Kraft's comment about the Denver game....

[oldrover]

Let it go. With everything that's mentioned on this thread, we still could have won... if neither Faulk nor Brown had fumbled. Face it... Pats blew that game big-time. Good motivation for this year.

 

[zippo59]

The Bailey fumble was the one I had the least problem with out of all the "controversial" calls in that game. The Samuel PI and the non-call on a Denver false start during a Jason Elam field goal were much more open and shut than the fumble. Those two were the hardest to swallow. No matter how you slice it, the Pats played a terrible game, bad calls aside. They didn't really deserve to win.

 

[Patjew]

You begin to get a clue about credibility when you read accounts that Bailey was hit at the one yard line. The first frame shows he was hit at the 2 yard line. The vertical line I added shows the ball at that point being about 6 feet from the goal line.

Shouldn't your vertical lines be perpendicular to the field to show true relative positions?

Not that I care. The Pats lost and they should have lost based on all of their mistakes.

 

[flutie2phelan]

Oh, Pats1 ... that is cruel !

Here i had somehow managed to put it behind me.

 

[patsfan13]

Well The Pats played poorly enough to lose. There were bad calls no doubt about it. I would add that on the TB 'fumble' he was interfered with. The ball has to tough the ground before he or the ball is touched on a fair catch. This should have been a 15 yd penalty on the Bronco's.

Nothing that the 2005 team can do about that. Hopefully 2006 will be a better year for the pats. Personally I'm feeling pretty optimistic.

 

[arrellbee]

Shouldn't your vertical lines be perpendicular to the field to show true relative positions?

Not that I care. The Pats lost and they should have lost based on all of their mistakes.

Good question and good point - but when you draw a vertical line on the frame it is perpendicular to the field (so long as the TV cameras are level - and the support structure for the cameras are leveled as part of their setup for the game).

 

[PromisedLand]

I don't understand why there is so much interest in this point. Look, the Patriots didn't deserve to win the game. They coughed the ball up FOUR times, and the worst errors were made by the least-likely suspects: Brady's INT and Troy Brown's muffed punt.

If they ball HAD gone through the end zone and we were fortunate enough to have gotten a touchback, we would have been VERY LUCKY to be the beneficiaries of a FLUKE PLAY, IMHO. And we still might have lost the game. Let's just forget about it and move on. We lost. We deserved to lose because of the mistakes we made.

 

[Snapper]

You begin to get a clue about credibility when you read accounts that Bailey was hit at the one yard line. The first frame shows he was hit at the 2 yard line. The vertical line I added shows the ball at that point being about 6 feet from the goal line.


Now look at the second frame. The ball is at Bailey's eye level and the pylon is visible to the right - at this time, the ball is NOT over the goal line. The ball is in a plane that cuts thru Bailey's knee


Now the third frame from an end zone view with ball at Bailey's eye level at the same instant as the second frame where the ball is at Bailey's eye level - clearly the ball is two or three feet outside of bounds - and remember, from the second frame at the same instant the ball is absolutely not over the goal line yet.

I'm not sure how the MIT guys came up with the ball crossing the goal line before it was out of bounds. I think maybe I don't want to drive over any bridges that these particular guys design.

I hope this puts a lot of folks mind at ease about this particular play. The ref got it very right.

I don't see how these images prove anything. It is compelling that the second and third images are shot at the same instant (if indeed they are). But I think the angles are still suspect. The second image angle would be more persuasive if it was from straight down the goal line. And the third image angle would be more persuasive if it was from the end line straight up to the pylon. Regardless of the lines you added, there's no visual proof from these images that the ball isn't already past the goalpost at that instant.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Obsessing over images on the INT return is like whining over the Tuck call. Although they're different situations, both are crying over spilt milk. The Pats EARNED that loss. They DESERVED to lose, playing that badly.

 

[Snapper]

Obsessing over images on the INT return is like whining over the Tuck call. Although they're different situations, both are crying over spilt milk. The Pats EARNED that loss. They DESERVED to lose, playing that badly.

Who's obsessing? It's as worthy a topic as anything else on here. I think most on here are just discussing the merits either way, whether it was called correctly, etc.

I do think there was some horrible officiating in that game, but I don't blame the loss on it. The Pats in the past were able to play well enough overcome adversity (most notably injuries). Last year they weren't.

All of it just makes me look forward to this year's Denver game all the more. Just like Kraft does.

 

[spacecrime]

I'm not sure how the MIT guys came up with the ball crossing the goal line before it was out of bounds. I think maybe I don't want to drive over any bridges that these particular guys design.

MIT is widely known for sloppy and uninformed engineering

 

[arrellbee]

I don't see how these images prove anything. It is compelling that the second and third images are shot at the same instant (if indeed they are). But I think the angles are still suspect. The second image angle would be more persuasive if it was from straight down the goal line. And the third image angle would be more persuasive if it was from the end line straight up to the pylon. Regardless of the lines you added, there's no visual proof from these images that the ball isn't already past the goalpost at that instant.

If you aren't sure, I'm glad you asked questions.

Let me give some other thoughts.

First, frames 2 and 3 are at the same instant. Visual clues are definitive - look at Bailey's left leg in both frames. It is clearly just at that instant in contact with the ground. And the second visual clue is to look at Watson's legs. They are in exactly the same position in both pictures. The third visual clue is that the ball is at Bailey's head height in both frames.

So frame 2 tells us that it is impossible for the ball to be over the goal line at that point. For anyone who is a little unfamiliar with visualizations, try using a pencil as a goal line and use a paper clip or something small as the pylon. Now position a small object in the air. You simply cannot get a visual picture where the object is VISUALLY LEFT of the pylon and across the goal line at the same time. Period. Ironically, if you do the little experiment, you will also notice that the angle of the camera shot is actually MORE compelling that the ball is not across the goal line than if the shot was more straight across the field.

So if the ball is NOT across the goal line in frame 2, the case is iron-clad if you have another view that shows it is already out of bounds at that instant. Frame 3 shows Bailey's head at least 2 or 3 feet out of bounds and the ball is right near his head. Note that his left foot is right on the sideline so it is impossible for his head (and the ball) to be in bounds.

If visualizations are still a little tough, go back to frame 1. Bailey's right foot is 6 feet from the goal line and the ball is up near his waist as Watson is hitting him. Two things are compelling. One is that if Watson is hitting him so hard from the side, how can the ball, which is only about a foot or a foot and a half from the goal line, do anything but fly out of bounds ?? Or a second way to look at it is that for the ball to cross the goal line inside the pylon, the ball would have to fly downfield almost totally parallel to the sideline. There isn't a clip that doesn't make it obvious that the ball flies out of bounds at a sharp angle - AND THE BALL'S FLIGHT STARTS 6 FEET FROM THE GOAL LINE AND IS ALREADY WITHIN A FOOT AND A HALF OF THE GOAL LINE WHEN IT STARTS ITS FLIGHT.

Why spend time and Ian's thread space when it wasn't THE one thing that caused the Pats to lose and it's water over the dam ? I guess a couple of things. It seems a shame to leave a question in folks minds on the call when there is visual evidence that can answer the question definitively. And it seems a shame for some folks to still feel that the referees made a mistake on this call - there is enough criticism to go around on calls where they simply make a judgment without adding another call where they got it right.

Or, more simply, isn't is simply good and satisfying to know what the truth was ??

 

[JoeSixPat]

I love ya Bob - but give it up... its old news... dont go Bill Polian on us

 

[PromisedLand]

MIT is widely known for sloppy and uninformed engineering

Uhhh, right.

 

[patpatriot]

The real issue in the Denver game

I've always felt that unconciously the Pats were *content* to lose that game. I felt by that time they were actually *tired* of winning and no longer had the spirit needed to go on and take that Superbowl even though it was there for the taking. Too many extra playoff games, too much continual pressure to win, too many injuries, too many crazy adjustments, too many teams gunning for them, too much national exposure (Amex, Pepsi) too much of *everything*!

This team needed a rest and an infusion of new hungry players who were not part of the "Dynasty" years. I hope they have found those hungry focussed players. I can't say at this point that they have. If they do find them and the "old timers" can jack and pump it up *one more time*, they will go though this season like Sherman on his "March to the Sea", Like a hot knife through butter they will *destroy* every obstacle in their path. They will make the "06" season a joke. But it all depends on how much *will* they have left. How much would you have given such extraordinary success. If you were rich and famous and had already secured your place in NFL history, how much would *you* be willing to sacrifice your body to do it *one more time*?

 

[arrellbee]

The NFL got even for the tuck rule call....it's over.... forget it.

Well, I guess I know better than to ask .... but curiosity gets the best of me.

Why did the NFL have to 'get even' ? It was a perfectly correct call when made exactly according to the rules. And, in hindsight, the NFL didn't even say 'oops' that's not a good rule - quite the opposite since they reviewed it and kept it exactly the same without even any tweaking of wording.

I hesitate to ask - but how did the NFL 'get even' ?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Let it go. With everything that's mentioned on this thread, we still could have won... if neither Faulk nor Brown had fumbled. Face it... Pats blew that game big-time. Good motivation for this year.

Bingo. You could take this whole thread, throw in a buck, and that would get you a cup of coffee. Period.

You really, really, really want to win a game? Here's a quote from Remember the Titans:

"Leave no doubt."

Woulda, shoulda, and coulda only get discussed when you lose, and even then, only really make sense when it's a one-score game. Brady heaved the ball into the wrong spot, the one with Champ Bailey's hands in it. Watson's amazing dash would have beautifully rewarded by the return of the ball to the Pats' hands, sure. But that's the only regret I can afford to harbor over it, based on the fact that the game is over.

What are we, Raiders fans? Colts fans? What's next, "the field was too sloppy"? "I don't like that rule"?

2006 guys. 2006. Say it with me. 2006.

PFnV

 

[DaBruinz]

It's water long gone over the dam, but it's very likely that the ball did sail out of bounds before the goal line. There are two key camera angles of sequences that provide pretty sound evidence. The first shows that Bailey was bringing his right hand with the ball from a position hanging down on his right side up across the front of his body just before Watson made his hit. So you had the momentum of his arm bringing the ball up across his body AND that the ball was close to his body when Watson hit him. Watson did not hit the ball when he tackled Bailey (even if he had, there is no way he could have punched the ball towards the goal line when it was close to Bailey's body). The second crucial angle that was not shown very much in replays but which was shown at least once that I saw was an angle that was looking almost directly down the sideline from the vantage point of the end zone. This clearly shows the ball in the frame after the hit to the left of Bailey's body and then in the next frame outside the sideline. For the ball to have crossed the goal line, the ball would have had to appear as though it was still in front of Bailey's body in those two frames. I'm not sure what the MIT folks were analyzing, but they must not have been using elementary analytical drafting techniques of striking a line based on points in two orthogonal views.

Arrellbee - Sorry but there are NO camera angles that conclusively showed that the ball did not go through the end zone. The ONLY way to have been able to tell is if there was a camera posted directly above the pylon facing down towards the pylon. No other view could have shown it properly. And, NONE of the replay views showed what you were describing because you had no frame of reference to where the ball was in regards to the sidelines. The vantage point you are referring to (a camera pointing almost directly down the sideline) would not provide you with the necessary points of reference to determine where the ball was as it was passing over the goal line.

No one is arguing whether the ball went over the sideline. What is at odds is whether the ball TOUCHED the goalline prior to going over the sideline. If it did, then its a touchback. If it didn't, then the correct call was made. And, unfortunately, only a view from above the pylon would be able to provide us that information.

 

[DaBruinz]

This Broncos website has some good pictures from the NFL Network that supposedly prove that the ball went out before the end zone, but it doesn't mention at all that a simple reposition of the camera can make the ball appear to to any direction in terms of the pilon.

http://www.tnedstats.com/broncos/ChampsINTFUMB.htm

http://www.tnedstats.com/broncos/ChampsINTFUMB_files/image025.jpg

For example, mentally reposition the camera to the right. Now where does the ball appear?

Well, I take their opinion with a grain of salt. Because if you look at the blow-out from the far endzone shot, (pic #6 in the second series) they say to look at the brown blob. Unfortunately, that brown blob looks like part of Ben Watson's or Champ Bailey's arm.

 

[DaBruinz]

You begin to get a clue about credibility when you read accounts that Bailey was hit at the one yard line. The first frame shows he was hit at the 2 yard line. The vertical line I added shows the ball at that point being about 6 feet from the goal line.
http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2asthehitverticalline1zy.gifhttp://img131.imageshack.us/img131/3351/2asthehitverticalline1zy.th.gif

Now look at the second frame. The ball is at Bailey's eye level and the pylon is visible to the right - at this time, the ball is NOT over the goal line. The ball is in a plane that cuts thru Bailey's knee
http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4afterhitballateyelevelwithlin.gifhttp://img131.imageshack.us/img131/7330/4afterhitballateyelevelwithlin.th.gif

Now the third frame from an end zone view with ball at Bailey's eye level at the same instant as the second frame where the ball is at Bailey's eye level - clearly the ball is two or three feet outside of bounds - and remember, from the second frame at the same instant the ball is absolutely not over the goal line yet.

I'm not sure how the MIT guys came up with the ball crossing the goal line before it was out of bounds. I think maybe I don't want to drive over any bridges that these particular guys design.

I hope this puts a lot of folks mind at ease about this particular play. The ref got it very right.

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/1571/5afterhitballateyelevelwithlin.th.gif

Wow. Pretty amazing how you can extrapolate all that without doing the 3 dimensional geometry needed to figure it out. Would you care to show us the formulas, Camera angles, Camera distances and other parts of the equations you used to come to your conclusions?

Sorry, but your assumptions are not fact. Nothing you said have you proven even remotely. Its all supposition and assumption on your part and truly is not backed up by any sort of fact.