- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 8,845
- Reaction score
- 33,842
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Shouldn't your vertical lines be perpendicular to the field to show true relative positions?arrellbee said:
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).Patjew said: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.
arrellbee said: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.
PatsWickedPissah said: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.
MIT is widely known for sloppy and uninformed engineeringarrellbee said: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.
If you aren't sure, I'm glad you asked questions.Snapper said: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.
Uhhh, right.spacecrime said:MIT is widely known for sloppy and uninformed engineering
Well, I guess I know better than to ask .... but curiosity gets the best of me.NEM said:The NFL got even for the tuck rule call....it's over.... forget it.
oldrover said: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.
arrellbee said: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.
pats1 said: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?
arrellbee said: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