WTF was up with replay ref?

Submitted by Gameboy on November 27th, 2011 at 12:31 AM

I am just glad we won, because I would have had an aneurism from that BS call at the end of the game.

I don't know HOW any ref in his right mind could reverse the call on the field on that play. They had two camera angles available for review and NEITHER of the cameras were placed exactly on th goal line. The camera from Fitz' backside was slightly inside the goal line which made it appear like Fitz was short, but the opposite angle camera was slightly short of the goal line and it made Fitz look like he was in.

There is no WAY anyone could be positive that he was in or not. You know it was not conclusive when even a Ohio homer like Spielman is saying you can't overturn that call.

If you ask me, that ref had some money riding on the game.

If Braxton hit that receiver right after that play, we would be in a world of hurt right now, because of the refs.

I just don't get it, how can anyone justify reversing that call?

Comments

Tacopants

November 27th, 2011 at 2:12 AM ^

accuracy would be an issue because of chip accuracy, i could easily see them being damaged, and to be within a couple of centimeters would be pretty pricey.

Sensors would be easy, you would just put them underneath the goal line.  You're never going to be more than 4-5 feet over one.  Again it becomes an issue of cost vs. actual benefit.

ikestoys

November 27th, 2011 at 12:51 AM ^

The side that showed he was in was not on the goal line. This created the illusion that he was in.

The side that showed him out was facing straight down the goal line and showed that he definitely not in. This was enough evidence imo to overturn.

The fact that one side showed him in doesn't overturn the obviously superior angle.

If someone could get some screenshots of each one that'd be great.

ikestoys

November 27th, 2011 at 1:05 AM ^

Eventually someone will come up with a screenshot. It was obviously short. The ball may have been obscured, but unless fitz was carrying it outside his arm invisibly he wasn't in.

 

And the shot I'm refering to was as goal line as you get.

redhousewolverine

November 27th, 2011 at 1:56 AM ^

The other one seemed as goal line as you get too. It was clear both were not aligned with the goal line. There just isn't context to conclusively say that one was superior. If neither are lined up properly then it is pretty clear why the two different replays show two different views. The point most people would make is that if you have two contradicting replays from two cameras that do not align with the goal line, how can you "undisputabely" overturn the call. Undisputable isn't probably or even most likely. It means beyond a doubt. Unless we can analyze whether the one camera was more perpendicular to the goal line than the other, it would seem a bad call, especially coming from the same guys from the Iowa review (if that is true). Most people seem to believe that the two neither view was superior and that includes Spielman, a die-hard TSIO fan.

outwest

November 27th, 2011 at 12:52 AM ^

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.

NoMoPincherBug

November 27th, 2011 at 12:58 AM ^

It would not need to know when the player would be down.  The signal would be captured in real time which would then be compared to the video time of the knee touching. 

In other words, if the goal line detected TD first, before the cameras show the knee, then TD...if not, then down.

ikestoys

November 27th, 2011 at 1:01 AM ^

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.

Tacopants

November 27th, 2011 at 1:43 AM ^

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?

ikestoys

November 27th, 2011 at 1:14 AM ^

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.

BobMass

November 27th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^

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.

BlueGoM

November 27th, 2011 at 1:09 AM ^

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.

 

1 percent

November 27th, 2011 at 12:53 AM ^

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.

ikestoys

November 27th, 2011 at 12:58 AM ^

So here's the only thing image I can find atm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSGwIq0sQXA

 

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.

nyc_wolverines

November 27th, 2011 at 1:21 AM ^

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.

Tacopants

November 27th, 2011 at 1:47 AM ^

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

BPocern

November 27th, 2011 at 1:31 AM ^

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!

 

HAIL!!!

WMUgoblue

November 27th, 2011 at 1:31 AM ^

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....

brandanomano

November 27th, 2011 at 3:16 AM ^

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.