All 3 ABC Studio announcers say ball was OOB

[The Song Remains the Same]

You can run down the sideline an inch inbounds and hold the ball outside the sideline all you want. If YOU don't go out of bounds, the position of the ball (as long as the ball doesn't TOUCH OOB) is irrelevant. The rule in marking forward progress when a player goes OOB is where was the ball when the PLAYER went OOB.

So that the ball broke the plane of the sideline IN THE AIR is irrelevant.

But, the ball DID touch the ground OOB before it hit the pylon or broke the plane of the goal line.

But, but, but, Penix was airborne, so an exception to your rule applies.
In addition to the ball hitting white chalk before pylon, ball was clearly OOB as well...
Suggest you read the NCAA rulebook:
"The most forward point of the ball when declared out of bounds between the goal lines is the point of forward progress (A.R. 8-2-1-I and A.R. 8-5- 1-VII) (Exception: When a ball carrier is airborne as he crosses the sideline (including a striding runner), forward progress is determined by the position of the ball as it crosses the sideline (A.R. 8-2-1-II-III and V-IX)."

 

[rudedude]

Sorry. That shot does not show space between the ball and pylon. In fact it looks like the pylon is starting to buckle forward, as if it had already contacted the ball.

No it doesn’t and the ball is OOB so contact with the pylon is inconsequential.

 

[JR4PSU]

But, but, but, Penix was airborne, so an exception to your rule applies.
In addition to the ball hitting white chalk before pylon, ball was clearly OOB as well...
Suggest you read the NCAA rulebook:
"The most forward point of the ball when declared out of bounds between the goal lines is the point of forward progress (A.R. 8-2-1-I and A.R. 8-5- 1-VII) (Exception: When a ball carrier is airborne as he crosses the sideline (including a striding runner), forward progress is determined by the position of the ball as it crosses the sideline (A.R. 8-2-1-II-III and V-IX)."

Nice research.

 

[PSU2UNC]

We should have won in regulation, if not for some bad play calling and time management.

We should have won in regulation if not for an easy missed FG or a makeable missed FG or any of the three bad TOs.

 

[Texas Lion]

2+2, it was that freaking simple......our coach couldn't do math.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Those images show the ball in contact with both. There is no image that shows the ball in contact with the ground while not in contact with the pylon. So we don't know if the nose of the ball nudged the goal line plane.

Do I think he was short? Yes. Rather certain of that from the slow motion. But is there 100% proof? No.

In cases where the official is unable to make a certain call on the field it would be good if he could make a preliminary call and defer to video, so that the call is based on the most probable of the possibilities instead of "indisputable" evidence. But this is not how the rules are written.

That is categorically not what I see when looking at the images.

 

[Noffinater]

If the player is not out of bounds yet but the ball breaks the plane of the sideline, the ball is out of bounds at that point. No further forward progress of the ball is allowed by rule. It is the same as a punt that goes out of bounds. It is placed where the ball was when passing the plane of the sideline.

Neither of you understand the rule. The plane only applies to the goal line. The ball is spotted where the ball is when any part of the player or the ball touches the white out of bounds line.
It’s a touchdown if the ball breaks the goal line plane while in possession.
The ball or the ball carrier needed to touch the white out of bounds line before the ball broke the plane of the goal line or touch the pylon for him to be out of bounds.
Personally, I though he was probably out of bounds but the replay was not 100% without a doubt to overturn. Had he been ruled out of bounds on the field, they wouldn’t have overturned that either.

 

[Obliviax]

BTW, Jay Paterno was on the local sports talk show here in CLE promoting his book and the tOSU game. Two things of note:

• Jay said he thought the two point conversion was good
• The announcers gave Jay an opportunity to defend Joe regarding the JS years without any detracting comments whatsoever.

 

[BoulderFish]

Neither of you understand the rule. The plane only applies to the goal line. The ball is spotted where the ball is when any part of the player or the ball touches the white out of bounds line.
It’s a touchdown if the ball breaks the goal line plane while in possession.
The ball or the ball carrier needed to touch the white out of bounds line before the ball broke the plane of the goal line or touch the pylon for him to be out of bounds.
Personally, I though he was probably out of bounds but the replay was not 100% without a doubt to overturn. Had he been ruled out of bounds on the field, they wouldn’t have overturned that either.

Really?

So, if a super athletic runner dives OOB (from in bounds of course) at the 2 yard line, but no point touches down until after the ball crossed the infinite plane of the end zone (say, 5 yards OOB, but 2 yards past the infinite plane of the goal line), that's a touchdown?

No. It's not.

When the player is downed because of touching OOB, the ball is marked where it broke the plane of the boundary.

In other words, when downed by the boundary:
A. If the ball has not broken the plane of the boundary, it is marked where it was when the player was downed by the boundary.
B. If the ball has broken the plane of the boundary, it is marked where it broke the plane

When a player is downed by the boundary, the ball cannot be advanced beyond the point where it broke the boundary (if it did).

In this case, the player is downed by the boundary (when the ball touched). Therefore, since the ball had also broke the plane of the boundary when the player was downed, the ball should be marked where it initially broke the plane of the boundary.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

That is categorically not what I see when looking at the images.

Really? Show me the image where the ball is in contact with the ground but not the pylon? There is no proof. You are making an assumption based on the fact that the pylon is not grossly displaced. But if you look closely, it does appear that there was some displacement, or bowing of the pylon, in every image that I see that shows contact with the ground.

Again, I think he was short, but cannot prove it. We would need an overhead cam synced to a ground level cam in order to prove it. We do not have that.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Really? Show me the image where the ball is in contact with the ground but not the pylon? There is no proof. You are making an assumption based on the fact that the pylon is not grossly displaced. But if you look closely, it does appear that there was some displacement, or bowing of the pylon, in every image that I see that shows contact with the ground.

Again, I think he was short, but cannot prove it. We would need an overhead cam synced to a ground level cam in order to prove it. We do not have that.

I wouldn't focus on the stills. I think the key is watching the replay in normal slow motion. You can see that the shape of the ball changes when it hits the ground BEFORE the pylon is touched (you can see space in between the ball and the pylon).

It is clear that the ball hit OOB before hitting the pylon. The only possibility of a good try is if somehow the tip of the ball crossed the plane of the goal line, without somehow hitting the pylon, before going OOB. Knowing the dimensions of a football and where the ball hit OOB (as clearly seen on video) make this impossible.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

I wouldn't focus on the stills. I think the key is watching the replay in normal slow motion. You can see that the shape of the ball changes when it hits the ground BEFORE the pylon is touched (you can see space in between the ball and the pylon).

It is clear that the ball hit OOB before hitting the pylon. The only possibility of a good try is if somehow the tip of the ball crossed the plane of the goal line, without somehow hitting the pylon, before going OOB. Knowing the dimensions of a football and where the ball hit OOB (as clearly seen on video) make this impossible.

And yet, every time a play like this is examined they go to a frame by frame look at it.

 

[PSU2UNC]

And yet, every time a play like this is examined they go to a frame by frame look at it.

I'm just telling you the best way to see what actually occurred. I believe the replay booth looks at the video feed, not individual stills, but I'm sure they don't exclude the video feed when making the call.

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

Okay, there are several clips in this thread where you can watch a pause the frames. I just spent 10 minutes doing so. The process is to freeze the frame just before the ball gets to the goal line. Instead of moving it forward by hitting the arrow take the cursor and click just to the right side of the dot that shows where the frame was frozen. You can see frame by frame as the ball moves forward.

You will see three things; first, the ball is not rotating for several inches prior to hitting the ground but starts rotating when it hits the ground. Second, The ball starts rotating before the ball hits the pylon.

The third thing is the direction the pylon moves when it is moved by the ball. It initially moves directly down the sideline which can only be caused by hitting the goal line face (the plain of the endzone) of the pilon. Later because the trajectory of the ball is at an angle going out of bounds the pylon starts to spin and move further out of bounds.

There is no question that the ball hit out of bounds before the ball hit the pylon. It is indisputable. The only error that the official possibly made was not accounting for the angle of the camera which may have deceived him but quite frankly he is supposed to be a subject matter expert and understand that the angle of the camera to the sidelines is not dispositive.

The turning of the ball proves the movement when hitting the ground which happened before the pylon was touched. Period, end of story!

 

[Waltwam]

The bottom line is that Big Ten refs suck and Big Ten review booth refs suck and are never, ever going to do Penn State any favors!

Don’t want any “favors!” Just make the right call.

 

[MacNit07]

BTW, Jay Paterno was on the local sports talk show here in CLE promoting his book and the tOSU game. Two things of note:

• Jay said he thought the two point conversion was good
• The announcers gave Jay an opportunity to defend Joe regarding the JS years without any detracting comments whatsoever.

Jay was wrong on the 2 pt conversion.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

You will see three things; first, the ball is not rotating for several inches prior to hitting the ground but starts rotating when it hits the ground. Second, The ball starts rotating before the ball hits the pylon.

Uh, no. I watched all of it on my HD big screen.

When the ball starts to rotate there is no camera angle that verifies the ball not in contact with the pylon at the same instant. Further the ball is long enough such that the very tip could have been to the playing side of the pylon.

Was he short? Probably. The curvature of the ball would suggest that the tip probably did not touch the goal line before hitting the ground. Proof? No. You are seeing what you want to see.

Proof in this case requires two synced cameras in locations that we do not have.

 

[LafayetteBear]

I don't think Penix scored that two point conversion but, quite frankly, the fact that all three ABC announcers, B1G administrators, or anyone else might now say "he didn't score" does not make me feel any better. It arguably makes it worse, because it doesn't change a damn thing.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Uh, no. I watched all of it on my HD big screen.

When the ball starts to rotate there is no camera angle that verifies the ball not in contact with the pylon at the same instant. Further the ball is long enough such that the very tip could have been to the playing side of the pylon.

Was he short? Probably. The curvature of the ball would suggest that the tip probably did not touch the goal line before hitting the ground. Proof? No. You are seeing what you want to see.

Proof in this case requires two synced cameras in locations that we do not have.

Knowing the dimensions of a football counts as "proof". It is impossible (based on where the ball hit OOB) that it crossed the goal line.

 

[Mufasa94]

There is no image that shows the ball in contact with the ground while not in contact with the pylon.

There is at least one picture in Chitown's thread a couple pages back that shows a gap between the pylon and the ball. But, a single picture can create an illusion if the exact time it occurs is not known, say the ball has or has not struck the ground and/or started its rotation.

A sequence of shots (a video) can give the illusion of something.

A video in slow motion shows the difference in impact times between the ground and the pylon, that part is not an illusion. Videos from multiple angles showing only the sideline face, and not the corner, of the pylon being impacted is not an illusion. Where the nose of the ball exactly is could be.

A frame by frame analysis provides the proof,

I agree with this. But someone playing with their high def TV/DVR or sitting at their computer is not getting the actual frame by frame view.

What we're discussing here is video proof, and that just does not exist.

This has not been determined. There is a short clip from pretty much a goal line view. Look here at the 17/18 second mark. The Barstool video in Chitown's original post is in slow motion, at 17 seconds the ball goes from just beyond the half yard line to impacting the ground and moving, by 18 seconds the ball has completely impacted with pylon through the various stages. As much as I’ve tried, I can only get it to freeze on images of either: 1. the ball in the air, 2. then the ball at a different angle on the ground after impact (with double images where you can see the white of the sideline within the ball) and possibly already touching the pylon to 3. the ball in complete no doubt contact with the pylon.

Some entity has this video and could provide even more evidence. I would think in the 50+ years since the Zapruder film, that technology hasn’t regressed.

 

[Bluesteel23]

Most painful FB theft loss ever. Clearly out of bounds. Ball hit OOB white area before the pylon moved.
Not difficult to see 15 feet from my TV in real time.
And, the pylon is out of bounds in the first place. The Refs stunk out the place all game long.

 

[PearlSUJam]

Uh, no. I watched all of it on my HD big screen.

When the ball starts to rotate there is no camera angle that verifies the ball not in contact with the pylon at the same instant. Further the ball is long enough such that the very tip could have been to the playing side of the pylon.

Was he short? Probably. The curvature of the ball would suggest that the tip probably did not touch the goal line before hitting the ground. Proof? No. You are seeing what you want to see.

Proof in this case requires two synced cameras in locations that we do not have.

Best photo of Indiana's game-winning 2-point conversion?

bwi.forums.rivals.com

 

[Waltwam]

Most painful FB theft loss ever. Clearly out of bounds. Ball hit OOB white area before the pylon moved.
Not difficult to see 15 feet from my TV in real time.
And, the pylon is out of bounds in the first place. The Refs stunk out the place all game long.

Not for me. The Minnesota loss with 2 Hail Mary’s and the Michigan robbery were worse, IMO.

 

[SR108]

And was a bad call. “We are always told when ball crosses sideline it is out of bounds. Ball was clearly out of bounds”. Halftime of SCum vs MN

The 17 point differential due to turnovers cost us this game. Sure, the bone headed coaching regarding running out the clock and the questionable two point conversion were factors, but it never should have been that close at the end.