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

[GG]

6 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

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.

 

The ball disappears from view at within the 7-8 second mark, which is presumably where it hits the netting at the left end of the Toyota sign.  The ball had a pronounced right leaning trajectory.  Assuming there's 5 yards from the upright to the netting, it's virtually impossible for that kick to be wide for the ball to end up where it hit the netting.

6 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

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.

 

Stop being an ass.  There's enough detail in the slow motion replay to realistically ascertain whether the ball was within the plane of the uprights.

[Jauronimo]

4 minutes ago, GG said:

 

The ball disappears from view at within the 7-8 second mark, which is presumably where it hits the netting at the left end of the Toyota sign.  The ball had a pronounced right leaning trajectory.  Assuming there's 5 yards from the upright to the netting, it's virtually impossible for that kick to be wide for the ball to end up where it hit the netting.

 

Stop being an ass.  There's enough detail in the slow motion replay to realistically ascertain whether the ball was within the plane of the uprights.

You claim to have triangulated the position of the ball and its virtually impossible the kick was no good.  Triangulation by definition requires mathematical calculations so I don;t think asking for your work is unreasonable.  How about this, where was the ball when it hit the netting (i.e., how far outside the right upright) and what is the distance from the upright to the netting?

Edited September 18, 2020 by Jauronimo

[GG]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

You claim to have triangulated the position of the ball and its virtually impossible the kick was no good.  Triangulation by definition requires mathematical calculations so I don;t think asking for your work is unreasonable.  How about this, where was the ball when it hit the netting (i.e., how far outside the right upright) and what is the distance from the upright to the netting?

 

You're asking me to provide the mathematical details in a post where I provided the math?  The only thing that's missing is the ball appears to hit the Toyota sign about 1-2 yards to the right of the upright.

[Jauronimo]

Just now, GG said:

 

You're asking me to provide the mathematical details in a post where I provided the math?  The only thing that's missing is the ball appears to hit the Toyota sign about 1-2 yards to the right of the upright.

You have provided no math.  

 

Based on your calculations how far inside the upright must the ball have been? 

[GG]

3 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

You have provided no math.  

 

Based on your calculations how far inside the upright must the ball have been? 

 

Just enough to give the good guys 3 points on the scoreboard.

[NewEra]

11 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

You have provided no math.  

 

Based on your calculations how far inside the upright must the ball have been? 

At this point, you’re just trolling.  I suggest bringing something else to the table or let it be.  Trolling makes you look bad imo.  I usually enjoy reading your takes.  

[Rochesterfan]

12 minutes ago, GG said:

 

The ball disappears from view at within the 7-8 second mark, which is presumably where it hits the netting at the left end of the Toyota sign.  The ball had a pronounced right leaning trajectory.  Assuming there's 5 yards from the upright to the netting, it's virtually impossible for that kick to be wide for the ball to end up where it hit the netting.

 

Stop being an ass.  There's enough detail in the slow motion replay to realistically ascertain whether the ball was within the plane of the uprights.

 

The ball disappears at the 8 second mark because it goes into the red of the Toyota sign. 
 

At the very end of the 8 seconds mark - you see the ball reappear 3/4 of the way across the Toyota sign past the middle of the Toyota logo in white you see the ball hit and begin to drop - so that is when I assume it is hitting the net.
 

My issue with the logic is we do not know how far to the right that is as there is no measurement, but using the Car as a guide - I would have to estimate almost 5-6 feet or more (maybe 2 yards to the right).

 

What is the depth of the netting at that point?  Maybe 8-10 feet (so 3 yards?)?

 

What is the angle that the ball is traveling at to calculate the distance and the angle and the speed so that you can actually triangulate the spot.  
 

As I said - it looks to me on that slow motion replay the ball is right over the upright - And I know I can not calculate the point of cross over without some basic info that I just don’t have.  What we do know is that at whatever point it hit the net it was well outside and to the right.  It is also hard because if you look at that goalpost - it appears to be leaning to the right as it does not follow the path up like the left goal post and it does not look straight.  What I do not have is exactly how far outside nor the distance from the end line to the net.  Those we can only guess at.  

 

The NFL has the means to fix this and least most of the time - if they want to.
 

 

 

[Jauronimo]

2 minutes ago, NewEra said:

At this point, you’re just trolling.  I suggest bringing something else to the table or let it be.  Trolling makes you look bad imo.  I usually enjoy reading your takes.  

I'm trolling?  Dude claims he triangulated the kick and its "virtually impossible" the kick missed.  I asked to see his work.  Are we all supposed to take his word for it? 

 

Definition of triangulation

 

1: the measurement of the elements necessary to determine the network of triangles into which any part of the earth's surface is divided in surveyingbroadly : any similar trigonometric operation for finding a position or location by means of bearings from two fixed points a known distance apart

 

Turns out the triangulation was he watched the video same as you and I and guesstimated some distances but did no math.  If trolling is asking basic questions to someone, who as it turns out was talking out of their ass, then guilty as charged.

[GG]

5 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

The ball disappears at the 8 second mark because it goes into the red of the Toyota sign. 
 

At the very end of the 8 seconds mark - you see the ball reappear 3/4 of the way across the Toyota sign past the middle of the Toyota logo in white you see the ball hit and begin to drop - so that is when I assume it is hitting the net.
 

My issue with the logic is we do not know how far to the right that is as there is no measurement, but using the Car as a guide - I would have to estimate almost 5-6 feet or more (maybe 2 yards to the right).

 

What is the depth of the netting at that point?  Maybe 8-10 feet (so 3 yards?)?

 

 

 

 

 

That's the point, what are the odds that the ball didn't go through the uprights, when it is slicing to the right and hits the net 2 yards to the right and 5 yards deep?

[NewEra]

19 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I'm trolling?  Dude claims he triangulated the kick and its "virtually impossible" the kick missed.  I asked to see his work.  Are we all supposed to take his word for it? 

 

Definition of triangulation

 

1: the measurement of the elements necessary to determine the network of triangles into which any part of the earth's surface is divided in surveyingbroadly : any similar trigonometric operation for finding a position or location by means of bearings from two fixed points a known distance apart

 

Turns out the triangulation was he watched the video same as you and I and guesstimated some distances but did no math.  If trolling is asking basic questions to someone, who as it turns out was talking out of their ass, then guilty as charged.

Going on and on and on and on and on and on and on.  We get it bruh. 
 

In this instance, I see you trolling

[Jauronimo]

16 hours ago, Doc said:

 

What in this instance would be "coincidental"?

 

 

No need for anything more dramatic.  Just no need to do whatever someone who has no authority over you tells you to do.

 

 

Yeah.  The NFL doctoring the All-22 proves it. 

 

Why do you keep doing this to yourself?

 

  

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I really think there should be lights and electronic wind vane on top of the goal posts. All kickers should have helmets with digital visors that tell them wind direction, speed and exact distance.

 

We have the technology we can rebuild them.

[Jauronimo]

6 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Going on and on and on and on and on and on and on.  We get it bruh. 
 

In this instance, I see you trolling

I would say trolling is filling a thread with pseudoscience, bull####, and hair brained conspiracy theories and calling it proof.  

 

As far as your involvement in this thread, we get it bruh, everything is a conspiracy and it goes all the way to the top!  Tinfoil hats and all that.

[NewEra]

2 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I would say trolling is filling a thread with pseudoscience, bull####, and hair brained conspiracy theories and calling it proof.  

 

As far as your involvement in this thread, we get it bruh, everything is a conspiracy and it goes all the way to the top!  Tinfoil hats and all that.

 

and now you’re trolling me.  “Everything is a conspiracy”.  Just making up bs putting words in my mouth. 
 

have fun.  

 

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, NewEra said:

 

and now you’re trolling me.  “Everything is a conspiracy”.  Just making up bs putting words in my mouth. 
 

have fun.  

 

 

2 hours ago, NewEra said:

 

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.  

 

 

 

[GG]

45 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

The ball disappears at the 8 second mark because it goes into the red of the Toyota sign. 
 

At the very end of the 8 seconds mark - you see the ball reappear 3/4 of the way across the Toyota sign past the middle of the Toyota logo in white you see the ball hit and begin to drop - so that is when I assume it is hitting the net.
 

My issue with the logic is we do not know how far to the right that is as there is no measurement, but using the Car as a guide - I would have to estimate almost 5-6 feet or more (maybe 2 yards to the right).

 

What is the depth of the netting at that point?  Maybe 8-10 feet (so 3 yards?)?

 

What is the angle that the ball is traveling at to calculate the distance and the angle and the speed so that you can actually triangulate the spot.  
 

As I said - it looks to me on that slow motion replay the ball is right over the upright - And I know I can not calculate the point of cross over without some basic info that I just don’t have.  What we do know is that at whatever point it hit the net it was well outside and to the right.  It is also hard because if you look at that goalpost - it appears to be leaning to the right as it does not follow the path up like the left goal post and it does not look straight.  What I do not have is exactly how far outside nor the distance from the end line to the net.  Those we can only guess at.  

 

The NFL has the means to fix this and least most of the time - if they want to.
 

 

 

 

The other undiscussed variable is where the official is standing.  If he's a foot or so behind the upright, that will affect his view of a kick that's slicing to the right.

[Rochesterfan]

9 minutes ago, GG said:

 

The other undiscussed variable is where the official is standing.  If he's a foot or so behind the upright, that will affect his view of a kick that's slicing to the right.

 Agreed and he is positioned under and just behind - so again - I am sure it was close and you are seeing it at the last possible frame rather than the first frames.

[Rochesterfan]

38 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

 

  

 

3 hours ago, 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.

 

3 hours 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. 

 

So @Doc and @NewEra does this change you mind at all.

 

Verona was incorrect - the kick is included, but as I said it is not unusual for these to be out of order because of how the film is cut for distribution.

 

The All-22 is specifically designed for coaches - not to watch the game in order of plays.  They pull all kicks, punts, FGs, extra points - into a separate file for the special teams coach review. 
 

After getting the film out to the coaches in a broken up format - they try to piece it back for our consumption.  In many cases that means they occasionally put plays in the wrong order.  
 

Additionally - as I stated earlier - the All-22 does not show anything on whether the kick is good or not because that is not what the film is for - so having the All-22 does nothing to prove or disprove the point and it sure does not seem to be an NFL conspiracy against the Bills.

 

[NewEra]

11 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

 

So @Doc and @NewEra does this change you mind at all.

 

Verona was incorrect - the kick is included, but as I said it is not unusual for these to be out of order because of how the film is cut for distribution.

 

The All-22 is specifically designed for coaches - not to watch the game in order of plays.  They pull all kicks, punts, FGs, extra points - into a separate file for the special teams coach review. 
 

After getting the film out to the coaches in a broken up format - they try to piece it back for our consumption.  In many cases that means they occasionally put plays in the wrong order.  
 

Additionally - as I stated earlier - the All-22 does not show anything on whether the kick is good or not because that is not what the film is for - so having the All-22 does nothing to prove or disprove the point and it sure does not seem to be an NFL conspiracy against the Bills.

 

Yes.  This makes me think that my original point still stands true.  The nfl needs to spend some money and add technology that allows us to figure out if the kick is good or not good.  In general, to get every call correct.  If the all 22 doesn’t show it.....then spend some money on technology that will show it.  Billions being made.  Billions being gambled.  There’s no reason for the NFL to sit on its hands while they have plays left in limbo 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

So @Doc and @NewEra does this change you mind at all.

 

Verona was incorrect - the kick is included, but as I said it is not unusual for these to be out of order because of how the film is cut for distribution.

 

The All-22 is specifically designed for coaches - not to watch the game in order of plays.  They pull all kicks, punts, FGs, extra points - into a separate file for the special teams coach review. 
 

After getting the film out to the coaches in a broken up format - they try to piece it back for our consumption.  In many cases that means they occasionally put plays in the wrong order.  
 

Additionally - as I stated earlier - the All-22 does not show anything on whether the kick is good or not because that is not what the film is for - so having the All-22 does nothing to prove or disprove the point and it sure does not seem to be an NFL conspiracy against the Bills.

 

No because I thought at the time of the kick that it was good, CBS saw fit to show a replay of it well after it happened ostensibly because they thought it might have been good/saw McD was livid about the call, heard corroboration from the announcers and ref in the booth at the game, and have seen numerous other posters agree it was good.  And while they did include the kick, there was obviously some editing going on when leaving it alone would have made the most sense, so for all we know they have a definitive view and didn't want to show it.

 

In any case, the larger point still stands that if they don't so something, they better hope it doesn't happen again in a crucial game/moment.  Just trusting one ref doesn't make it definitive.

[LeGOATski]

25 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

No because I thought at the time of the kick that it was good, CBS saw fit to show a replay of it well after it happened ostensibly because they thought it might have been good/saw McD was livid about the call, heard corroboration from the announcers and ref in the booth at the game, and have seen numerous other posters agree it was good.  And while they did include the kick, there was obviously some editing going on when leaving it alone would have made the most sense, so for all we know they have a definitive view and didn't want to show it.

 

In any case, the larger point still stands that if they don't so something, they better hope it doesn't happen again in a crucial game/moment.  Just trusting one ref doesn't make it definitive.

...there was obviously some editing going on...

 

Duh... 😝

 

These do come out right after the games air, so it's very quick. The all-22 doesn't give a good angle, anyway.

 

They should have the camera angle from the bottom of the posts. That's the best view and can be easily implemented.

[RobbRiddick]

I haven't read through this thread but does anyone remember the Rich Karlis kick at the end of the Browns/Broncos championship game? I always thought that looked like it missed but assumed it was the angle of the camera. Just googled it and there's a lot of stuff (mostly from Brown's fans) saying it was no good.

 

I love it how fans refuse to forget this stuff. I still maintain the lateral went forward

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

...there was obviously some editing going on...

 

Duh... 😝

 

These do come out right after the games air, so it's very quick. The all-22 doesn't give a good angle, anyway.

 

They should have the camera angle from the bottom of the posts. That's the best view and can be easily implemented.

 

Do they come out right after the games air?  Editing takes time.

 

And yeah, the crossbar cam should have captured it.  

[Rochesterfan]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

No because I thought at the time of the kick that it was good, CBS saw fit to show a replay of it well after it happened ostensibly because they thought it might have been good/saw McD was livid about the call, heard corroboration from the announcers and ref in the booth at the game, and have seen numerous other posters agree it was good.  And while they did include the kick, there was obviously some editing going on when leaving it alone would have made the most sense, so for all we know they have a definitive view and didn't want to show it.

 

In any case, the larger point still stands that if they don't so something, they better hope it doesn't happen again in a crucial game/moment.  Just trusting one ref doesn't make it definitive.

 

Man - so CBS showed the inconclusive replay and had the rules expert come on and say maybe it was good, but you can’t tell because it was higher than the upright and you do not know at what point it crossed the end line - which is exactly why it is non-reviewable.  Of course McDermott was mad from his sideline view and the angle - it did probably look good, but so far there has been nothing to prove that.

 

Then you basically state that it was good because the NFL was hiding the All-22 - which turns out to be totally incorrect.  Then when the All-22 doesn’t show it as good - you state that there was editing issues (not really true) and that for all you know there is a definitive view, but the NFL doesn’t want to show it.

 

I will once again ask why - the NFL routinely admits mistakes - even ones that cost points and on occasions have had an impact on the final outcome - so why would they care about an inconsequential Field goal.  I take it further - if there was a better shot - why did CBS not show it - they had no problems questioning the call on the field - to the point of bringing in the rules expert.  They showed the 2 angles they seemed to have and as was stated it was inconclusive and appeared to be higher than the upright - so it is not challengable. If they had a better shot - they had no reason to hide it.

 

The truth is - there does not appear to be any shots that show the kick being good.  The timing makes it seem very likely the ball was directly over the top of the crossbar and the referee looking up determined it was not good.  Some of that could be placement and timing - as was discussed in the slow motion replay - it looks like just as it is reaching the upright it is maybe right in line a touch inside and by the time it clears the upright with the right drift - the ball is mostly on the outside of the upright.  The Referees stand under and behind the post looking up - which you can see him doing as he waves it no good.  That extra little bit may have moved it from inside to outside, but I don’t think it was obvious.

 

My belief is (as I have said) most likely the ball hits the upright if it is extended and either goes through or is bounced straight back, but it is to high and therefore this is unknown.  
 

What I do know is it has been now proven that the NFL did not “hide” the All-22 to prove they were right.  The NFL is not trying to screw with us o steal away 3 points in a meaningless part of the game.  
 

Additionally in case it crosses your mind - the NFL did not keep fans out of the game so they could purposefully hide a made FG and call it no good.

 

I hope someone can find something and prove it was good - I like Bass and think it would be great to give him a small boost, but it seems funny to me that by Friday afternoon with additional replays and the game available on Game Center for a 30 minute watch - no one has anything better than an opinion or a guess.

 

 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

Man - so CBS showed the inconclusive replay and had the rules expert come on and say maybe it was good, but you can’t tell because it was higher than the upright and you do not know at what point it crossed the end line - which is exactly why it is non-reviewable.  Of course McDermott was mad from his sideline view and the angle - it did probably look good, but so far there has been nothing to prove that.

 

Then you basically state that it was good because the NFL was hiding the All-22 - which turns out to be totally incorrect.  Then when the All-22 doesn’t show it as good - you state that there was editing issues (not really true) and that for all you know there is a definitive view, but the NFL doesn’t want to show it.

 

I will once again ask why - the NFL routinely admits mistakes - even ones that cost points and on occasions have had an impact on the final outcome - so why would they care about an inconsequential Field goal.  I take it further - if there was a better shot - why did CBS not show it - they had no problems questioning the call on the field - to the point of bringing in the rules expert.  They showed the 2 angles they seemed to have and as was stated it was inconclusive and appeared to be higher than the upright - so it is not challengable. If they had a better shot - they had no reason to hide it.

 

The truth is - there does not appear to be any shots that show the kick being good.  The timing makes it seem very likely the ball was directly over the top of the crossbar and the referee looking up determined it was not good.  Some of that could be placement and timing - as was discussed in the slow motion replay - it looks like just as it is reaching the upright it is maybe right in line a touch inside and by the time it clears the upright with the right drift - the ball is mostly on the outside of the upright.  The Referees stand under and behind the post looking up - which you can see him doing as he waves it no good.  That extra little bit may have moved it from inside to outside, but I don’t think it was obvious.

 

My belief is (as I have said) most likely the ball hits the upright if it is extended and either goes through or is bounced straight back, but it is to high and therefore this is unknown.  
 

What I do know is it has been now proven that the NFL did not “hide” the All-22 to prove they were right.  The NFL is not trying to screw with us o steal away 3 points in a meaningless part of the game.  
 

Additionally in case it crosses your mind - the NFL did not keep fans out of the game so they could purposefully hide a made FG and call it no good.

 

I hope someone can find something and prove it was good - I like Bass and think it would be great to give him a small boost, but it seems funny to me that by Friday afternoon with additional replays and the game available on Game Center for a 30 minute watch - no one has anything better than an opinion or a guess.

 

I doubt there will be a definitive shot forthcoming now because the NFL has released everything they're going to release and they have no desire to a) show up their officials and b) have a hell break loose because 3 more points will cause some betting havoc.  So we'll agree to disagree.  You saw it your way, I saw it mine and again one official making the call means zilch to me since they've blown plenty of calls over the years.

[Rochesterfan]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Do they come out right after the games air?  Editing takes time.

 

And yeah, the crossbar cam should have captured it.  

 

You do understand the purpose of the All-22 right.  They cut every play and put it different files for the teams to review.  Every play is cut into files for game time, down and distance, and formation.  All the special teams plays get put into different files for review: kick-offs, punts, FGs and Xtra points.  These all get cut and processed and back quickly to the teams.

 

Later they work to piece back together the plays - usually in order, but not always - sometimes someone grabs the wrong file and puts a play or two out of order - as was stated many times it is special teams plays (kicks) that get spliced back in at the wrong point.  This film is for the consumers and is pretty useless for the coaches.

 

I would love to see the crossbar cam, but my guess is on shorter kicks they do not use the cross bar cam on the near end zone because the ball moves up and around to fast and the image from that cam would be blurry and very jerky if it catches the ball at all.  They use it for longer kicks where it has time to identify the ball in flight and adjust to the trajectory.  Short kicks like that it would be nearly impossible to see from that camera.

[LeGOATski]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Do they come out right after the games air?  Editing takes time.

I'm not sure how long after, but same day

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

You do understand the purpose of the All-22 right.  They cut every play and put it different files for the teams to review.  Every play is cut into files for game time, down and distance, and formation.  All the special teams plays get put into different files for review: kick-offs, punts, FGs and Xtra points.  These all get cut and processed and back quickly to the teams.

 

Later they work to piece back together the plays - usually in order, but not always - sometimes someone grabs the wrong file and puts a play or two out of order - as was stated many times it is special teams plays (kicks) that get spliced back in at the wrong point.  This film is for the consumers and is pretty useless for the coaches.

 

I would love to see the crossbar cam, but my guess is on shorter kicks they do not use the cross bar cam on the near end zone because the ball moves up and around to fast and the image from that cam would be blurry and very jerky if it catches the ball at all.  They use it for longer kicks where it has time to identify the ball in flight and adjust to the trajectory.  Short kicks like that it would be nearly impossible to see from that camera.

 

If it's SOP to chop up the film like that, fine.  The footage provided (where is the crossbar cam footage?) doesn't settle anything one way or another and I still stick by what I saw.  Again just because one ref under the goalpost saw it differently means nothing to me as they get things wrong all the time.

 

22 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

I'm not sure how long after, but same day

 

They said the All-22 was late this week.  Meaning it was finally available yesterday.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Doc

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Isn’t it odd they keep focusing on the clock and “editing” it in.  
 

🤔 

 

 

[Doc]

40 minutes ago, BUFFALOBART said:

It did.

 

That's what Adam Schefter said.  He was in a press box seat at the 25 yard line and had a perfect view of it.  And he had no dog in the fight.

[Billsatlastin2018]

These are 2 stop screen pics, about a second apart.

 

BOTH show the ball inside the Right Upright.

 

The NFL blew it and obviously some HD digital review cameras are essential.

 

 

And the other...

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

11 minutes ago, Billsatlastin2018 said:

These are 2 stop screen pics, about a second apart.

 

BOTH show the ball inside the Right Upright.

 

The NFL blew it and obviously some HD digital review cameras are essential.

 

 

And the other...

 

 

 

In neither shot has the ball crossed the end line correct - by the top one the ball is already right in line with upright and it looks like it still has a bit of distance to get to the upright.

 

Now picture a guy standing behind and looking up - take each shot maybe 2 or 3 more frames to get it to the end line and past the upright into the vision of the Ref.  Is it any wonder why it was called no good?

 

Imagine the top picture if the post is extended up 5-10 feet - it is doinking right into the post and most likely bouncing out.

 

I mean in the minor distance between the bottom shot and the top shot (which seems a bit closer) it appears the ball moved a full football or more to the right.  Take that one or two more frames and it is on the outside as it is moving more to the right than it is forward at that point.  This movement is further shown by the fact in the slow motion replay - the ball hit the netting after traveling 4/5 of the way across the Toyota sign that you can barely see in the bottom frame.

 

By all means though - if it makes you feel better the NFL screwed us out of 3 points in a blow out for no apparent reason.  
 

I tend to believe since the best shots we have are of these long angle replays that are totally inconclusive because we do not have the required reference point of the end line - that perhaps the Referee doing his job and in the proper position to actually judge it - called it as he saw it from right below and behind the upright.  It was not blown, it was not a screw job.  It was a kick that was a hairs breath either of being good or wide right and if the kick had been a few feet lower or the posts a few feet higher - we would have conclusive evidence, but since it isn’t - the call on the field stands.

 

[NewEra]

9 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Man - so CBS showed the inconclusive replay and had the rules expert come on and say maybe it was good, but you can’t tell because it was higher than the upright and you do not know at what point it crossed the end line - which is exactly why it is non-reviewable.  Of course McDermott was mad from his sideline view and the angle - it did probably look good, but so far there has been nothing to prove that.

 

Then you basically state that it was good because the NFL was hiding the All-22 - which turns out to be totally incorrect.  Then when the All-22 doesn’t show it as good - you state that there was editing issues (not really true) and that for all you know there is a definitive view, but the NFL doesn’t want to show it.

 

I will once again ask why - the NFL routinely admits mistakes - even ones that cost points and on occasions have had an impact on the final outcome - so why would they care about an inconsequential Field goal.  I take it further - if there was a better shot - why did CBS not show it - they had no problems questioning the call on the field - to the point of bringing in the rules expert.  They showed the 2 angles they seemed to have and as was stated it was inconclusive and appeared to be higher than the upright - so it is not challengable. If they had a better shot - they had no reason to hide it.

 

The truth is - there does not appear to be any shots that show the kick being good.  The timing makes it seem very likely the ball was directly over the top of the crossbar and the referee looking up determined it was not good.  Some of that could be placement and timing - as was discussed in the slow motion replay - it looks like just as it is reaching the upright it is maybe right in line a touch inside and by the time it clears the upright with the right drift - the ball is mostly on the outside of the upright.  The Referees stand under and behind the post looking up - which you can see him doing as he waves it no good.  That extra little bit may have moved it from inside to outside, but I don’t think it was obvious.

 

My belief is (as I have said) most likely the ball hits the upright if it is extended and either goes through or is bounced straight back, but it is to high and therefore this is unknown.  
 

What I do know is it has been now proven that the NFL did not “hide” the All-22 to prove they were right.  The NFL is not trying to screw with us o steal away 3 points in a meaningless part of the game.  
 

Additionally in case it crosses your mind - the NFL did not keep fans out of the game so they could purposefully hide a made FG and call it no good.

 

I hope someone can find something and prove it was good - I like Bass and think it would be great to give him a small boost, but it seems funny to me that by Friday afternoon with additional replays and the game available on Game Center for a 30 minute watch - no one has anything better than an opinion or a guess.

 

 

That won’t happen because a different view didn’t exist.  So nows is the NFLs chance.  Add some technology to make sure there is NO DOUBT, they got the call correct.  As it stands, we don’t know  whether or not the kick was good or not.  That shouldn’t be the case.  If it’s broken. Fix it. We proved on Sunday that it’s broken

[NewEra]

3 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

In neither shot has the ball crossed the end line correct - by the top one the ball is already right in line with upright and it looks like it still has a bit of distance to get to the upright.

 

Now picture a guy standing behind and looking up - take each shot maybe 2 or 3 more frames to get it to the end line and past the upright into the vision of the Ref.  Is it any wonder why it was called no good?

 

Imagine the top picture if the post is extended up 5-10 feet - it is doinking right into the post and most likely bouncing out.

 

I mean in the minor distance between the bottom shot and the top shot (which seems a bit closer) it appears the ball moved a full football or more to the right.  Take that one or two more frames and it is on the outside as it is moving more to the right than it is forward at that point.  This movement is further shown by the fact in the slow motion replay - the ball hit the netting after traveling 4/5 of the way across the Toyota sign that you can barely see in the bottom frame.

 

By all means though - if it makes you feel better the NFL screwed us out of 3 points in a blow out for no apparent reason.  
 

I tend to believe since the best shots we have are of these long angle replays that are totally inconclusive because we do not have the required reference point of the end line - that perhaps the Referee doing his job and in the proper position to actually judge it - called it as he saw it from right below and behind the upright.  It was not blown, it was not a screw job.  It was a kick that was a hairs breath either of being good or wide right and if the kick had been a few feet lower or the posts a few feet higher - we would have conclusive evidence, but since it isn’t - the call on the field stands.

 

And took money out of the pockets of people that picked the over on the prop correctly

and

 

gave free money to people that picked the under on the prop incorrectly.  
 

Betting changes ones thought process regarding this. Just because you and others don’t wager often, you don’t think with this mindset.  Millions of people do.  When billions are being bet, they should do everything in their power to make sure they have cameras, or other technology that can help definitively prove the result of each play.

[Rochesterfan]

2 hours ago, NewEra said:

And took money out of the pockets of people that picked the over on the prop correctly

and

 

gave free money to people that picked the under on the prop incorrectly.  
 

Betting changes ones thought process regarding this. Just because you and others don’t wager often, you don’t think with this mindset.  Millions of people do.  When billions are being bet, they should do everything in their power to make sure they have cameras, or other technology that can help definitively prove the result of each play.

 

Why - They are not getting the money.  You are choosing to bet on their product.  You know the rules - this can happen at any time.

 

A pass interference call allowing a late field goal.  A missed field goal.  A team driving and then scoring or kneeling.  There are a million ways that people make or miss a prop bet.

 

To be ticked because a third quarter kick was missed and blaming that on you missing your bet is just stupid.  We have no idea how the game plays out - from that point forward everything else would be different.

 

You make the bet - the NFL does not need to provide you anything else.  They play the game - the technology they use should be for them and the teams.  If it helps bettors great, but that should not be even a tiny piece of the though process.

 

People have bet on the game before technology, replay, and widespread television rights.  The outcome is the outcome.  If they want to fix this because it is in the best interest of the game great.  If you are suggesting they should fix it for gambling - I could not care less.  It is called gambling - people win and people lose and life goes on.  
 

I am sorry if you lost money on a kick that was wide and was called no good - sounds to me like the bookies had the over/under set right and you were on the wrong side.  If I was you - I would be more upset at the Jets late meaningless TD which for many people put the game into an over at 40 which was the suggested Over/under on many sites.  Maybe if you had it higher - you should be ticked about your sports book as the numbers change and find one that improves your odds.
 

Overall - I guess I would say I have no feelings at all for bettors - it is gambling and you win some and you lose some.  Get over it or stop betting.  

[NewEra]

2 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Why - They are not getting the money.  You are choosing to bet on their product.  You know the rules - this can happen at any time.

 

A pass interference call allowing a late field goal.  A missed field goal.  A team driving and then scoring or kneeling.  There are a million ways that people make or miss a prop bet.

 

To be ticked because a third quarter kick was missed and blaming that on you missing your bet is just stupid.  We have no idea how the game plays out - from that point forward everything else would be different.

 

You make the bet - the NFL does not need to provide you anything else.  They play the game - the technology they use should be for them and the teams.  If it helps bettors great, but that should not be even a tiny piece of the though process.

 

People have bet on the game before technology, replay, and widespread television rights.  The outcome is the outcome.  If they want to fix this because it is in the best interest of the game great.  If you are suggesting they should fix it for gambling - I could not care less.  It is called gambling - people win and people lose and life goes on.  
 

I am sorry if you lost money on a kick that was wide and was called no good - sounds to me like the bookies had the over/under set right and you were on the wrong side.  If I was you - I would be more upset at the Jets late meaningless TD which for many people put the game into an over at 40 which was the suggested Over/under on many sites.  Maybe if you had it higher - you should be ticked about your sports book as the numbers change and find one that improves your odds.
 

Overall - I guess I would say I have no feelings at all for bettors - it is gambling and you win some and you lose some.  Get over it or stop betting.  

I didn’t lose money.  Thanks for your concern though
 

They should try and get it right....because they can.  
 

You don’t think they should try and get it right....because who cares about betting and remember the 80s.

 

Cool.  Your side of the story doesn’t make as much sense as mine. To each their own. 
 

It’ll be fun when this happens in a playoff game....or in a play that is more relevant in determining a winner.  
 

there’s no reason not to add technology....except money and effort 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by NewEra

[Coach Tuesday]

Do the folks who always believe conspiracy theories ever pause and wonder why (i) they are almost always disproven, and (ii) the people allegedly behind the conspiracies (like the NFL and the Federal government) are so utterly incompetent they can barely pull off doing their jobs in the broad daylight, let alone a carefully orchestrated deception or coverup?

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

11 hours ago, Billsatlastin2018 said:

These are 2 stop screen pics, about a second apart.

 

BOTH show the ball inside the Right Upright.

 

The NFL blew it and obviously some HD digital review cameras are essential.

 

 

And the other...

 

 

look at the picture more closely 

 

one has a car and WHITE on the right 

 

one has RED on the right. 
 

Looks like 2 different kicks 

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

15 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

look at the picture more closely 

 

one has a car and WHITE on the right 

 

one has RED on the right. 
 

Looks like 2 different kicks 

 

 

 

Most Likely the same kick - the car is between the uprights and can be seen from a distance, the red is a Toyota sign that was outside the uprights on both the left and right.

 

The difference is the amount of zoom and the camera angle - which is why neither picture really tells you anything - along with the fact the ball is still short of the end line - most likely.

3 hours ago, NewEra said:

I didn’t lose money.  Thanks for your concern though
 

They should try and get it right....because they can.  
 

You don’t think they should try and get it right....because who cares about betting and remember the 80s.

 

Cool.  Your side of the story doesn’t make as much sense as mine. To each their own. 
 

It’ll be fun when this happens in a playoff game....or in a play that is more relevant in determining a winner.  
 

there’s no reason not to add technology....except money and effort 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is exactly what I said - they should fix it for the game.

 

Your argument about bettors should not matter.

 

If they want to make it right for the game - great, but don’t do it because some people lose money and some people win.

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Most Likely the same kick - the car is between the uprights and can be seen from a distance, the red is a Toyota sign that was outside the uprights on both the left and right.

 

The difference is the amount of zoom and the camera angle - which is why neither picture really tells you anything - along with the fact the ball is still short of the end line - most likely.

 

This is exactly what I said - they should fix it for the game.

 

Your argument about bettors should not matter.

 

If they want to make it right for the game - great, but don’t do it because some people lose money and some people win.

I didn’t say betting is the ONLY reason they should try and get the call right.  It is one of the many reasons. Whether YOU think it matters or not is greatly irrelevant.