Pittsburgh-Baltimore call reversal

[Brian Fein]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Just because you can't see a clear outline of a ball, doesn't mean its indisputable.  How would you get a brown streak between two white streaks over the goal line if the ball wasn't in that spot at some point?

[Brian Fein]

You may not think its "indisputable," but if you watch the replay, you can clearly see the nose of the ball sticking over the goal line.  It didn't get it by much but it just has to break the plane. 

[Frimp]

^^

That's a touchdown!

[Phishfan]

He has to have posession of the ball. Simply having it between hands does not mean there was a catch at that time.

[Brian Fein]

the ball is in his hands,  his feet were on the ground.  the ball didn't come out when he hit the ground. at what point does it become a "catch"?  the "football move" rule was removed...

[Phishfan]

I never saw it myself, but there have been claims of a slight bobble.

[Brian Fein]

i dunno, it looks clean to me.

Maybe it is not indisputable, obviously, since so many people are arguing about it.  It seems like they need a better replay system, possibly with permanently-mounted high-speed cameras at the goal line on both sidelines, high above the referee's head, simply for occasions like this.  This one single play has a huge bearing on the season, specifically the playoffs, and it all hinges upon a blurry panning shot of a bang-bang play.

[YoFuggedaboutit]

It seems like they need a better replay system, possibly with permanently-mounted high-speed cameras at the goal line on both sidelines, high above the referee's head, simply for occasions like this.  This one single play has a huge bearing on the season, specifically the playoffs, and it all hinges upon a blurry panning shot of a bang-bang play.

You're right, maybe they do need a better system.  But for now, it's too hard to tell, therefore the call should not have been reversed.  And I'm not a fan of either team. 

[Dave Gray]

The problem with the idea of "indisputable evidence" is that pretty much any play can be disputed.  There's always something that could be argued regarding when the ball actually secured, especially on a play where you're talking about inches on a spot.

[fyo]

I think they need a 3D system, where multiple (high speed) camera angles are used to generate a final 3D scene where the refs can rotate and get exactly the angle they want. Quickly. Play it, freeze frame, rotate to the angle you want.

In the short term, as a solution that could be implemented EASILY, RIGHT NOW, I wish they would sync all the cameras *really* well and provide side-by-side shots under the hood so the refs can get multiple angles instantly. As it is now, they switch between angles and "kinda feel" where the ball was when the knee hit the ground from another angle.

[StL FinFan]

Let's just put sensors in the ball and across the goal line and take humans out of the equation all together.

[Brian Fein]

Let's just put sensors in the ball and across the goal line and take humans out of the equation all together.

This is something I was discussing earlier today.  Similar to the system they have in Tennis or maybe like the "k-zone" in baseball.  Seems like its something that would be easy enough to implement.  We have the technology, it'd be nice to put it to use.

[StL FinFan]

I was being facetious.

[Brian Fein]

I was not, I think its a good idea.  Take the guesswork out of it.  If you had a computer-graphic image of Santonio Holmes standing there with the ball in his hands, there'd be no question.  The concept of "indisputable evidence" goes out the window.

[run_to_win]

Has the "two feet in the endzone with possession of the ball" explanation been dismissed?