Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Call on Champ's INT return....

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

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

    Every cable company had the same broadcast.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoFanCam
    replied
    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???

    Leave a comment:


  • Vulcan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoManiac_69
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoFanCam
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • twotone
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • horsepower84
    replied
    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.

    Absolutely, couldn't have said it any better myself.
    Nice post!

    Leave a comment:


  • Amigo_Bronco
    replied
    Originally posted by atomicbloke
    I work on mathematical simulations like this at work so let me take a shot at understanding this.

    The plane of the pylon is an imaginary wall on the goal-line. Imagine another wall running along the side-line. The corner where both walls meet is the pylon.

    Now imagine you are in your room running towards the wall infront of you and another wall to your left side. You are running parallel to the wall to your left. Now if you lose the ball and it hits the wall infront of you or the corner of the room, it's a touchback. If it hits the wall to your side, it's out of bounds, like the call in the game. (If I understand the rule correctly).

    Now BroncoManiac_69 mentioned the wall infront of you (the wall on the goal-line) extends forever. That is true but the point is moot. If the ball hits the wall on the side first, it's out of bounds. From all angles I have seen, none were conclusive which wall it hit first. But my point is, if the ball had to hit the wall infront of you, it would have to have a very straight trajectory, almost parallel to the side wall. It did not appear so on the replays.

    That would be the physics explanation, but please correct me if I have misunderstood the football rules. I just can't see how anyone can confidently say it crossed the wall infront like the sportswriters are doing.

    Exactly. You have Bailey running paralel to the wall on his left, about one foot away from it, then, when he's one or two yards from reaching the "front wall", Watson reaches him, much faster, in a I would say 60 degrees angle and hits him.

    Leave a comment:


  • So.CalBRONCOFAN
    replied
    Well they are saying that it crossed becuase perhaps it did, they have had hours to watch the replay.

    But the ref didnt have hours, he had minutes, and from the angles I saw I didnt see anything that would be conclusive evidence to overturn the play.

    Leave a comment:


  • atomicbloke
    replied
    I work on mathematical simulations like this at work so let me take a shot at understanding this.

    The plane of the pylon is an imaginary wall on the goal-line. Imagine another wall running along the side-line. The corner where both walls meet is the pylon.

    Now imagine you are in your room running towards the wall infront of you and another wall to your left side. You are running parallel to the wall to your left. Now if you lose the ball and it hits the wall infront of you or the corner of the room, it's a touchback. If it hits the wall to your side, it's out of bounds, like the call in the game. (If I understand the rule correctly).

    Now BroncoManiac_69 mentioned the wall infront of you (the wall on the goal-line) extends forever. That is true but the point is moot. If the ball hits the wall on the side first, it's out of bounds. From all angles I have seen, none were conclusive which wall it hit first. But my point is, if the ball had to hit the wall infront of you, it would have to have a very straight trajectory, almost parallel to the side wall. It did not appear so on the replays.

    That would be the physics explanation, but please correct me if I have misunderstood the football rules. I just can't see how anyone can confidently say it crossed the wall infront like the sportswriters are doing.
    Last edited by atomicbloke; 01-17-2006, 02:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Amigo_Bronco
    replied
    It was close.

    The angles CBS had during the transmision weren't conclusive, but if no decision was made, and you have to pick something (out of bounds or over the end-zone) probably I would have picked over the end zone.

    Now, something funny, the NBC Boston channel has an angle from "behind" (I guess they were behind the opposite end-zone, probably towards the corner). In that angle the ball seems to fly out of bounds. Anyway, too close to call.

    Any engineers or physicists with some time to spare willing to take a look at the possibilities?

    Leave a comment:


  • SumKindOfMonste
    replied
    It was legit. Great call.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoManiac_69
    replied
    The Rule

    You must first remember that the goal line extends forever and I think that was the "angle" they were looking for.

    Referring to the pylon. If the ball touches the pylon or is above it it would be considered a touchdown assuming the player is in bounds of course. The ball is the key in any goal line play.

    Champ was in bounds when he was hit and the ball was knocked lose. If the ball did in fact fly over the pylon, it would have been considered a touchback. And yes, it was very very close and no replay showed "definative" evidence that the call should be reversed. We were kinda laughing at the time as the referees were at the other end of the field and how they had to run with Champ to make any call at the other end of the field. Looking at all of the replay angles, the ball did go out of bounds before the pylon IMO. It appeared that it did not go over the pylon.

    Coach Belichick has been attempting to get a camera on the pylon or looking down at the pylon. This was news prior to this game. After that situation and as commented on the news, we have the technology to do it, so why not?

    Leave a comment:


  • Firstwave64
    replied
    Hell Plummer and the broncos have shown they can win...I remember week 2...on cold pizza the one guy said..Denver is not going to the playoffs....I been hearing for years..Jake can't win a playoff game....and Now theres only 1 more left..Jake will never take denver to the superbowl...Guess what...noone is saying that now

    Leave a comment:


  • Sevenis7
    replied
    Originally posted by Cugel
    The Broncos versus the Carolina Panthers is just not a "sexy" storyline enough for these fools. Thus, the complaining.
    But it's plenty sexy for me. Especially if the Broncos win it all! (Boing.)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X