot the ball
Spotting the ball would not have taken 10 minutes if this were an absolutely conclusive call. The reason it takes time to spot the ball on other replay calls is that usually there is not a reference point on the field, since the continuous field lines are only every 5 yards. In this case, the goal line is right there, so if it IS short, then it ought to be immediately clear where the ball should be placed.
I've watched the replay of both angles on my TiVo a million times and the only conclusion is that the two views are in conflict with one another.