End of Giants-Redskins game

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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,

How in the world could you possibly know this.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

How in the world could you possibly know this.

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.

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.

[hbk314]

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.

Meaning the call on the field stands. It appears that they didn't go far enough back on the video to be able to accurately rule on the play.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Meaning the call on the field stands. It appears that they didn't go far enough back on the video to be able to accurately rule on the play.

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.

[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.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

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.

[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.

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?

[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.