The Overturn: Debunking the Irish Image

... the finger is out.

There was also an angle that I saw where it was without question that the foot was out of bounds, I think it was the camera under the south end zone score board. I would like to see a slide from that shot.

You have beautiful hands.

Internet Domer blames Nikon for having an agenda and providing evidence against them for showing the finger being on the paper.

Ever since Poison Ivygate '99, that finger has had a well-documented bias against any forest leaf, including clovers.

what the irish are even complaining about. When I saw the first replay I thought he was out. when I saw the second replay from the far side of the field, I KNEW he was out. End of story. "wAAAAaaaaAAAAaaa"

Hey domers, if you really think you got cheated on that play, just think of it as cosmic justice for all the BULLSHIT you get in your favor on your field.

for telling me that I should go vote for someone's post. That's just unsavory. What is this, Russia? WLA comment in 3, 2, 1.....

The irish photo that you just posted appears to have been photoshoped and the heel erased... the shadows are still there though...

Bottom line: Replay booths do not overturn calls unless they have a good reason to.

Michigan 38
Irish CryBabys 34

you have GOT to stop biting those fingernails.

Photoshopped.

Fuck ND and their sniffling complaints the shoe was clearly
38-34 millimeters out of bounds

In the real photo the foot is obviously breaking the sight line of the sideline, i.e., you can't see the whole sideline b/c the heel is in the way. Now, this could happen even if the heel was simply over the line and in the air but not touching the ground (even though you can, I think, see one of the back spikes on the ground). The problem with basing the call on that possibility is that this asks us to ignore the simplest explanation for the real photo, namely that the foot was out of bounds...Yes, as Weis pointed out, the original call was that he was in bounds and burden of proof is on the overturn and etc. But I very much doubt that the officials on the field saw the moment captured in that photo and thought "his foot looked out of bounds but in fact his heel was just hovering over the line, ever so close to the ground."

The simplest explanation is that the refs did not see the above moment and that the heel was out of bounds...It's also worth pointing out that under Weis ND has been reduced to picking through each moment of a game to see where they can argue against each and every little thing that arguably went against them. I'm wondering if they're going to change their name from Fighting Irish to Appellate Attorneys.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If the foot looks out of bounds, it likely is.

to apply his analysis to the Zapruder film, and solve the JFK assination for us all.

How about we lose some simple logic:

1. If the foot was out of bounds at any point in time, even if only for a millisecond, the play is dead. (This is an obvious given, but I'll include it for the sake of completeness. Then again, everything here is pretty obvious, so this is simply redundant. Oh well.)

2. If any picture taken from an angle, in which the foot itself does not mask the sideline, shows the foot to be clearly on the ground on top of the out-of-bounds line (assuming no photoshop), then the foot was out-of-bounds. It does not matter whether another angle or point in time does not show the foot to be out-of-bounds. It still was irrefutably out at one point.

3. Because Brian's photo is photoshopped, doesn't obscure the sideline, and shows the foot to be clearly on the ground out-of-bounds, the foot is out.

Also, a question for Irish: Are you sure that your photo was taken at the exact point in time as Brian's?

Irish is taking a still from the torrent - what we all saw on TV as shot by ABC - as he clearly states in his post.

Brian is taking a still provided by WNDU, an NBC affiliate in South Bend - ostensibly from video taken by its sideline cameraperson because the headline, subhead and lede of the story refer to "WNDU cameras" or WNDU footage" - as is clearly indicated by Brian's link.

It seems entirely possible to me - in fact highly likely - that the replay officials did not have access in the replay booth. I mean, this is appears to be video taken by a local NBC affiliate during the game - how the heck would the replay official have this shot?

Many will mention - and I have no evidence to refute this - that the replay official may have had access to camera angles other than the ones shown on TV. Possible of course, but I doubt it had anything similar to the shot Brian referenced as it appears this camera angle is similar to the ABC camera angle seen repeatedly on the broadcast; it's possible, but unlikely, that ABC would have had another camera with a similar angle.

Could the replay officials have has another camera angle that is as equally conclusive as the WNDU shot? Or could they have higher resolution video equipment that allows them to see more frames per second? Absolutely. But, while the WNDU footage, to me at least, proves the runner was out of bounds, it doesn't prove that the replay officials had access to this "smoking gun" at the time they made the call. I think that is the source of their frustration.

I'm glad we got the call, though.