Posted July 13, 20159 yr comment_133621 Yes it's nitpicky to start looking at things even after a W but was Sutton in on his first TD of the game after the long goal line standoff at the end of the second Q? http://cfl.ca/video/index/id/112591/autostart/true around the 3:13 mark shows Sutton only getting his foot over the line and not the ball. I know they were talking about this on TSN 1290 this morning. Was it a bad camera angle, did he actually get the ball over the line or not? I know in the end it didn't matter but if the Bombers lost this game it sure as s*** would have been a huge topic of discussion this week. I think the Bombers did a great job holding them off for so long. Would have been interesting to see if they could have held them off one more time on 3rd and 1. I know MOS wouldn't have challenged as it's an automatic review by CC but they didn't even say they were reviewing it and after a short delay went into the pt after. Did they review this or not? And what evidence does anyone see that it crossed the line.
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133624 It's moot point; I don't think it crossed the line I'm sure if they are 3rd and millimetres they go for the touch down anyways and its in. It would be different if it was already 3rd down but it wasn't.
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133626 How the hell this one went to the command centre and it came back as a td. I sure don't know....Yes it's after the fact BUT that was a big play that was allowed to stand....Credibility issue for the reffing of this one for sure..
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133628 They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not.
July 13, 20159 yr Author comment_133631 That's where I was going with this if kbf didn't beat me to it. That's exactly why I titled the thread this way
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133632 They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not. So much this. It was ruled a TD, and there wasn't visible evidence to overturn
July 13, 20159 yr Author comment_133633 They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not. I wasn't sure if they did review or not which is why I asked. If they did how is this not conclusive enough that it didn't cross? If this is the only angle they had and this is what they are basing their judgment on then it's pretty clear it DID NOT cross. I say they need to mount go pros to those little orange pylons used to mark the goal line from now on
July 13, 20159 yr Author comment_133634 They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not. So much this. It was ruled a TD, and there wasn't visible evidence to overturn But how is it not visible? Unless they are looking at a different camera angle.
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133635 I'm not sure which camera had the best angle but as Jacquie said there wasn't one that proved that it did not cross.
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133636 They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not. I wasn't sure if they did review or not which is why I asked. If they did how is this not conclusive enough that it didn't cross? If this is the only angle they had and this is what they are basing their judgment on then it's pretty clear it DID NOT cross. I say they need to mount go pros to those little orange pylons used to mark the goal line from now on Camera angles lie. The replay they showed wasn't straight on the goal line.
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133637 Seeing the replay on TSN it sure looked like he wasn't in.. but as someone already mentioned, it really is a moot point right now...
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133642 We talked about this out at the lake while watching. I believe the camera angle is what caused this to look like it was a non td from the tv viewers angle.
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133643 It's moot point; I don't think it crossed the line I'm sure if they are 3rd and millimetres they go for the touch down anyways and its in. It would be different if it was already 3rd down but it wasn't. The ball would be placed back at the 1 yard line, so there is certainly no guarantee they go for it and get in on 3rd down.
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133644 They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not. I wasn't sure if they did review or not which is why I asked. If they did how is this not conclusive enough that it didn't cross? If this is the only angle they had and this is what they are basing their judgment on then it's pretty clear it DID NOT cross. I say they need to mount go pros to those little orange pylons used to mark the goal line from now on How can you be so sure? Based on the angles we saw, I'd say that there is a strong possibility that at least the tip of the ball broke the plane. As others have said, I don't think that there was conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133648 Hey everyone, long time reader first time actually posting We sit in Sec 103 and the play happened right in front of us, everyone was going nuts as the ball did not cross the line. His left arm appeared to but the ball never did so we were wondering why the refs never said it was being reviewed etc. As mentioned though, it is a moot point and there probably wasn't a definitive angle to overturn it. It was a close game though and the last couple of years a call like that would usually come back to bite us
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133655 They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not. I wasn't sure if they did review or not which is why I asked. If they did how is this not conclusive enough that it didn't cross? If this is the only angle they had and this is what they are basing their judgment on then it's pretty clear it DID NOT cross. I say they need to mount go pros to those little orange pylons used to mark the goal line from now on How can you be so sure? Based on the angles we saw, I'd say that there is a strong possibility that at least the tip of the ball broke the plane. As others have said, I don't think that there was conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field. So you're saying he just stuck the tip in?
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133656 Thanks! I was 9 in 1984 and was already watching for a couple years when that Grey Cup sealed the deal forever. I knew nothing but general success for my formative years and it was great, including that awesome pick 6 by Battle in the 90 Grey Cup! I think my first real despair came in the playoff loss in Edm in 96 and then Cal Murphy getting fired...
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133668 They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not.I wasn't sure if they did review or not which is why I asked. If they did how is this not conclusive enough that it didn't cross? If this is the only angle they had and this is what they are basing their judgment on then it's pretty clear it DID NOT cross. I say they need to mount go pros to those little orange pylons used to mark the goal line from now on How can you be so sure? Based on the angles we saw, I'd say that there is a strong possibility that at least the tip of the ball broke the plane. As others have said, I don't think that there was conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field. So you're saying he just stuck the tip in? http://happylalove.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Thats-what-she-said.jpg
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133671 I was at the game, all of the replays they showed on the jumbotron offered no conclusive proof to overturn the call. we figured they didn't have a good camera angle to show. Then watched the highlights later and the "watch him run into the camera man" shot right at the goalline was shown and that would have offered clear evidence that he was NOT in. Wondering if that angle was available to the review officials at the time?
July 13, 20159 yr comment_133684 Yeah, that's a great handle. The system worked like it was designed: on-field official called it in, no conclusive evidence that it didn't get in, command center upheld the decision. Maybe it was a bad call, the only way we'll know is to go back in time and point a camera right down the 1 yard line, because from the tsn handheld perspective there's no way to be sure where the ball was. And it didn't cost us the game anyway. No harm, no foul.
July 13, 20159 yr Author comment_133695 Yeah, that's a great handle. The system worked like it was designed: on-field official called it in, no conclusive evidence that it didn't get in, command center upheld the decision. Maybe it was a bad call, the only way we'll know is to go back in time and point a camera right down the 1 yard line, because from the tsn handheld perspective there's no way to be sure where the ball was. And it didn't cost us the game anyway. No harm, no foul. My point was that even though it didn't cost us the game it could have. I just wanted other peoples opinions as to whether or not they felt it was in and what other options they can do to get the call right if they were wrong. Even if this wasn't a Bomber game I would have brought it up. Its just odd they didn't say they were reviewing it (even though they usually do) and seemingly just went to the pt after. Maybe they had a perfect camera view we didn't see and it was a quick review. Maybe they just said F it and gave them the TD to move the game along as they just finished burning 20min back and fourth with penalties I'm just pointing out the one angle that we are able to see and even with the skewed camera angle it doesn't look in. Don't get me wrong I'm happy with the outcome and hate to be bringing it up. But would a stationary camera on the goal line help in these situations?
_4ce1be.png)
_4ccb55.png)
_b2ed7a.png)
Create an account or sign in to comment