Rochesterfan

Why - They are not getting the money. You are choosing to bet on their product. You know the rules - this can happen at any time. A pass interference call allowing a late field goal. A missed field goal. A team driving and then scoring or kneeling. There are a million ways that people make or miss a prop bet. To be ticked because a third quarter kick was missed and blaming that on you missing your bet is just stupid. We have no idea how the game plays out - from that point forward everything else would be different. You make the bet - the NFL does not need to provide you anything else. They play the game - the technology they use should be for them and the teams. If it helps bettors great, but that should not be even a tiny piece of the though process. People have bet on the game before technology, replay, and widespread television rights. The outcome is the outcome. If they want to fix this because it is in the best interest of the game great. If you are suggesting they should fix it for gambling - I could not care less. It is called gambling - people win and people lose and life goes on. I am sorry if you lost money on a kick that was wide and was called no good - sounds to me like the bookies had the over/under set right and you were on the wrong side. If I was you - I would be more upset at the Jets late meaningless TD which for many people put the game into an over at 40 which was the suggested Over/under on many sites. Maybe if you had it higher - you should be ticked about your sports book as the numbers change and find one that improves your odds. Overall - I guess I would say I have no feelings at all for bettors - it is gambling and you win some and you lose some. Get over it or stop betting.

In neither shot has the ball crossed the end line correct - by the top one the ball is already right in line with upright and it looks like it still has a bit of distance to get to the upright. Now picture a guy standing behind and looking up - take each shot maybe 2 or 3 more frames to get it to the end line and past the upright into the vision of the Ref. Is it any wonder why it was called no good? Imagine the top picture if the post is extended up 5-10 feet - it is doinking right into the post and most likely bouncing out. I mean in the minor distance between the bottom shot and the top shot (which seems a bit closer) it appears the ball moved a full football or more to the right. Take that one or two more frames and it is on the outside as it is moving more to the right than it is forward at that point. This movement is further shown by the fact in the slow motion replay - the ball hit the netting after traveling 4/5 of the way across the Toyota sign that you can barely see in the bottom frame. By all means though - if it makes you feel better the NFL screwed us out of 3 points in a blow out for no apparent reason. I tend to believe since the best shots we have are of these long angle replays that are totally inconclusive because we do not have the required reference point of the end line - that perhaps the Referee doing his job and in the proper position to actually judge it - called it as he saw it from right below and behind the upright. It was not blown, it was not a screw job. It was a kick that was a hairs breath either of being good or wide right and if the kick had been a few feet lower or the posts a few feet higher - we would have conclusive evidence, but since it isn’t - the call on the field stands.

Not saying they are better - saying I think both guys are better against the run than the pass and with the injured WR - I think the Bills can use them to slow down the run and allow Marlowe and Neal to play against the pass.

I am in a different place on this. I love Milano and Edmunds, but my fear of Miami was them trying to run it down our throat - ala how NE does some times - especially with the injuries at WR. I think Dodson and Klein may end up being better run fit stoppers and therefore give some size and power to stop that and when the Dolphins have to pass - we will bring in Marlowe or Neal to better cover and go very small. We all know Fitz has an ability to be God or God Da.. bad - so I am hoping we can bottle up the run and get Fitztragic passing and be alright.

Wow - you are putting $25 on the game - man that is brave. Sorry - 😂

I honestly believe - much like Beane here - he did not want to spend huge money or long term commitments until he figures out which players are his future and which players need to go. He did not sign big name free agents and many guys shunned them - although he did try to resign Robby Anderson until he decide to go back to his college coach.. I think this year is really about learning the guys and drafting a specific breed of players. What is difficult at least in my eye - is that it might mean collateral damage to the QB they just drafted #3 overall. They have wasted his first 2 years and it looks like year 3 is even worse - so it makes no sense to give him big money - you need to win on a rookie contract. I would look at them looking for a new QB next year and trying to get picks for Sam and using next year as the baseline/starting point for the rebuild. My hope is that since JD is not in charge of the coaching staff - that the owners decide that Gase is the guy to lead the team a few more years and maybe they can screw up another drafted QB because my fear is they pair JD with a good coach and the Jets end up with their version of McDermott and Beane.

You do understand the purpose of the All-22 right. They cut every play and put it different files for the teams to review. Every play is cut into files for game time, down and distance, and formation. All the special teams plays get put into different files for review: kick-offs, punts, FGs and Xtra points. These all get cut and processed and back quickly to the teams. Later they work to piece back together the plays - usually in order, but not always - sometimes someone grabs the wrong file and puts a play or two out of order - as was stated many times it is special teams plays (kicks) that get spliced back in at the wrong point. This film is for the consumers and is pretty useless for the coaches. I would love to see the crossbar cam, but my guess is on shorter kicks they do not use the cross bar cam on the near end zone because the ball moves up and around to fast and the image from that cam would be blurry and very jerky if it catches the ball at all. They use it for longer kicks where it has time to identify the ball in flight and adjust to the trajectory. Short kicks like that it would be nearly impossible to see from that camera.

Man - so CBS showed the inconclusive replay and had the rules expert come on and say maybe it was good, but you can’t tell because it was higher than the upright and you do not know at what point it crossed the end line - which is exactly why it is non-reviewable. Of course McDermott was mad from his sideline view and the angle - it did probably look good, but so far there has been nothing to prove that. Then you basically state that it was good because the NFL was hiding the All-22 - which turns out to be totally incorrect. Then when the All-22 doesn’t show it as good - you state that there was editing issues (not really true) and that for all you know there is a definitive view, but the NFL doesn’t want to show it. I will once again ask why - the NFL routinely admits mistakes - even ones that cost points and on occasions have had an impact on the final outcome - so why would they care about an inconsequential Field goal. I take it further - if there was a better shot - why did CBS not show it - they had no problems questioning the call on the field - to the point of bringing in the rules expert. They showed the 2 angles they seemed to have and as was stated it was inconclusive and appeared to be higher than the upright - so it is not challengable. If they had a better shot - they had no reason to hide it. The truth is - there does not appear to be any shots that show the kick being good. The timing makes it seem very likely the ball was directly over the top of the crossbar and the referee looking up determined it was not good. Some of that could be placement and timing - as was discussed in the slow motion replay - it looks like just as it is reaching the upright it is maybe right in line a touch inside and by the time it clears the upright with the right drift - the ball is mostly on the outside of the upright. The Referees stand under and behind the post looking up - which you can see him doing as he waves it no good. That extra little bit may have moved it from inside to outside, but I don’t think it was obvious. My belief is (as I have said) most likely the ball hits the upright if it is extended and either goes through or is bounced straight back, but it is to high and therefore this is unknown. What I do know is it has been now proven that the NFL did not “hide” the All-22 to prove they were right. The NFL is not trying to screw with us o steal away 3 points in a meaningless part of the game. Additionally in case it crosses your mind - the NFL did not keep fans out of the game so they could purposefully hide a made FG and call it no good. I hope someone can find something and prove it was good - I like Bass and think it would be great to give him a small boost, but it seems funny to me that by Friday afternoon with additional replays and the game available on Game Center for a 30 minute watch - no one has anything better than an opinion or a guess.

So @Doc and @NewEra does this change you mind at all. Verona was incorrect - the kick is included, but as I said it is not unusual for these to be out of order because of how the film is cut for distribution. The All-22 is specifically designed for coaches - not to watch the game in order of plays. They pull all kicks, punts, FGs, extra points - into a separate file for the special teams coach review. After getting the film out to the coaches in a broken up format - they try to piece it back for our consumption. In many cases that means they occasionally put plays in the wrong order. Additionally - as I stated earlier - the All-22 does not show anything on whether the kick is good or not because that is not what the film is for - so having the All-22 does nothing to prove or disprove the point and it sure does not seem to be an NFL conspiracy against the Bills.

Agreed and he is positioned under and just behind - so again - I am sure it was close and you are seeing it at the last possible frame rather than the first frames.

The ball disappears at the 8 second mark because it goes into the red of the Toyota sign. At the very end of the 8 seconds mark - you see the ball reappear 3/4 of the way across the Toyota sign past the middle of the Toyota logo in white you see the ball hit and begin to drop - so that is when I assume it is hitting the net. My issue with the logic is we do not know how far to the right that is as there is no measurement, but using the Car as a guide - I would have to estimate almost 5-6 feet or more (maybe 2 yards to the right). What is the depth of the netting at that point? Maybe 8-10 feet (so 3 yards?)? What is the angle that the ball is traveling at to calculate the distance and the angle and the speed so that you can actually triangulate the spot. As I said - it looks to me on that slow motion replay the ball is right over the upright - And I know I can not calculate the point of cross over without some basic info that I just don’t have. What we do know is that at whatever point it hit the net it was well outside and to the right. It is also hard because if you look at that goalpost - it appears to be leaning to the right as it does not follow the path up like the left goal post and it does not look straight. What I do not have is exactly how far outside nor the distance from the end line to the net. Those we can only guess at. The NFL has the means to fix this and least most of the time - if they want to.

Totally disagree - watching Nick’s slow motion replays - at 6 seconds it is between the uprights, but still not to the end line. By 7 seconds it looks like it is right over the uprights and that looks like it is when it is at the end line, but without a reference point - it is impossible to tell. By the end of 7 seconds before hitting 8 seconds it is outside of the uprights for the most part. Look to me as I have stated many times - the ball appears to go right over the upright and depending upon the exact fraction of a second you are looking at and assuming it is crossing the end line - it could be 3/4 inside the upright or 3/4 outside the upright. I do not envy the poor guy trying to make that judgement call. My belief is if the posts were extended another 5-7 feet - the Kick doinks right off the post - maybe bouncing through, maybe bouncing straight back or out - I don’t know, but I do not think it is conclusive in any way simply because the 2nd and most important data point to the kick being good is when it crosses the end line and we do not have that data point.

Ok @GG please show me the math that triangulated the exact position of the ball as it crossed the end line. I need to see the impact of the ball spin and the changing wind direction and how that impacted the attempt in the math. I also need to understand the impact and angle you are using as the ball travelled the majority of the distance on one plain and then the spin and the wind caused the ball speed to slow down and the ball started to rise and shift dramatically to the right. I need to understand and ensure in the triangulation that was done that this was the a major point in the triangulation. Could it be done of-course, but you need a ton of data that I don’t believe is available to the average fan. Height and depth of the netting, angle and wind speed, ball speed - all would be need for an accurate calculation and since we do not have good distance markers once you hit the end zone - not sure you can calculate that easily off from the broadcast angle. Sorry

So it’s not done by mistake - then why insert and obvious different kick. That makes no sense. If it was a conspiracy- would not the simplest thing to have been leave the play out. That happens and it would be easy to explain. Doesn’t it make less sense to say that after cutting all of the plays and piecing it back together - let’s take a good kick and insert it in the missed field goal spot - no one will notice? As all of this is done via computer, could someone doing the video editing not have grabbed the wrong file from the FG folder and post it back into wrong slot. Look I get it, but if the video that was posted by Nick Verona was from the All-22 did you see that kick go through the upright? Neither view shown by Verona showed what happened with the kick. This leads me to believe based upon that view - which is the coaching view trying to show how teams line up and attack and block - the All-22 would not have given you a better shot of the missed kick - correct. The All-22 provided of the made field goal never shows even 2/3rds the way up the Goal posts. So your point is that the NFL knows they screwed up and have purposefully removed the footage - even though the NFL routinely admits errors in most games and the proof is the All-22 that is cut and re-edited together has another kick in its place that also does not show the ball crossing the end line. Got it. The NFL is out to get us.

Why would the NFL care about this? They admit a ton of errors including on scoring plays and plays that may cost a team at the end of a game and actually have an impact on the outcome, but a kick that mattered an insignificant amount in the outcome - that is the tipping point - oh god we can’t let the Bills Mafia know 3-4 days later that we made a mistake. You do understand that they cut and piece the All-22 back together every time for all of the games. This would not be the first time a piece was excluded. Last year I believe when Cover 1 was doing a play review they had to use broadcast film because the play was not on the All-22. Could it show what you say - a perfect view showing it was good? Maybe - I won’t know until they show it.

You might be right, but it would not be simple. You would need ball speed, wind speed and trajectory because the ball does not travel a straight path. It would be easy if this was a round baseball going directly from point a to point b. The difficulty will be do you have every measurement and the effect of the laces and the impact of the wind changing from behind the kicker to at the goal line the wind is blowing directly right. There are also many exact measurements they would need - the exact distance from the pole to the net, the exact distance up the net, exactly how far outside the post it landed into the net. You can do a quick and rough estimate like Shaw did and he determined it was no good, but the problem I have with Shaw’s math was we are assuming a straight path and the ball because of angular spinning velocity and the laces and shape of the ball was pulling to the right it was not a straight line at any point in the kick and you can’t treat it as such. That is why the video would have to be the proof, until they get some type camera/laser system that can determine it was good. The video is inconclusive and unless the physicists have enough data points on all of the variables they are making an educated guess. I would love to see the math though - higher level calculations dealing with multiple variables is fun.

Watch it at 11 seconds and go frame by frame. There is a shot with 3/4 of the ball inside the post, a shot with the ball directly over the post and a shot with 3/4 of the ball outside the post all within the 11 second mark. Which spot did the ball actually cross the end line or was it before or even after that - that is the question and that is why it is not reviewable. I am not sure what would help conclusively show this one way or another. A view up the post or from the top of the post would help. Not sure if a sensor in the ball helps as you are 35 feet above the end line - you would need a second sensor someplace to give any accuracy. I get why people feel the way they do. It seems like there is a good chance it may have been good, but there has been nothing definitive. Just like goal line review - sometimes the physical camera angles just do not allow the ability to identify a TD or down by contact because the shot just is not available.

Nice pic - where is the ball relative to the end line and what angle are we at. This picture to me seems to be well before the ball got to the goalpost maybe 3-5 frames to early and we know the ball is drifting right. This does not show me a good field goal - I am sorry - just do not see it.

So assume they allow this to be reviewed - was it good or because there has not been one conclusive picture at the exact moment do they go with the call on the field? The issue with it is because it is higher than the reference point and because there is not a straight angle camera shot right up the goal post - it will always be deemed inconclusive- unless it goes between the uprights low enough that you can see it. In this case as was stated on the broadcast there was nothing conclusive - so he would have lost a challenge. That is what they would have to fix. I think the All-22 would give us another angle, but that camera is not positioned above the goalpost - not sure it provides a much better view than the 2 shots we already have. We need a view of exactly what the Ref saw. The Ref was in the right spot - under and slightly behind the upright looking up - the only view point on the field that can tell the exact position as it crosses the end line.

I need to see this clear evidence. There are a ton of clips showing this kick and all of them show the same 2 angles from behind the kicker. I would assume since people use their camera to take vids off the tv and the game has not only been shown, but shown on replay - that if their was a clearer shot - someone would post it. I want to be convinced - I just have not seen anything with a shot that you can tell the moment it hits the end line where the ball is.

Totally agree, but none of that was made available and I would assume if CBS had that camera angle that showed something they would have played it. They were not shy about questioning the kick - showed multiple shots of the replay and even brought in their rules expert - so if they had a better shot I would believe they would have showed it. The rules expert stated that it looked like it could be good, but there was nothing showing the exact moment it crossed the goal line - so they could not be sure. this was also the emphasis for the rule change that went into effect years ago that the ball crossing the goal line had to be between the pylons. If you remember years and years ago - the goal line used to be considered infinite around the world and guys could run and dive and land 4-5 yards out of bound and get credit for the TD. They changed that because it is so hard beyond the field of play to get a definitive shot. I believe because the review is based upon the video that the broadcast team has and can put together and show. I don’t think the broadcast has access to the All-22 as it is shot for coaching. If the broadcast was controlling that camera - it could be used and I wished it would as it shows so much. As to why it is missing - I am not going to speculate- they obviously spend a huge amount of time cutting and piecing together the film for the coaches and fans. Was it a legitimate mistake of was it done on purpose - that is for others to argue - right now it just is not available.

Yes for afterwards, but they do not use the all 22 in game as those are shot for the teams. I would love to see the All -22 of this kick, but unfortunately it was not included.

I believe they do not allow review when the kick is above the top of the uprights because of exactly the issue we see in the game footage that is provided. When the kick is above the top of the reference point - you are now bringing in subjective decisions and angles into the decision. Therefore they would not have a definitive shot most of the time meaning they would stay with the call on the field. We are all still sitting here and have not seen one shot stopped at the exact moment the ball is passing the goal line that shows it was in between the 2 uprights. We have seen several slow motion replays of the kick and had a guy say he triangulated things - which I believe is Bull because unlike a simple action with the ball traveling in a straight direction - what ever triangulation has to take into account the wind speed and its impact on the forward and sidewards momentum of the ball to determine the exact moment the ball crossed the plane. Nowhere have I seen the ball speed and the changing speed based upon the wind - which would suggest to me - if someone tried to triangulate based upon the speed of the kick while it is the field of play - they will misjudge the timing and the distance. My guess based upon what we have seen is that for a small market broadcast there was most likely only 1 or 2 broadcast angles as the booths begin moving and positioning cameras for the kick-off. I agree this should be a fairly easy fix with cameras - extended the posts with different material - some type of laser grid - or any number of other ideas, but they are not in place so unfortunately the best viewpoint is that of the refs right under the goal post.

you really can’t tell at what point it gets to the upright. It looks like it sails right over the upright to me.

Yes it was. As was the one on the earlier play were the Jet defender dove and took out the back of Josh’s leg after the throw.