WTF HAPPENED? McCown Scored!!!

[Kabin]

I watched the replay on the evening news and the thing that stood out was how bad the offensive line is as they stood flat-footed while McCown tried to single handedly break throught the defense. Pretty sad site!

 

[Kabin]

But I agree, the ball didn't cross the plain.

 

[DeAnna]

I watched the replay on the evening news and the thing that stood out was how bad the offensive line is as they stood flat-footed while McCown tried to single handedly break throught the defense. Pretty sad site!

I noticed also how the o-line was kind of pass protecting while Josh was going forward. Which leads me to believe he pulled a 'Manning' - he ran it in on his own. That's why he ran over to the QB coach and hugged him and they were both laughing.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

He did NOT score. That replay was clear on that.

Don't particularly care, at this point.

But, to be "clear" you would need a camera angle from the other end of the line of scrimmage. Josh is spun at one point, and you simply can't tell where the ball is in relation to the goal line. It seems to me, that without the second angle, the sight obstruction in the spin would make it inconclusive, and thus - the original call of a TD should stand.

 

[conraddobler]

Don't particularly care, at this point.

But, to be "clear" you would need a camera angle from the other end of the line of scrimmage. Josh is spun at one point, and you simply can't tell where the ball is in relation to the goal line. It seems to me, that without the second angle, the sight obstruction in the spin would make it inconclusive, and thus - the original call of a TD should stand.

It really dosen't matter but just for the pure semantics of the thing and by the book, since you cannot see where the ball is and the original call was a TD then you really can't use the footage I saw to conclusively reverse the call.

You can eyeball it all you want but from that angle you cannot tell.

 

[D-Dogg]

It really dosen't matter but just for the pure semantics of the thing and by the book, since you cannot see where the ball is and the original call was a TD then you really can't use the footage I saw to conclusively reverse the call.

You can eyeball it all you want but from that angle you cannot tell.

1. The call of TD came from the judge on the side of the angle they showed on replay.

2. The obstruction of view does not matter, because it is a physical impossiblity for the ball to have moved across the plane of the goal line when the ball was on the other side of his body. Even for a contortionist, the ball couldn't have moved over the goal line. Just because you can't see something from one angle doesn't mean you HAVE to see it from the other. The laws of physical nature take over, and even a backwards jabbing double-jointed shoulder stab with the ball hand during the split second the ball was out of view of that camera angle wouldn't have put it across the line. Physically not possible.

Correct call.

3. IMO, IYO, whatever. Nobody will agree on this if they don't want to.


Oh, and also why is it assumed that the refs only have the angle shown on TV? It is my understanding that they have a few angles.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

1. The call of TD came from the judge on the side of the angle they showed on replay.

2. The obstruction of view does not matter, because it is a physical impossiblity for the ball to have moved across the plane of the goal line when the ball was on the other side of his body. Even for a contortionist, the ball couldn't have moved over the goal line. Just because you can't see something from one angle doesn't mean you HAVE to see it from the other. The laws of physical nature take over, and even a backwards jabbing double-jointed shoulder stab with the ball hand during the split second the ball was out of view of that camera angle wouldn't have put it across the line. Physically not possible.

Correct call.

3. IMO, IYO, whatever. Nobody will agree on this if they don't want to.


Oh, and also why is it assumed that the refs only have the angle shown on TV? It is my understanding that they have a few angles.

!) Just assumptions on your part, and possibly the referees. But, in the end: How would you know beyond any shadow of doubt, you couldn't see it?

As such, short of the assumptions, which can't be seen. The call stands.

2) It's assumed because time and time again, the play-by-play team say that's the video being used in the replay.

 

[D-Dogg]

!) Just assumptions on your part, and possibly the referees. But, in the end: How would you know beyond any shadow of doubt, you couldn't see it?

Laws of physics.

I can't see gravity either, but I know it exists and its limitations. There are things a human body can, and can not do. Josh's body did not contort in such a way as to make it physically possible for the ball to cross the goal, therefore you don't need to see the other angle to confirm that which is impossible.

That's my point.

Thanks for the clarification on the replay angle though; that's pretty dumb if refs only use one angle anyway, they should always look at multiples. If other play by play teams have said this, then it's probably true. However, if it was just ODonnell and ******* from yesterday's crew, then they probably got that wrong just like they messed up everything else that day too.

 

[Redheart]

Laws of physics.

I can't see gravity either, but I know it exists and its limitations. There are things a human body can, and can not do. Josh's body did not contort in such a way as to make it physically possible for the ball to cross the goal, therefore you don't need to see the other angle to confirm that which is impossible.

That's my point.

Thanks for the clarification on the replay angle though; that's pretty dumb if refs only use one angle anyway, they should always look at multiples. If other play by play teams have said this, then it's probably true. However, if it was just ODonnell and ******* from yesterday's crew, then they probably got that wrong just like they messed up everything else that day too.

Only trust half of what you can see; trust nothing of what you can't see.

Could Josh have been pushing the ball over the goal line with his hand / arm while his body shielded the movement? Was that why it popped out at the end?

Unlikely, but I couldn't see.

Regardless, I like how it turned out in the sense the Cards ended the season competative and on the verge of winning until the last seconds...and we have the best draft pick possible.

 

[D-Dogg]

Could Josh have been pushing the ball over the goal line with his hand / arm while his body shielded the movement? Was that why it popped out at the end?

Does Josh have go-go-gadget-arms? If so, then I'll concede that argument to you. If not, I'm sticking to it being a physical impossibility.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Laws of physics.

I can't see gravity either, but I know it exists and its limitations. There are things a human body can, and can not do. Josh's body did not contort in such a way as to make it physically possible for the ball to cross the goal, therefore you don't need to see the other angle to confirm that which is impossible.

That's my point.
Thanks for the clarification on the replay angle though; that's pretty dumb if refs only use one angle anyway, they should always look at multiples. If other play by play teams have said this, then it's probably true. However, if it was just ODonnell and ******* from yesterday's crew, then they probably got that wrong just like they messed up everything else that day too.

It's a good point. But we aren't debating the Laws of Physics, but, rather - the LAW.

And by this I mean, the rules and persuant regulations that arbitrate decision making on the field.

It's simply my understanding, that the call on the field is to be upheld unless there is conclusive evidence to the contrary.

When Josh is spun, we lose sight of the ball. It's simply not sufficient to assert, or to surmise, that he could or could not do such and such BECAUSE the conclusive visual evidence to overturn is not available.

You case is not proved for lack of specific evidence - i.e. - video that conclusively shows that not one centimetre of the football did not touch the goal line.

 

[blindseyed]

I don't even know why this is a discussion...would it really matter if he got in? I don't think another win playing against 2nd and 3rd teamers matters. I don't care and I don't buy the saying "I want to win for momentum going into next year"..Josh thew the TD pass to knock the Vikings out of the playoffs a few years ago...what happened to that momentum? Nothing.
Let's look forward to the draft once again and some FA's...and new coaches...and the stadium...and beer!

 

[Homer Simpson]

I don't even know why this is a discussion...would it really matter if he got in? I don't think another win playing against 2nd and 3rd teamers matters. I don't care and I don't buy the saying "I want to win for momentum going into next year"..Josh thew the TD pass to knock the Vikings out of the playoffs a few years ago...what happened to that momentum? Nothing.

What happened to that momentum is that the Cardinals lost out on Eli Manning. The rumor I heard is that he would not have shunned the Cards like he did the Chargers, mainly because Archie wanted his boys to play in seperate conferences, so they could meet in a SB one day. We wouldn't have Fitz, though.

I agree. Much ado about nothing. In five months we won't care a thing about this game, except that it nets the team a higher draft pick that they can trade away for no reason to pick up two lower first round picks and then use those picks to grab guys that they could have gotten in the third round.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Sorry to say but the call was right he never broke the plain... Ball came out before hand... How unfortunate was that... By mere inches of winning...

Agreed.

Bye McCown don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.