Post Game Observations....

[TDHeysus]

.....otherwise why would they both end up one in front of the other like that?

its possible it was a hail mary, where you want all your receivers in the same area to catch the ball, or a deflection. I dont recall if the play was a regular pass play, or if they were doign a hail mary.

 

[BGIF]

This topic was discussed in the Post Game thread. I merging this one into that one.

 

[PADOMERNUT]

i thought it was proven after the fact (mainly the game) that his foot was out of bounds....or were you being facitious???

i'm not a good judge of funny versus serious, or was it obvious and i didn't catch it.....

you want me to wait for it to come around.....? i'm patient, i'm sure i'll catch it.

There is a blown up picture that clearly shows his foot in bounds. Botched call

 

[PADOMERNUT]

There is no way it couldve been reversed even with replay. I watched the best angle in 1/15th speed about 10 times and I couldnt conclusively see anything. I couldnt even pair Hughes legs with his upper body there were so many in that pile.

I think he was possibly down a half yard or so short but you cannot conclusively overturn that call.

I was at the game but watched the replay at home and you are right, there is no way to tell, which is probably why Washington never challenged the play in the first place

 

[kmoose]

There is a blown up picture that clearly shows his foot in bounds. Botched call

I hate to say it, but the call was not botched, in terms of was he, or wasn't he, out of bounds. The WUND camera angle showed that he, without a doubt, stepped on the line. I think I know the picture that you are speaking of. If it's the same one that I am thinking of, go look at it again: In that picture, it clearly shows Allen's foot in bounds, before his heel comes down. In the picture, he is still on the ball of his foot. It was his heel which came down on the stripe.

 

[phork]

I think what he is saying, whether Allen was out or not, was that there was no way that there was conclusive video evidence to over turn that call. And I don't think those officials had access to those particular shots.
IMO it was a botched call as well.

 

[BGIF]

I hate to say it, but the call was not botched, in terms of was he, or wasn't he, out of bounds. The WUND camera angle showed that he, without a doubt, stepped on the line. I think I know the picture that you are speaking of. If it's the same one that I am thinking of, go look at it again: In that picture, it clearly shows Allen's foot in bounds, before his heel comes down. In the picture, he is still on the ball of his foot. It was his heel which came down on the stripe.

I've read this explanation before and passed on commenting.

Have you watched Allen run? Not just this play any play. He doesn't put the ball of his foot down first and then put his heel down.

 

[weisbank4]

I've read this explanation before and passed on commenting.

Have you watched Allen run? Not just this play any play. He doesn't put the ball of his foot down first and then put his heel down.

I wonder if somebody doctored a photo? I saw nothing for days then this 1 picture pops up with his foot out by 4 inches. Funny thing was I was at the game, Allen was coming at us, I had a endzone seat at that side and I thought he definitely stepped out as the play happened.

 

[kmoose]

I've read this explanation before and passed on commenting.

Have you watched Allen run? Not just this play any play. He doesn't put the ball of his foot down first and then put his heel down.

Ok........then the frame is just after his heel came up off of the ground. Either way.....if you watch the WUND footage, you will see that his heel was clearly on the stripe. I never said that the officials had that view, I just said that, if you look at it as simply "did he, or didn't he, step out of bounds?", then they got the call right.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

They got the call wrong.

 

[tankjeep]

Ok........then the frame is just after his heel came up off of the ground. Either way.....if you watch the WUND footage, you will see that his heel was clearly on the stripe. I never said that the officials had that view, I just said that, if you look at it as simply "did he, or didn't he, step out of bounds?", then they got the call right.

no they got it wrong. we are talking about the availability of cameras for review, not the "hindsight 20/20" rule.

at the time of the td review they only have what the network provides as far as replay footage. and as we've mentioned ad nauseum....there has to be clear cut evidence (conclusive) that allen stepped out. when you look at the footage, there is not enough conclusive evidence (non what so ever) to over turn the call.

there was a referee following right there on the sideline and he simply missed it. nd got screwed on the review process plain and simple.

the footage after the game is irrelevant.

 

[phork]

INCONCLUSIVE VIDEO EVIDENCE

 

[GoIrish41]

Geez. Are we still talking about replays. Get over it for christ's sake.

Want to talk about a replay that had no conclusive evidence? How about the TD Washington scored that got overturned during the goal line. There certainly wasn't anything conclusive about that replay.

Point is, you win some, you lose some. Move on.

 

[PADOMERNUT]

I saw a blown up picture on NDNation that cleary showed his foot in bounds. Unfortunately that was a month ago and they took it down.

 

[kmoose]

I'm absolutely NOT defending the replay officials here. But, if you check out this link, you will see what I am talking about. His foot WAS out of bounds. His heel is clearly over the line. That is all I have been saying. You can complain about the system, but you can't say that he wasn't out of bounds.

WNDU cameras show ND's Allen was out of bounds on overturned touchdown

And this is from an "official" ND source.

 

[phork]

Replay officials didn't have this to make their call though.

Want to talk about a replay that had no conclusive evidence? How about the TD Washington scored that got overturned during the goal line. There certainly wasn't anything conclusive about that replay.

Everyone knows that I am far from a homer but I thought he was definitely down before hitting the goal line with the ball.

 

[BGIF]

I'm absolutely NOT defending the replay officials here. But, if you check out this link, you will see what I am talking about. His foot WAS out of bounds. His heel is clearly over the line. That is all I have been saying. You can complain about the system, but you can't say that he wasn't out of bounds.

WNDU cameras show ND's Allen was out of bounds on overturned touchdown

And this is from an "official" ND source.

You've posted this link before and I note, once again, that you neglect to add the salient text at that link:

Of course, only the camera angles shown by ABC/ESPN really matter in this situation in terms of the officials overturning the call. The play was ruled a <NOBR style="COLOR: darkgreen; FONT-SIZE: 100%; FONT-WEIGHT: normal" id=itxt_nobr_2_0>touchdown </NOBR>on the field, meaning replay officials needed conclusive evidence to overturn it.
No camera angle shown by ABC/ESPN showed anything conclusive enough to actual overturn the call from the field, where multiple officials on that sideline watching Allen's feet ruled it a touchdown.

Your added note, "And this is from an "official" ND source" trying to add credibility is either uninformed or disingenuous.

WNDU is an NBC Affliate but the game wasn't played in South Bend. ABC/ESPN had the TV rights in Ann Arbor where the game was played. Thus according to NCAA rules only ABC/ESPN footage can be evaluated by the replay officials.

Further, WNDU is owned by Gray Television NOT the University of Notre Dame.

The photo is not an "official" ND source despite your posting so.


And even if it were, it's still irrelevant.

The call was made on the field with no conclusive evidence for the replay official to warrant overturning the TOUCHDOWN call.

 

[PADOMERNUT]

take a look at this. doesnt look out of bounds to me....


From ND Nation: Michigan Officiating - [the bronzed shoe annex]

 

[kmoose]

You've posted this link before and I note, once again, that you neglect to add the salient text at that link:





Your added note, "And this is from an "official" ND source" trying to add credibility is either uninformed or disingenuous.

WNDU is an NBC Affliate but the game wasn't played in South Bend. ABC/ESPN had the TV rights in Ann Arbor where the game was played. Thus according to NCAA rules only ABC/ESPN footage can be evaluated by the replay officials.

Further, WNDU is owned by Gray Television NOT the University of Notre Dame.

The photo is not an "official" ND source despite your posting so.


And even if it were, it's still irrelevant.

The call was made on the field with no conclusive evidence for the replay official to warrant overturning the TOUCHDOWN call.

Look, I don't know how else I can explain my position, other than to kind of shout it out:

I'm not defending the call in the replay booth!!

What I am saying is: if you look at simply from the perspective of "was he in or was he out?", the correct call was made. He was clearly out. It's not like I am taking an anti-ND stance here. It kills me that this TD was overturned. But, I come from the age when ND fans were intellectually honest. If we got beat, we got beat. If the refs "blew" a call, and it turned out to be the correct call (even if the call was not arrived at in the correct manner), then we admitted as much, sucked it up, and moved on.

 

[PADOMERNUT]

But I am not going to admit it was the right when the picture i posted above clearly shows he was in. So we have one that looks like he is out and one that looks like he is in. So to say he was clearly out is just flat out wrong. The only clear conclusion one could make is that it wasnt clear at all.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

kmoose, you are wrong.

 

[BGIF]

Look, I don't know how else I can explain my position, other than to kind of shout it out:

I'm not defending the call in the replay booth!!
... the correct call was made. He was clearly out. ...

You protest too much.

Your own words contradict you. Through multiple posts.

But, I come from the age when ND fans were intellectually honest.

Really, so ND fans are intellectually dishonest today?


Let's review who omitted to meniton the salient notes that accompanied your inadmissable Exhibit A.

Let's review who cited "an 'official' ND source" which wasn't remotely official, was it?

Let's review who wants to set aside the explicit rules of the games.

... If the refs "blew" a call, and it turned out to be the correct call (even if the call was not arrived at in the correct manner), then we admitted as much, sucked it up, and moved on.

Is this an intellectually honest statement?

The refs didn't blow the call. They called it to the best of their ability. The Replay Official dishonestly overturned that call when HE HAD NO BASIS TO DO SO.

 

[jason_h537]

This was called a Touchdown on the field. The rule states that there must be indisputable evidence to overturn a call. From every angle and picture i have seen, there is no indisputable evidence to say he was in or out.

 

[PADOMERNUT]

exactly, all I am saying is you cant definitively say one way or the other because we have 2 pictures that tell 2 different stories.

 

[dshans]

My take (though not worth a lick o' Guinness or a whiff o' Jameson) is this: watching the play "live" on my 15", low-def analog CRT TV I thought he stepped on the line and out of bounds. I stepped away from the set to refresh whichever glass I was drinking from at the time.

I was (most pleasantly) surprised on my return to find that the call on the field was that he had stayed in bounds and scored a touchdown. I figured that a second, and possibly a third, official would have stepped in to overrule that call.

Replays from differing angles didn't change my initial opinion. They were ambiguous – no conclusive evidence. It just made me wish I'd wasted a shit-load of money on a 60" HDTV and HD cable package/energy sucking "box" to feed it. I'd have celebrated with every Domer Homer out there had the been upheld, but it came as little surprise that it was reversed.

Back in The Day (OK, OK – My Day) video replay didn't exist and the play would have been ruled a touchdown. Argument and controversy would ensue. Enter technology. Same old wine in a brand new bottle added to the cellar. Good or bad, game-changing or not; we've had challenges go both ways.

Until there are laser, pressure and GPS sensors, bar code scanners, algorithms and who knows what else installed in every field and attached to every part of each uniform that can be relied upon to supplant the instinct and "gut reactions" of coaches, players and officials; the human element remains.

Long live the human condition: "Rave on, it's a crazy feeling ..."

 

[BeatSC]

What made it all the more painful were all the other penalties called on ND all day and all the "No calls" on Michigan. Add it all up and the refs called a one-sided game. You can't not call offensive holding with a defense like ND blitzing all day and a scrambling QB. BTW it was a TD. Just like Floyds at Michst. and Grimes at Standord 2 years ago.