View Single Post
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 23, 2014, 11:48am
bisonlj bisonlj is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
I was basically asking if it was something specific he saw in this shot, or a more general statement against using still images to demonstrate a point. I understand that in a lot of cases, but if you have a clear shot of a player with his knee down and the location of the ball is clear, is that not enough to make a judgment(knowing that he didn't lose the ball)? And I don't think that's the case in that screenshot. Even watching the video link in an above post I can't tell for sure where the ball was from the angle provided.
Very rarely is a still shot going to provide enough information to make a ruling. In this case the still doesn't give us any information about what happened prior to this. Had he reached the ball out or been pushed backward to this spot.

When I watch the video I can't tell how far forward he is leaning when the knee hits the ground. It looks very possible he's leaning far enough to reach the line to gain. The angle isn't the greatest from the wing official, but he has seen that play 1000s of times and has a pretty good feel for where the ball is when the runner's knee is down. That doesn't mean they aren't occasionally wrong, but they are more than likely right. There is no clear evidence they are wrong so thus it wasn't overturned. This looks close enough at a critical spot I think they should have had a longer review.