Steelers agree it was a blown measurement
-
In The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
"I have no idea how they gave us a first down, but we'll take it," Hartwig said. "I'd say (it was short) by two chain links. It was obvious to everybody playing on the field. I don't know how they called it the way they did, but ... we're not going to complain about it."
Yeah, I am pretty sure Hartwig had a good "angle" to look at the measurement. Geezzzzzzusssss f'cking Christ!
-
While the Cleveland Browns were celebrating a fourth-and-1 stop that even Steelers center Justin Hartwig said was "definitely short" of the first-down marker, the officiating crew saw otherwise.
It's just that the referee couldn't quite explain how.
Ben Roethlisberger's fourth-and-1 sneak at the Cleveland 14 with 35 seconds left in the second quarter was ruled a first down. It led to Jeff Reed's 32-yard field goal for a 10-point halftime cushion in the Steelers' 27-14 victory Sunday at Heinz Field.
If not for the field goal, Cleveland could have tied the score in the third quarter.
"I have no idea how they gave us a first down, but we'll take it," Hartwig said. "I'd say (it was short) by two chain links. It was obvious to everybody playing on the field. I don't know how they called it the way they did, but ... we're not going to complain about it."
The Steelers left that to the Browns. While it didn't take a lip reader to see the expletives spewing from defensive coordinator Rob Ryan's mouth, Browns coach Eric Mangini was left practically speechless.
"Um ... it's not my call ...," he said. "It's not my call."
The call belonged to referee Walt Anderson, whose convoluted explanation to a pool reporter did little to clear up the controversy. Anderson said "the ball has to penetrate the plane of the stake" and measurements are taken with the chains "set beside the football" instead of against the stake.
Thus, depending on the angle, it can create an optical illusion on television.
"It can be deceptive because there's a little bit of a distance, probably in the neighborhood of five or six inches between the actual point of the football and where the stake actually sets on the ground," Anderson said. "If you shot at an angle maybe from back behind the ball it might look like it's short. If you shot at angle from the other side, it might actually look like it's further in advance of the stake than what it actually is."
Afterward, Anderson reiterated that the correct call was made because the nose of the ball "touched the plane of the stake."
Roethlisberger first tried to lure the Browns offside. When that didn't work, he ran the play, but lost his footing in "a three-foot divot" and fell forward.
"We got lucky," he said.
Steelers left tackle Max Starks said he isn't familiar with how the call is defined by the NFL rule book, and doesn't particularly care.
"I didn't go to referee school," Starks said, "and I'm not interested in reading extra literature."
-
-
Link: http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib...s/s_648719.html
The problem comes in with the fact the camera angle was not straight on. It was from an angle behind. Consider it a matter of forced perspective or parrallax.
Either way, face it, it had no impact on the game and the TD to Ward was taken away when he obviously caught it anyway.
-
It's gaining steam. Yahoo covered it here.
-
Link: http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib...s/s_648719.html
The problem comes in with the fact the camera angle was not straight on. It was from an angle behind. Consider it a matter of forced perspective or parrallax.
Either way, face it, it had no impact on the game and the TD to Ward was taken away when he obviously caught it anyway.
The problem comes in with the fact the camera angle was not straight on. It was from an angle behind. Consider it a matter of forced perspective or parrallax.
Either way, face it, it had no impact on the game and the TD to Ward was taken away when he obviously caught it anyway.
except for that to be true, the camera would have to be ground level for the actual chain in the direction shown. when the camera is moved off the ground, the chain would appear to be at an angle, not parallel to the border of the shot.
-
Are there any still photographs from the grassy knoll to support the second referee hypothesis?
-
they wont. i read an email reply from greg aiello that said they support walt anderson's decision as the correct call.
what i want to know, is if the camera angles are deemed insufficient to see these things, just how reliable is the reply system if the camera angles are faulty?
-
I dont get where people think Ward caught the ball. By rules, he clearly dropped the ball. You have to complete your motion as you hold on to the ball and fall to the ground, in bounds or not. As soon as that ball fall out of Wards hands, it was incomplete. I have seen that happen and it has been explained on a few different occasions before.
-
The Ref is right. You cannot trust camera angles or a camera's height viewing a stationary object.
If you were to place a football in your living room and lay down and view it straight on and take a place of measurement it would be a lot different then standing on a chair and viewing the same football and taking a measurement. Now add in looking at the football slightly from the front or rear and you would not be able to objectively tell where the football was in relation to a first down marker.
-
Formerly Stone said:
I really don't get all the hype!Actually, I agree. Give it up already.
A WAY worst call this season was the field goal by Cincy to win it in over-time, we should still be reeling about that one, that was the difference between a Tie or a Loss.
This bad call was the difference between a kick in the ass and a kick in the leg.
-
Link: http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib...s/s_648719.html
The problem comes in with the fact the camera angle was not straight on. It was from an angle behind. Consider it a matter of forced perspective or parrallax.
Either way, face it, it had no impact on the game and the TD to Ward was taken away when he obviously caught it anyway.
The problem comes in with the fact the camera angle was not straight on. It was from an angle behind. Consider it a matter of forced perspective or parrallax.
Either way, face it, it had no impact on the game and the TD to Ward was taken away when he obviously caught it anyway.
Yea that was scientific. Did you free hand those lines, lol.
-
I think the outrage with this one is that a measurement is an objective playcall, you look at the ball and then the stick and if it is short there is no first down. It is pretty much an unf'ck-upable call yet the refs seem to have managed to do just that. This isn't a ticky-tacky pass interference call that is subjective. It is two objects and their relative distance from each other.
-
In The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
"I have no idea how they gave us a first down, but we'll take it," Hartwig said. "I'd say (it was short) by two chain links. It was obvious to everybody playing on the field. I don't know how they called it the way they did, but ... we're not going to complain about it."
Yeah, I am pretty sure Hartwig had a good "angle" to look at the measurement. Geezzzzzzusssss f'cking Christ!
In The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
"I have no idea how they gave us a first down, but we'll take it," Hartwig said. "I'd say (it was short) by two chain links. It was obvious to everybody playing on the field. I don't know how they called it the way they did, but ... we're not going to complain about it."
Yeah, I am pretty sure Hartwig had a good "angle" to look at the measurement. Geezzzzzzusssss f'cking Christ!
Only the REFS had a "GOOD ANGLE" On that call. And If they "Blew It" On Purpose... then Why overturn the Ward TD ?? Makes no sense ...Unless iits just that they are Just THAT Inept !!!
-
Formerly Stone said:
That's a valid point! With the millions that are spent by the NFL they sure as hell should be able to get the camera in the right position! I garantee you that if the camera had been in the right place this would be a dead issue ..... it would have simply been a close call!I agree , Thats Why I say scarp it. It sucks anyway.
-
All I gotta say is the Steelers had 540 total yards of offense so and outgained the Browns by nearly 400 yards so why dont the Browns fans start focusing on that instead of continually whining and pissing and moaning about the measurement call which Ill admit was a bad call but it still wouldnt have changed the outcome of the game in any sort of way what so ever...
-
suns said:
I want to see if the NFL will do anything.Why would the NFL do anything on this call. It looked pretty damn close to me. Whining about blown calls is for the weak. It happens all the time. How about Cribbs run back? There should have been a holding penalty on the browns. Wards TD catch that was turned away? Shit happens. Both teams have all day long to win a game and blaming the refs for a win or a loss is lame.
-
You know you both like the Browns. What other reason could you possibly have for HUNDREDS of posts on a Browns forum? Unless you both come here to talk bad about the fans for personal gain. Something along the lines of a bully. The ones who lives suck so bad that they have to bring down everyone around them so there egos feel better. Does that sound about right? Anyway's its not about bad calls. It's about the what if factor. What if they didnt screw us and we ended up with a miracle and put together and td drive to tie it before half time? Nobody will ever know.
-
You know you both like the Browns. What other reason could you possibly have for HUNDREDS of posts on a Browns forum? Unless you both come here to talk bad about the fans for personal gain. Something along the lines of a bully. The ones who lives suck so bad that they have to bring down everyone around them so there egos feel better. Does that sound about right? Anyway's its not about bad calls. It's about the what if factor. What if they didnt screw us and we ended up with a miracle and put together and td drive to tie it before half time? Nobody will ever know.
You know you both like the Browns. What other reason could you possibly have for HUNDREDS of posts on a Browns forum? Unless you both come here to talk bad about the fans for personal gain. Something along the lines of a bully. The ones who lives suck so bad that they have to bring down everyone around them so there egos feel better. Does that sound about right? Anyway's its not about bad calls. It's about the what if factor. What if they didnt screw us and we ended up with a miracle and put together and td drive to tie it before half time? Nobody will ever know.
Of course I like the browns. Without a rivalry football is nothing. Some of the best times of my life have been with friends who were browns fans. I have been posting on this board for years and I also have had a good time smacking around Atenears, Flugel, Calfox, shepwrite, Beans, and them smackin back. It's all in good fun so start having some fun and get over it already.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda,.... cry me a river speedy. There is a human element to the game and bad calls happen all the time. A good team just moves on. It's lame to blame a loss on one call when there were so many in the game that went both ways. It sucks sometimes when a call goes against you but you just have to accept that it's not a perfect system and never will be.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login