End of Giants-Redskins game

[hbk314]

Bengals' BenJarvus Green-Ellis Scores Controversial TD Against Colts | Bleacher Report

Triplette's on a roll.

[bisonlj]

I watched several replays and could not tell if the NT made contact. It looks very possible he tripped on his own which means the reversal was correct. If Triplett did not look at the possible early contact then he may be in a bit of trouble. Per the pool report transcript he only looked at the goal line.

Originally Posted by bisonlj

If Triplett did not look at the possible early contact then he may be in a bit of trouble. Per the pool report transcript he only looked at the goal line.

Correct.

Cincinnati Bengals vs. Indianapolis Colts Pool Report

[Rich]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Bengals' BenJarvus Green-Ellis Scores Controversial TD Against Colts | Bleacher Report

Triplette's on a roll.

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

[Raymond]

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?

Doubt he's even a baseball umpire either. He's never once posted in the Baseball forum concerning a situation he was involved in.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Doubt he's even a baseball umpire either. He's never once posted in the Baseball forum concerning a situation he was involved in.

Because it would be impossible to learn anything from reading about others' experiences or plays in MLB games, right [mod snip]

[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?

[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.

[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 BadNewsRef

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

That's what I just said.

[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 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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Bengals' BenJarvus Green-Ellis Scores Controversial TD Against Colts | Bleacher Report

Triplette's on a roll.

It appears to me they got this one right, despite the idiots claiming differently. This isn't NCAA rules people.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It appears to me they got this one right, despite the idiots claiming differently. This isn't NCAA rules people.

The issue here is the potential contact was not at the goal line but back at the 4/5 when he was tripped. That is the contact that was ruled to have put the runner down, but Triplett didn't look at that part of the play to determine if there was contact. I don't think it's conclusive so the call on the field should have stood.