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

[LeGOATski]

25 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

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.

...there was obviously some editing going on...

 

Duh... 😝

 

These do come out right after the games air, so it's very quick. The all-22 doesn't give a good angle, anyway.

 

They should have the camera angle from the bottom of the posts. That's the best view and can be easily implemented.

[RobbRiddick]

I haven't read through this thread but does anyone remember the Rich Karlis kick at the end of the Browns/Broncos championship game? I always thought that looked like it missed but assumed it was the angle of the camera. Just googled it and there's a lot of stuff (mostly from Brown's fans) saying it was no good.

 

I love it how fans refuse to forget this stuff. I still maintain the lateral went forward

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

...there was obviously some editing going on...

 

Duh... 😝

 

These do come out right after the games air, so it's very quick. The all-22 doesn't give a good angle, anyway.

 

They should have the camera angle from the bottom of the posts. That's the best view and can be easily implemented.

 

Do they come out right after the games air?  Editing takes time.

 

And yeah, the crossbar cam should have captured it.  

[Rochesterfan]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

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.

 

I doubt there will be a definitive shot forthcoming now because the NFL has released everything they're going to release and they have no desire to a) show up their officials and b) have a hell break loose because 3 more points will cause some betting havoc.  So we'll agree to disagree.  You saw it your way, I saw it mine and again one official making the call means zilch to me since they've blown plenty of calls over the years.

[Rochesterfan]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Do they come out right after the games air?  Editing takes time.

 

And yeah, the crossbar cam should have captured it.  

 

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.

[LeGOATski]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Do they come out right after the games air?  Editing takes time.

I'm not sure how long after, but same day

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

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.

 

If it's SOP to chop up the film like that, fine.  The footage provided (where is the crossbar cam footage?) doesn't settle anything one way or another and I still stick by what I saw.  Again just because one ref under the goalpost saw it differently means nothing to me as they get things wrong all the time.

 

22 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

I'm not sure how long after, but same day

 

They said the All-22 was late this week.  Meaning it was finally available yesterday.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Doc

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Isn’t it odd they keep focusing on the clock and “editing” it in.  
 

🤔 

 

 

[Doc]

40 minutes ago, BUFFALOBART said:

It did.

 

That's what Adam Schefter said.  He was in a press box seat at the 25 yard line and had a perfect view of it.  And he had no dog in the fight.

[Billsatlastin2018]

These are 2 stop screen pics, about a second apart.

 

BOTH show the ball inside the Right Upright.

 

The NFL blew it and obviously some HD digital review cameras are essential.

 

 

And the other...

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

11 minutes ago, Billsatlastin2018 said:

These are 2 stop screen pics, about a second apart.

 

BOTH show the ball inside the Right Upright.

 

The NFL blew it and obviously some HD digital review cameras are essential.

 

 

And the other...

 

 

 

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.

 

[NewEra]

9 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

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.

 

 

That won’t happen because a different view didn’t exist.  So nows is the NFLs chance.  Add some technology to make sure there is NO DOUBT, they got the call correct.  As it stands, we don’t know  whether or not the kick was good or not.  That shouldn’t be the case.  If it’s broken. Fix it. We proved on Sunday that it’s broken

[NewEra]

3 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

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.

 

And took money out of the pockets of people that picked the over on the prop correctly

and

 

gave free money to people that picked the under on the prop incorrectly.  
 

Betting changes ones thought process regarding this. Just because you and others don’t wager often, you don’t think with this mindset.  Millions of people do.  When billions are being bet, they should do everything in their power to make sure they have cameras, or other technology that can help definitively prove the result of each play.

[Rochesterfan]

2 hours ago, NewEra said:

And took money out of the pockets of people that picked the over on the prop correctly

and

 

gave free money to people that picked the under on the prop incorrectly.  
 

Betting changes ones thought process regarding this. Just because you and others don’t wager often, you don’t think with this mindset.  Millions of people do.  When billions are being bet, they should do everything in their power to make sure they have cameras, or other technology that can help definitively prove the result of each play.

 

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.  

[NewEra]

2 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

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.  

I didn’t lose money.  Thanks for your concern though
 

They should try and get it right....because they can.  
 

You don’t think they should try and get it right....because who cares about betting and remember the 80s.

 

Cool.  Your side of the story doesn’t make as much sense as mine. To each their own. 
 

It’ll be fun when this happens in a playoff game....or in a play that is more relevant in determining a winner.  
 

there’s no reason not to add technology....except money and effort 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by NewEra

[Coach Tuesday]

Do the folks who always believe conspiracy theories ever pause and wonder why (i) they are almost always disproven, and (ii) the people allegedly behind the conspiracies (like the NFL and the Federal government) are so utterly incompetent they can barely pull off doing their jobs in the broad daylight, let alone a carefully orchestrated deception or coverup?

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

11 hours ago, Billsatlastin2018 said:

These are 2 stop screen pics, about a second apart.

 

BOTH show the ball inside the Right Upright.

 

The NFL blew it and obviously some HD digital review cameras are essential.

 

 

And the other...

 

 

look at the picture more closely 

 

one has a car and WHITE on the right 

 

one has RED on the right. 
 

Looks like 2 different kicks 

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

15 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

look at the picture more closely 

 

one has a car and WHITE on the right 

 

one has RED on the right. 
 

Looks like 2 different kicks 

 

 

 

Most Likely the same kick - the car is between the uprights and can be seen from a distance, the red is a Toyota sign that was outside the uprights on both the left and right.

 

The difference is the amount of zoom and the camera angle - which is why neither picture really tells you anything - along with the fact the ball is still short of the end line - most likely.

3 hours ago, NewEra said:

I didn’t lose money.  Thanks for your concern though
 

They should try and get it right....because they can.  
 

You don’t think they should try and get it right....because who cares about betting and remember the 80s.

 

Cool.  Your side of the story doesn’t make as much sense as mine. To each their own. 
 

It’ll be fun when this happens in a playoff game....or in a play that is more relevant in determining a winner.  
 

there’s no reason not to add technology....except money and effort 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is exactly what I said - they should fix it for the game.

 

Your argument about bettors should not matter.

 

If they want to make it right for the game - great, but don’t do it because some people lose money and some people win.

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Most Likely the same kick - the car is between the uprights and can be seen from a distance, the red is a Toyota sign that was outside the uprights on both the left and right.

 

The difference is the amount of zoom and the camera angle - which is why neither picture really tells you anything - along with the fact the ball is still short of the end line - most likely.

 

This is exactly what I said - they should fix it for the game.

 

Your argument about bettors should not matter.

 

If they want to make it right for the game - great, but don’t do it because some people lose money and some people win.

I didn’t say betting is the ONLY reason they should try and get the call right.  It is one of the many reasons. Whether YOU think it matters or not is greatly irrelevant.