Van, spot on, as always

[M Club]

Remember this little conversation?

Yep. That should've been a TD. Not only was he not conclusively out of bounds, if anything that second camera angle showed that he was conclusively in bounds. How they managed to overturn the call on the field is just beyond me. Instant replay actually took the correct call and made it wrong! LOL!!

No way in hell there was conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field, not unless they didn't get that second angle. The first angle sure looked like he'd touched the line, but it was from a deceptive angle which obscured what was going on beneath and to the side of his foot. The second angle clearly showed where his foot landed, and it was in bounds. It definitely revealed that there was nothing conclusive to overturn the call.

Open your homer eyes, dumbshit.

Yeah, I saw a sliver of green between his foot and the sideline, and so did the tv annnouncers, and so did Shoalzie, which is why he said the guy DIDN'T STEP OUT!!

I like the all-caps there.

There was a sliver of green. Shoalzie saw it on his 40" plasma, and I saw it on my, errm, 37" inch LCD-High DEF screen.

Yeah, 'cause destroying you with facts is really something to worry about.

Simple question: If his shoe wasn't touching white, which you admit, then what was between his foot and the white? Fuchsia?

er, here you go, friend:

an article and a photo:

why don't you go back and read the asskicking you've given yourself.

laterbye

[Killian]

mclub, you might want to read that article.

Upon further review of WNDU's own video footage, Armando Allen appears to indeed have stepped out of bounds on an early touchdown in the 1st quarter of Saturday's loss to Michigan that was overturned by officials after review.

The play was ruled a touchdown on the field, meaning replay officials needed conclusive evidence to overturn the original call.

No camera angle shown by ABC/ESPN showed anything conclusive enough to actual overturn the call.

So, regardless of the fact that Allen was actually out, the call probably should have stood as a touchdown.

Click on the video link above to judge for yourself.

The Irish ended up settling for a field goal on the drive, meaning they lost four points because of the call.

Notre Dame lost the game by four points.

[M Club]

ja, i know. i saw it. i also didn't see the green van seemed to see. i'm sure no one else did either. i'd definitely agree that it wasn't anything to merit overturning the call.

that's not what we were bickering about. i agreed that nothing was conclusive from the television broadcast, but van took it one step further with all his drivel about clearly seeing that armando never stepped out of bounds.

anyhow, to your point: are replay officials only allowed to review angles provided by abc/espn? i'm not a replay wonk, so i don't know the rules, but that seems to be the thrust of that article's contention.

[Killian]

Gitcha.

Yeah, they only get to see what we see.

[Van]

Kind of a fuzzy, grainy pic there, M Club. The high DEF shots they showed on tv were more conclusive, which is why the announcers said on the air that the original call was correct, and the overturning of the call was wrong, after they'd gotten a look at the slow-mo, High DEF shot of the second angle.

Oddly, Sholazie said the same thing, in no uncertain terms...

ND got screwed, he didn't step out.

Now, why would Shoalzie say the guy didn't step out, if that isn't what he saw too? Notice that he didn't say it was merely inconclusive. No, he unequivocally said the guy didn't step out, because that's what camera angle two, the one WE saw, clearly showed.

I'm convinced the replay guys didn't get to see that angle, for if they had they would've never overturned the call. They came back so quickly with the ruling that the call on the field was wrong that I'm certain they must have only gotten to see the first angle, in which he definitely did look like he'd landed on the line.

Anyway, once you came into the thread, Shoalzie backpedaled from his original position, in deference to you.

But hey, instant replay really did their job well there, and what the hell, it was only four measly points.

[indyfrisco]

Never fear. I got a better, more clear pic.

[Van]

Never fear. I got a better, more clear pic.

See!

[Killian]

Cripple fight? Sure it was.

[TheJON]

Gotta love the Smithereens reference.

Hey Sam, would you like Brody Croyle back?? We don't want him........

[Van]

That one did make me laugh.

[War Wagon]

Michigan/Notre Dame was exactly what nobody on the networks would say it was - a god damned cripple fight.

Not what I watched. That was an instant classic, that's what that was.

Maybe you confused USC vs. OSU...

[Killian]

A lot of "might's" and "could's" in there

[M Club]

Kind of a fuzzy, grainy pic there, M Club. The high DEF shots they showed on tv were more conclusive...

Uh, ja, Occum. That photo is sooooooooooooooooooo pixelated I can barely tell that's a leg attached to a foot that has stepped out of bounds. It's a far less leap of faith to consider how real life works, that a non-HD camera can be positioned to catch an angle that a HD camera didn't. That or just assume what you're looking at [photo] isn't what you're looking at.

As for Shoalzie, I'm sure that he can speak for himself, but I'm pretty sure his opinions aren't formed in deference to me. Most reasonable folk feel free to make comments on a message board without some wannabe lawyer-type analyzing their words like this is a court of law. Just because Shoalzie wrote "he was in" doesn't mean he saw the same "conclusive evidence he was in bounds" you saw or the "line of green between his shoe and sideline" that you lied about.

[War Wagon]

Hey man - if ND and Michigan run their tables and kick everybody's asses, I'll be more than happy to come back in and say "Fuck me - I was dead fucking wrong!". Just gonna have to see more.

Right. You need to see more.

It wasn't enough to watch an outstanding game in an awesome venue with a venerable tradition.... it was a

Cripple Fight!

How about just saying "that was a great fucking game", and leave it at that?

No wonder you snuggle up to Van. The 2 of you airheads put together almost cancel each other out.

[Van]

WW calling practically anybody an airhead is just plain irony gold.

WW, often as not you'd have to become a whole lot sharper just to achieve a withering dullness.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

That game was classic college football...anything but a cripple fight.

Didn't Auburn win a game last year 3-2? Now THAT was a cripple fight.

[Killian]

This was the ABC shot, so I can see what Van was saying.



Regardless, while that play factored into the final score, it didn't cost them the game.

[Van]

Yeah, pretty much.

I still like Indy's verson best though...



Shit still cracks me up.

[JayDuck]

This was the ABC shot, so I can see what Van was saying.



Regardless, while that play factored into the final score, it didn't cost them the game.

I'm no anatomist (yeah, its not a word), but isn't that a pic of his left foot, while M-club's pic is of a right foot?

[Dinsdale]

Uh, ja, Occum.

I think I get the reference here...

except it's Occam. Or Ockham... either works.


But leave to an Oregon guy to realize that most football players have 2 feet.

[War Wagon]

I don't "snuggle" up to anybody

The fuck you don't. The mancrush you and Van have on each other is dripping down both of your chins... in your case, double or triple chins... for all to see.

I merely made a comment. True - it looked like a good game, but to suddenly think these two teams are fucking powerhouses after how much they sucked DICK last year is pretty fucking stupid.

You made a stupid comment, more than once, that it was a cripple fight, and now you're grabbing your ass with both hands (good thing you have big hands to go along with that fat ass) saying it "looked" like a good game. No way, ya' think?

Nobody insinuated they were "powerhouses", btw, and just because they sucked last year doesn't mean DICK (your word) this year.

[Left Seater]

Gitcha.

Yeah, they only get to see what we see.

While that was true in years past, not so today. The replay booth can get raw feed from the TV truck and then sort thru themselves. Takes a talented guy running the system but no longer does the producer decide what replay sees.

[Van]

I've known Van a long time. I consider him (though not always correct)

What a buncha crap.

:D

a good guy,

You're an idiot.

intelligent as hell, etc..

See?

Maybe your tiny Toys'R'Us pee pee jumps up and down like a glazed centipede

Like a fucking glazed centipede??"

you would be extra-incorrect.

Not just incorrect, but extra-incorrect??



Is that like Enter The m2 incorrect, with flying kicks and "You killed my master!" and all that?

The only reason I would be grabbing my ass, would be to let the fine-grained shit drip off of my ass-hair into your Beaver Cleaver mouth.

:urp:

Carry on, and understand your roll, labia-legged cock-lapper. :D

Labia-legged?? What, like a constant snail trail?

Go ahead, just try to picture such a thing.

[M Club]

Uh, ja, Occum.

I think I get the reference here...

except it's Occam. Or Ockham... either works.


But leave to an Oregon guy to realize that most football players have 2 feet.

if i applied occam's razor to the words i can spell correctly then i'd never have much to say.

[War Wagon]

I've known Van a long time.

And then....

I don't recall ever having met him.

Make up your mind, would you?

You don't know shit about shinola and certainly don't know Van anymore than I do. You're a lapdog who wants his head patted and to be given a Milkbone by his master.

Unless Van starts shopping at Walmart, he can't afford Milkbones.

You're out of luck.