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

[DaBruinz]

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).

Sorry, but this is a false statement.

The only way for the line you drew to be perpendicular to the field is if you actually took into consideration the angles relative to the field from which the camera is shooting the picture. Its clear that the camera actually is at an downward angle and also an angle that is back and to the right of Bailey.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

See, I disagree with this. I don't think the Pats earned the loss.

1) Asante Samuel PI - Bogus call
2) False Start Non-Call on Denver FG.
3) Spearing Non-Call on Todd "The Juicer" Sauerbrun against Ellis Hobbs.
4) Andre Davis being mauled non-call -
5) Non-calls on at least 4 different occasions against the Broncos O-line.
6) Troy Brown Fumble - As was mentioned, should have been ruled an interference on the punting team.

You take away the 1st bad call and the entire Dynamic of the game changes.

 

[italian pat patriot]

we lost that game not for one reason but for different reasons

1 - bad extremely bad calls ALL to DEN favour
2 - too many mistakes from us
3 - probably we did not played so well...and you can NOT win in Denver if you do not play so well

but # 1 is the main reason we lost IMHO

the best play ? BEN WATSON ONE ! AMAZING...I WILL NEVER FORGET IT.

i'm looking forward to beat Den at The Razor !

 

[MDPATSFAN]

I don't see any conclusive evidence which shows the refs made a bad call. The problem with that play is the comedy of errors which set it up. They started the series First and goal on the 5 and couldn't punch the ball in due to an anemic running game...end of story. Take an incompetent running game on the road and you lose! Hopefully BB fixed that weakness.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

See, I disagree with this. I don't think the Pats earned the loss.

1) Asante Samuel PI - Bogus call
2) False Start Non-Call on Denver FG.
3) Spearing Non-Call on Todd "The Juicer" Sauerbrun against Ellis Hobbs.
4) Andre Davis being mauled non-call -
5) Non-calls on at least 4 different occasions against the Broncos O-line.
6) Troy Brown Fumble - As was mentioned, should have been ruled an interference on the punting team.

You take away the 1st bad call and the entire Dynamic of the game changes.

Clearly the Pats had a series of bad calls go against them, but the fact remains that Brady did throw a potential +7 points into the arms of a DB that translated into a net differential of -14, and Pats players did put the ball on the ground several times. It's difficult enough to overcome bad officiating when playing well but the Pats played poorly that night. Brady said so and so did BB. In the past, BB has commented that you need to be prepared to play well enough to overcome the breaks that do not go your way. This was a poor playoff performance by the Pats. Exacerbated by bad officiating that helped leave an especially bitter aftertaste.

I think Denver is toast from now on when they play the soon to be SB champs.

 

[Snapper]

Clearly the Pats had a series of bad calls go against them, but the fact remains that Brady did throw a potential +7 points into the arms of a DB that translated into a net differential of -14, and Pats players did put the ball on the ground several times. It's difficult enough to overcome bad officiating when playing well but the Pats played poorly that night. Brady said so and so did BB. In the past, BB has commented that you need to be prepared to play well enough to overcome the breaks that do not go your way. This was a poor playoff performance by the Pats. Exacerbated by bad officiating that helped leave an especially bitter aftertaste.

I think Denver is toast from now on when they play the soon to be SB champs.

What I want to see in the next Denver game is just as many terrible calls go against the Pats, and yet they still blow the Broncos out.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

What I want to see in the next Denver game is just as many terrible calls go against the Pats, and yet they still blow the Broncos out.

I'm glad you added out to your sentence.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

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.

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.

I rewatched that play time and time again, and it looks like a touchback to me. Look where the ball landed and draw a line back to where it was fumbled... it looks like it crosses the pylon to me. And that close to the goaline? I'll bet 90% of the time, a play like that is called a touchback because it's close either way and a touchback has less impact on the game than giving the other team a sure touchdown on the 1 yard line.

Besides, I think I will trust the MIT geeks over you... no offense intended.

 

[the taildragger]

Now that the game is over, it's time to stop hiding behind the inconclusive argument...yeah, it was the "correct" call based on the funky TV angles, but going forward I hope we learned our lesson.

the angles were inconclusive because the NFL refuses to install aerial endzone cameras -- I guess we're supposed to believe that bad camera angles help preserve the integrity of the game -- bull sht

The technology is there -- it's called video cameras -- they've been around for a while now...just throw a wire and a cable feed from one side of the roof to the other and, at a minimum, mount two cameras over each corner of the endzone. Even if the angle isn't exactly perpendicular it's still enough to take away any reasonable doubt when determining a call like the Bailey touchback.

the question now isn't whether the call was conclusive, it's why is a league this rich satisfied to rely on a friggin blimp to help decide the outcome of games in single elimination playoffs?

As far as the PI call goes -- I'm more upset with the referee for not overuling the field judge's flag -- officials are mandated to caucus subsequent to all flags and whistles and decide how a penalty should be assessed or whether a potentially errant call should best be discarded altogether -- that was clearly a situation where the head umpire was either:

a: not paying attention

or b (more likely): lost control of his unit because he didn't have any experience and lacked the guts to do the right thing in that situation.

That crew had no business calling that game in the first place.

 

[arrellbee]

I rewatched that play time and time again, and it looks like a touchback to me. Look where the ball landed and draw a line back to where it was fumbled... it looks like it crosses the pylon to me. And that close to the goaline? I'll bet 90% of the time, a play like that is called a touchback because it's close either way and a touchback has less impact on the game than giving the other team a sure touchdown on the 1 yard line.

Besides, I think I will trust the MIT geeks over you... no offense intended.

A drawing is a good idea.

Where do you think it was fumbled ?? The frame shows that it occurred at the 2 yard line (6 feet from the goal line) and when the ball left Bailey's hand the ball was about a foot inside the sideline. So here's your drawing which shows that if the ball barely crosses inside the pylon (best case) that as it passes over the endline of the endzone it could be no more than 7 feet out of bounds:



And here's another frame that shows the ball already over 20 feet from the sideline and still in midflight. It should be totally obvious that it can't be anywhere near as close as 7 feet from the sideline at the back line of the endzone.



It doesn't seem like it can be any clearer than that.
.

 

[arrellbee]

Besides, I think I will trust the MIT geeks over you... no offense intended.

The only problem is that can't track down in any media report that identifies some MIT student who made the claim. It's a myth.

You can't find any MIT mechanical, civil, or architectural engineering student who would tell you that the ball crossed the goal line.

In fact, you probably can't even find any high school student who has had geometry who would tell you that the ball crossed over the goal line.
.

 

[DaBruinz]

A drawing is a good idea.

Where do you think it was fumbled ?? The frame shows that it occurred at the 2 yard line (6 feet from the goal line) and when the ball left Bailey's hand the ball was about a foot inside the sideline. So here's your drawing which shows that if the ball barely crosses inside the pylon (best case) that as it passes over the endline of the endzone it could be no more than 7 feet out of bounds:

http://imageshack.ushttp://img141.imageshack.us/img141/396/graphic9qo.gif

And here's another frame that shows the ball already over 20 feet from the sideline and still in midflight. It should be totally obvious that it can't be anywhere near as close as 7 feet from the sideline at the back line of the endzone.

http://imageshack.ushttp://img210.imageshack.us/img210/8668/6ballwayout2sk.gif

It doesn't seem like it can be any clearer than that.
.

You continue to show things and claim they are conclusive and they aren't. The second picture is a perfect example. You can NOT tell whether the ball is on the ground or in the air in that picture. You can also not tell how far away from the lines the ball is. Nor, can you tell, exactly, where the ball is in reference how far back along the field the ball is using the naked eye.

Arrallbee, you continue to use grainy 2 dimensional photos that are off angle to try and prove a point that can only be proven from a camera angle from ABOVE the pylon. That is something you continue to ignore.

 

[DaBruinz]

The only problem is that can't track down in any media report that identifies some MIT student who made the claim. It's a myth.

You can't find any MIT mechanical, civil, or architectural engineering student who would tell you that the ball crossed the goal line.

In fact, you probably can't even find any high school student who has had geometry who would tell you that the ball crossed over the goal line.
.

I bet that there most certainly MIT students who could tell you whether the ball crossed the goal-line, though they would need to use 3 dimensional geometry to do so. And that isn't something that a High School student could do.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Holy cow. I usually read through the whole thread before posting, but in this case I'll give way to being tired. Has anybody mentioned that Champ Bailey himself indicated afterwards that he knew it was a touchback? The two best views of the play were from Bailey and Watson and they both claim the ball went out of the endzone.

Trying to apply 3D math to a 2D screenshot from TV to overrule the views of the two players (on both sides) that were in the best position to see the play firsthand is utter balogna.

That being said, and as has been mentioned by many already.. it's irrelevant. The Pats uncharacteristicly worked very hard to give that game away. The blame doesn't rest on one or two or even three bad calls, it rests squarely on the performance of our team.

 

[arrellbee]

I bet that there most certainly MIT students who could tell you whether the ball crossed the goal-line, though they would need to use 3 dimensional geometry to do so. And that isn't something that a High School student could do.

Well, I guess there isn't any other way than to be blunt. You have NO clue about 3 dimensional geometry or you wouldn't be saying what you are. If you did, you would know - wouldn't you - that you just need two views to project to a third. The two frames in my original post show that in the two views that: 1 - the ball has not passed over the goal line; and 2- the ball is out of bounds. QED What don't you get ?? Have you ever taken a course in analytical drafting ? I did. And I got an A. At a top rated engineering school.

I'll insert the two frames again.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Well, I guess there isn't any other way than to be blunt. You have NO clue about 3 dimensional geometry or you wouldn't be saying what you are. If you did, you would know - wouldn't you - that you just need two views to project to a third.

Prove that those two shots from different angles are from the exact same moment in time, then you can project a third. Without a timestamp on the pictures you can't, therefore it's empy speculation which is trumped by the two players' view who were involved in the play, both which say it was a touchback. (Again, it doesn't matter anyway.)

 

[arrellbee]

Prove that those two shots from different angles are from the exact same moment in time, then you can project a third. Without a timestamp on the pictures you can't, therefore it's empy speculation which is trumped by the two players' view who were involved in the play, both which say it was a touchback. (Again, it doesn't matter anyway.)

You are absolutely correct. They have to be at the same moment in time.

And that is really simple to observe. There is only one point in the sequence when Bailey's left leg is perpendicular to the field - you will see that in both frames. You can corroborate it also by looking at Watson's legs - you will see that they are in the same position in both frames. Also the fact that the ball is in front of Bailey's face in both frames is a third verification.

As you can see, it is actually not even close. The referee called it out at the one yard line and it appears that was a pretty good spot.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

You are absolutely correct. They have to be at the same moment in time.

And that is really simple to observe.

But impossible to prove on your part, therefore it's totally your speculation. Try Occam's Razor. I'll take the word of Champ Bailey and Ben Watson, the two who were actually involved in the play, who both claim they saw it go into the endzone, no disrespect to the 'Top Rated Engineering School' you attended that gave you an "A" for analytical drafting.

(Edit: did I mention it's irrelevant?)

 

[arrellbee]

But impossible to prove on your part, therefore it's totally your speculation. Try Occam's Razor. I'll take the word of Champ Bailey and Ben Watson, the two who were actually involved in the play, who both claim they saw it go into the endzone, no disrespect to the 'Top Rated Engineering School' you attended that gave you an "A" for analytical drafting.

For crying out loud, it's right in front of your eyes in the frames. If you, for whatever reason, refuse to simply look at it, so be it.

By the way, I graduated from the University of Illinois, the 5th ranked engineering school in the country. And I graduated with honors in engineering and mathematics. If you want to make a point about it.

 

[DaBruinz]

Well, I guess there isn't any other way than to be blunt. You have NO clue about 3 dimensional geometry or you wouldn't be saying what you are. If you did, you would know - wouldn't you - that you just need two views to project to a third. The two frames in my original post show that in the two views that: 1 - the ball has not passed over the goal line; and 2- the ball is out of bounds. QED What don't you get ?? Have you ever taken a course in analytical drafting ? I did. And I got an A. At a top rated engineering school.

I'll insert the two frames again.

http://imageshack.ushttp://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7330/4afterhitballateyelevelwithlin.gif

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1571/5afterhitballateyelevelwithlin.gif

Arralbee - You can insert those frames all you want. They do NOT prove your claims. No matter how much irrelevant BS you try to post. Sorry. You're wrong. A line, perpendicular to the field in the 1st one would be at an ANGLE coming OUT of the frame. So would the line in the second frame. YOU CAN NOT SHOW A LINE PERPENDICULAR TO THE FIELD OF PLAY with what you have drawn.

What it is, is perpendicular to the edges of the picture presented. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about 3 dimensional geometry knows that, when looking at the field at an angle, the way the pictures do, your lines would also be at an angle.

Also, in the first frame, you offer no DEPTH view of where the ball is. In other words, while you show that the ball is in line with Bailey's knee, your picture doesn't show whether its OVER his knee or 10 yards out of bounds or at the hash mark.

Now, the 2nd frame is extremely grainy and offers very little to be able to tell where the ball is. Also, your line should be parallel to the pylon and its not. How can you claim that your line is perpendicular to the field of play when its not drawn at the same angle as the pylon? A better way to attempt to show your point would have been to draw a line across from the goal-line and then up at the appropriate angle that would put it parallel to the pylon.

As I have said and you have yet to dispute, the ONLY way to know for 100% certainty, whether or not the ball crossed the goal line before going out of bounds is to have an over-head shot above the pylon. Otherwise, you have to know the exact locations of each camera and take into consideration the angles from which the camera's took the pictures. You have not provided that information nor your equations to figure it out. So, while you may have "gotten an A from a top-rated engineering school" it doesn't mean jack in terms of trying to present your theory when you ignore some of the basics.