Touchdown!!!!/I can't see the ball
he grew a beard
Touchdown!!!!/I can't see the ball
the ref obviously doesn't know what the word "conclusive" means.
1. Pic on the left shows TD.
2. Pic on the right still leaves questions - a) is Fitz's knee for sure on the ground yet? and b) it looks like the tip of the ball may grazing the goal line - or is it Roundtree's leg.
either way, inconclusive, imo.
One camera was behind the goal line (the no TD view) and the other was just outside the endzone (TD view). Neither was looking straight down the line but both were about the same distance away from the goal line.
in the row behind me where schocked when the call got overturned. That tells you how bad the replay official was.
With all of this technology, I cannot understand why there is not some computer chip placed inside the football for plays such as this. It seems so easy to do.
I also do not understand why there is no perminent camera placed on the goal lines to provide better angles.
How is a chip in the football going to determine when the football player is down?
This is just a silly idea.
How are you going to sync the chip to the cameras? You're about to build one convoluted system to attempt to solve something that really isn't a major problem.
Chip in the ball stuff is much better for stuff like soccer, where all that matters is if the ball crossed.
This is really ridiculous. The video got this right. Even with a chip in the ball this is getting called back.
but the answer is a light. ball crosses, light turns on. light is somewhere in camera frame. no problems.
but then do you cover the ball in chips? if you put the chip dead center it won't go off in the nose just breaks the plane. If you put the chip in both noses what if the ball is held in a weird fashion so that neither nose breaks the plane first (like straight up and down)? So we'd put chips in the front, back, and in a circumference around the widest part of the football?
Then comes the issue that game balls are routinely used over and over again and are subbed in on a as needed by play basis. What happens if a chip fails between plays, how would we know? Is that football then useless? That would be a big deal since there are only a finite amount of game balls available, and in this scenario they would presumably cost far more to buy.
And this for a situation that's in question for what, maybe 5% of all scoring plays? which themselves are only around 4% of total plays run? And 90% of the time the correct call is made on the is he/isn't he in on replay? So we're going to go through all of this trouble to affect .02% of all plays in college football?
Not to mention the percentage of plays that are too close to be decided by replay, which is astronomically low.
All you have to do is have some kind of light come on when the ball crosses the goal. Not that convoluted, and with the crappy camera angles around the goal line, and the fact that the ball often gets obscured among the chaos, it would definitely be a help.
you probably would've beaten me to the punch with this obvious solution if you hadn't bothered to make everything all grammatical =P
I tend to get wordy. Always costs me in these situations.
Right, so there's this chip in every ball, when it crosses a 55 yard plane, lights up a camera, then we go to review if it's close isn't convoluted?
I never said it was possible, just unnecessary. Goal line cameras are plenty enough.
Nevermind that none of this solves the problem presented by this play.
what? 4 minutes? With the light, it takes 15 seconds, and they get it right every time. Seems pretty efficient... Goal line cameras would be a good step too, though. I rarely see an angle that goes directly down the line.
I'm sorry, was there a problem besides the did-the-ball-cross-the-plane-before-the-runner-was-down problem?
Seriously, what would turn the light on?
Which part of the ball "breaks" which part of the "plane"? Technically, if one atom of the ball is beyond one atom of the front of the goalline it's a touchdown. That's a bit precise.
Where do you put the sensors in the field? Some magnetic strip running the width of the field?A field with 22 angry men running around tearing it up? And how high would it need to reach? Remember, that "plane" is infinitely high. I could jump 6 feet, 8 feet, however high I can above the line.
Where do you put the sensors in/on the ball? You'd need to completely cover the ball, a ball being kicked, thrown, spiked, and otherwise violently handled.
If it was, like soccer, the whole ball completely beyond the whole line, maybe. But I don't think there is a technology that can be as precise as the rule requires.
At best in this play, a few millimeters of the ball are somewhere over that strip of chalk marking the goalline. I don't believe any part of the ball is beyond the goalline.
Still a crappy call.
Maybe it's just me, but I assume he's thinking about determining if the ball crosses the goal line or not.
With hd cameras cheaply available and so on, I'm sure you could work out a system to accurately place the ball on the field at any moment.
But then we'd wind up with the glowing hockey puck (anyone remember that?) but with football, and that would probably suck.
crossed the goal line - then when you look at replay you can see if the knee is down before the ball crossed the goal line- which would make some sort of signal/sound etc that is registered..........
How about that Richard Cranium.........
Yeah, it literally makes no sense. I have no idea how they could overturn that. I was shocked as I stood in my hotel room about in tears or joy and sorrow. anyways ... GO BLUE. BEAT OHIO. EAT SOUP.
So here's the only thing image I can find atm:
The video is frozen a bit late, so the ball is a bit further back than it appears. It's also important to remember the plane of the goaline is running diagonal slightly shifting to the left as you go up. That means the goal line directly behind toussaint isn't actually where toussaint is. You need to translate fitz in the same way the goal line is distorted.
This angle doesn't overturn the angle that clearly showed him short.
RFID signals embedded on products in warehouses track movements of products, length of tracking pending need of product/proces.
Simply put an RFID transmitter on a ball, passes goal line signal.
However, exteuating circumstances may apply, so in the end human judgment must once again come in to play.
I am a wal-mart wolverine, and for once my work has paid off.
but there's a couple of magnitudes in degrees of precision that we're talking about here. Warehouse RFID technology is pretty cheap ($0.20 a tag or so) but usually has anywhere from 6 inches to a couple of feet of tolerance built in - so if you slap the RFID sticker somewhere slightly different the system won't go nuts. That wouldn't help in this situation
Notice how the angle showing him short is much closer to a direct shot down the goal line. Clearly short.
There that's better. Still don't think it is enough though. The first camera angle is better but still is offline and elevated. Don't think it is indisputable video evidence. Could be too biased though.
Would you shut the fuck up? Your screenshots don't prove shit, dumbass.
In the screenshot on the right you can't even tell 100% that his knee is down.
You can tell that it is only an illusion and that his knee is not yet on the ground because the kneepad has not compressed yet. His pants ripple after that screenshot, therefore during the screenshot he has not made contact with the ground.
You are there....now walk about 50 ft to the right. He is over the line. The camera angle just screws with your perception. If you walk fifty feet behind him it looks like he is in the back of the end zone for hoke's sake.
you can't even tell if his knee is on the ground yet. you would need a ground level cam on the goal line, right?
On the field, I thought they did a great job honestly. The play under review was wrong, but for the most part (outside of a missed pass INT on the first drive for Michigan) these refs called a pretty dang good game.
I didn't really notice them, so that's always a plus!
A 1000 holding calls...
At the game it sure looked like he was in easily, the scoreboards only showed the view that appeared he was in during the review. Everyone in the stands was beyond flabbergasted when they called it back, from the stadium view it looked like the worst call ever. OSU covering the spread shows up here....
Fellas, we won. We don't need to complain about the officials any more than what was done during the game.
Doesn't do their job, I will always have something to say about it, regardless of the result.
I agree. How many times did they call holding all game, for both teams combined? The only 2 I can remember were on the safety and on Denard's td after Fitz's got overturned. Granted those are the 2 most significant, but those are all I can remember. It must be nice to just be able to stand around on a football field without having to do anything for 99% of the game and get a paycheck. The B1G refs were horrible and inconsistent this year, and it wasn't just against us.
Some of their spots were unbelievable as well.
the name of the replay official?
I've thought about the "chip" too. I think you'd really only need two, one in each tip of the ball. that would balance the weight and be in the axis of rotation to minimize any impact with throwing. If you know the two points of the ball, you should be able to determine the "skin" of the ball within a certain tolerance.
I would also like to see this used to measure field position in general. I've always been amused by the 1st down measurements in this game. Consider this:
If the play goes out on the far side of the field, the ref will spot it at the far hash. That is over 100 feet away from the chain gang. They have to eyeball where to place the chains from 100 feet away! They repeat this dozens of times a game, and periodically the eye measurement needs to be more precise so they run out the chains to the spot of the ball (nevermind the estimation error as they bring the chains out) and they lay the chains on the ground and get an EXACT measurement....based on the sum of all of the previous eye measurements!
The practice just seems absurd to me. It's outdated and the engineer in me thinks there must be a better, more accurate way of doing things.
If I had my way, I'd like 2 chips in each ball (hell an RFID chip is cheap, how much more would one of these cost?). Put some kind of wires beneath the ground (say along the field of play, but perhaps also on the hash marks?) The wires would sense the position of the two chips in the ball. Voila.
Sensors in the FG posts could also help determine if FGs over an upright were "good" or not.
You don't really need sensors in the ball. With multiple cameras you can triangulate the position of the ball fairly precisely. You just need to measure camera positions very accurately. The tech would be comparable to the way they track baseball pitch trajectories to within a fraction of an inch.
A replay official could play back multiple angles in exact synchronization and stop the playback at any point (like when the knee touches the ground) and a processor could identify the exact position and orientation of the ball at that time.
I would not expect to see this in the next few years, but it is technically feasible.
but they need to check the betting patterns in Vegas. Seriously.
Part of me envisioned Gordy Gee and Jim Dellany riding high above the big house in a private jet together, petting shaved cats.
Why didn't they look at the fumble Denard lost? I was at the game but it looked like he hit the ground with his knees and the ball came out.
it wasn't even close. He fumbled it immediately when he got hit
From where I was sitting, I could have sworn the ball broke the plane.
In any event, in the end, this particular shit call didn't matter - we still won, fair and square. As for the replay officials, rather than write something sinister into it, such as betting, as the OP suggests, I like to believe it is unrelated to the game, such as his bitterness over there being no online version of "All My Children" now.
We discussed this briefly in another thread, but my theory is that critical end-of-game replay reviews that are reasonably determinative of the game's outcome are reviewed on a different standard, understood by officials but unwritten otherwise. The end-of-game standard is this: if you could basically be deciding the game, just make your best guess what the correct call is regardless of what was called on the field.
Think of Sparty-Wisconsin hail mary. There was intense pressure to get the call right. The call on the field was no TD, and the replays, in my opinion, suggested the ball made it to the goal line for a millisecond but weren't "indisputable" in any sense of the word. But in a situation like that, the replay ref just wants to make his best guess as to the correct call, period, and it was more likely than not that he scored.
Likewise for yesterday. There's not enough evidence to be sure he was short, and under normal circumstances, the play stands. But if they let it stand, the game is over. He looks at it from the more-likely-than-not-what-is-the-correct-call standard, and decides Fitz is a bit short. That's not unreasonable under that standard.
If I were the powers that be, and I wanted to keep the "indisputable" standard, I'd make this the guide for replay officials: if you have to look at the replay more than once or twice because it's not obvious the first time, it's not indisputable and should not be reversed.
Or, possibly, this replay ref (the same from the Iowa game) is just an asshole. Who cares. We made the Buckeyes cry and the sweetness of their tears of infinite sadness is still on my lips this morning. Mmmmm. Buckeye sadness.
The other possibility is the replay official doesn't know jack about camera angles, which is alarming. If the call on the field were he didn't make it in, no one would be in a position to bitch--the same thing would apply, there is not indisputable evidence one way or the other. But, if they are applying a different standard at the end of games, then they need to either stop doing that or rewrite the rule book. What I find amazing in all this, though, is how many bucknuts blame the officials at least in part for the loss.
As far as another poster mentioned, if they aren't calling holding, I guess that's o.k. as long as they aren't applying a different standard to each team.
I shudder to think how Michigan fans (mysef included) would be reacting if OSU was somehow able to score a touchdown at the end. Thank god the Michigan players were able to overcome and win!
is what makes the most sense about "conclusiveness".
but your last paragraph may be the reality.
Seems like the B1G should get together with the SEC on this. I was watching LSU v. Arkansas Friday and on reviewed plays, it seems like if there's even any question, they go with the ruling on the field. The couple of reviews I saw happened so fast; the calls were back from the booth in like 20 seconds. Like you say; if it's not an obviously bad call on review, go with the call on the filed.
(HOWEVA, I reserve the right to change my stance when my team is in the opposite situation.)