End of Giants-Redskins game

[ajmc]

I'm pretty sure I've seen this Referee work other NFL games, so I presume this wasn't his first opportunity, and there's been no indication the replay official(s) were volunteers selected from the crowd, and therefore most likely highly experienced as both replay officials and field officials, who were conversing with the Referee, which seems to suggest these highly experienced individuals, collectively, viewed all that needed to be viewed before making their decision.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Adam

I haven't seen the replay, but you can't possibly know they didn't go back far enough. It's likely they had a different angle than you did.

Adam, it sounds like, from the press release, Triplett himself said the video he saw did not include any action off the goal line, and when asked specifically about the Nose tackle, he seemed unaware there was even anything about the nose tackle to be looking at.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Adam, it sounds like, from the press release, Triplett himself said the video he saw did not include any action off the goal line, and when asked specifically about the Nose tackle, he seemed unaware there was even anything about the nose tackle to be looking at.

That's what I based my statement on.

It wouldn't be the first time an official erred on an instant replay decision.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

That's what I based my statement on.

It wouldn't be the first time an official erred on an instant replay decision.

And it won't be the last.

Not exactly an embarrassment, though.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

And it won't be the last.

Not exactly an embarrassment, though.

Missing something live speed will happen.

Between screwing the Redskins on the downs issue and by his own admission not reviewing the most important part of the play before overturning the call on the field, Triplette's had some pretty big, unacceptable mistakes.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Rich

Hey, thanks for proving my theory. You realize this isn't a forum to come and bitch about pro officials missing calls, right?

It's not like I'm complaining about every little thing. Or any little thing, really. The only threads I've started have been about huge errors. I only posted that link in here because it was the same referee the very next week, making it somewhat relevant here.

I'm not here mindlessly bashing. I'm commenting on plays as I see them from a non-official's point of view, and I'm getting an official's point of view in response. That's why I post here. Obviously the people on this forum are going to have a better understanding of why things are called the way they are, or the rules that come into play in certain situations, than some idiot on a fan forum or ESPN comment page.

I'm not sure what the problem is with saying a call is wrong when it's wrong. Is there a reason I can't offer my opinion on a play when bringing it up for discussion?

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

And ... seems to me in the replay there's no chance he was tripped by the NT (I admit the one video in this thread is inconclusive). The one shown on the NFL Red Zone was pretty clear.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There was definitely a chance he was tripped, but I agree, it wasn't conclusive from the replay; even with stop-action on an HDTV.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I disagree. The angle they showed a couple of times on tv conclusively showed space between the NT and the runner - he didn't touch him.

Gentlemen I have not seen the Red Zone angle but this one angle looks pretty clear to me that he was tripped by the NT. The running back trips on something and the NT's hand looks close enough to make that contact.....why else would the running back start falling forward?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

That's what I based my statement on.

It wouldn't be the first time an official erred on an instant replay decision.

Seriously ... your lack of a clue is increasing. The referee can only make decisions based on what he's shown.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

,,,
I'm not sure what the problem is with saying a call is wrong when it's wrong. Is there a reason I can't offer my opinion on a play when bringing it up for discussion?

Yeah, the part where somebody responds with answer you don't like, so then you argue the point, even though you've never officiated the sport.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Gentlemen I have not seen the Red Zone angle but this one angle looks pretty clear to me that he was tripped by the NT. The running back trips on something and the NT's hand looks close enough to make that contact.....why else would the running back start falling forward?

In the replays I've seen, I can't see a touch by the NT. Yet the runner starts to fall at that point. Is that conclusive evidence of a touch for down by contact? I would suggest it isn't conclusive evidence, but just evidence, and therefore not enough to base a replay ruling on.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

In the replays I've seen, I can't see a touch by the NT. Yet the runner starts to fall at that point. Is that conclusive evidence of a touch for down by contact? I would suggest it isn't conclusive evidence, but just evidence, and therefore not enough to base a replay ruling on.

The original call was down by contact. So you need conclusive evidence of NOT being touched to turn this into a touchdown. Triplett was only shown the action at the goal line in the review booth - which is a problem (although not TRIPLETT's problem). Triplett (rightly) overturned this play because he saw no contact by any defender whatsoever.

However, the angle that comes from the hanging camera - it was approximately from behind the left tackle, through the NT and RB with goalpost in the background - was VERY clear to anyone who saw it that the NT didn't touch RB at all. That said --- despite numerous searches, I've been unable to find that angle to post here.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Yeah, the part where somebody responds with answer you don't like, so then you argue the point, even though you've never officiated the sport.

Isn't discussion the point of a message board?

I know in the case of the Gronkowski play, I disagreed with the interpretation of the rule cited.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Isn't discussion the point of a message board?

I know in the case of the Gronkowski play, I disagreed with the interpretation of the rule cited.

Yes, discussions based on experience and knowledge of the rules; or else, to learn and gain knowledge.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Seriously ... your lack of a clue is increasing. The referee can only make decisions based on what he's shown.

I'd have a tough time imagining the NFL failing that badly with a replay review system. The official making the decision has to have input into what he sees.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Yes, discussions based on experience and knowledge of the rules; or else, to learn and gain knowledge.

That's what I just said.