Let the arguments begin!!!!!!!!

What do you think?
It was real close. Pretty much the same as in the Mtl SSK game 2 weeks ago

Out.

I will get my call in now before someone tells me what it actually was, because I did not see it....

I wish you had some actual footage because still photos aren't always best, that blow up is way blurry, and the angle is off to the side, not directly down the sideline.

But given those limits, I will say out....

And that it is closer than the Montreal/Sask call.

Oh sure. Type a 3 letter response and get your call in first...

out

Ask and you shall recieve!

[url=http://s30.photobucket.com/albums/c335/ro1313/?action=view&current=VTS_01_1-2.flv]http://s30.photobucket.com/albums/c335/ ... 01_1-2.flv[/url]

Pinball said it was a good call, but it looks like his foot was in, you can see green turf between his foot and the sideline. I said in another thread that sideline cameras should be installed for these types of calls, and cameras for the back of the end zones as well.

Its the side of the foot you have to look at. I think the sideline cameras would be a good idea but I think most times the view would be blocked by the players

Out.

ro1313

Posted: Oct 28, 2006 - 11:29 AM
Ask and you shall recieve!


Thanks!

And still out!
I think if you run back and forth a split second before and after your still shot, I think you can tell he is out. It is close...closer than the Rider play.
Walby says he is "straddling the line" which if he could speak english he would realize that means "he was out".
Of course the referee standing right there had the best look, but I am not convinced the refs can see that large long white line.
So did the ref call it in or out?
I assume it was challenged, I just don't know who was the challenger.

And yes, they need more cameras. You will never catch everything, but we know that some of the most contentious and oft made calls are along the sidelines and in the endzone.

It was ruled a TD and was challenged by Montreal and the ruling was over turned. Actually I believe that in this case the Refs were too close to the play and could not see his foot with their peripheral vision

Definetly cannot tell from that video. Don't see how anyone can clearly state "out" when the camera man is how many feet away? And....since you CAN'T see any part of the shoe on the white from this angle, what's to say that if you WERE looking straight down at the foot, there might not have been the smallest of margins between the shoe and the line??

NOBOBY can clearly state "out" from this angle.

Peripheral vision! Refs. That is funny.
Anyway...I don't see the sideline ref in the play at all but he should be gasping for breath somewhere nearby.
But the only ref I see is in the middle of the field about 30 or 40 yards away. Can't blame him....

NO there were 2 more just out side the shot. You should be able to see them in the video

A further point.
I hate replay. Always have. The argument here is, at least they got it right. But maybe the argument should be, they took away a great individual effort and an exciting play. All over a quarter of an inch.
I don't think it makes the game better, it just satisfies the armchair QBs who see the replay and have an opinion.

In this case the correct call took away the great effort. The next time it will reward a great effort. Also the 1/4 inch is irrelevant....If he went out he went out!

You're kidding right, all over a 1/4"? If he's out he's out, no matter how close he is or far away he is out of bounds. That is the rule. Just because it was an exciting play does not change the rules of the game.

Okay.
Obviously if he is out, he is out. The rule is the rule. What I am saying is, without replay, that was a touchdown, or so I am told.
If the ref didn't see it, or called it wrong, without replay, the play stands.
I do not see how replay has made the game better.
Ro makes a good point. This big play is called back. The next big play will be allowed. It's even, right?
First, if it were even, then that means we gain nothing from replay.
The fact is, most of the time, replay supports the original call. I think it has been around 65%. That means far from even, we gain less than even.
So where is the advantage? It can't possibly be in the 3-5 minutes of time spent twiddling our thumbs while nothing is happening.
Plus I maintain that the cost of replay would have been better spent in adding a few training seminars to the refs agenda.
A 5% rise in the efficiency of the refs as they make calls on the field will improve the game far more than the one or two calls that are challenged by replay.
Most of the plays and calls an official makes are not reviewable in the first place, so if they do a better job on those, the game will improve.
And if the refs get better at making the call in the first place, the need for replay is reduced.

Anyway, I wasn't in favour of replay before it was introduced, and I have seen nothing to change my mind.

great stuff. :cry:

He was out and there was CONCLUSIVE evidence to over turn the T.D.

I don't agree that training will make things better. It will help but the ref cannot always have the best angle to see the play or he was not looking at the receivers hands and not his feet!

There have been many cases where the wrong call would have resulted in a victory and video replay make the right call. Sure it takes a couple of minutes....maybe 5 but it does add to the excitement and getting the right call is worth the wait!