Author Topic: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line  (Read 32378 times)

Offline blindref757

  • *
  • Posts: 560
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-17
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2010, 11:15:13 AM »
You guys seem to think that we can make these decisions in full speed down to the micron.  Until there is a RFID chip in the nose of the ball and a sensor placed under the turf, or a frickin lazer beam...this is going to be an art, not a science.

Suck it up princess...it's a TD because we said so!!!

Regardless of whether or not the ball was 1/16 of an inch short, or 1/16 of an inch over (we don't know because there isn't a frickin lazer beam and the camera isn't on the line), there were mistakes made here that we all can learn from.  That is what's important...to get better!

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2010, 11:24:22 AM »
You guys seem to think that we can make these decisions in full speed down to the micron.  Until there is a RFID chip in the nose of the ball and a sensor placed under the turf, or a frickin lazer beam...this is going to be an art, not a science.

Suck it up princess...it's a TD because we said so!!!

Regardless of whether or not the ball was 1/16 of an inch short, or 1/16 of an inch over (we don't know because there isn't a frickin lazer beam and the camera isn't on the line), there were mistakes made here that we all can learn from.  That is what's important...to get better!
I don't think that at all. Below is a good view, showing the ball still behind the goal line. There is a video from this angle showing the guy crossing the goal line with empty hands. I understand the guy you can see in the distance signaling TD, all he could see was that the runner got in the endzone and he couldn't see the ball. The problem is that at least 2 guys were closer with views of the ball and called it a fumble and threw the beanbag down, but the ref changed and went with the view of the guy that was the farthest away and couldn't see the ball come out. They didn't make the play in full speed, they talked about it and went with the perspective of the guy farthest away.


Offline JugglingReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 1055
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-15
  • Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2010, 11:52:26 AM »
What we need is a thin line of video cameras that are situated on the goal line (where the white chalk meets the green grass).  The cabling goes underground to a system where software lets you choose which of the 500 lens' you wish to view.

Offline JugglingReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 1055
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-15
  • Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2010, 11:53:14 AM »
That L gets a playoff game, the H probably not.

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2010, 11:54:10 AM »
What we need is a thin line of video cameras that are situated on the goal line (where the white chalk meets the green grass).  The cabling goes underground to a system where software lets you choose which of the 500 lens' you wish to view.
An easier way to me would be to just put a small camera in the pylon(sp?) or even 2, one facing down the sideline and one facing down the goal line directly.

Offline JugglingReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 1055
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-15
  • Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2010, 12:02:40 PM »
An easier way to me would be to just put a small camera in the pylon(sp?) or even 2, one facing down the sideline and one facing down the goal line directly.

Your spelling is correct.

Bodies could still block out that camera angle though.  The only way a string of GL cameras could be blocked out is if a player is laying on them parallel to the GL.

These cameras are SD and are $7 each.  In bulk, they're much lower in cost.  http://chucklohr.com/808/

Reff54

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #31 on: October 18, 2010, 12:03:14 PM »
Gonna play devil's advocate here....that still picture raises the point....the defender appears to have knocked the ball loose.  But his hand he's doing so with is across the plane of the goal line.  What if he knocked the ball loose after it broke the GL PLane...and the ball landed back outside the GL Plane?   Could have have happened here....

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2010, 12:09:34 PM »
Gonna play devil's advocate here....that still picture raises the point....the defender appears to have knocked the ball loose.  But his hand he's doing so with is across the plane of the goal line.  What if he knocked the ball loose after it broke the GL PLane...and the ball landed back outside the GL Plane?   Could have have happened here....
Actually the opposite is true. It's pretty clear the hit that would have knocked the ball out happened before the defenders arm crossed the goal line. Assuming his arm knocked it out and it wasn't just dropped, it definitely wasn't a TD. The problem is you can't assume he knocked it out.

Watch this video, you can see the defender hit the ball before the goal line, and then you can see the runner's empty hands as he crosses the goal line. The official in the endzone saw the same thing, and threw down the beanbag for a fumble and never signaled TD.

Actually, after watching the video I was wrong. It is pretty clear from the second angle that the defender knocked the ball out. Combine that with the first view of when he hit it and the empty hands, and this should have been overturned....

!
[yt=425,350]nA1jY4iky60&[/yt]

Reff54

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2010, 12:15:11 PM »
Actually his arm doesn't hit him until right at the GL.....and  the defender's body really covers where the ball is at that instant.  and no I'm not from Auburn.....but it doesn't appear that the defender got to the ball/ball carrrier until he BC reached the plane...

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8424
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #34 on: October 18, 2010, 12:43:53 PM »
I can certainly understand deferring to the H.  He had a better look than the L.  The H saw what he saw.  It would be interesting to know if he saw the ball actually come loose or he just noticed it was loose.  The L could not have seen ball break plane but did see ball loose (even if he did not see it come loose).  I sure would not say anyone got "robbed" here.  "Robbing" implies an intentional, deliberate act.  I just see 2 (maybe 3?) guys trying to do their best to see what they can see and then rule on it.

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2010, 01:06:17 PM »
Actually his arm doesn't hit him until right at the GL.....and  the defender's body really covers where the ball is at that instant.  and no I'm not from Auburn.....but it doesn't appear that the defender got to the ball/ball carrrier until he BC reached the plane...
I'm not so sure. Here are some still shots from that video, the first one looks pretty clear that he wasn't across, and from the others you can see the ball down between his legs, and not accross.






By the way, I appreciate you folks letting me in here and discussing this. I hope you know I am not arguing, just trying to understand this myself and sharing all the information I can find on it.


I can certainly understand deferring to the H.  He had a better look than the L.  The H saw what he saw.  It would be interesting to know if he saw the ball actually come loose or he just noticed it was loose.  The L could not have seen ball break plane but did see ball loose (even if he did not see it come loose).  I sure would not say anyone got "robbed" here.  "Robbing" implies an intentional, deliberate act.  I just see 2 (maybe 3?) guys trying to do their best to see what they can see and then rule on it.
Forgive me, I'm not an official and can't remember where the H and L line up, so I'm not sure which you are referring to.

If you are saying they should have deferred to the guy on the far side, that's what I don't understand. He didn't have a view of the fumble, the guy that did was closer and called it a fumble. I don't know why you would take the view of the guy that was farther away and his vision of the ball was blocked by the BC.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8424
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #36 on: October 18, 2010, 01:11:08 PM »
One thing we have pretty much decided on as a group here is that still photos are not worth much.  They can be interesting to look at and say "what if" but they just do not give an accurate picture of the totality of the circumsatnces in most cases. 

The L is the one who signalled fumble.  He was partially obstructed by the defender.  The H, even though farther away appeared to have NOBODy between himself and the ball carrier. What is not absolutely clear is if the ball carrier was at enough of an angle that his own body obstructed the H from seeing the ball.  It seems the ball carrier was leaning fiorward parallel to the ground, even though the ball was in the arm opposite the H.

Offline blindref757

  • *
  • Posts: 560
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-17
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #37 on: October 18, 2010, 01:11:54 PM »
If that camera was directly on the goal line...looking parallel exactly in line with the plane, the ref would have obstructed the view.  This camera is a yard or two deep in the endzone.  That alone changes the perspective from the angle that the ref has.

Offline blindref757

  • *
  • Posts: 560
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-17
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #38 on: October 18, 2010, 01:14:38 PM »
I think we can all agree that the H messed up.  There is no way he saw it this close while moving.  But, that doesn't mean that the ball didn't break the plane.

These are 2 separate arguments.

Offline RMR

  • *
  • Posts: 490
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-5
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #39 on: October 18, 2010, 01:15:27 PM »
I'm missing something.  Who is signalling a TD here?

"Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong."

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2010, 01:23:45 PM »
I think we can all agree that the H messed up.  There is no way he saw it this close while moving.  But, that doesn't mean that the ball didn't break the plane.

These are 2 separate arguments.
I can agree with that. I understand now the perspective of the ref thinking the H had an unobstructed view, but he really didn't. The L and H would have been obstructed the same by the BC but not by anyone else, and the L was closer and signaled fumble.

I wish the SEC would find a photo or video of the H calling TD, because nobody has seen it. All we have is the word of the SEC who issued a statement later that night. I don't believe they would lie about it, but many people do. Evidence of him signaling TD would calm down the crazies a lot.

I'm missing something.  Who is signalling a TD here?

That's not a good photo, because it is a split-second after the BC crossed the goal line. He didn't have time to signal at that point, I'd like to see the same photo about 5 seconds later.

If that camera was directly on the goal line...looking parallel exactly in line with the plane, the ref would have obstructed the view.  This camera is a yard or two deep in the endzone.  That alone changes the perspective from the angle that the ref has.
This isn't correct. Look at the 1:30 mark of the video above, you can see the camera man on the goal line.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2010, 01:28:21 PM by Lash »

Offline RMR

  • *
  • Posts: 490
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-5
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2010, 01:30:24 PM »
Have you seen a pic of anyone signalling a TD?  I keep reading that no one did at the time, but I haven't seen any video that shows the H enought to tell one way or the other.
"Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong."

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2010, 01:54:00 PM »
Have you seen a pic of anyone signalling a TD?  I keep reading that no one did at the time, but I haven't seen any video that shows the H enought to tell one way or the other.

On the video posted by juggling referee, at the 0:18 mark, you can see the F and the L walking past the ball toward the H.  That seems pretty obvious to me that they are going to talk to him, as he had something different than what they had.

And Penn Wagers wasn't going to signal TD unless someone on the crew had it.

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2010, 02:04:26 PM »
[yt=425,350]c5J57vlgQfg[/yt]
I hadn't gone back and watched this. This is the closest I've seen to showing the H, and it appears his hands come to his hips and begin to raise at the 1:20 mark, as he was beginning to signal TD.

Chester

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2010, 03:18:44 PM »
Certainly appears to be a fumble.  But until you can take the word 'appears' out of my previous  statement, replay can't do anything with it.  If that's all the looks they got in the replay booth, you can't reverse that to a fumble.  You can't prove it.  If you say there is proof to overturn the call on the field, then you either don't understand the rules of replay or have a different video  than what I am looking at. 

I think it is a fumble.  Key word, "think." 

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #45 on: October 18, 2010, 03:23:10 PM »
Certainly appears to be a fumble.  But until you can take the word 'appears' out of my previous  statement, replay can't do anything with it.  If that's all the looks they got in the replay booth, you can't reverse that to a fumble.  You can't prove it.  If you say there is proof to overturn the call on the field, then you either don't understand the rules of replay or have a different video  than what I am looking at. 

I think it is a fumble.  Key word, "think." 
Oh I absolutely agree. That is as close as you can be to "indisputable" without getting there, but it's not quite there. I am convinced it was a fumble, and I'm convinced the replay would not reverse this either way. Had it been called a fumble, it would have stayed a fumble.

The problem is in calling it a TD, when the guy closer called it a fumble. That's where they messed up.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8424
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #46 on: October 18, 2010, 03:44:39 PM »
Did you read my post? Perhaps I was not clear so i will try to reiterate.  In officiating, being closer does not always mean having the better look.  If there was a mistake here, it was not that "the closer guy ruled fumble and the other one did not".

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #47 on: October 18, 2010, 03:47:54 PM »
Did you read my post? Perhaps I was not clear so i will try to reiterate.  In officiating, being closer does not always mean having the better look.  If there was a mistake here, it was not that "the closer guy ruled fumble and the other one did not".
They were at basically the same angle. How is officiating any different than anything else in that it is harder to see something from 30 yards than 5 yards? If they had basically the same angle, and nobody was in between either one of them, wouldn't the one that was closer have the better view?

I am pretty sure the first two are true, from the pictures and videos posted. Apparently the guy that was closest didn't feel confident enough to stick to his call when they conferenced, but it seems like he was right in calling it a fumble and the referee was wrong in changing to the opinion of the guy that definitely couldn't see the ball come out.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8424
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #48 on: October 18, 2010, 03:52:58 PM »
If one guy is 5 feet away from Object X but there is an object Z between him and Object X, he does not have as good a look as someone 30 feet from Object X on the other side of Object X who has no intervening objects.

There was an intervening object for the line judge, another player. 

Furthermore, when you are farther away you have a wider field of view so more data is available to your brain then when you are overly close.   Not saying the L was overly close, just talking in general terms.

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #49 on: October 18, 2010, 03:57:26 PM »
If one guy is 5 feet away from Object X but there is an object Z between him and Object X, he does not have as good a look as someone 30 feet from Object X on the other side of Object X who has no intervening objects.

There was an intervening object for the line judge, another player. 

Furthermore, when you are farther away you have a wider field of view so more data is available to your brain then when you are overly close.   Not saying the L was overly close, just talking in general terms.

I'm afraid you're wrong there. Look at the pictures and the video above, there is no player between the BC and the official in the end zone that dropped the beanbag. Check the :34 mark of the video above and you can see it. He had pretty much the same view, except he was closer and he might have even had a better view of the ball since he was deeper in the endzone and could have seen the ball where the guy farther away on the goal line had the ball carrier totally blocking his view of the ball.

As for your second statement, how is it a good thing to have more data in this case? That means more distractions, the guy closer would be better able to focus in on the ball and nothing else, while the other guy wouldn't see it as closely and would have more data to have to process that didn't affect the call.