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

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

I think the All-22 would give us another angle, but that camera is not positioned above the goalpost - not sure it provides a much better view than the 2 shots we already have.

 

We need a view of exactly what the Ref saw.  The Ref was in the right spot - under and slightly behind the upright looking up - the only view point on the field that can tell the exact position as it crosses the end line.

 

No, we don't need the exact view of what the ref saw.  There are other camera angles than can capture what the truth was  and we don't know where the cameras are placed in the stadium. 

 

Again the All-22 was tampered with when leaving it alone, if the kick was truly wide, would have proven the ref got it right.  You only tamper with stuff if you don't want the truth discovered.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Just now, Doc said:

 

No, we don't need the exact view of what the ref saw.  There are other camera angles than can capture what the truth was  and we don't know where the cameras are placed in the stadium. 

 

Again the All-22 was tampered with when leaving it alone, if the kick was truly wide, would have proven the ref got it right.  You only tamper with stuff if you don't want the truth discovered.

 

how do you know that there was another angle?

 

did you see one on TV? 
 

did you record it somehow?

 

Jesus, we won the freaking game. 
 

[SoCal Deek]

People please! The ref stands under the goal post. This is NOT a thing, nor should it be. Geeez

[Doc]

Just now, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

how do you know that there was another angle?

 

did you see one on TV? 
 

did you record it somehow?

 

Jesus, we won the freaking game. 

 

The All-22 is another angle or angles that isn't/aren't provided to the anyone other than the coaches and a select group of people.  So that's how I know.

 

And the larger issue is this happening in a  playoff game or SB that is decided by a kick like this.  Luckily it didn't affect the outcome of the game, but even still, the NFL should be trying to get things right every time, regardless of the importance of the game or kick, while editing footage is crooked.

[Fan in Chicago]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

People please! The ref stands under the goal post. This is NOT a thing, nor should it be. Geeez

The ref stands near the EZ line too, then why are all scoring plays reviewed ?

 

Two points:

- If true, there was no reason to remove the part from the All-22

- Going forward, there is no reason tech should not be applied to remove doubts about validity of FGs. With uprights being so high up, there is no way the angles would help to definitively say whether the kick was good or not. An opportunity to improve

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

The All-22 is another angle or angles that isn't/aren't provided to the anyone other than the coaches and a select group of people.  So that's how I know.

 

And the larger issue is this happening in a  playoff game or SB that is decided by a kick like this.  Luckily it didn't affect the outcome of the game, but even still, the NFL should be trying to get things right every time, regardless of the importance of the game or kick, while editing footage is crooked.

 

but do you know if it EVER existed?

 

were all the other FG’s on the all 22?

 

 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

but do you know if it EVER existed?

 

were all the other FG’s on the all 22?

 

Do I know if footage of the kick ever existed?  Why wouldn't it?  And why wouldn't the other kicks be on there?  Do you think a malfunction occurred just at the moment the ball went through the uprights?

[dickleyjones]

2 hours ago, DCOrange said:

There won't be conclusive video evidence that the kick was good but it was. I guarantee if anyone cared enough, a physicist could tell you that based on the trajectory of the kick, the speed of the kick, and where it hit the net, it must have been inside the uprights when it crossed over the crossbar. It looks obvious to me but I'm no physicist so I can't give you the actual numbers behind it.

 

It's kinda like one of those plays in basketball where a player swipes his hand left but the ball is deflected out of bounds to the right and the ref says it was off that player. The physics of the play tell you that it's impossible but you can't just tell the ref that what they just called is physically impossible lol. I say this from experience...one of my basketball coaches growing up was an actual physicist and he used to make this argument to refs all the time and he received a technical foul every time.

you guarantee what physics may show, but don't know physics. quite the guarantee!

[SWATeam]

8 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

but do you know if it EVER existed?

 

were all the other FG’s on the all 22?

 

 

The all 22 is every play

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Do I know if footage of the kick ever existed?  Why wouldn't it?  And why wouldn't the other kicks be on there?  Do you think a malfunction occurred just at the moment the ball went through the uprights?

Doc this is almost like saying the government deleted all proof Aliens exist. 
 

 

I want to believe but. 

Just now, SWATeam said:

The all 22 is every play

got a link so I can see it?

 

[SWATeam]

1 minute ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

Doc this is almost like saying the government deleted all proof Aliens exist. 
 

 

I want to believe but. 

got a link so I can see it?

 

see what?

 

The all 22 is the coaches film of every teams play every week.  For some reason, the kick in question was removed and replaced with a different kick.  It is all documented earlier in the thread.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 minutes ago, SWATeam said:

see what?

 

The all 22 is the coaches film of every teams play every week.  For some reason, the kick in question was removed and replaced with a different kick.  It is all documented earlier in the thread.

I get the concept 

 

but where is the proof?

 

[SWATeam]

1 minute ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

I get the concept 

 

but where is the proof?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.  What proof?  Proof that the NFL removed the kick?  The proof is in the game film which does not contain that play.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Just now, SWATeam said:

I have no idea what you are talking about.  What proof?  Proof that the NFL removed the kick?  The proof is in the game film which does not contain that play.

proof the NFL removed the clip (and replaced it)

 

I did a google search and no one is talking about this.  
 

so who besides TBD is claiming it’s been doctored?

 

[BillsFanSD]

Obviously the NFL should do a better job with this.  It's just absurd that in The Year of Our Lord 2020 we can't determine whether a field goal was good or not.  But . . .

 

a) We won the game.  Very comfortably.  Maybe -- maybe -- we were robbed of 3 points, but it made no difference whatsoever.  The game was already well in hand.

 

b) For the purposes of evaluating Bass, it doesn't matter whether the kick was barely good or barely wide.  For a professional PK, anything under 40 yards should be right down the middle.  A 38 yard FG attempt should not be an exciting adventure.  Sure, this particular kick affected Bass's numbers, but his kicks were erratic all day.  Even if this kick had been ruled good, there is no way the Bills coaching staff would have been pleased with Bass's performance.  That doesn't mean giving up on him, but it does mean not being wed to him either.

 

c) See point (a) above.

 

d) Let's beat Miami.

[NewEra]

3 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Watch it at 11 seconds and go frame by frame.  There is a shot with 3/4 of the ball inside the post, a shot with the ball directly over the post and a shot with 3/4 of the ball outside the post all within the 11 second mark.
 

Which spot did the ball actually cross the end line or was it before or even after that - that is the question and that is why it is not reviewable.

 

I am not sure what would help conclusively show this one way or another. A view up the post or from the top of the post would help.  Not sure if a sensor in the ball helps as you are 35 feet above the end line - you would need a second sensor someplace to give any accuracy.  
 

I get why people feel the way they do.  It seems like there is a good chance it may have been good, but there has been nothing definitive.  Just like goal line review - sometimes the physical camera angles just do not allow the ability to identify a TD or down by contact because the shot just is not available.

 

 

 

 

The NFL removed the kick from the all 22 and replaced it with a different play.  They didn’t do that by mistake. 

[GG]

29 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

but do you know if it EVER existed?

 

were all the other FG’s on the all 22?

 

 

 

If the footage of this play was simply missing from All-22, then you could simply attribute it to an error. There have been cases when individual plays don't show up in All-22.   But somebody in the NFL actually inserted the footage of another kick in the place of the first FG attempt.  That takes additional effort not just to omit the play in question, but search for another kick and put it there.   That is definitely not normal, and why people should be rightly upset at NFL's handling of this.

[NewEra]

7 minutes ago, GG said:

 

If the footage of this play was simply missing from All-22, then you could simply attribute it to an error. There have been cases when individual plays don't show up in All-22.   But somebody in the NFL actually inserted the footage of another kick in the place of the first FG attempt.  That takes additional effort not just to omit the play in question, but search for another kick and put it there.   That is definitely not normal, and why people should be rightly upset at NFL's handling of this.

I heard that the nfl might have done this because “no one in the right mind, absent crazed Bills fans, would waste the time to  want to see a rookie miss a field goal where it had zero outcome of the game”.

[GG]

1 minute ago, NewEra said:

I heard that the nfl might have done this because “no one in the right mind, absent crazed Bills fans, would waste the time to  want to see a rookie miss a field goal where it had zero outcome of the game”.

 

You forgot to add "thousands of people who had placed wagers on this game, do not like to see officials take valid points off the scoreboard that most certainly had an effect on the final outcome."

[whatdrought]

33 minutes ago, SWATeam said:

see what?

 

The all 22 is the coaches film of every teams play every week.  For some reason, the kick in question was removed and replaced with a different kick.  It is all documented earlier in the thread.

 

30 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

I get the concept 

 

but where is the proof?

 

 

25 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

proof the NFL removed the clip (and replaced it)

 

I did a google search and no one is talking about this.  
 

so who besides TBD is claiming it’s been doctored?

 

 

I don’t think you do get the concept... go up thread where this digression began and see where a bills reporter (a blue checkmark, for what that’s worth) tweeted the clip in question.

 

The all-22 shows the 3rd down play, cuts to a successful FG attempt in the 4th quarter, and then cuts back to the 1-10 of the jets where they takeover after our miss. 
 

This was retweeted by Sal and a couple other reputable people as well, if I’m not mistaken. 
 

Edit: here- I’ll do the legwork for you.

 

 

21 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

 

 

@SlimShady'sSpaceForce - the non TBD proof that you couldn’t find on google that’s been here the whole time.

Edited September 18, 2020 by whatdrought

[NewEra]

7 minutes ago, GG said:

 

You forgot to add "thousands of people who had placed wagers on this game, do not like to see officials take valid points off the scoreboard that most certainly had an effect on the final outcome."

Yeah, but I was the one who said that 🤣 and I obviously have no idea what I’m talking about

[Herc11]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

People please! The ref stands under the goal post. This is NOT a thing, nor should it be. Geeez

And humans don't make errors! 

 

🤣

[NewEra]

41 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

proof the NFL removed the clip (and replaced it)

 

I did a google search and no one is talking about this.  
 

so who besides TBD is claiming it’s been doctored?

 

 

Ok, so you’ve gone so far as to admit that the NFL removed the clip and replaced it.  They wouldn’t just remove it and replace it for no reason now would they?  Do you think WEO works for gamepass and he’s trolling us here at tbd?  
 

I place bets on every team.  When the refs make awful calls and I lose money because of them, I don’t go to twitter and cry about it. I don’t go to a betting forum and rant.  My blood pressure goes up and I beat my wife and dog.  You certainly wouldn’t be able to find me crying about it on the internet.  That doesn’t mean that I’m not livid about.  If the awful call is in a bills game, I come here, because I come here anyway.  
 

It happened during the bills jets game.  The only people that saw the bills and jets game are bills and jets fans for the most part.  Jets fans aren’t going to cry about it, they have enough to cry about.  Bills fans cry about it because it may have played a part in our rookie kickers delicate psyche. Not sure why you have a problem with it.

If it doesn’t bother you, don’t read it and move on.  The discussion isn’t out of the ordinary.....the nfl did remove the kick and replace it with a different kick....which is out of the ordinary.  

 

[Rochesterfan]

32 minutes ago, NewEra said:

The NFL removed the kick from the all 22 and replaced it with a different play.  They didn’t do that by mistake. 

 

Why would the NFL care about this?  They admit a ton of errors including on scoring plays and plays that may cost a team at the end of a game and actually have an impact on the outcome, but a kick that mattered an insignificant amount in the outcome - that is the tipping point - oh god we can’t let the Bills Mafia know 3-4 days later that we made a mistake.

 

You do understand that they cut and piece the All-22 back together every time for all of the games.  This would not be the first time a piece was excluded.

 

Last year I believe when Cover 1 was doing a play review they had to use broadcast film because the play was not on the All-22. 
 

Could it show what you say - a perfect view showing it was good?  Maybe - I won’t know until they show it.

 

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

32 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

 

 

I don’t think you do get the concept... go up thread where this digression began and see where a bills reporter (a blue checkmark, for what that’s worth) tweeted the clip in question.

 

The all-22 shows the 3rd down play, cuts to a successful FG attempt in the 4th quarter, and then cuts back to the 1-10 of the jets where they takeover after our miss. 
 

This was retweeted by Sal and a couple other reputable people as well, if I’m not mistaken. 
 

Edit: here- I’ll do the legwork for you.

 

 

 

@SlimShady'sSpaceForce - the non TBD proof that you couldn’t find on google that’s been here the whole time.

I didn’t see it. 
 

sue me 
 

oye 

[NewEra]

3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Why would the NFL care about this?  They admit a ton of errors including on scoring plays and plays that may cost a team at the end of a game and actually have an impact on the outcome, but a kick that mattered an insignificant amount in the outcome - that is the tipping point - oh god we can’t let the Bills Mafia know 3-4 days later that we made a mistake.

 

You do understand that they cut and piece the All-22 back together every time for all of the games.  This would not be the first time a piece was excluded.

 

Last year I believe when Cover 1 was doing a play review they had to use broadcast film because the play was not on the All-22. 
 

Could it show what you say - a perfect view showing it was good?  Maybe - I won’t know until they show it.

 

 

If they didn’t care about, why would they do this??

 

You feel it’s just a mistake?  I know how video editing is done.  Leaving a play out is one thing.  Leaving a play out and replacing it with a different play altogether isn’t done by mistake.  
 

  

[dollars 2 donuts]

On 9/15/2020 at 9:09 PM, dollars 2 donuts said:

 

Can’t they just use these at the top of the goal posts?

 

 

My apologies to TSW for not reading through the thread as my "original" post above was likely about the 30th Dr. Evil take in this thread.

 

...but come on, congrats to all of us.  It just works so well.

 

 

 

[whatdrought]

1 minute ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

I didn’t see it. 
 

sue me 
 

oye 

 

No prob. You just accidentally blew past the other poster mentioning it up thread. 😛

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

No prob. You just accidentally blew past the other poster mentioning it up thread. 😛

 

I may have blown past it. 
if I re-enter a thread and there are 5 or more pages I just skip to the last page 

 

so yes it the most recent tweet that is odd 

[Jauronimo]

3 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

You might be right, but it would not be simple.  You would need ball speed, wind speed and trajectory because the ball does not travel a straight path.  It would be easy if this was a round baseball going directly from point a to point b.

 

The difficulty will be do you have every measurement and the effect of the laces and the impact of the wind changing from behind the kicker to at the goal line the wind is blowing directly right.  There are also many exact measurements they would need - the exact distance from the pole to the net, the exact distance up the net, exactly how far outside the post it landed into the net.

 

You can do a quick and rough estimate like Shaw did and he determined it was no good, but the problem I have with Shaw’s math was we are assuming a straight path and the ball because of angular spinning velocity and the laces and shape of the ball was pulling to the right it was not a straight line at any point in the kick and you can’t treat it as such.

 

That is why the video would have to be the proof, until they get some type camera/laser system that can determine it was good.  The video is inconclusive and unless the physicists have enough data points on all of the variables they are making an educated guess.  I would love to see the math though - higher level calculations dealing with multiple variables is fun.

One poster in this thread "triangulated" the position of the ball and was able to determine the kick was good. Ask @GG for his math.

[Rochesterfan]

Just now, NewEra said:

If they didn’t care about, why would they do this??

 

You feel it’s just a mistake?  I know how video editing is done.  Leaving a play out is one thing.  Leaving a play out and replacing it with a different play altogether isn’t done by mistake.  
 

  

 

So it’s not done by mistake - then why insert and obvious different kick.  That makes no sense.  If it was a conspiracy- would not the simplest thing to have been leave the play out.  That happens and it would be easy to explain.

 

Doesn’t it make less sense to say that after cutting all of the plays and piecing it back together - let’s take a good kick and insert it in the missed field goal spot - no one will notice?

 

As all of this is done via computer, could someone doing the video editing not have grabbed the wrong file from the FG folder and post it back into wrong slot.  
 

Look I get it, but if the video that was posted by Nick Verona was from the All-22 did you see that kick go through the upright?  Neither view shown by Verona showed what happened with the kick.  This leads me to believe based upon that view - which is the coaching view trying to show how teams line up and attack and block - the All-22 would not have given you a better shot of the missed kick - correct.  The All-22 provided of the made field goal never shows even 2/3rds the way up the Goal posts.

 

So your point is that the NFL knows they screwed up and have purposefully removed the footage - even though the NFL routinely admits errors in most games and the proof is the All-22 that is cut and re-edited together has another kick in its place that also does not show the ball crossing the end line.

 

Got it.  The NFL is out to get us.

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

On 9/16/2020 at 4:52 PM, Old Coot said:

This has been a problem for decades. 

 

In 1965 the Colts lost a sudden death playoff for the Western Conference title as a result of a last minutes Packer FG that sailed higher than the uprights and was ruled good. Photos later showed that it was beyonf the upright.  The "FG that wasn't" tied the game at 10 @.  The game went into overtime & the Pack won 13-10.  The Pack went on to beat the Browns to claim the last NFL championship pre-Super Bowl.

 

As a result of the blown call the height of the uprights was extended from 10 feet to 20 feet.  In 1974 the height was again extended to 30 feet and to 35 feet in 2014 at the behest of the coach we love to hate, Bill Belichick.  Can 50 feet be far behind?

 

BTW the goalposts originally were right on the goal line providing an extra blocker on running plays but also an extra defender on pass plays.

Let’s go 50 ft and be done with it. 

[Rochesterfan]

4 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

One poster in this thread "triangulated" the position of the ball and was able to determine the kick was good. Ask @GG for his math.

 

Ok @GG please show me the math that triangulated the exact position of the ball as it crossed the end line.  I need to see the impact of the ball spin  and the changing wind direction and how that impacted the attempt in the math.  I also need to understand the impact and angle you are using as the ball travelled the majority of the distance on one plain and then the spin and the wind caused the ball speed to slow down and the ball started to rise and shift dramatically to the right.  
 

I need to understand and ensure in the triangulation that was done that this was the a major point in the triangulation.  
 

Could it be done of-course, but you need a ton of data that I don’t believe is available to the average fan.  Height and depth of the netting, angle and wind speed, ball speed - all would be need for an accurate calculation and since we do not have good distance markers once you hit the end zone - not sure you can calculate that easily off from the broadcast angle.  
 

Sorry

[NewEra]

2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

So it’s not done by mistake - then why insert and obvious different kick.  That makes no sense.  If it was a conspiracy- would not the simplest thing to have been leave the play out.  That happens and it would be easy to explain.

 

Doesn’t it make less sense to say that after cutting all of the plays and piecing it back together - let’s take a good kick and insert it in the missed field goal spot - no one will notice?

 

As all of this is done via computer, could someone doing the video editing not have grabbed the wrong file from the FG folder and post it back into wrong slot.  
 

Look I get it, but if the video that was posted by Nick Verona was from the All-22 did you see that kick go through the upright?  Neither view shown by Verona showed what happened with the kick.  This leads me to believe based upon that view - which is the coaching view trying to show how teams line up and attack and block - the All-22 would not have given you a better shot of the missed kick - correct.  The All-22 provided of the made field goal never shows even 2/3rds the way up the Goal posts.

 

So your point is that the NFL knows they screwed up and have purposefully removed the footage - even though the NFL routinely admits errors in most games and the proof is the All-22 that is cut and re-edited together has another kick in its place that also does not show the ball crossing the end line.

 

Got it.  The NFL is out to get us.

This was all the evidence I needed to show me the error of my way.  The nfl definitely just made an error and left out the only controversial call of the entire game and replaced it with another because the video editor grabbed the wrong file.  
 

thanks for showing me the light.

 

the nfl isn’t out to get us.  They figured it better to not have this play in the all-22 because it’s controversial and they don’t have an answer for it.  
 

I agree to disagree regarding how the play was removed and replaced.  
 

bottom line.  Spend some money, do some research and add FG cameras and/or tracking devices.  It’s not 1980.  Technology can help get calls correct.  

[GG]

4 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Ok @GG please show me the math that triangulated the exact position of the ball as it crossed the end line.  I need to see the impact of the ball spin  and the changing wind direction and how that impacted the attempt in the math.  I also need to understand the impact and angle you are using as the ball travelled the majority of the distance on one plain and then the spin and the wind caused the ball speed to slow down and the ball started to rise and shift dramatically to the right.  
 

I need to understand and ensure in the triangulation that was done that this was the a major point in the triangulation.  
 

Could it be done of-course, but you need a ton of data that I don’t believe is available to the average fan.  Height and depth of the netting, angle and wind speed, ball speed - all would be need for an accurate calculation and since we do not have good distance markers once you hit the end zone - not sure you can calculate that easily off from the broadcast angle.  
 

Sorry

 

Watch the slow motion replay of the kick a few pages pages back.   The applicable timeline is between 6 and 8 seconds.  Based on the trajectory of the ball and where & when it hits the netting, it's virtually impossible for the kick to have been wide.

 

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

I heard that the nfl might have done this because “no one in the right mind, absent crazed Bills fans, would waste the time to  want to see a rookie miss a field goal where it had zero outcome of the game”.

 

Don't forget "to generate buzz."

[whatdrought]

37 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

I may have blown past it. 
if I re-enter a thread and there are 5 or more pages I just skip to the last page 

 

so yes it the most recent tweet that is odd 

 

I do it myself all the time. 
 

It is odd, and i am curious why it’s not being discussed wider...

[Rochesterfan]

5 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Watch the slow motion replay of the kick a few pages pages back.   The applicable timeline is between 6 and 8 seconds.  Based on the trajectory of the ball and where & when it hits the netting, it's virtually impossible for the kick to have been wide.

 

 

Totally disagree - watching Nick’s slow motion replays - at 6 seconds it is between the uprights, but still not to the end line.  By 7 seconds it looks like it is right over the uprights and that looks like it is when it is at the end line, but without a reference point - it is impossible to tell.  
 

By the end of 7 seconds before hitting 8 seconds it is outside of the uprights for the most part.  
 

Look to me as I have stated many times - the ball appears to go right over the upright and depending upon the exact fraction of a second you are looking at and assuming it is crossing the end line - it could be 3/4 inside the upright or 3/4 outside the upright.  I do not envy the poor guy trying to make that judgement call.  
 

My belief is if the posts were extended another 5-7 feet - the Kick doinks right off the post - maybe bouncing through, maybe bouncing straight back or out - I don’t know, but I do not think it is conclusive in any way simply because the 2nd and most important data point to the kick being good is when it crosses the end line and we do not have that data point.

[Jauronimo]

15 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Watch the slow motion replay of the kick a few pages pages back.   The applicable timeline is between 6 and 8 seconds.  Based on the trajectory of the ball and where & when it hits the netting, it's virtually impossible for the kick to have been wide.

 

 

Don't be modest; show your work.  Lets see the trajectory of the ball, distance from upright to netting, distance from where the ball struck the netting to right upright, height of the ball when striking the netting, distance from where the ball struck the netting to where the netting is lined up with the right upright, spin rate, coefficient of drag, wind speed, etc.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

3 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

I do it myself all the time. 
 

It is odd, and i am curious why it’s not being discussed wider...

I guess that was my point as well 

 

nothing on ESPN, CBS etc that I saw