Edit: NFL removes Bass's kick from All-22 video

[GG]

6 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

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.

 

The ball disappears from view at within the 7-8 second mark, which is presumably where it hits the netting at the left end of the Toyota sign.  The ball had a pronounced right leaning trajectory.  Assuming there's 5 yards from the upright to the netting, it's virtually impossible for that kick to be wide for the ball to end up where it hit the netting.

6 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Don't be modest; show your work.  Lets see the trajectory of the ball, distance from upright to netting, distance from where the ball struck the netting to right upright, height of the ball when striking the netting, distance from where the ball struck the netting to where the netting is lined up with the right upright, spin rate, coefficient of drag, wind speed, etc.

 

Stop being an ass.  There's enough detail in the slow motion replay to realistically ascertain whether the ball was within the plane of the uprights.

[Jauronimo]

4 minutes ago, GG said:

 

The ball disappears from view at within the 7-8 second mark, which is presumably where it hits the netting at the left end of the Toyota sign.  The ball had a pronounced right leaning trajectory.  Assuming there's 5 yards from the upright to the netting, it's virtually impossible for that kick to be wide for the ball to end up where it hit the netting.

 

Stop being an ass.  There's enough detail in the slow motion replay to realistically ascertain whether the ball was within the plane of the uprights.

You claim to have triangulated the position of the ball and its virtually impossible the kick was no good.  Triangulation by definition requires mathematical calculations so I don;t think asking for your work is unreasonable.  How about this, where was the ball when it hit the netting (i.e., how far outside the right upright) and what is the distance from the upright to the netting?

Edited September 18, 2020 by Jauronimo

[GG]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

You claim to have triangulated the position of the ball and its virtually impossible the kick was no good.  Triangulation by definition requires mathematical calculations so I don;t think asking for your work is unreasonable.  How about this, where was the ball when it hit the netting (i.e., how far outside the right upright) and what is the distance from the upright to the netting?

 

You're asking me to provide the mathematical details in a post where I provided the math?  The only thing that's missing is the ball appears to hit the Toyota sign about 1-2 yards to the right of the upright.

[Jauronimo]

Just now, GG said:

 

You're asking me to provide the mathematical details in a post where I provided the math?  The only thing that's missing is the ball appears to hit the Toyota sign about 1-2 yards to the right of the upright.

You have provided no math.  

 

Based on your calculations how far inside the upright must the ball have been? 

[GG]

3 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

You have provided no math.  

 

Based on your calculations how far inside the upright must the ball have been? 

 

Just enough to give the good guys 3 points on the scoreboard.

[NewEra]

11 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

You have provided no math.  

 

Based on your calculations how far inside the upright must the ball have been? 

At this point, you’re just trolling.  I suggest bringing something else to the table or let it be.  Trolling makes you look bad imo.  I usually enjoy reading your takes.  

[Rochesterfan]

12 minutes ago, GG said:

 

The ball disappears from view at within the 7-8 second mark, which is presumably where it hits the netting at the left end of the Toyota sign.  The ball had a pronounced right leaning trajectory.  Assuming there's 5 yards from the upright to the netting, it's virtually impossible for that kick to be wide for the ball to end up where it hit the netting.

 

Stop being an ass.  There's enough detail in the slow motion replay to realistically ascertain whether the ball was within the plane of the uprights.

 

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.
 

 

 

[Jauronimo]

2 minutes ago, NewEra said:

At this point, you’re just trolling.  I suggest bringing something else to the table or let it be.  Trolling makes you look bad imo.  I usually enjoy reading your takes.  

I'm trolling?  Dude claims he triangulated the kick and its "virtually impossible" the kick missed.  I asked to see his work.  Are we all supposed to take his word for it? 

 

Definition of triangulation

 

1: the measurement of the elements necessary to determine the network of triangles into which any part of the earth's surface is divided in surveyingbroadly : any similar trigonometric operation for finding a position or location by means of bearings from two fixed points a known distance apart

 

Turns out the triangulation was he watched the video same as you and I and guesstimated some distances but did no math.  If trolling is asking basic questions to someone, who as it turns out was talking out of their ass, then guilty as charged.

[GG]

5 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

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?)?

 

 

 

 

 

That's the point, what are the odds that the ball didn't go through the uprights, when it is slicing to the right and hits the net 2 yards to the right and 5 yards deep?

[NewEra]

19 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I'm trolling?  Dude claims he triangulated the kick and its "virtually impossible" the kick missed.  I asked to see his work.  Are we all supposed to take his word for it? 

 

Definition of triangulation

 

1: the measurement of the elements necessary to determine the network of triangles into which any part of the earth's surface is divided in surveyingbroadly : any similar trigonometric operation for finding a position or location by means of bearings from two fixed points a known distance apart

 

Turns out the triangulation was he watched the video same as you and I and guesstimated some distances but did no math.  If trolling is asking basic questions to someone, who as it turns out was talking out of their ass, then guilty as charged.

Going on and on and on and on and on and on and on.  We get it bruh. 
 

In this instance, I see you trolling

[Jauronimo]

16 hours ago, Doc said:

 

What in this instance would be "coincidental"?

 

 

No need for anything more dramatic.  Just no need to do whatever someone who has no authority over you tells you to do.

 

 

Yeah.  The NFL doctoring the All-22 proves it. 

 

Why do you keep doing this to yourself?

 

  

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I really think there should be lights and electronic wind vane on top of the goal posts. All kickers should have helmets with digital visors that tell them wind direction, speed and exact distance.

 

We have the technology we can rebuild them.

[Jauronimo]

6 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Going on and on and on and on and on and on and on.  We get it bruh. 
 

In this instance, I see you trolling

I would say trolling is filling a thread with pseudoscience, bull####, and hair brained conspiracy theories and calling it proof.  

 

As far as your involvement in this thread, we get it bruh, everything is a conspiracy and it goes all the way to the top!  Tinfoil hats and all that.

[NewEra]

2 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I would say trolling is filling a thread with pseudoscience, bull####, and hair brained conspiracy theories and calling it proof.  

 

As far as your involvement in this thread, we get it bruh, everything is a conspiracy and it goes all the way to the top!  Tinfoil hats and all that.

 

and now you’re trolling me.  “Everything is a conspiracy”.  Just making up bs putting words in my mouth. 
 

have fun.  

 

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, NewEra said:

 

and now you’re trolling me.  “Everything is a conspiracy”.  Just making up bs putting words in my mouth. 
 

have fun.  

 

 

2 hours ago, NewEra said:

 

Ok, so you’ve gone so far as to admit that the NFL removed the clip and replaced it.  They wouldn’t just remove it and replace it for no reason now would they?  Do you think WEO works for gamepass and he’s trolling us here at tbd?  
 

I place bets on every team.  When the refs make awful calls and I lose money because of them, I don’t go to twitter and cry about it. I don’t go to a betting forum and rant.  My blood pressure goes up and I beat my wife and dog.  You certainly wouldn’t be able to find me crying about it on the internet.  That doesn’t mean that I’m not livid about.  If the awful call is in a bills game, I come here, because I come here anyway.  
 

It happened during the bills jets game.  The only people that saw the bills and jets game are bills and jets fans for the most part.  Jets fans aren’t going to cry about it, they have enough to cry about.  Bills fans cry about it because it may have played a part in our rookie kickers delicate psyche. Not sure why you have a problem with it.

If it doesn’t bother you, don’t read it and move on.  The discussion isn’t out of the ordinary.....the nfl did remove the kick and replace it with a different kick....which is out of the ordinary.  

 

 

 

[GG]

45 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

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.
 

 

 

 

The other undiscussed variable is where the official is standing.  If he's a foot or so behind the upright, that will affect his view of a kick that's slicing to the right.

[Rochesterfan]

9 minutes ago, GG said:

 

The other undiscussed variable is where the official is standing.  If he's a foot or so behind the upright, that will affect his view of a kick that's slicing to the right.

 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.

[Rochesterfan]

38 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

 

  

 

3 hours ago, Doc said:

 

No, we don't need the exact view of what the ref saw.  There are other camera angles than can capture what the truth was  and we don't know where the cameras are placed in the stadium. 

 

Again the All-22 was tampered with when leaving it alone, if the kick was truly wide, would have proven the ref got it right.  You only tamper with stuff if you don't want the truth discovered.

 

3 hours ago, NewEra said:

The NFL removed the kick from the all 22 and replaced it with a different play.  They didn’t do that by mistake. 

 

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.

 

[NewEra]

11 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

 

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.

 

Yes.  This makes me think that my original point still stands true.  The nfl needs to spend some money and add technology that allows us to figure out if the kick is good or not good.  In general, to get every call correct.  If the all 22 doesn’t show it.....then spend some money on technology that will show it.  Billions being made.  Billions being gambled.  There’s no reason for the NFL to sit on its hands while they have plays left in limbo 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

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.

 

No because I thought at the time of the kick that it was good, CBS saw fit to show a replay of it well after it happened ostensibly because they thought it might have been good/saw McD was livid about the call, heard corroboration from the announcers and ref in the booth at the game, and have seen numerous other posters agree it was good.  And while they did include the kick, there was obviously some editing going on when leaving it alone would have made the most sense, so for all we know they have a definitive view and didn't want to show it.

 

In any case, the larger point still stands that if they don't so something, they better hope it doesn't happen again in a crucial game/moment.  Just trusting one ref doesn't make it definitive.