Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Call on Champ's INT return....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by twotone
    here's something to think over....

    if the refs had called it a touchback instead of out at the one, do you think they would have overturned it or upheld it as a touchback?
    No, there is no way they could overturn either with those replay views, it would have remained a touchback.


    [SIZE=1][B]Adopted Bronco:Kenard Lang

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by twotone
      here's something to think over....

      if the refs had called it a touchback instead of out at the one, do you think they would have overturned it or upheld it as a touchback?
      In this situation the play would have stood as called on the field since there was no replay evidence to prove either way. So I believe that if the ref did in fact call it a touchback the call would have stood because of said "lack of evidence" in the replay process.

      But my goodness. For Champ to run all that way just to give the ball back would have been heart breaking. I have a friend who is a Patriot fan arguing that very call along with the bogus pass interference call earlier in the game. I admit and believe the pass interference call was bogus but this Bailey return call was legitimate.

      A little off topic, but I told my Patriot fan friend to blame his offense and special teams for turning the ball over 5 times. Don't blame the refs for one bad call referring to the pass int.
      :usa: *** God Bless Our Military Men And Women*** :usa:

      sigpic

      Comment


      • #18
        If you have Comcast, you can view that the call should've been a touchback. My one friend showed me that the "Blimp cam" showed this.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Vulcan
          If you have Comcast, you can view that the call should've been a touchback. My one friend showed me that the "Blimp cam" showed this.
          Comcast what.. internet? Or cable TV? I wonder where I can view this image???


          [SIZE=1][B]Adopted Bronco:Kenard Lang

          Comment


          • #20
            Right. Because Comcast showed different footage of the game on a NATIONALLY TELEVISED NETWORK.

            Every cable company had the same broadcast.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by atomicbloke
              So when I was watching the call on Champ's INT return being reviewed, on whether the ball broke the plane of the pylon and if it should be a touchback... it looked extremely close to me. There was no definite angle to suggest either way. And this is why I guess the official let the call on the field stand.

              Now, I read many expert analysts state that the ball "clearly" crossed the plane of the pylon. I know we have decided to ignore what the stupid media says. But this is not a judgemental thing, not someone's opinion on the Broncos. This is just factual. Surely a sportswriter wouldn't say something factually incorrect.

              Hence, I was wondering if anyone has seen another angle where it shows that the ball did cross the plane of the pylon without any reasonable doubt. I want to know what is the basis for this feeling in the media.

              From what I saw on television replays, Bailey was at the 2 yard line when the ball was knocked loose. And the ball was a foot from the sideline. For the ball to conclusively break the pylon plane, it should have been knocked out in a trajectory almost parallel to the sideline. However, the trajectory seemed to be at a 45 degree angle coming out of Champ's hand.

              Can anyone with a better knowledge of football please provide some insights? What is the "clearly broke the pylon plane" angle that I am missing.
              it was too close to call meaning that there was no conclusive data to switch the call.

              On the other side, with the [email protected] game, jones lost the ball and it clearly was lost prior to passing the goal line and going in for a touchback, and they called that a TD. Its too hard to call, especially when the ball flew out of Champ's hand like a rocket
              “The Oakland raiders are so bad.”
              “How bad are they???”
              “They’re so bad that they get ______ed by every
              Team”

              04 plummer4presdnt 139
              10/11+ / 8 / 8+ / 9+ /11/ 10 / 9+ / 7 / 8 / 8 / 9 /7 /6 /6+ / 7

              4th in Bronco pick'em

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Cugel
                Denver was favored in this game by 3 1/2 in the Vegas line. Most sportswriters favored N.E. and Indy because they wanted a rematch of last year's AFC Championship game, to be followed by the "passing of the torch" from Brady to Peyton Manning.

                Having the Steelers upset the mighty Colts and then lose to the Broncos who go on to win the SB makes them all seem like a bunch of idiots. Which they are anyway, but they don't like it when the facts point that out.

                As Dr. Z pointed out, the columnists have been hyping the story of Indy v. N.E., how great the Chicago defense is, and whether Carson Palmer can bring the Bengals into the status of elite teams. That and Tony Dungee were the stories this year. And now all of that crap is worthless.

                Nobody was talking about either Pittsburgh or Denver and now they have to eat their own steaming bile.

                And they don't like it one bit which just makes my day. The worst example of being miffed about the Broncos winning is on ESPN where some idiot wrote an article saying that the Broncos were lucky to win and won't go any further. How he became the only person in the universe who knows the outcome of a game to be played next week is left unstated.

                The Broncos versus the Carolina Panthers is just not a "sexy" storyline enough for these fools. Thus, the complaining.
                The media never harped this hard on Brady's "phantom" fumble four years ago.
                John 11: 25-27

                My Adopt-A-Bronco is D.J. Williams



                Thanks Snk16

                Comment


                • #23
                  I think he went out of bounds, not enough evidence for the refs to overturn.

                  My adopted Broncos, Uncle Rico, Alfred Williams, & Antonio Fargas.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    One thing I know for sure is that, unlike what Phil Simms was saying during the game, it'd be more than just a simple geometry problem to figure out what happened. Watson was moving at a more or less constant rate when he hit Bailey, Bailey was also moving but slowing down... it'd be a mess.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I believe that it should have been a touchback. But I can't be positive, so don't flame me. Here's my rationale:

                      So here's the situation. Bailey is about 8-12 inches in front of the goal line. The ball is about 18 inches (from my best guess), from the sideline. At the angle he is hit, the ball flies in a forward/left diagonal direction. Considering that the ball was closer to the goal line than the sideline, and that the ball came out at almost a 45 degree angle, I find it hard to believe that the ball did not break the plane of the goal line. So even though the video makes it impossible to see by the naked eye, I think basic geometry provides the answer. Keep in mind, I could be wrong, I hope I'm wrong, but logic tells me that I'm right. If someone can prove me wrong, I'd be more than happy to flush my theory away.

                      I'm kind of all-over-the-place with this explanation but I hope you understand it.
                      A proponent of Denver drafting Cutler since 10/05.

                      So naturally, my Adopt-A-Bronco is Jay Cutler!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        This is one reason I hate replay. The refs tend to make calls based on "it was a great play. It looks like he was out of bounds before the end-zone, so it's out on the 1 yard line."

                        Then a bunch of physics majors are doing computer simulations to determine ball trajectory? Just let the play stand!

                        Same thing with pass-catches. It's all getting too technical and over analyzed with slow-motion replay angles. If it looks like a catch, that should be good enough. If the refs make an obvious blunder, fine, correct it, but stop this endless analyzing. Every-time they reverse a call on some miniscule technicality that nobody could even see without motion capture technology it just burns me up!

                        This isn't those old figure skating technicals competitions where the skaters had to make a perfect oval or something and they came out and measured it with a slide rule! If it looks like a catch on the field it should be a catch. When they overanalyze it you get counter-intuitive calls like Polomalu's "non-interception" which everybody in the universe knew perfectly well was an interception! There's nothing worse in football than that phrase "after further review"
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          There are too many variables to use basic geometry or physics to explain why the ball did not cross the plain. All I know is that Denver won! YEAH BABY.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by PsychoChicken
                            I believe that it should have been a touchback. But I can't be positive, so don't flame me. Here's my rationale:

                            So here's the situation. Bailey is about 8-12 inches in front of the goal line. The ball is about 18 inches (from my best guess), from the sideline. At the angle he is hit, the ball flies in a forward/left diagonal direction. Considering that the ball was closer to the goal line than the sideline, and that the ball came out at almost a 45 degree angle, I find it hard to believe that the ball did not break the plane of the goal line. So even though the video makes it impossible to see by the naked eye, I think basic geometry provides the answer. Keep in mind, I could be wrong, I hope I'm wrong, but logic tells me that I'm right. If someone can prove me wrong, I'd be more than happy to flush my theory away.

                            I'm kind of all-over-the-place with this explanation but I hope you understand it.

                            I think the ball was actually closer to the side line though. Course, I could be wrong seeing as how I haven't seen any of the replays since it happened.


                            Check out Goal Line Blitz

                            WINNER of Elevation INC's Pick Your 53 Challenge....Sig to come!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Why don't they simply use lasers to determine these things?
                              Flash Tower Defense Games

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Duilen
                                Why don't they simply use lasers to determine these things?
                                Talk about a can of worms!
                                :usa: *** God Bless Our Military Men And Women*** :usa:

                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X