Orange Raid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2021
- Messages
- 412
- Likes
- 550
No, it did not confirm anything. It was a bad angle to view anything. The best angle is the actual game film, which is still on youtube. Pictures can be deceiving when taken at bad angles. I have seen things look 6 inches away when they were five feet, and visa versa. The pictures I have seen on here are the worst angles and worst pictures for determining anything that I have ever seen. I am surprised all of the losers on here want to buy into them.A bad angle for determining the line to gain, yes. What it did was confirm where he had the ball when he touched down. The point he touched down was easy to see from the original shot.
This is false. During the game they showed a different angle and the ball wasn’t anywhere near his head. The ball was in his left hand in the numbers.100% agree. Watched it several times. The shadow on that pic shows knee still off the ground. Landing was every bit on top of forty stripe ball in left hand tucked up high near helmet /chest area - not down on stomach. Top replay view showed the same. An objective 'fair' spot would be squarely centered on top of forty, then a measurement. It was not short of the forty and clearly not a yard short.
No, it did not confirm anything. It was a bad angle to view anything. The best angle is the actual game film, which is still on youtube. Pictures can be deceiving when taken at bad angles. I have seen things look 6 inches away when they were five feet, and visa versa. The pictures I have seen on here are the worst angles and worst pictures for determining anything that I have ever seen. I am surprised all of the losers on here want to buy into them.
Bamawriter? Why are you on this board commenting on TN and why should anyone believe anything that you say?
During the game they showed different alternate bad angles, and if you notice they never showed the actual game film angle as a reply. It seems that they cherry picked the worst angles to make their case. It's funny how they initially said it was a first down and then the blind judge that was nowhere near the play stepped it off over a yard off from where it hit the ground. In fact, the judge started with his foot real close to the line and the farther he walked out onto the field the farther that he got from the line. That guy has no business officiating anything.This is false. During the game they showed a different angle and the ball wasn’t anywhere near his head. The ball was in his left hand in the numbers.
The spot was about as accurate as it can get. On top of that he didn’t make the first down he just didn’t. He stretched his right arm out like he thought he had the ball in that hand but he didn’t.
Either way we had 5 chances to score and beat Ole Miss and we just didn’t. So we lost.
The fumble for a touchdown was egregious and that’s the real issue. Not this play they actually got right.
During the game they showed an exact angle of the ball at the very end of all the replays they went through and it clearly showed he did not cross the 40 with the ball before his knee touched.During the game they showed different alternate bad angles, and if you notice they never showed the actual game film angle as a reply. It seems that they cherry picked the worst angles to make their case. It's funny how they initially said it was a first down and then the blind judge that was nowhere near the play stepped it off over a yard off from where it hit the ground. In fact, the judge started with his foot real close to the line and the farther he walked out onto the field the farther that he got from the line. That guy has no business officiating anything.
Look you are clearly biased as a bama fan and really do not have any business commenting on it. Most of the replays and pictures were NOT the same angle.The images that were posted earlier are from the exact same angle (literally the same camera) as the single frame you posted. The only difference is that they represent events that happened chronologically before yours.
It's not a good argument to dismiss a "bad angle" while using the exact same angle in support.
They are not the same angle and the ones that are took the shot before he hit the ground. Denying that is not a good argument.
I'm not saying you should. What you should do is use your eyes (assuming they function properly) to see what actually happened as opposed to what you want to believe.
During the game they showed different alternate bad angles, and if you notice they never showed the actual game film angle as a reply. It seems that they cherry picked the worst angles to make their case. It's funny how they initially said it was a first down and then the blind judge that was nowhere near the play stepped it off over a yard off from where it hit the ground. In fact, the judge started with his foot real close to the line and the farther he walked out onto the field the farther that he got from the line. That guy has no business officiating anything.
I saw those and they were very bad angles. The actual game film on youtube right now has the best angle. I took a shot of it and there is no question. He flopped down at one time. I can see how you are fooled by those pictures. It is easy to do if you do not know what bad angles are and that the shots were too soon.During the game they showed an exact angle of the ball at the very end of all the replays they went through and it clearly showed he did not cross the 40 with the ball before his knee touched.
So a few guys have it wrong on here and that is the correct analysis? There are always a few wrongheaded folks. There are tons of people with a different viewpoint, including all the folks who threw trash on the field, many of which had a better viewpoint than the referees. I am not the lone decenter as you dishonestly state. It is very clear that most folks think it was a bad call, one of many. Again, you are a biased bama fan. By your logic, since most folks think it was a bad call, the winning vote means the people on here who believe it was a good call are not "living in reality".That would be decent argument if I were the only one on here acknowledging reality.
Because they are different. Those other angles were taken at the game but they are not the main film of the play, mainly because the cameras were not in the best spots for the play, and thus that is what made them bad angles. If the cameras were in the best spots they would have used them for the actual play rather than as alternate angles.You keep referring to "the game film" as if it's different from what's been posted.
I saw those and they were very bad angles. The actual game film on youtube right now has the best angle. I took a shot of it and there is no question. He flopped down at one time. I can see how you are fooled by those pictures. It is easy to do if you do not know what bad angles are and that the shots were too soon.
Because they are different. Those other angles were taken at the game but they are not the main film of the play, mainly because the cameras were not in the best spots for the play, and thus that is what made them bad angles. If the cameras were in the best spots they would have used them for the actual play rather than as alternate angles.
Again, what is this "game film" to which you keep referring? The image you posted is from the main broadcast camera, as are all of the images that @VFL-82-JP posted.
Okay, here's a more detailed look at Warren going to the ground with the ball. In this frame, Warren and the Ole Miss defender have just made contact.
View attachment 403937
I suspect those are the alternate replays but I don't really care where they came from since, again, they are very bad angles. The picture that I posted right off youtube is the only accurate picture on this thread that is not a bad angle.
And it shows him getting the first down. What is your point? The fist two frames clearly do not show him down or he would not have flopped down on the line, waist in the middle. Thank you for making my point.Perhaps I'm not being clear. This will eliminate any confusion:
This
This
And This
Were all filmed by the exact same SEC Network camera and are all from the same angle. They are in chronological order.
You can feel free to argue that Warren was not down in the instants captured by Pics 1 & 2. But your argument that the angle is insufficient while relying on a frame from the exact same camera is completely unavailing.
And it shows him getting the first down. What is your point? The fist two frames clearly do not show him down or he would not have flopped down on the line, waist in the middle. Thank you for making my point.
He would have had to crawl that far to where he landed versus the first two clips that clearly incorrectly purport to show him down two yards before the line. That is conclusive evidence that he was not down or he would not have landed waist in the middle of the line. He was leaning very low and hard, but he was not down. The game film clearly shows him make one flop to the ground right onto the top of the line. He slid maybe 3 inches after that. Also, if his knee would have hit the ground there would have been some kind of movement in his upper body making a landing, and there was not.So, after running at full speed and diving, the human body does not slide or bounce forward once it makes contact with the ground?