bonedawg Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownIndian Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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 to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownIndian Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Link: http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib...s/s_648719.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSG Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonedawg Posted October 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 It's gaining steam. Yahoo covered it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allaneddie Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Are there any still photographs from the grassy knoll to support the second referee hypothesis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 I want to see if the NFL will do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBrowns Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJHERO Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATENEARS Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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 to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonedawg Posted October 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUNSofSTEEL08 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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 !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUNSofSTEEL08 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes10_Ward_86 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Of STEEL 1 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedyd900rr Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Of STEEL 1 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. I think the simple explanation is that there is no quality forum such as this available to Steeler fans. Remember, to go on a Steeler board, you have to resign yourself to attempting to discuss matters intelligently with Steeler fans. The facts of life however my friend are that such a thing is an impossibility. I mean, the full extent of the vocabulary of most (but not all) Steeler fans is to say "We're great, you suck". I mean, for a very few of the yellow and black devotees, that simply is not enough. They do in fact wish to partake in a slightly more elevated level of discussion, for which they should be applauded, and for which they come here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawg08 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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. hey m0r0n, The play in the endzone never happens if the 1st down wasn't GIVEN to the squealers!! The Squealers got 3 pts as well out of it. How do you know if would have had no impact?? Can you see the future? Some of you i-d-i-o-t-s have no clue!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Of STEEL 1 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 I think the simple explanation is that there is no quality forum such as this available to Steeler fans. Remember, to go on a Steeler board, you have to resign yourself to attempting to discuss matters intelligently with Steeler fans. The facts of life however my friend are that such a thing is an impossibility. I mean, the full extent of the vocabulary of most (but not all) Steeler fans is to say "We're great, you suck". I mean, for a very few of the yellow and black devotees, that simply is not enough. They do in fact wish to partake in a slightly more elevated level of discussion, for which they should be applauded, and for which they come here. LOL. Yeah there are some unintelligent STEELERS fans (It's spelled STEELERS not STEELER) and there are certainly a bunch of knuckle dragger brown fans too. However, I come here for both the football and the smack. You want a good STELERS board that does not talk much smack but is great for football, drop a PM. The moto there is not to attack the poster but to attack the post itself if you disagree. It's something that this board may have to implement if it starts freaking like it did last week again.( As an example, the post directly above this one by Dawg is mostly just name calling. It does not take much intelligence to call someone a moron or an idiot.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.