Author Topic: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line  (Read 33639 times)

Offline RMR

  • *
  • Posts: 490
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-5
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #50 on: October 18, 2010, 04:02:18 PM »
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.

With all due respect, I have to ask - have you ever called a football game?
"Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong."

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #51 on: October 18, 2010, 04:03:34 PM »
With all due respect, I have to ask - have you ever called a football game?
No, I think I claimed that earlier. That is why I am here asking questions from those that have. If there is a reason it is better to be far away and have more to look at as opposed to being closer and focused on the ball in question, please explain it to me.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #52 on: October 18, 2010, 04:04:55 PM »
The U is in the end zone.  He has no idea if the ball broke the plane. That is why we do not let the U's signal TD.  The L is the one who has the look down the goal line.  And he is the one who IS blocked.  He did not see a ball in possession break the plane so he did not signal TD. He saw a loose ball so he dropped his bag (which perhaps the U did also).  But the unobstructed H (also on the goal line) ruled TD (whether he signalled or not).

Making the call requires a lot of data, was the ball in possession, did it break the plane, did it break the plane before some part of the player's body other than a foot or hand touched the ground, etc etc

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #53 on: October 18, 2010, 04:12:36 PM »
The U is in the end zone.  He has no idea if the ball broke the plane. That is why we do not let the U's signal TD.  The L is the one who has the look down the goal line.  And he is the one who IS blocked.  He did not see a ball in possession break the plane so he did not signal TD. He saw a loose ball so he dropped his bag (which perhaps the U did also).  But the unobstructed H (also on the goal line) ruled TD (whether he signalled or not).

Making the call requires a lot of data, was the ball in possession, did it break the plane, did it break the plane before some part of the player's body other than a foot or hand touched the ground, etc etc
Ok, that makes sense. I still don't see why you trust the guy that is 30 yards away, instead of the 2 people (both the U next to the play and the L on the goal line) that called it a fumble.

At the :10 mark you can see the L follow the ball and signal it is Arkansas' possession, around the 2:50 mark you can see the U begin to drop his beanbag and the L does not signal TD.

Why take the view of the guy on the far side of the field, over the 2 guys who were closer. The L and H had opposite view points, one signaled TD and one signaled fumble. The U had a different view point and also signaled fumble. Why did the ref take the view of 1 instead of considering all 3?

Offline HAshleyTX

  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-0
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #54 on: October 18, 2010, 04:18:06 PM »
Lash

The only official in good position with an unobstructed view of this play was the one who ruled touchdown...it's that simple.  With all the video presented, I'm convinced that it is possible that a part of the ball broke the plane of the goaline.

I still don't see why you trust the guy that is 30 yards away, instead of the 2 people (both the U next to the play and the L on the goal line) that called it a fumble.

BECAUSE ONE WAS OBSTRUCTED AND ONE WAS NOT AT AN ANGLE TO RULE ON THE PLANE OF THE GOALINE
« Last Edit: October 18, 2010, 04:21:21 PM by HAshleyTX »

Offline Welpe

  • *
  • Posts: 1857
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #55 on: October 18, 2010, 04:18:30 PM »
It boils down to the fact that closer is not always better.  As Mike said, a wide angle can offer additional information that is critical to a call.

Offline RMR

  • *
  • Posts: 490
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-5
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #56 on: October 18, 2010, 04:19:45 PM »
No, I think I claimed that earlier. That is why I am here asking questions from those that have. If there is a reason it is better to be far away and have more to look at as opposed to being closer and focused on the ball in question, please explain it to me.

I think Mike already did that.
"Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong."

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #57 on: October 18, 2010, 04:23:13 PM »
Lash

The only official in good position with an unobstructed view of this play was the one who ruled touchdown...it's that simple.  With all the video presented, I'm convinced that it is possible that a part of the ball broke the plain of the goaline.
Why? Several of you have said this, but nobody has explained why the guy farthest away had the best view.

It boils down to the fact that closer is not always better.  As Mike said, a wide angle can offer additional information that is critical to a call.
Same question, why does a wider angle make a better position in this instance? What additional information did he have that would help make the call?

I'm interested in an explanation because I can't think of one....but I'm not an official so maybe there is something you're taught that I don't know.


I'll add my own theory. I think the U and the L saw the ball come out and weren't sure if it crossed the goal line, they threw down the beanbag to let it play out. The H didn't see the ball come out because the BC's leg blocked his view, so he called TD. When they conferenced none were sure of where the ball was, so they went with TD and reviewed it on replay which wasn't quite conclusive.

That is strictly my made up opinion with nothing to base it on, just a guess of what may have happened. But it makes more sense than "the guy farthest away could see it better."

Offline arthurhawgerelli

  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #58 on: October 18, 2010, 04:35:49 PM »
Why? Several of you have said this, but nobody has explained why the guy farthest away had the best view.
Same question, why does a wider angle make a better position in this instance? What additional information did he have that would help make the call?

I'm interested in an explanation because I can't think of one....but I'm not an official so maybe there is something you're taught that I don't know.


I'll add my own theory. I think the U and the L saw the ball come out and weren't sure if it crossed the goal line, they threw down the beanbag to let it play out. The H didn't see the ball come out because the BC's leg blocked his view, so he called TD. When they conferenced none were sure of where the ball was, so they went with TD and reviewed it on replay which wasn't quite conclusive.

That is strictly my made up opinion with nothing to base it on, just a guess of what may have happened. But it makes more sense than "the guy farthest away could see it better."
Probably the only way this will be resolved to stop the "grassy knoll" crowd, is when the schools release their end zone camera views.  It will plainly show if the Head Linesman signals touchdown, and then the conspiracy folks will have to be quiet or get their question answered.  I admit bias, but I feel like there is enough evidence to reverse the call.  I also never heard a whistle on the replays I've seen.  Isn't it apropros to blow your whistle when you signal touchdown?  Just asking.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2010, 04:38:13 PM by arthurhawgerelli »

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #59 on: October 18, 2010, 04:52:50 PM »
Probably the only way this will be resolved to stop the "grassy knoll" crowd, is when the schools release their end zone camera views.  It will plainly show if the Head Linesman signals touchdown, and then the conspiracy folks will have to be quiet or get their question answered.  I admit bias, but I feel like there is enough evidence to reverse the call.  I also never heard a whistle on the replays I've seen.  Isn't it apropros to blow your whistle when you signal touchdown?  Just asking.
I'm interested in the answer to this also. The guys on woopig stick to that as their reasoning for believing the H never signaled TD, but if he put both hands up for a TD how would he put his whistle in his mouth to blow it? You can see the L put his whistle in his mouth, so I assume the H had to also but couldn't because he was signaling TD, and it would be someone else's job to blow the play dead. But that is just my uneducated guess.

Offline blindref757

  • *
  • Posts: 561
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-17
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #60 on: October 18, 2010, 05:09:04 PM »
I've been taught "Angle over Distance" philosophy ever since I started officiating.  It is better to have a good look at the play from the proper angle than be too close and not see the whole situation in it's entirety.  It's especially prevalent in non-collision sports like basketball and baseball where you are looking for contact on a shooter's body or hand or a tag at a base.  That being said though...on the goal line, any angle at all other than parallel is a bad angle on a play like this.

The L is sitting there with his feet solid, he is dropping his posture to look under the defender, he is looking 100% down the line at the time it all comes together.  I think he's in perfect position mechanically speaking.  The guy who makes the TD call is just a tad late getting to the line and the BC's leg does mask the ball.  Its a fair question to ask...does he have a better (unobstructed) look.

Replay is handcuffed because they don't have indisputable evidence to overturn the call.  But that being said, it is very fair to say that it is possible for the ball to have touched the plane of the line.  I'm just not sure that H could see that.

It will be interesting to see how the SEC front office handles this.

And for the record, the whistle doesn't mean anything...many plays have no whistle at all.  The ball becomes dead PRIOR to our whistle in nearly every case.  We practice not having an early whistle...that's why the whistle isn't in the mouth during the play.  By the time whomever signaled TD got to blowing a whistle, he likely recognized the scrum for the loose ball and withheld.

Lash

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #61 on: October 18, 2010, 05:16:42 PM »
Thanks blind ref, excellent explanation and it makes perfect sense. I have said all along the replay official was handcuffed by the call, he couldn't have overturned that either way. The play was decided when the ref called TD, and it is questionable as to whether or not that was the right choice.

It makes sense about the angle the U had, but the L and H having the same angle seems like the one that is closer would be what mattered. It isn't like a play in baseball where you need to see the bag and the catch, all you needed to see was the ball over the goal line and both had the same view of that. It seemed like the L had the better view but something made the ref trust the H more, that leads me back to my theory of neither being totally sure. It makes sense for them to huddle and the L and H both say they couldn't tell for sure. No doubt he crossed the goal line and no doubt he fumbled, the question is when, so it's possible he was right to signal TD and the U was right to signal fumble since that's all he saw was that there was a fumble, not when there was a fumble. In that case it makes sense to go with the TD since the L and H had obstructed views and hope the replay has a better view, unfortunately it didn't really.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #62 on: October 18, 2010, 08:47:01 PM »

It will be interesting to see how the SEC front office handles this.

They already have.  There is no way they go back now and say something different.  It would destroy all crediobility.  They have said their piece and it is up to everyone to agree or disagree buit there will not be anything changed in their official statement.

Offline blindref757

  • *
  • Posts: 561
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-17
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #63 on: October 18, 2010, 09:07:26 PM »
Thanks blind ref, excellent explanation and it makes perfect sense. I have said all along the replay official was handcuffed by the call, he couldn't have overturned that either way. The play was decided when the ref called TD, and it is questionable as to whether or not that was the right choice.

It makes sense about the angle the U had, but the L and H having the same angle seems like the one that is closer would be what mattered. It isn't like a play in baseball where you need to see the bag and the catch, all you needed to see was the ball over the goal line and both had the same view of that. It seemed like the L had the better view but something made the ref trust the H more, that leads me back to my theory of neither being totally sure. It makes sense for them to huddle and the L and H both say they couldn't tell for sure. No doubt he crossed the goal line and no doubt he fumbled, the question is when, so it's possible he was right to signal TD and the U was right to signal fumble since that's all he saw was that there was a fumble, not when there was a fumble. In that case it makes sense to go with the TD since the L and H had obstructed views and hope the replay has a better view, unfortunately it didn't really.

This business requires a lot of trust.  If my partner can tell me that he saw something and he's 100% sure of his call, that's my teammate and I'm going to give him the respect of his call.  At this level, there is no room for wussies!  You make a call and you either be dang sure its right, fix it if it's not, or you be willing to pay the price if you don't.  If one of my crew members is fishing in my pond, I think I have every right to ask them to be 100% sure.  I'm certain this conversation occurred prior to the R signaling and announcing TD. 

If it was easy, everyone would be doing it!!!

Offline arthurhawgerelli

  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #64 on: October 18, 2010, 10:24:45 PM »
Okay, this question will seem like it is dripping in sarcasm, but I don't know any other way to ask it.  

First things first.  The claim is that the Head Linesman signaled touchdown.  I've seen no video proof of this, although as I stated before, the end zone cameras of both schools will show the entire field, and I suspect that if there is video proof that there was in fact a signal of touchdown, we will some day see it.  I listened several times to the play as it was happening, and the only whistle I ever hear, is the whistles blowing the play dead after the Arkansas player scooped the ball and was tackled.  I do not hear a whistle when the HL supposedly signals touchdown.  None.  And it does seem that the crowd notices the ball on the ground, so no definitive celebration cheer is heard.

For the sake of argument I concede that any official signaled touchdown, so the white hat has very little other choice but to make the official call on the field as touchdown.  Even though two other officials seem to think there was a fumble.  Tough to do, but the white hat has to make tough decisions.

Now, let's take it to the booth.  Several of you have said there is not enough evidence to reverse the call.  Why?  If you even have just a very topical understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion, you can see that IF the ball had crossed the goal line in the running back's possession, if the defender swatted the ball AWAY from the goal line, the ball would have bounced away from the end zone.  You can see on both of the most definitive angles, the ball drops straight down, and clearly 5-8 inches away from the goal line.  This is simple gravity.  A football takes funny bounces because of its shape, but it cannot defy the law of gravity that is in effect when the defender slaps the ball out of the running back's hand, it goes straight down.  Short of a hurricane effecting the ball in a manner that it had to drop straight down for some unexplained metaphysical reason, there is 100% evidence that the ball was never over the goal line or in the end zone.

Am I making sense?  I just cannot for the life of me take hold of the fact that there is not enough evidence to reverse the call.  If there is not, considering Newton's Laws of Motion, I would think there is no longer reason for video review because all it does is delay the game.  

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.  I do not think SEC officials have it out for Arkansas, but I sure wish I could understand why there was not enough evidence to reverse the call, and remember I'm not so sure any official ever threw his hands up signaling touchdown.  
« Last Edit: October 18, 2010, 10:26:39 PM by arthurhawgerelli »

Offline blindref757

  • *
  • Posts: 561
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-17
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #65 on: October 18, 2010, 10:48:11 PM »
Because replay isn't based on laws of physics...it's based on the laws of what you can see and defend.  The ball goes completely invisible for a second...there is no clear picture of the ball in, or out.  They can't look at where the ball hits to try and ascertain where it was...it's against the laws of NCAA!

KB

  • Guest
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #66 on: October 19, 2010, 03:31:01 AM »
Lash, out of long, and sometimes bitter, experience (almost 30 years in this):

Closer is usually WORSE than farther away. The closer you are to the action, the more you are under stress. It's simply part of a humans genetical heritage of being part hunter, part prey. Stress is BAD.

Angles get skewed much more when you are close than when you have 3/4 of the field in between. That is used in what is called "crossfield officiating", where (as the closer wing) you let yourself be guided by the actions and body language of your opposite.

There are (in the meantime numerous) studies by universities that have found that the majority of bad calls come from officials close to the action, while the majority of good calls in field sports like football or soccer are made from distances in the 20 meter (or above) range.

This is why we (sometimes) go with the call from farther away, if discussion leads us to the conclusion that the one farther away had the better look.

In the actual play the H can make a good case that he DID see at least part of the ball at the moment it came loose, and its relative position to the GL. And he had a good view of the first moment the ball was loose, which is the moment we (and the L) can't see because of the player in between.

Offline arthurhawgerelli

  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #67 on: October 19, 2010, 07:44:00 AM »
Because replay isn't based on laws of physics...it's based on the laws of what you can see and defend.  The ball goes completely invisible for a second...there is no clear picture of the ball in, or out.  They can't look at where the ball hits to try and ascertain where it was...it's against the laws of NCAA!
Your serious?  Surely you're joking.  There is a very clear picture of the ball out of the ball carrier's hands and falling straight to the ground.  You're telling me you've never called PI on a player who was reaching around a receiver, yet you couldn't completely see whether he made contact as he reached around him?  I know a good referee will only call what he sees, and by and large this is true of most of the officials I've ever had the privilege to work with, but occasionally even a good official will make a call based on what he feels like had to have logically happened based on his experience and what he feels like happened.

I know you're just pulling my leg.  Surely.

Offline blindref757

  • *
  • Posts: 561
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-17
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #68 on: October 19, 2010, 08:36:17 AM »
No jokes here...for jokes you'll need to look up Tony Timmons on YouTube!  (That's an inside joke!) 

I'm saying that REPLAY officials can't do that by rule. 

On the field...yes, we use all sorts of geometry, probability, and reasoning.  But the guy in the booth has to have INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE to overturn what was called.  Imagine the can-o-worms if the R announced, "After further review, the IR official can't see the ball, but logically concluded with a slightly less than perfect camera angle and a PhD analysis in Trigonometry that the ball didn't cross the goal line prior to the defender knocking it out."

Offline arthurhawgerelli

  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #69 on: October 19, 2010, 09:24:22 AM »
No jokes here...for jokes you'll need to look up Tony Timmons on YouTube!  (That's an inside joke!) 

I'm saying that REPLAY officials can't do that by rule. 

On the field...yes, we use all sorts of geometry, probability, and reasoning.  But the guy in the booth has to have INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE to overturn what was called.  Imagine the can-o-worms if the R announced, "After further review, the IR official can't see the ball, but logically concluded with a slightly less than perfect camera angle and a PhD analysis in Trigonometry that the ball didn't cross the goal line prior to the defender knocking it out."

So gravity is not indisputable evidence?  The ball drops straight to the ground.  Had it ever been over the goal line or in the end zone, there is absolutely no way on this planet it could have dropped straight down, as seen on two camera angles.  The runner was going into the end zone the entire time, he was not knocked back at all.  The ball went straight down.  It lands 5-8 inches behind the end zone and rests until acted upon by another force (the Arkansas player scooping it up).

It is time to do away with instant replay if you cannot use laws of science and nature as part of your perception as a guideline when making the decision. 

What you're saying is that if you are the trailing official, and you see a tackler reach in front of a ball carrier, the ball carrier's head jerks back, you cannot throw a flag for face mask because you didn't actually see his face mask grasped?  Not all of your brethren think this.

What a world.

Offline blindref757

  • *
  • Posts: 561
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-17
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #70 on: October 19, 2010, 09:37:33 AM »
Reading is fundamental sir.

Please don't use the framework of "so you're saying" when that is not at all what I said.  You sound like a coach!

Offline Etref

  • *
  • Posts: 1739
  • FAN REACTION: +60/-22
  • " I don't make the rules coach!"
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #71 on: October 19, 2010, 09:37:45 AM »
So gravity is not indisputable evidence?  The ball drops straight to the ground.  Had it ever been over the goal line or in the end zone, there is absolutely no way on this planet it could have dropped straight down, as seen on two camera angles.  The runner was going into the end zone the entire time, he was not knocked back at all.  The ball went straight down.  It lands 5-8 inches behind the end zone and rests until acted upon by another force (the Arkansas player scooping it up).

It is time to do away with instant replay if you cannot use laws of science and nature as part of your perception as a guideline when making the decision. 

What you're saying is that if you are the trailing official, and you see a tackler reach in front of a ball carrier, the ball carrier's head jerks back, you cannot throw a flag for face mask because you didn't actually see his face mask grasped?  Not all of your brethren think this.What a world.


Absolutely, I am not calling a personal foul facemaks unless I see the hand on the face mask and the head move from the movement of the hand on the facemask.  I have seen way too many times that a head jerks with the jersy pull or any number of reasons. Like wise I do not call a touch down unless I see the ball in player possession crossing the plane of the goal line. If you assume............... well you know what happens then.

" I don't make the rules coach!"

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #72 on: October 19, 2010, 09:41:51 AM »
Quote
The ball drops straight to the ground.  Had it ever been over the goal line or in the end zone, there is absolutely no way on this planet it could have dropped straight down,

There is NOTHING in the replay that shows that the ball could not have crossed the plane, been knocked loose by the defender and dropped the exact way you described.  Laws of physics or gravity or whatever, you have no way of knowing if the ball was 5" short of the plane, or 1" over it.  What you are describing ASSUMES the ball was dropped straight down.  There is no VIDEO EVIDENCE that is true.  There is also no video evidence that it is not true.

In other words, the call on the field HAD to stand, as there was no video evidence to support either side of this argument, which has now moved from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Quote
You sound like a coach!

Watch it!

Offline txmustang68

  • *
  • Posts: 97
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #73 on: October 19, 2010, 09:45:14 AM »
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.

You're right, mike.  I removed my officials cap and put on my fan cap.  But I still believe the call was all jacked up.

Offline arthurhawgerelli

  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line
« Reply #74 on: October 19, 2010, 11:26:03 AM »
There is NOTHING in the replay that shows that the ball could not have crossed the plane, been knocked loose by the defender and dropped the exact way you described.  Laws of physics or gravity or whatever, you have no way of knowing if the ball was 5" short of the plane, or 1" over it.  What you are describing ASSUMES the ball was dropped straight down.  There is no VIDEO EVIDENCE that is true.  There is also no video evidence that it is not true.

In other words, the call on the field HAD to stand, as there was no video evidence to support either side of this argument, which has now moved from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Watch it!
So a ball dropping straight to the ground from two different angles, 5" short of the goal line is not true evidence of what was taped? 

My memory is that you are a coach, or former coach, so you probably have a football laying around close to you.  Ask for help.  Have your helper hold the ball and you slap the ball straight down.  Then slap the ball from the front of your helper, and then from behind.  Film it if you like.  You will see that when a ball is slapped straight down, it is physically impossible for it to fall any other way.  Now, the shape of a football has been proven time and again may cause it, when it lands, to go any random direction.  If you slap the ball from the front, or back, you will witness inertia and the ball will travel opposite the direction the force came from.  When it lands, it's up to randomness again.

The video that the replay official witnessed showed the ball go straight down, 5-8" short of the goal line.  No, he didn't have a view where he could see the ball being slapped, but he can see that there is no physical way the ball could have crossed the goal line.  Zero. 

My point is that it seems to take more evidence to reverse a call than can ever possibly be proven, so they should do away with instant replay.  If you cannot use simple gravity as indisputable evidence, and the second controversial play in the game where the runner's knee was clearly down proved you cannot use vision as indisputable evidence, why lenghthen the game so unnecessarily?