Towson SID responds to criticism

[kalm]

Watched it again. The video showed it to be really close, but incunclusive.

WCB. The stills tell the full story.

I am the new czar of WCB. The stills tell your side of the story.

[89Hen]

I am the new czar of WCB. The stills tell your side of the story.

Then update your title.

BTW, do you have any stills that tell your side?

[kalm]

I am the new czar of WCB. The stills tell your side of the story.

Then update your title.

BTW, do you have any stills that tell your side?

They were lost in a suspicious fire.

[Seahawks]

He was short. The spot was wrong. Then they moved the chains. Case closed.

[kalm]

He was short. The spot was wrong. Then they moved the chains. Case closed.

The chains were originally just past the middle of the 22 yard line. They marked the ball just past the 22 yard line, reviewed the original spot, and moved the ball back at least a foot placing the tip of the ball at or just slightly ahead of the middle of the 22 yard line. The only question is whether the chains were set back to just slightly ahead of the middle of the 22. It was very close and I can see a case to be made either way. Still photo's and video replay can be misleading.

[mcveyrl]

He was short. The spot was wrong. Then they moved the chains. Case closed.

Yea, those stils are pretty damning to anybody that says otherwise. I will admit that watching it on TV and then even after seeing the replay I thought he was close and probably got it. In those stills the first line to gain is on the goal line side of the yard line. In the bottom still the line to gain has changed to the 50 yd. line side of the yard line. The re-spotted ball does not cross the yard line. If you combine the corrected spot with the original line to gain, he's a yard marker short (however wide that is).

And I know the UD fans have been gracious about not saying that one call cost them the game and they're right, but I think we all know that if the right call was made, the game's over.

[mcveyrl]

He was short. The spot was wrong. Then they moved the chains. Case closed.

The chains were originally just past the middle of the 22 yard line. They marked the ball just past the 22 yard line, reviewed the original spot, and moved the ball back at least a foot placing the tip of the ball at or just slightly ahead of the middle of the 22 yard line. The only question is whether the chains were set back to just slightly ahead of the middle of the 22. It was very close and I can see a case to be made either way. Still photo's and video replay can be misleading.

C'mon...that's not the middle.

[mcveyrl]

I'll add (in JFK conspiracy style) that if you look at the angle of the bottom still, they probably spot the line to gain short of the 22 yard line. I don't think the nose of the ball is touching the 22.

[kalm]

The chains were originally just past the middle of the 22 yard line. They marked the ball just past the 22 yard line, reviewed the original spot, and moved the ball back at least a foot placing the tip of the ball at or just slightly ahead of the middle of the 22 yard line. The only question is whether the chains were set back to just slightly ahead of the middle of the 22. It was very close and I can see a case to be made either way. Still photo's and video replay can be misleading.

C'mon...that's not the middle.

The line graphic in that still is half a yard line in width.

[89Hen]

The chains were originally just past the middle of the 22 yard line. They marked the ball just past the 22 yard line, reviewed the original spot, and moved the ball back at least a foot placing the tip of the ball at or just slightly ahead of the middle of the 22 yard line. The only question is whether the chains were set back to just slightly ahead of the middle of the 22. It was very close and I can see a case to be made either way. Still photo's and video replay can be misleading.

I'm not sure how they can be misleading in this case. The chain is clearly past the 22 in the first picture. On the respot the chain is clearly short of the 22 on the second picture.

[kalm]

The chains were originally just past the middle of the 22 yard line. They marked the ball just past the 22 yard line, reviewed the original spot, and moved the ball back at least a foot placing the tip of the ball at or just slightly ahead of the middle of the 22 yard line. The only question is whether the chains were set back to just slightly ahead of the middle of the 22. It was very close and I can see a case to be made either way. Still photo's and video replay can be misleading.

I'm not sure how they can be misleading in this case. The chain is clearly past the 22 in the first picture. On the respot the chain is clearly short of the 22 on the second picture.

In the video, the tip of the re-spotted ball is right at the forward edge of the 22 which is where the original chain was when the play started. It's very close.

[kalm]

That was one magic chain:

[youtube][/youtube]

[89Hen]

In the video, the tip of the re-spotted ball is right at the forward edge of the 22 which is where the original chain was when the play started. It's very close.

At what are you looking? The hash is 100% in front of the chain in the second picture (ie the ball is short of the hash).

[kalm]

In the video, the tip of the re-spotted ball is right at the forward edge of the 22 which is where the original chain was when the play started. It's very close.

At what are you looking? The hash is 100% in front of the chain in the second picture (ie the ball is short of the hash).

That's why I suspect the camera angle. In the video when they put the ball down you have a decent view of the width of the ball being equal to the hash or very close to it. I get what you're saying though about the camera still.

[89Hen]

In the video when they put the ball down you have a decent view of the width of the ball being equal to the hash or very close to it.

Not sure what you mean there. An NCAA football is 16" long. The hash mark is about 3-4" wide.

The sideline cameras can move, but in this case, with the ball moving less than a yard, I seriously doubt they moved the camera by enough to make a hash mark that's within a yard of the ball, and 30 yards from the camera, move.

Maybe I didn't mention it on this thread, but that white area between #3's leg and the chain is the 22 hash mark. The same one from the first photo where the stick was on the other side of it.

[89Hen]

BTW, did I say congrats on your championship?

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

My two cents - worth 3 cents really

1. The runner was short.
2. The refs missed the call to begin (not bad reffing just a tough call) with but were put in between a rock and a hard place once the chains were moved.
3. 1 call didn't lose the game for UD - blowing a 19 point lead in a quarter and half did.
4. Hens fans have been pretty darn good about recognizing #3 and not harping on that one call, this thread included.

Complete agreement here.

[BlackFalkin]

[kalm]

BTW, did I say congrats on your championship?

I don't remember, but thanks and congrats on a great season yourself.

[89Hen]

See, even BF knows he was short.

[T-Dog]

Regardless, UD deserved to lose.

[89Hen]

Regardless, UD deserved to lose.

Maybe it's semantics... but I'd say regardless, UD did lose. I'm not sure I'd ever say they "deserved to lose".

[BlackFalkin]

Regardless, UD deserved to lose.

Maybe it's semantics... but I'd say regardless, UD did lose. I'm not sure I'd ever say they "deserved to lose".

Based on 20 unanswered points in the 4th quarter.

[kdinva]

He was short. The spot was wrong. Then they moved the chains. Case closed.

VP Biden blames the Bush Administration.

[Thumper 76]

Regardless, UD deserved to lose.

I guess this one to me looks REALLY close, as an unopinionated observer.