End of Giants-Redskins game

[bisonlj]

The IndyStar has a feature today showing stills of the play from the angle it sounds like Red Zone may have had. The live feed and all the feeds I saw from the press box side were inconclusive to me that Chapman tripped the runner. From angle in these stills though it does appear the contact was made.

Anatomy of a Play: Blown call costs the Colts in Cincy

Triplett never said the replays didn't show this part of the play. He just said he didn't look at it. We don't know what he did or didn't see.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

"Has to" meaning you think he does? Or "has to" meaning you think he should?

I can see Hochuli in there... "OK, give me camera 6. No, zoom out. OK, thanks. Now camera 7... Can you zoom in on the goal line there. OK, thanks. How's camera 8? Oops... out of time." Yeah, that would work.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

The IndyStar has a feature today showing stills of the play from the angle it sounds like Red Zone may have had. The live feed and all the feeds I saw from the press box side were inconclusive to me that Chapman tripped the runner. From angle in these stills though it does appear the contact was made.

Anatomy of a Play: Blown call costs the Colts in Cincy

Triplett never said the replays didn't show this part of the play. He just said he didn't look at it. We don't know what he did or didn't see.

That's helpful. Although I hate how they put the big blurry yellow oval right exactly where we need to see. To my memory, the angle I saw on Red Zone was lower and/or further back, and to the right of the one we see in (2) and (3) on the link you sent. On (3), I can't tell what is leg and what is hand - and to whom what belongs to (thanks yellow oval), but you sure could in the angle we saw on TV. There was definite space between the NT's hand and the RB's leg.

The view they call the "most obvious view" doesn't appear to be contact to me - and in fact is the opposite foot from the previous view - the right foot is closer to us (the camera) than the hand.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

"Has to" meaning you think he does? Or "has to" meaning you think he should?

I can see Hochuli in there... "OK, give me camera 6. No, zoom out. OK, thanks. Now camera 7... Can you zoom in on the goal line there. OK, thanks. How's camera 8? Oops... out of time." Yeah, that would work.

Just thinking logically. It wouldn't make any sense at all for the referee to not be able to say "let me see that again" or "play that back from the start."

If that is indeed the case, the NFL replay system fails miserably.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Just thinking logically. It wouldn't make any sense at all for the referee to not be able to say "let me see that again" or "play that back from the start."

True. Good thing I didn't say any of that.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Just thinking logically. It wouldn't make any sense at all for the referee to not be able to say "let me see that again" or "play that back from the start."

If that is indeed the case, the NFL replay system fails miserably.

The article about Game 150 talked a bit about this process. The replay official apparently picks a handful of view that may be useful and then makes them available to the referee. He then can control them.

What happens though if the replay official doesn't go back far enough to know there was a potential touch earlier in the play? Nothing the referee can do about that.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

True. Good thing I didn't say any of that.

You sarcastically dismissed it.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The article about Game 150 talked a bit about this process. The replay official apparently picks a handful of view that may be useful and then makes them available to the referee. He then can control them.

What happens though if the replay official doesn't go back far enough to know there was a potential touch earlier in the play? Nothing the referee can do about that.

So the system is flawed.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

You sarcastically dismissed it.

I just re-read all of my posts, and I see no sarcasm.

You keep telling us you're not here just to bash officials - you're here to learn and be educated as well. Yet when someone tries to explain something to you, you bash more. I tried to explain the process to you. Not my fault you've decided not to listen. I'm done trying to help.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

So the system is flawed.

There is no perfect system. Call it flawed if you like, but any fix you might come up with to fix the flaw you perceive will be accompanied by more flaws. The system in place has been subject to review numerous times by those to whom it matters most (that group does not include you), and is the best balance according to their needs.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

That's what I just said.

Learning; deferring to those who have rules knowledge and game experience? No, I don't remember reading anything like that.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I just re-read all of my posts, and I see no sarcasm.

You keep telling us you're not here just to bash officials - you're here to learn and be educated as well. Yet when someone tries to explain something to you, you bash more. I tried to explain the process to you. Not my fault you've decided not to listen. I'm done trying to help.

I'm just stating the obvious. The replay system failed in this instance.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Learning; deferring to those who have rules knowledge and game experience? No, I don't remember reading anything like that.

I did learn something. I found out about an illogical flaw in the NFL's replay system.

[Welpe]

Enough axe grinding.