|
Post by zcr57 on Nov 21, 2011 15:22:22 GMT -5
Listening to the Giants, they were a bit miffed that Carey did not give Eli Manning the Jerry Markbreit treatment of ignoring a retaliation after he was crushed and Carey went with off setting penalties. Did you guys see that? That should have been a penalty. No idea how Carey missed it. Philly is one of the dirtiest teams in the NFL, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Nov 21, 2011 15:27:05 GMT -5
zcr they called a foul on that and then also flagged the Giants retaliation IIRC so the fouls offset
the one I was surprised not to see called was the helmet to helmet by Cullen Jenkins that gave Danny Ware a concussion
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Nov 21, 2011 16:59:16 GMT -5
Craig Wrolstad:
|
|
|
Post by melkaman8200 on Nov 21, 2011 20:07:22 GMT -5
Also, Ron was wearing glasses, so he had to protect the specs under the pile too. As an official who wears glasses, you have to take that into consideration. I know that U-31 Chad Brown uses prescribed Goggles on the field. I feel that should be the case for every official. Too dangerous with just regular glasses for NFL Games..... or can say any sport! If you watch Winter, it doesn't look like he even has anything to secure his glasses to his head (like an elastic cord or something), but I think they'd almost have to be safety-rated glasses. I always wondered about that, and his glasses look somewhat small. That makes me think of something, how many officials wear glasses on the field? I think I saw Tony Corrente wear glasses a couple of times, and Chad Brown was already mentioned, but who else?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2011 20:23:55 GMT -5
Ron Phares, Jerry Bergman,Rob Vernatchi,Tom Barnes???
|
|
|
Post by I've been warned on Nov 21, 2011 21:45:50 GMT -5
I know that U-31 Chad Brown uses prescribed Goggles on the field. I feel that should be the case for every official. Too dangerous with just regular glasses for NFL Games..... or can say any sport! If you watch Winter, it doesn't look like he even has anything to secure his glasses to his head (like an elastic cord or something), but I think they'd almost have to be safety-rated glasses. I always wondered about that, and his glasses look somewhat small. That makes me think of something, how many officials wear glasses on the field? I think I saw Tony Corrente wear glasses a couple of times, and Chad Brown was already mentioned, but who else? Could be Rx Specs (pronounced "Rex Spex") prescription athletic eyewear...
|
|
|
Post by cj on Nov 22, 2011 1:23:52 GMT -5
Before this goes away, an interesting variation on the question of that continuing action foul in the Giant-Eagle game...hands to the face is a 10 yard penalty, right? So the 15/5 rule doesn't apply. What if the Giants had been off side on the play and then the unsportsmanlike conduct occurs. In that case, does it become a 15/5 job...the 5 yard offside penalty is ignored and therefore the Eagles are penalized 15 yards from the spot of the completion....in other words under this ludicrous rule the more severe penalty worked to the Giants benefit! Really it's a rule that should be loooked at.
|
|
|
Post by tuckerewell on Nov 22, 2011 2:39:51 GMT -5
Another rule that should be looked at is the challengability of FG's. That or just utilize some basic laser technology and make sure FG calls accurate. I'm not sure Dallas OT game winner was a good kick.
|
|
|
Post by zebrablog on Nov 22, 2011 10:05:45 GMT -5
You can't use a two-dimensional image to determine the position of the ball at a given plane from a distance greater than 120 yards. Although it is a judgement call, I would still defer to the person right underneath the uprights.
The only solution I could see is to have a cable run above each goalpost to a height beyond human's kicking ability attaching to a cable over the end line. That way, the ball is still affected by the goalposts, even when it is kicked above them. Although it is a solution, I am still not a fan of it.
|
|
|
Post by cj on Nov 22, 2011 11:02:04 GMT -5
There is a simple solution if indeed field goals are a problem....extend the goal posts up another 20 or so feet (I don't think anybody can kick it higher than that or whatever it takes to be higher than a possible placement kick and then anchord a netting to the cross bar and the goal posts....if the ball ends up in the netting, so to speak a goal, it's good!
End of problem...
In all seriousness, there is an official stationed directly under each goal post, closer than any camera or whatever and I am sure from his position he could see the ball, at the very least, had passed over the goal post. It was close but in watching it, I thought that most of the hooking occurred after it had passed the goal post.(see reply #47 although the kick at discussion was towards the other goal post).
|
|
|
Post by JAYJAYSTRIPES on Nov 22, 2011 12:25:02 GMT -5
Good thought.... I do not think though, structurally, the goal posts can extend any further than as they are now configured...you have reached the limits for a cantilever on those uprights, and a total redesign using larger and heavier pipe would be required, I don't know if these are 4" dia. pipe (heavy - xtra heavy) duty pipe. If so, a redsign to 6" might be possible, but, now weight and wind loading becomes a problem....an interesting dilemma.
|
|
|
Post by hank on Nov 22, 2011 23:41:49 GMT -5
A crazy thought, but would it be wild to have some form of laser light installed on top of both posts, therefore continuing the yellow goal posts. These lights can be turned on for digital purpose during kicks only.
|
|
Brent
Division I White Hat
Posts: 164
|
Post by Brent on Nov 23, 2011 10:54:26 GMT -5
Aren't we over thinking this goal post thing, I mean when I stand under a goal post and look straight up, it is pretty obvious to me if it was in or out. There is no way a kicker, coach or camera can have a better view of it than me. The officials JUDGEMENT is what counts, stop trying to take that out of the game. These guys do a great job, and there is no need for lasers or extending the goal posts up to the sky or anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by zebrablog on Nov 23, 2011 13:13:22 GMT -5
some form of laser light installed on top of both posts, therefore continuing the yellow goal posts. Future newspaper headline: BLIMP CRASHES AFTER PILOT BLINDED BY VIRTUAL GOALPOSTSI am a firm believer that the NFL should start judging field goals and measuring first downs by electron microscope! (Yes, I ripped that off of Futurama.)
|
|
|
Post by tuckerewell on Nov 23, 2011 14:42:38 GMT -5
You can't use a two-dimensional image to determine the position of the ball at a given plane from a distance greater than 120 yards. Although it is a judgement call, I would still defer to the person right underneath the uprights. The only solution I could see is to have a cable run above each goalpost to a height beyond human's kicking ability attaching to a cable over the end line. That way, the ball is still affected by the goalposts, even when it is kicked above them. Although it is a solution, I am still not a fan of it. I wasn't using the photo above my post as evidence of anything. The photo reminded me of the replay I saw and when I saw it I didn't think it had gone over. Yes I don't have the view as the officials underneath the goal posts. Why the NFL wouldn't want to use simple, somewhat inexpensive technology to determine accuracy of FG kicks is beyond me. Laser technology could easily establish a plane that goes upward and if the plane isn't broken, then the kick is no good. There are many calling for technology that puts a chip in the ball to determine TD's but FG kicks are different. There are no variables involving ball carriers, passes, etc. Getting it right would be the priority to me. Why is there so much resistance to use of technology?
|
|