• We've had an issue with our name servers today that may be affecting a number of users from accessing the site.

Pictures of Warren down on terrible spot?

#153
#153
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
#154
#154
Old Geezer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob
#155
#155
HwyChile said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Bamawriter? Why are you on this board commenting on TN and why should anyone believe anything that you say?
Click to expand...

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.
 
#156
#156
cHiZzLeVOL said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#157
#157
HwyChile said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#159
#159
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#160
#160
HwyChile said:
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.
Click to expand...

You keep referring to "the game film" as if it's different from what's been posted.
 
#161
#161
HwyChile said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would be decent argument if I were the only one on here acknowledging reality.
 
#162
#162
cHiZzLeVOL said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old Geezer
#163
#163
bamawriter said:
That would be decent argument if I were the only one on here acknowledging reality.
Click to expand...
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".
 
Last edited:
#164
#164
bamawriter said:
You keep referring to "the game film" as if it's different from what's been posted.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#165
#165
HwyChile said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#166
#166
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is not what is on the actual game film of the live play. I went back and looked at the earlier pictures in this thread and they are one big blur that show his helmet on the line and completely down on the ground and yet when you look at the actual film it shows no such thing. I am not sure where those pictures came from or how they got so blurry but they are a big misconception. 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.
IMG_1164.jpg
 
#169
#169
I just watched this a few minutes ago (first time I've seen it since I left Neyland Saturday night right after they called it short). And watching it in real time, I just can't see how someone can be behind him 15 yards and not think he has the first down. I'm talking about the initial call....which also wouldn't have been overturned. Why doesn't the player get the benefit of the doubt? (I know the answer to that one.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Skullbone
#170
#170
HwyChile said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm not being clear. This will eliminate any confusion:

This

1634520234683-png.403938


This

1634520323811-png.403940


And This
img_1164-jpg.404176


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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange Raid and Lovnrockytop
#173
#173
bamawriter said:
Perhaps I'm not being clear. This will eliminate any confusion:

This

1634520234683-png.403938


This

1634520323811-png.403940


And This
img_1164-jpg.404176


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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#174
#174
HwyChile said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, after running at full speed and diving, the human body does not slide or bounce forward once it makes contact with the ground?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange Raid
#175
#175
He would have had to
bamawriter said:
So, after running at full speed and diving, the human body does not slide or bounce forward once it makes contact with the ground?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top