Comments on: How do those measurements work again?

By: jayman

jayman — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:40:26 +0000

First off, congrats on the clever photo, specifically cropped so it doesn't show the angle of the lines on the field. It would suck to torpedo your point before you've had a chance to make it.

"so it kind of depends on the angle you might be looking at it from"

He's saying that an offset max-zoomed camera doesn't offer a better view than the official has with his nose lined up with the ball and the stake.

"because there’s a little bit of a distance, probably in the neighborhood of five or six inches, between the actual point of the football and where the stake sets on the ground"

He means that the stake is set off to one side, not on, on top of, around, or over the ball.

"He continued, obviously forgetting the advice not to keep talking when things aren’t going well."

Give the guy a break. So he didn't have a soliloquy prepared on geometry. He probably assumed that somewhere in the first half of high school someone would cover almost everything you'd need for regular football viewing.

Just click the link I put in my name. 29 seconds on youtube can save you a season's worth of complaints.

By: The Rev.

The Rev. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:20:07 +0000

If I'm not mistaken, this picture appears to have been taken from behind the ball on the pole's side. Unless you have a photo perpendicular to both the pole and ball, then all of this conversation is just speculation.

By: belikemike1

belikemike1 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:02:51 +0000

The ref actually explained the parallax perfectly in layman's terms, so I don't know why Pat could not understand his comments.

I personally believe that…

1) it was a bad spot of the ball by the linesmen in the first place (in the Steeler's favor). The linesman who actually had the best view and was and standing a half a yard short of the marked allowed the other linesman who could not see where the ball was to place the spot up closer to the maker.

2) there should have been more studying happening by the ref's to double and triple check the measurement.

3) how Mangini didn't go ballistic there is beyond me.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:34:42 +0000

The referees had a better look than you did, and crying never changes things. The refs called the nose of the ball at the pole. That is enough for a first down.
Take the loss and do better next time.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:18:54 +0000

It's called a parallax error. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

I'm not saying that it did or did not happen on this play, but I am certain that a tv still from an undisclosed angle is not enough to prove that the referee made a mistake here.

By: alan t.

alan t. — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:25:11 +0000

I've always thought chain measurements are incredibly stupid anyway. It's 2009, man. All this wild technology at their disposal, and they're still using $15 worth of parts they picked up at the Home Depot.

By: terje

terje — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:03:49 +0000

the browns deserve every bad call they get.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:23:49 +0000

Pat:

This is one of the worst calls I have ever seen. In junior high, yes I am going to my junior high years, but pointing out how a referee got it right. We stopped a team on 4th down. It was close enough to call for the chains. The ball was so close to the stick, the ref actually pulled a credit card out of his pocket to see if there was space between the stick and the ball, there was, we stopped them. But, my point is this is how a referee double checks to see if he got it right.