New Extra Point Theory - The Phantom Football

[mantonio]

I saw both camera views of the kick, & there is no way the officials could have overturned the call.

I recorded the game, & did an indepth freeze frame analysis of both camera views.

In the straight on view, the ball appears to eclipse the post, making it seem like the ball was outside the goal. However, when I examined the off-set side view, the ball CLEARLY sails to the inside of the post, meaning the kick appeared good...

My theory is, the video cameras are not operating at a fast enough speed to accurately capture the position of the ball juxtaposed against the goal post, whether in front or behind it.

The ball was traveling at an unusually high rate of speed, & even freezeframed, it doesn't appear as a fully formed football, but a small streak or smudge, because, again, the camera doesn't have the proper shutter speed to see it, or the thin goal post clearly against the deep & complex background of a thousand moving people. In addition, the post is a thin image in the eye of the camera, & when something small passes near it at a high rate of speed, the camera cannot process what it is seeing quickly enough to output the actual live imagery, so what you might see is a BLENDING of the two images at the point of intersection, & the darker image of the ball somehow shows up slightly more dominantly to the eye of the viewer at that ball speed & angle, like a phantom image. This happens quite a bit in photography where images are not what they seem to be.

Also, depth can play a deceptive role in this camera conundrum. Camera's can be tricked when there is great depth in it's view. It's possible the camera lost focus in the vast background of the crowd, or that ALLSTATE net, with it's intricate weaving, confused the video camera.

Maybe this happened at the front view, but not the off-set view for some scientific, optically complicated reason, due to certain changes in angle.

Whatever the case, the officials directly under the goal posts must have seen the ball pass on the inside, rather than outside, because our human eyes are better at deciphering imagery at a closer distance than those cameras were, AND they called it GOOD...

 

[orangemass]

mantonio like the analysis... like to see a physics major take this project on with he two camera angles and come to a scientific conclusion... I saw the same thing you did

 

[RF2044]

Devil's advocate, Mantonio--just for arguments sake: why would the image show the ball in front of the goalpost? If that was the trajectory, wouldn't it then have bounced off of the goalpost? And while I get what you're saying about the camera not being "fast" enough to image the action, if the ball was behind the goalpost when the ghost image was captured, doesn't it stand to reason that the image wouldn't be of a whole ball, but rather of a partially obstructed one?

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

Video shoots at 30 frames per second, and could capture everything on that field perfectly fine. The reason the ball looks "smudgy" in front of the post when frozen is because the ball is moving pretty quickly. In order for the ball to look fully formed, the cameras would have to adjust shutter speed and iris so when frozen the ball wouldn't look blurred. The reason the ball looks blurred isn't because the camera couldn't pick it up, it's because the ball was moving quickly. It was still in front of the post. On the side angle view, the ball gets lost against the backdrop. Arguing about this is pointless.

 

[jordoo]

It passed in front of the upright on both angles, at least that's what my human eye saw watching it in highdef.

I was shocked that they didn't take it away.

 

[MikeSU02]

Video shoots at 30 frames per second, and could capture everything on that field perfectly fine. The reason the ball looks "smudgy" in front of the post when frozen is because the ball is moving pretty quickly. In order for the ball to look fully formed, the cameras would have to adjust shutter speed and iris so when frozen the ball wouldn't look blurred. The reason the ball looks blurred isn't because the camera couldn't pick it up, it's because the ball was moving quickly. It was still in front of the post. On the side angle view, the ball gets lost against the backdrop. Arguing about this is pointless.

With all due respect, I'm going with Mantonio's view on this. Because his explanation is closer to the result I want as a biased observer.

 

[upperdeck]

people realize that film captures what it sees, Tv does not always display what happens.. Tv's guess and depending on the display rate of your TV it can guess a lot on slow motion stuff.. you have film at 30 and tv's displaying at 60-240. where do you think the extra stuff comes from..

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

With all due respect, I'm going with Mantonio's view on this. Because his explanation is closer to the result I want as a biased observer.

Fair enough!

With that said let me explain a bit better. I typed that up on an iPad, and was sick of pecking the keyboard thing.

Basically, look at a video camera as a still camera, because that's basically what it is. It takes 30 pictures a second. This gets kind of technical so bear with me. To the poster who mentioned a "physics" experiment, all you really need is a videographer ho understands his or her camera. I guess to an extent that's me. So things going really fast (a skiier skiing down a slope, etc...) tend to get a bit blurred because the shutter speed for shooting normal action is typically set at '60.' What this means is that while the camera is shooting 30 pictures per second, the shutter is closing two times per frame, or 60 times a second.

If you want that same skiier to not look blurred, you adjust shutter speed up so the shutter is closing, say 120 times per second, or four times per frame. Adjusting shutter speed can make blurry things look clear.

Since it's obvious shutter speed was less than this when the ball was being kicked, you get blur. Doesn't mean the camera didn't pick up the ball, or the ball was travelling too quickly. It just means the ball looks blurry, which in turn doesn't change the fact that the ball was in front of the goalpost. There's no shadow, or weird things happening. It simply means the ball was blurry.

Hope this all makes sense. That is, unless it flies in the face of good old fashioned fan bias. In which case, have at it!

 

[ImperialOrange]

This was the Zapruder kick. The straight ahead camera was all the way over on the grassy knoll.

Can somebody please post a pic or a link to this side video or is it already linked and I missed it?

This whole thing is bizarre to me since both LeMoyneCuse who was 10 feet away, my cousin who was upperdeck in that endzone about 20 feet away and some others saw the kick go through? I was at work and he text me to see why they stopped the game for review, I told him the XP was being reviewed and he had no idea why.

Or maybe someone should just ask Das Boot?

 

[upperdeck]

and the refs under saw it go thru as well, both of them as well as the head ref behind the kicker.. not one of them questioned it until the replay judge did.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Good point, and those were the ones that mattered. Just strange that something that has what seems to be definitive video evidence is anything but. Again, would LOVE to see that other angle which also happens to be the one the replay official had.

Did Toledos coach even question it? I havent gotten to watch the 2nd half of the game yet. Wonder if HCDM will will address it?

 

[upperdeck]

didnt see a single toledo player nor the coaches make an effort to complain. people dont think replies can lie have never worked on video replay before..

been involved with hockey replay issues.. the puck can move 3-5 ft per second, when the camera is capturing at normal speed the puck can move feet between frames. Literally have seen the puck enter the frame outside the goal line hit the back post and come back out past the goal line the next frame.. you need multiple cameras to capture this stuff. we had 2 views that showed different results..

remember the judges are watching the tv replay not the raw film.. tv fills in the gaps with software, something just as it does with everything else it tries to guess where the movement is going to have content in each frame. when the ball is moving faster than the capture its all a guess. when the ball starts jumping then you are not seeing what really happened and HD has nothing to do with making it better it adds to the issue with more guess at frames.

were the capturing with the real good cameras you would have the real answer but they were not.

 

[Ghost]

I have a 3D tv and it did not look like it went through the posts in 3D. Case closed.

 

[SWC75]

33-30, baby!

 

[DNABB5]

upperdeck is right. I trust LeMoyne. If the ball hit the post, (which it does not appear to on the replay) and it was quicker than could be captured, I can see where it could make an illusion on film. People can see and process faster than you think.

Need to call mythbuster to see if this illusion can be replicated
WTFE.

For those that say the win was "stolen" How about the uncalled, clear from replay (no illusions here) PI? Gotta think we can get 1st and G at the 2 into 3-4 more points :noidea:

 

[mantonio]

This was the Zapruder kick. The straight ahead camera was all the way over on the grassy knoll.

Can somebody please post a pic or a link to this side video or is it already linked and I missed it?

This whole thing is bizarre to me since both LeMoyneCuse who was 10 feet away, my cousin who was upperdeck in that endzone about 20 feet away and some others saw the kick go through? I was at work and he text me to see why they stopped the game for review, I told him the XP was being reviewed and he had no idea why.

Or maybe someone should just ask Das Boot?

This is very fascinating indeed. Now we have EYEWITNESS accounts of the ball passing through the goal posts!

Once again, it is undisputable evidence that the second, side camera angle shows the ball going through the inside of the post.

What I find most disturbing about this issue is the carelessness in which the Big East releases a definitive statement about a controversial event, as if it happened exactly the way THEY believe it did... If it is such an open & shut case, then why did the officials rule the original call correct?

Although I am a biased observer, the video evidence does reveal discrepancies thusfar, & for the conference to question the officiating in absense of absolute proof is abominable. Now we have ESPN commentators saying Syracuse should have lost the game, 30-29, which is ludicrous, based on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Does ESPN use any credible vetting to hire staff? (I'm talking to YOU, Van Pelt!)