Goal Line TD That Was Reversed
Does anyone have the overhead view that they claim allowed them to change the call on the field?
I watched the second view with the ref in the background and I still don't think the ball crossed or was anywhere near the line. For sure I don't believe they had enough evidence to reverse the call on the field.
Can anybody show me different.
If they used that cam for evidence, the system is broken. That angle was taken from well behind the line, not proving a thing, let alone where the ball was. The shot from the sideline showed him and his ball hand turned away short of the goal line.
I think it was a touchdown. From what I saw one of the angles clearly showed the ball crossing the line.
TEAMWORK!!!#MINvsNYJ on CBS pic.twitter.com/bYqfQrxCnN
— New York Jets (@nyjets) December 4, 2022
@"1VikesFan" said: I think it was a touchdown. From what I saw one of the angles clearly showed the ball crossing the line.Afraid I saw the same thing. They did have one camera angle showing the football breaking the plane of the goal line. Not by much though...
I thought the ball crossed the plane.
The overhead and at least one other angle I saw both looked like he made it.
Horse-hockey, by rule the play call should have stood…!!!
Thing is was it definitive? I didn't see any replays where it was 100% clear he crossed the goal line so the ruling on the field should have stood.
JFC, if that wasn’t a td, nothing is. Lol
Pick up @11:46. With the camera angle directly on the goal line, tell me that it was irrefutable video evidence. (The supposed standard to overturn a call). The deceiving overhead camera angle from 5 yards back made it look like his entire upper body had crossed the goal line.
@"mgobluevikes" said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUijPSVoX_cPick up @11:46. With the camera angle directly on the goal line, tell me that it was irrefutable video evidence. (The supposed standard to overturn a call). The deceiving overhead camera angle from 5 yards back made it look like his entire upper body had crossed the goal line.
It was irrefutable.
Thr only angle that showed the ball was from a ln angle that doesn’t actually show it crossing thr line because it isn’t an overhead angle. The sideline angle where it would show the plane doesn’t show the ball crossing the plane. If the overhead angle was looking straight down it may show it breaking the plane but because it doesn’t donthat it is a judgement call and it isn’t clear.
@"Waterboy" said:@"mgobluevikes" said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUijPSVoX_cPick up @11:46. With the camera angle directly on the goal line, tell me that it was irrefutable video evidence. (The supposed standard to overturn a call). The deceiving overhead camera angle from 5 yards back made it look like his entire upper body had crossed the goal line.
It was irrefutable.
No it wasn't. The only view that showed it crossing the goal line was angled from behind and that skewed the perception. If you looked at the goal line shot and watched whites helmet and compared that to the overhead view its very clear that the overhead was not an accurate depiction of where the ball and player actually were. We needed more camera angles to say it was a score and they never showed those angles. So its definitely refutable.
Second Question:
When Cousins scrambled (about 6:57 of second quarter) it sure appeared to me there was helmet to helmet contact but nothing was said by the announcers or refs.
I have to admit that i haven’t looked at again but on my phone screen but during the game I was hollering for a penalty.
@"ThunderGod" said: Second Question:When Cousins scrambled (about 6:57 of second quarter) it sure appeared to me there was helmet to helmet contact but nothing was said by the announcers or refs.
I have to admit that i haven’t looked at again but on my phone screen but during the game I was hollering for a penalty.
The NFL is entertainment. Blow outs means less viewers. The NFL prefers close games. You’ll never convince me that the refs don’t keep things close.
@"AGRforever" said:@"ThunderGod" said: Second Question:When Cousins scrambled (about 6:57 of second quarter) it sure appeared to me there was helmet to helmet contact but nothing was said by the announcers or refs.
I have to admit that i haven’t looked at again but on my phone screen but during the game I was hollering for a penalty.
The NFL is entertainment. Blow outs means less viewers. The NFL prefers close games. You’ll never convince me that the refs don’t keep things close.
They didn't seem to mind the blowouts in Philly, Detroit or Dallas yesterday though.
@"JimmyinSD" said:@"AGRforever" said:@"ThunderGod" said: Second Question:When Cousins scrambled (about 6:57 of second quarter) it sure appeared to me there was helmet to helmet contact but nothing was said by the announcers or refs.
I have to admit that i haven’t looked at again but on my phone screen but during the game I was hollering for a penalty.
The NFL is entertainment. Blow outs means less viewers. The NFL prefers close games. You’ll never convince me that the refs don’t keep things close.
They didn't seem to mind the blowouts in Philly, Detroit or Dallas yesterday though.
The media finds narratives....story lines. Its what they do. Make things dramatic. Definitely teams like Dallas move the needle for clicks and views. That's just a fact. Listen to announcers on the broadcasts and players like Brock Purdy and Mike White are sensations. They have double standards. Wash, rinse and repeat. They know that fans today are more fair weather than ever. Its why everything is either the best ever or worst in history, week to week. Because both provide views and clicks, any kind of sensible analysis is overlooked and 'boring'. Outrageous takes, etc. Its not my NFL media coverage anymore and I have to really sift thru the garbage to find decent coverage.
All about the angle. Overhead (which in reality was about 20 yards behind the play) looked like an obvious touchdown. He was in by a yard. But then they quickly flash the sideline angle and it was much much closer, probably not enough to overturn the original call. Interesting to note that ref on the goal line, the best view in the house, called him short.
@"MaroonBells" said: All about the angle. Overhead (which in reality was about 20 yards behind the play) looked like an obvious touchdown. He was in by a yard. But then they quickly flash the sideline angle and it was much much closer, probably not enough to overturn the original call. Interesting to note that ref on the goal line, the best view in the house, called him short.The only angle that should matter are the goal line shots to show if he broke the plane. The ref on the goal line called him short and you couldn't see where the ball was or that he definitely broke the plane WITH the ball. What happened to needing irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field? I didn't like that they overturned it.
@"Wetlander" said:I didn't like that they kept using that deceptive angle. Makes me wonder if the review ref got to see the goal line angle. Because there was a huge difference between the two.@"MaroonBells" said: All about the angle. Overhead (which in reality was about 20 yards behind the play) looked like an obvious touchdown. He was in by a yard. But then they quickly flash the sideline angle and it was much much closer, probably not enough to overturn the original call. Interesting to note that ref on the goal line, the best view in the house, called him short. The only angle that should matter are the goal line shots to show if he broke the plane. The ref on the goal line called him short and you couldn't see where the ball was or that he definitely broke the plane WITH the ball. What happened to needing irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field? I didn't like that they overturned it.
Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)
Warn Poster
Suspend User (3 days)
The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.