I would not pin the lose the reversal of the Allen call. However, let's say the call stood and ND wins 35-34. Let's say Tate comes up just short, do you blame the loss on the call? I blame the loss on a poor defensive game plan. I suppose you could say Clausen, Floyd, Tate, and Rudolph should have been more efficient, but how about keeping the opponent under 30 points.
I thought the video evidence was not conclusive and I still believe the image you are showing was taken by a South Bend news reporter. Obviously the ABC crew wouldn't have been able to see that. I don't think replay offices can make calls on what they think happened, but on the video they review.
It's like using the front page of the LA Times and 1982 that showed an official signaling a USC touchdown against Notre Dame, while the ball carrier didn't have the ball. It's a nice piece of evidence that you don't get to know about until the next day.
Something, something....ends and means. My point being, the officials have to use what's available. I'm for getting the calls right, what I'm saying is that photo did not and could not influence the officials either way.
So, I think this blog is really well written and as a ND fan I really like reading opponent analysis of my team, but the following criticism comes from a TV production background and not as an Irish fan.
I disagree with the conversation regarding the Allen touchdown reversal way back in 2009. Isn't that image of Allen's foot from a sideline photographer and not from the broadcast? An image that the replay officials would not have had access too? Look, I do TV production for a living and the idea that the ABC crew wouldn't have shown a replay that had Armando's foot out of bounds is not plausible to me. That was the argument made by the blog back in 2009 and again by Seth today. I totally disagree with it and wanted to mention make mention of it after the image was posted again as conclusive proof that the officials would have been able to see.
From MGOBLOG in 2009....
"The argument here relies on the idea that the review was "inconclusive" given the replays shown on the TV, but those things are not necessarily the same things the replay guy sees."
I've directed games for broadcast and for official replay for non televised games and there's no way you don't show that view if you have it. The replay officials had access to ABC cameras, that's it. My premise here is that during the long replay, ABC never gave us the Allen image posted above. I could be wrong, and apologize if I am, but I really don't think I am. Thus my criticism. Was he in bounds? Was he out of bounds? Whatever. My point is that the production crew will give the officials and the TV viewing audience the best looks they have and to insinuate otherwise is not fair.
Notre Dame vs. Michigan week is one of my favorites and I hate that it's going away. I hope I'm in Michigan Stadium Saturday like I was in '87, '89, and '97.
Recent Comments
I would not pin the lose
I would not pin the lose the reversal of the Allen call. However, let's say the call stood and ND wins 35-34. Let's say Tate comes up just short, do you blame the loss on the call? I blame the loss on a poor defensive game plan. I suppose you could say Clausen, Floyd, Tate, and Rudolph should have been more efficient, but how about keeping the opponent under 30 points.
I thought the video evidence was not conclusive and I still believe the image you are showing was taken by a South Bend news reporter. Obviously the ABC crew wouldn't have been able to see that. I don't think replay offices can make calls on what they think happened, but on the video they review.
It's like using the front page of the LA Times and 1982 that showed an official signaling a USC touchdown against Notre Dame, while the ball carrier didn't have the ball. It's a nice piece of evidence that you don't get to know about until the next day.
Something, something....ends and means. My point being, the officials have to use what's available. I'm for getting the calls right, what I'm saying is that photo did not and could not influence the officials either way.
I disagree with the conversation regarding the Allen touchdown reversal way back in 2009. Isn't that image of Allen's foot from a sideline photographer and not from the broadcast? An image that the replay officials would not have had access too? Look, I do TV production for a living and the idea that the ABC crew wouldn't have shown a replay that had Armando's foot out of bounds is not plausible to me. That was the argument made by the blog back in 2009 and again by Seth today. I totally disagree with it and wanted to mention make mention of it after the image was posted again as conclusive proof that the officials would have been able to see.
"The argument here relies on the idea that the review was "inconclusive" given the replays shown on the TV, but those things are not necessarily the same things the replay guy sees."
I've directed games for broadcast and for official replay for non televised games and there's no way you don't show that view if you have it. The replay officials had access to ABC cameras, that's it. My premise here is that during the long replay, ABC never gave us the Allen image posted above. I could be wrong, and apologize if I am, but I really don't think I am. Thus my criticism. Was he in bounds? Was he out of bounds? Whatever. My point is that the production crew will give the officials and the TV viewing audience the best looks they have and to insinuate otherwise is not fair.
Notre Dame vs. Michigan week is one of my favorites and I hate that it's going away. I hope I'm in Michigan Stadium Saturday like I was in '87, '89, and '97.
Go Irish!