NewEra Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said: No I never agreed to point 1. And i never said or intimated it is easier to hack a system and cover it up than bribe an official. Never said that at all so if you want to have an intellectually honest conversation great, if you want to make things up go at it yourself. No not at all, i gave you a plausible reason why, as so many crazed conspiracy theorists are asserting the kick was editted out. I dont know if it was and really dont care either way. But for some to allege the NFL: is up to something nefarious is laughable That’s not a plausible reason. You gave me a reason with zero explanation on why it would make sense for them to make that decision. There is nothing you could say that would make it feasible.
Ecmic82 Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said: Youre right you didnt agree to the first point. but does that mean you do think there is more proof that the patriots hack headsets than this fg was good. You did say if tech was put in the pats could hack. so you now agree that its easier to bribe an official than to hack? youre right im reading between the lines, but only cause you arent giving direct answers. youre just insinuating things like the pats hack head sets. Pats are known to deep-fake instant replays 🤣
NewEra Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 7 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said: No I never agreed to point 1. And i never said or intimated it is easier to hack a system and cover it up than bribe an official. Never said that at all so if you want to have an intellectually honest conversation great, if you want to make things up go at it yourself. No not at all, i gave you a plausible reason why, as so many crazed conspiracy theorists are asserting the kick was editted out. I dont know if it was and really dont care either way. But for some to allege the NFL: is up to something nefarious is laughable There IS money involved. There is a reason. Billions of dollars bet each sunday on outcomes. 2
HappyDays Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 I'm just glad we can have this conversation after a win rather than a 3 point loss. Looks to me like the refs screwed up on this one, but it's still concerning that every one of Bass's kicks drifted right. He almost shanked the 20 yarder. I'm less interested in the ref making a bad call by an inch than I am by Bass having poor kick accuracy. If you don't think you'll be nervous the next time he has to kick a field goal you're lying to yourself.
YattaOkasan Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 Just now, Ecmic82 said: Pats are known to deep-fake instant replays 🤣 did this affect a game? Ill stand corrected if its happening and affecting things. I'm harping on it cause it felt like distraction for why we shouldnt put tech in. I see no reason why the location of the ball at any given time couldnt be known. His counter was the pats will just hack it.
GG Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 1 minute ago, NewEra said: There IS money involved. There is a reason. Billions of dollars bet each sunday on outcomes. Absolutely. Until the Jets scored the garbage TD, the game was an under by 3 points!
Ecmic82 Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said: did this affect a game? Ill stand corrected if its happening and affecting things. I'm harping on it cause it felt like distraction for why we shouldnt put tech in. I see no reason why the location of the ball at any given time couldnt be known. His counter was the pats will just hack it. No, I just find it a little funny that there’s concern the Pats are going to hack field goal replay video. Hack it and do what with it 🤷♂️ Edited September 17, 2020 by Ecmic82
Motorin' Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 (edited) Little known fact-- the field goal used to be a soccer goal and was the only way to score in college football before the advent of the touchdown. Teams would park dozens of players, sometimes hundreds, in front of the goal to make it impossible to score. In those days, there were no limits to the amount of players who be be on each side, and the home team usually had a massive advantage. That's why the posts were added to the corner of the soccer goal, and why you still see the dual purpose field goal / soccer goals used by some high schools. So that teams couldn't just block the net with bodies, you'd have to lock it over them to score. Edited September 17, 2020 by Motorin'
RiotAct Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 Just now, Ecmic82 said: No, I just find it a little funny that there’s concern the Pats are going to hack field goal replay video. Hack it and do what with it 🤷♂️ that s*** is probably like porn to Belichick
YattaOkasan Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 1 minute ago, Ecmic82 said: No, I just find it a little funny that there’s concern the Pats are going to hack field goal replay video. Hack it and do what with it 🤷♂️ I THINK he was just commenting on using tech in the balls to know where they are. That the pats would hack that. I dont think he was arguing that Pats were hacking field goals.
Doc Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 They adjust stats for players after review. Poor Bass won't get credit for that one though.
NewEra Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, GG said: Absolutely. Until the Jets scored the garbage TD, the game was an under by 3 points! And there are prop bets and teasers with higher and lower odds. It’s not as if there’s only one spread or over/under# that matters. In most cases, every point matter. while those that don’t bet, don’t care or realize that this exists but in the betting world, this is massive.
Rochesterfan Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 20 minutes ago, MJS said: Field goals is just part of it. And I don't blame the officials at all. The game is designed for the officials to have to make too many split second judgement calls. Spotting the ball is the easiest thing to see. They get the spot a little bit wrong basically every single time, which is a huge deal because literally every inch is important. And the other issue is that certain things aren't reviewable. Why? Why is a field goal reviewable until it reaches a certain height? That makes no sense. That is when you NEED to review it the most. And there are plenty examples of non-reviewable things that should be reviewable. 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.
Jauronimo Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 23 minutes ago, Ecmic82 said: What if it’s simply a very minor problem with officiating on field goals? And what if that problem could be fixed for a few thousand dollars? Then lets do it.
Doc Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said: 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. Maybe. But there is still the All-22 camera.
MJS Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said: 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. Yeah, and with this particular kick I am not convinced it was good anyway. But if camera angles are an issue, spend some of your billions of dollars on a couple extra cameras. I don't care about this particular kick, but if I am an NFL executive, if I saw that, I would say to myself "Why is this kind of thing still happening in 2020? Surely we can come up with some solutions to some of these plays." The fact that there isn't a camera angle is silly, because they already have cameras on the uprights themselves. For some reason that hasn't been made available, but they surely have it. Unless someone forgot to press the on button on that camera?
Rochesterfan Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 1 minute ago, Doc said: Maybe. But there is still the All-22 camera. 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.
Doc Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 Just now, Rochesterfan said: 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. So would we all. And again, why do you think that it wasn't? As for not using the footage during games, why can't they? Do they use film that has to be processed? And if so, they need to have another camera that is live-action video.
Rochesterfan Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 1 minute ago, MJS said: Yeah, and with this particular kick I am not convinced it was good anyway. But if camera angles are an issue, spend some of your billions of dollars on a couple extra cameras. I don't care about this particular kick, but if I am an NFL executive, if I saw that, I would say to myself "Why is this kind of thing still happening in 2020? Surely we can come up with some solutions to some of these plays." The fact that there isn't a camera angle is silly, because they already have cameras on the uprights themselves. For some reason that hasn't been made available, but they surely have it. Unless someone forgot to press the on button on that camera? 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. 3 minutes ago, Doc said: So would we all. And again, why do you think that it wasn't? As for not using the footage during games, why can't they? Do they use film that has to be processed? And if so, they need to have another camera that is live-action video. 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.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 17, 2020 Posted September 17, 2020 This thread is an instant classic. 2
Recommended Posts