Goal line camera angle

[Jacknut16]

The issue here is not so much if the ball passed the goal line, but was he down before the ball crossed the goal line so some kind of ball sensor at the goal line would be useless in this case.

A standard set of camera angles that would include a view looking straight down the goal line plus at least a given amount of distance before the goal line would in this case be able to answer the question was he down by contact before the ball passed the goal line or not.

The only reply shown on TV that was even close was behind the goal line so it was impossible to determine if it was or was not indeed a touchdown.

Bottom line today is PC did not challenge the play so it's over and done with.

GO HAWKS!!!

If it had a sensor you would see the sensor go off, and then stop film , look at the knee. So yes the sensor would help, and it should already be technology in the game.

 

[Anonymous]

Just put a sensor in the ball.

What an original thought this is.

Brilliant!

:stirthepot:

 

[netskier]

Put sensors in the ball and in the kneepads.

 

[RiverDog]

Put sensors in the ball and in the kneepads.

They should have put sensors in Monica's kneepads!

 

[onanygivensunday]

Is Pete even allowed to challenge that play? Aren't all scoring or in this case potentially scoring plays automatically reviewed. I thought he didn't throw the flag because it would have resulted in a delay of game penalty and then the play would not be reviewable. I thought his only real option would have been timeout, to give them more time to look at it. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

You've got things a bit messed up.

Pete is allowed to challenge the play... as long as the play did not occur within 2:00 of either the end of the 1st half or the end of the game. I don't recall now if that was the case. I don't believe that it was.

Assuming it wasn't and since the call on the field was he down by contact, then the play is not automatically reviewed.

Had the call on the field been he scored a TD, then the play would have been automatically reviewed.

In summary, not called a TD and not within 2:00, the HC must throw the red flag to drive a booth review.

 

[12thManHawkFan]

Thanks for the explaination.

 

[253hawk]

The issue here is not so much if the ball passed the goal line, but was he down before the ball crossed the goal line so some kind of ball sensor at the goal line would be useless in this case.

All they need to do is have some sort of timing trigger (a secondary game clock) that goes off once the ball crosses the plane, and then sync it up with the official timer during review. Then see when it was triggered and if the ball carrier was down or not at the time.

As for Pete not challenging, the ball may have been in, but not indisputably enough from the camera angles we were seeing (even though the refs usually have several more than what we get on TV.)

 

[CamanoIslandJQ]

Horses in a horse race can win by a nose, based on a wide angle still picture of the "wire" crossing of each horse. Of course, horses don't have a knee down at the time, but horse racing has used video "proof" of crossing the finish line for years now, the NFL, not so much. Maybe the NFL needs to study available technology and get more up to date to further eliminate the human error factors. It seems like the current system says your guilty of whatever the refs think, unless you are conclusively deemed to be innocent and that's not always the fairest way to go.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Just put a sensor in the ball.

I've been saying that for a while. Is it that hard to put a sensor in the ball and pylons?

Tennis does something similiar and it works just fine.

 

[Rocket]

If they can draw a pair of freakin' lines on the field and not have them drawn over players who are MOVING, they can damn well figure out a way to assess the position of the ball.

OTOH, sensor-wise, the football is a complex shape... it's not spherical.

 

[jkitsune]

Just put a sensor in the ball.

I've been saying that for a while. Is it that hard to put a sensor in the ball and pylons?

I agree, but how would it have mattered on this particular play? The ball crossed the goal line, but the question is was Moeaki's knee down at the time.

I'm sure they could devise a process where the video replay stops the instant the sensor is triggered at which point they could see if his knee had hit the ground or not.

I really like that idea.

 

[RiverDog]

I'm not even sure it would require that they imbed a sensor into the football. You would think that they could teach a computer to recognize the football and freeze the video the minute it detects it as having broken the plane.

 

[BlueTalons]

I'm not even sure it would require that they imbed a sensor into the football. You would think that they could teach a computer to recognize the football and freeze the video the minute it detects it as having broken the plane.

Well, I would say the instant the ball has broken the plane...but we know what you are saying! :th2thumbs:

 

[mikeak]

Just put a sensor in the ball.

I've been saying that for a while. Is it that hard to put a sensor in the ball and pylons?

Tennis does something similiar and it works just fine.

Tennis uses cameras just like MLB. Not sensors in the ball

Sensor would have to be tied to a camera establishing when the player is down.

Probably easier to deploy enough cameras to build a full 360 view that can be turned. I expect something like that within the next 2 years.

 

[hawkfannj]

Guys this is soooooo simple as to why the don't have those angles . It's because they don't want to . It would take the call out the refs hands and we don't want that now do we!?!?!

 

[Diezel Dawg]

Funny how I have seen goal line cameras in the NFL before, but not at Levi's?

 

[theincrediblesok]

I went and got 3 angles from that game, did a screenshot of the same seconds and positions of the players to make sure they all lined up in the same way, and from those angles there weren't enough conclusive evidence to overturn it. I will say though that it could of been a hair right in there but with the angles I was working with you can't see when the knees were down because of the other players being right in front of the camera. If anyone is interested I could try and showcase the screenshots here.

 

[RiverDog]

Just put a sensor in the ball.

I've been saying that for a while. Is it that hard to put a sensor in the ball and pylons?

Tennis does something similiar and it works just fine.

Tennis uses cameras just like MLB. Not sensors in the ball

Sensor would have to be tied to a camera establishing when the player is down.

Probably easier to deploy enough cameras to build a full 360 view that can be turned. I expect something like that within the next 2 years.

That's my guess, too. A couple years ago, I watched a re-enactment of the JFK assassination that incorporated the scores of home movies and still photos of the actual event to come up with a computer simulation that showed the exact position of everyone in the limo at the time of the shooting. The technology has been around for years, so it's only a matter of being able to compose the simulation in seconds rather than the months it took to put together the one I saw.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

They really need two permanent cameras on each side of the end zone pointing straight down the line that are completely stationary and are just used for challenges.

Except that'd make too much sense. :roll:

Also, it would be harder for the calls to go the way they want them to without causing too much hate and discontent from the fans.

 

[Sterlinghawk]

I guess what I'm saying is we usually see the goal line camera angle....especially in big broadcast games such as primetime thanksgiving night. It has always seemed consistent enough I thought it was a required standard angle. So did the "Sunday night football" production crew screw up or were just not privy to the footage because of something more "sinister"?

For the record, I do not indulge in fixed games or shady refs rhetoric. .. no satisfactory conclusion. Just why didn't we have that angle?