Indisputable Evidence?

[manchambo]

Here's my take on the overturned first down at the end of the game. It looks on the replay like he didn't make the line to gain. The line judge clearly saw something, however, that made him think the ball was ahead of Anderson's body. Did Anderson reach forward with the ball? Why else would the line judge have placed the ball where he did? You simply can't see on the available footage.

So they go to the tape, and I did not see a single view where you could even see the ball, let alone tell whether it was ahead of the line. The rules say you cannot overturn the ruling on the field unless there is indisputable evidence. How can there possibly be indisputable evidence [U]if you can't see the ball[U]? Unless the ref looked at an angle they didn't show on TV, I think that's wrong to overturn the call.

[loborugger]

Theres No Crying In Football!!!!

[KC Paul]

Originally Posted by manchambo

Here's my take on the overturned first down at the end of the game. It looks on the replay like he didn't make the line to gain. The line judge clearly saw something, however, that made him think the ball was ahead of Anderson's body. Did Anderson reach forward with the ball? Why else would the line judge have placed the ball where he did? You simply can't see on the available footage.

So they go to the tape, and I did not see a single view where you could even see the ball, let alone tell whether it was ahead of the line. The rules say you cannot overturn the ruling on the field unless there is indisputable evidence. How can there possibly be indisputable evidence [U]if you can't see the ball[U]? Unless the ref looked at an angle they didn't show on TV, I think that's wrong to overturn the call.

We saw it PLAINLY on the Jumbotron at Arrowhead....the same camera angle that I'm quite sure the refs saw as well. Dude was AT LEAST 2 feet SHORT of the 1st down line with the ball, PERIOD.

[Garcia Bronco]

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2005/1...ree_bill_leavy/

Referee Bill Leavy
Dec 04, 2005, 8:21:13 PM

Kansas City Chiefs vs. Denver Broncos
Sunday, December 4, 2005
Postgame Quotes
Referee Bill Leavy

Q: What did you see on the fourth down spot?

A: “The runner was clearly short by a couple of feet of the 48-yard line. He had to reach the 48. Obviously, the first down was given very tightly. Therefore, when I saw the spot on the field, I knew the first down had not been reached. At that time, the clock was at 2:01. After conferring with the line judge, I had to stop the game clock at that point and put the game clock at 2:01 and then turn the ball over to [Kansas City] and give the two-minute warning after they ran the first play.’’

Q: On the initial spot, can you estimate about how much he got the first down by?
A: “Inches. Less than two inches.’’

Q: How many replay angles did you see?
A: “About four replays and one good replay that was clearly down the line of scrimmage. I saw the runner stood up and he was short of the 48.’’

Q: Was it a difficult decision?
A: “It was clear to me he didn’t reach the first down and the right thing to do was reverse it and give the ball to [Kansas City].’’

Q: What about the helmet-to-helmet call on Lynch?
A: “My back judge reported he hade a helmet-to-helmet contact and I administered the penalty. The length of discussion we had was very short.’’


-posted by Dirk Digler at CP

[RhymesayersDU]

It was a good call. MA didn't make it.

[manchambo]

Nobody has actually responded to the point I made, which is, how can there be indisputable evidence if you can't see the ball on the replay?

[ZachKC]

Sorry I think you have to be blind to think he got that first down.

Lets forget about the ball...even though I could see the ball lets assume you couldn't.

No part of his body got a first down and that ball wasn't coming before him.

[Crushaholic]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the refs on this one. Anderson didn't make it the first down marker, from the replay I saw...

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by manchambo

Nobody has actually responded to the point I made, which is, how can there be indisputable evidence if you can't see the ball on the replay?

I posted the Refs comments about the call...he saw it from 4 angles and called it right...MA..God love him...didn't make it.

[Bob's your Information Minister]

Jelly Dalton completely blocked the way.

[SoCalBronco]

It was clearly short on review. The refs cant be blamed on that one.

[DomCasual]

Originally Posted by RhymesayersDU

It was a good call. MA didn't make it.

It was a good call. The PF against Lynch was a bad call. I watched it in slow motion with my Tivo several times. There is no way there was any intent to lead with the helmet on the play. That was a reputation penalty, if there ever was one.

That being said, it's football. Over the course of a season, bad calls even out. The officials didn't make Jake throw the two interceptions. The officials didn't make Shanahan have a brain freeze at the end of the first half.

I hate the Chiefs, though. I think that 2-2 down the stretch will keep them from the playoffs. If that happens, I will be cheering.

[manchambo]

I didn't say I thought he got the first down. He probably didn't. But every replay they showed on TV was from the same side, and Anderson and the ball were blocked by other players. So the question is whether it was a proper application of the replay rule. I guess no one is interested in that.

Instead of discussing that, please insert your preferred sports cliche.

[Broncoman13]

Can't complain about that call. I knew DV would challenge that the many the signaled first down. I'm not sure how they got the initial spot...but it was bad!

[Nightwish]

Originally Posted by manchambo

I didn't say I thought he got the first down. He probably didn't. But every replay they showed on TV was from the same side, and Anderson and the ball were blocked by other players. So the question is whether it was a proper application of the replay rule. I guess no one is interested in that.

Instead of discussing that, please insert your preferred sports cliche.

If all your angles were from the same side, and none of them showed the ball, but the referee (and live fans viewing the jumbotron) saw an angle that did show it pretty clearly, then we can infer one of two things: either the ref and the live fans are lying, or your tv didn't necessarily show you the same angles the ref saw when he reviewed the play. The tv networks, of course, aren't required to show the exact same angles as those that are shown on the field. Only some of the camera work is from the network cameras.

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by Nightwish

If all your angles were from the same side, and none of them showed the ball, but the referee (and live fans viewing the jumbotron) saw an angle that did show it pretty clearly, then we can infer one of two things: either the ref and the live fans are lying, or your tv didn't necessarily show you the same angles the ref saw when he reviewed the play. The tv networks, of course, aren't required to show the exact same angles as those that are shown on the field. Only some of the camera work is from the network cameras.

Do you know that to be a fact? I thought the replay officials had the same angles as the network.

And by the way, I don't put much stock in the drunken Jumbotron viewers.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by manchambo

Instead of discussing that, please insert your preferred sports cliche.

On any given Sunday...

How's that?

[ClevelandBronco2]

The initial spot may have been the worst spot I've ever seen. If that call hadn't been overturned it would have been a travesty.

The evidence was indisputable in real time as the play happened, let alone in slow motion from several angles.

[Raider Bill]

My god, it wasn't even close. Get over it.

[BroncoManCanuck]

Originally Posted by manchambo

Here's my take on the overturned first down at the end of the game. It looks on the replay like he didn't make the line to gain. The line judge clearly saw something, however, that made him think the ball was ahead of Anderson's body. Did Anderson reach forward with the ball? Why else would the line judge have placed the ball where he did? You simply can't see on the available footage.

So they go to the tape, and I did not see a single view where you could even see the ball, let alone tell whether it was ahead of the line. The rules say you cannot overturn the ruling on the field unless there is indisputable evidence. How can there possibly be indisputable evidence [U]if you can't see the ball[U]? Unless the ref looked at an angle they didn't show on TV, I think that's wrong to overturn the call.

You didn't need to see the ball, his whole body wasn't even past the line.
It hurts me to say this

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by Raider Bill

My god, it wasn't even close. Get over it.

It doesn't surprise me that someone named Raider Bill doesn't want to engage in a theoretical discussion of the replay rule.

Now go back to praying for Collins to get hurt so you can find out if "Tui" is your savior and leave this discussion to folks with teams still playing meaningful games.

[BigPlayShay]

It was a good, MA was short. That being said, if MA would have followed right behind Johnson he would have definitely gotten the first. Hell, Carlisle and had sealed Sims on the outside, Putzier and Foster handled hicks, and Kyle Johnson was leading through a hole where he combo blocked and then would have scraped to Derrick Johnson. Hell, MA may have picked up 10-15 yards had he followed KJ. Oh well, I did not have them winning in Arrowhead anyway. Still on track, just a bump in the road.

[Popps]

Originally Posted by manchambo

Here's my take on the overturned first down at the end of the game. It looks on the replay like he didn't make the line to gain. The line judge clearly saw something, however, that made him think the ball was ahead of Anderson's body. Did Anderson reach forward with the ball? Why else would the line judge have placed the ball where he did? You simply can't see on the available footage.

So they go to the tape, and I did not see a single view where you could even see the ball, let alone tell whether it was ahead of the line. The rules say you cannot overturn the ruling on the field unless there is indisputable evidence. How can there possibly be indisputable evidence [U]if you can't see the ball[U]? Unless the ref looked at an angle they didn't show on TV, I think that's wrong to overturn the call.

This is exactly what I thought.

I understand why the refs might have THOUGHT he was short... but not one replay showed that to be the case. You couldn't see the ball. It wasn't irrefutable... period. Yes... it looked short. But did you see where the ball was? I didn't. I saw a pile of bodies.

Add in the amusing personal foul call on Lynch, and it was a typical Denver trip to KC. The refs always account for a good 3-10 points for KC in Narrowhead.

That said... we still had our chances to win. When you give up 31 points, you can't blame the refs.

[wabbit]

Originally Posted by RhymesayersDU

It was a good call. MA didn't make it.

It was a horrible call...initially.

I was watching the play with several people who ALL said...almost in unison; 'he didn't make it'

It was pretty clear from the half dozen angles, so it's not a point of contention...or it shouldn't be

Denver didn't lose the game because they couldn't get a couple of yards with 2:55 or whatever on the clock.

The game was lost when our entire defensive line apparently suffered simultaneous head injuries in the third quarter (certainly a strange and history making occurrence) and all thought they'd returned to their lives as teenage turnstile ticket takers.

[Popps]

Originally Posted by wabbit

It was a horrible call...initially.

I was watching the play with several people who ALL said...almost in unison; 'he didn't make it'

It was pretty clear from the half dozen angles, so it's not a point of contention...or it shouldn't be

Denver didn't lose the game because they couldn't get a couple of yards with 2:55 or whatever on the clock.

The game was lost when our entire defensive line apparently suffered simultaneous head injuries in the third quarter (certainly a strange and history making occurrence) and all thought they'd returned to their lives as teenage turnstile ticket takers.

Absolutely.

It's too bad, because we actually tried to address the problem this off-season and did about as well as we could on a budget. But, Trent Green had all day to throw the ball. Did we even sack him today? I've been telling people all season that the "almost sacks" weren't going to cut it.

You certainly can't blame our secondary. They nabbed a couple of picks, made some big plays. But... when you've got absolutely no pressure up front, your secondary is ALWAYS going to be toast. You won't find many better examples than what we saw today.