Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Call on Champ's INT return....

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

  • Cugel
    replied
    Originally posted by isblis
    I don't think you're missing any angles, and you said it exactly right. Through Physics and the multiple camera angles it is possible to determine without a doubt whether or not it was a good call, and I don't know of anyone who has done that. As for the media saying it 'expert analysts state that the ball "clearly" crossed the plane ' anytime the gambling community gets it wrong and has to pay out money they didn't expect to the media steps in for "excuses for blowing the fix" 101.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Firstwave64
    replied
    the ball never went over the pylon....if anything it was already out of bounds....the only people that say it went into the end zone are Pat fans...sports writers included

    Leave a comment:


  • RBDynasty
    replied
    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.
    Too clos to really tell and there's no evidence that it actually did. That's why the ruling wasn't overturned. Let's say that we didn't score that TD.. we would have still won the game by 7 so the whole point is moot in the end anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • isblis
    replied
    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.
    I don't think you're missing any angles, and you said it exactly right. Through Physics and the multiple camera angles it is possible to determine without a doubt whether or not it was a good call, and I don't know of anyone who has done that. As for the media saying it 'expert analysts state that the ball "clearly" crossed the plane ' anytime the gambling community gets it wrong and has to pay out money they didn't expect to the media steps in for "excuses for blowing the fix" 101.

    Leave a comment:


  • atomicbloke
    started a topic Call on Champ's INT return....

    Call on Champ's INT return....

    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.
Working...
X