4th Down Ezekiel Elliot Reach Overturn

[channtheman]

Should this call have been overturned? Read on... [apologies in advance for crappy pictures, my cell phone is garbage]

https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22281854_10155725827022770_4728679852877406413_n.j pg?oh=5b45b4761aabe3b1616ee2024948363d&oe=5A786345

Presnap you can see where the overhead camera is. It is in the process of moving even farther away from the line of scrimmage.

https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22281859_10155725827007770_1729557464681057345_n.j pg?oh=3b7b5597fe414eb904f27d6ea00c8a28&oe=5A4089BB

You can see the wire holding the camera in the top right hand corner of the screen. The play has already started as well. The camera has not returned and is still off screen way behind the line of scrimmage. Estimate appx. 10-15 yards.

https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22279851_10155725827012770_8433767427091197979_n.j pg?oh=073cb45d9f88c579466d79df91c19764&oe=5A7AEFCB

This is likely when Elliot was reaching. It was very hard to tell when replaying the play when exactly he reached. But it was either here or sooner. You can see the overhead cam is still quite a ways behind the 1st down marker. The angle could definitely skew what we see on the next shot.

https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22366449_10155725827172770_6783382169813034101_n.j pg?oh=cb8281cc121c073fd1d71ad50874e72d&oe=5A731A28

Which is the overhead shot during the reach. It seems obvious he gained the 1st down but with the angle we are now aware of from the last shot, might be inconclusive.

https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22405942_10155725827017770_6279195659549360814_n.j pg?oh=31a3721132c96553edd6fa22637a603a&oe=5A8424B0
Only now does the overhead cam appear to be even with the line of scrimmage.

What do you think, rats? Good call? Bad call? Inconclusive?

Special thanks to whoever in the gameday thread mentioned the camera was really far back. I went back to look and saw it as well and took some pictures.

[George Cumby]

I thought they made the stop. But whaduiknow?

[Brandon494]

He got the first

[Zool]

I don’t think forward progress should include you extending your arm and then pulling it back. He was stopped short but not downed. I guess I thought it should be where he’s called down or forward progress stopped.

[pbmax]

I think he got it.

Remember though, in this game, there were two skycams. The true overhead shots (your last one) are from higher than the wire you are seeing in the other pic.

[smuggler]

He pulled the ball back of his own volition. Should not have been a first. If the Packers had forced the ball back it would have been the right call. But his forward progress was ruled stopped on the field, which means the spot was a judgment call and therefore not subject to review.

In short, the refs were wrong thrice on the same play.

[ThunderDan]

My issue is that a first down line does not act the same as the end zone. Once the ball is possessed in the end zone the play is over. Not true on a 4 & 1 in the field of play.

[pbmax]

He pulled the ball back of his own volition. Should not have been a first.

That is a beef I can see. If he was down after that and was not contact by the defense, then I say pull it back.

But the end of his forward progress and the pile of bodies led them to conclude SOME defender had a hand on him.

[vince]

I could be wrong but my understanding of the rules are that the ball is placed at the spot it's at when the play ends. That includes crossing the goal line, going out of bounds, when forward progress is stopped, and/or when any body part between and including the forearms and knees touches the ground as a result of or in conjunction with contact by defender.

If they're saying Elliott was down at the point progress was stopped, then he was down before he stretched the ball. If they're saying progress hadn't yet been stopped at that point, then he pulled the ball back before he was down.
Either way I think they got that call wrong.

[pbmax]

I could be wrong but my understanding of the rules are that the ball is placed at the spot it's at when the play ends. That includes crossing the goal line, going out of bounds, when forward progress is stopped, and/or when any body part between and including the forearms and knees.

If they're saying Elliott was down at the point progress was stopped, then he was down before he stretched the ball. If they're saying progress hadn't yet been stopped at that point, then he pulled the ball back before he was down.
Either way I think they got that call wrong.

It is that way for OOB.

For plays in bounds, forward progress counts while and after you are in contact with the defense. If they throw you back and you begin running again, then you have reset your progress. This is why I think smuggler has a point about WHEN Elliot was touched down.

I have no idea how to read if Elliot just hut the turf while falling down on his own guys. Does forward progress count if there is no defensive contact?

[texaspackerbacker]

I think he got it too. Whether we think extending the ball should count or not doesn't matter. By rule, it does count. I don't think it's possible the distance of the overhead cam could have skewed it much. The only unknown is if the whistle blew for forward progress before he extended the ball, and I doubt the officials would have got that wrong - there is sound on replays, I think.

[gbgary]

i don't think they should be able to use that overhead shot as the angle of the camera may not be exactly overhead and would/could affect the decision. if it were slightly behind the ball it would make it look over the line, and if it were slightly ahead of the ball it would make it look short of the line. MM needs to protest that call on that basis so it can't be used again. it's not a fixed camera location so it should be void for this purpose...other things would be ok though, but not forward progress.

[ThunderDan]

So here is the hypothetical that gets me really thinking:

Same play but after Elliott's reach he pulls back and some how rolls off the pile without touching the ground. Runs around the end and scores a TD. What is the result of the play? I am guessing it is ruled a TD since he didn't touch the ground and he pulled himself and the ball back.

[woodbuck27]

This is one for the Rules Committee to look at closely.He was on the pile and he definitely stretched the ball downfield enough to cross the plane of the 1st down marker.

He did look short to me before the camera was moved forward.

That has to be looked at because gaining that 1st down was huge for Dallas. I believe they got that reverse correct but how did the change in Camera position (angle of view) influence that decision?.

[Harlan Huckleby]

i don't think they should be able to use that overhead shot as the angle of the camera may not be exactly overhead and would/could affect the decision. if it were slightly behind the ball it would make it look over the line, and if it were slightly ahead of the ball it would make it look short of the line. MM needs to protest that call on that basis so it can't be use again. it's not a fixed camera location so it should be void for this purpose...other things would be ok though, but not forward progress.

Since when did sky cam become a valid decider for a call like this? It is not like a goal line cam, positioned perfectly. It is more likely to deceive than to add useful information.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You go with call on field, right or wrong, when there is no clear replay angle.

[wist43]

He clearly got the 1st down... get over yourselves.

[pbmax]

i don't think they should be able to use that overhead shot as the angle of the camera may not be exactly overhead and would/could affect the decision. if it were slightly behind the ball it would make it look over the line, and if it were slightly ahead of the ball it would make it look short of the line. MM needs to protest that call on that basis so it can't be used again. it's not a fixed camera location so it should be void for this purpose...other things would be ok though, but not forward progress.

Every replay at the game has that problem. Only the pylon cam is positioned to avoid this.

[pbmax]

They should just paint the ball in some kind of coating (I am not an engineer, just invent it) and put sensors everywhere.

Then have that animated review that tennis uses for line calls.

[ThunderDan]

They could put sensors inside of the ball. Problem solved.

[ThunderDan]

I know FIFA is testing sensors inside a soccer ball to make sure the ball has crossed the line on goals.

[woodbuck27]

He clearly got the 1st down... get over yourselves.

After the dust settled I thought so.

[pbmax]

I know FIFA is testing sensors inside a soccer ball to make sure the ball has crossed the line on goals.

We must not allow a ball sensor gap!!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybSzoLCCX-Y

[Pugger]

He pulled the ball back of his own volition. Should not have been a first. If the Packers had forced the ball back it would have been the right call. But his forward progress was ruled stopped on the field, which means the spot was a judgment call and therefore not subject to review.

In short, the refs were wrong thrice on the same play.

These zebras weren't the best the league has to offer...

[beveaux1]

These zebras weren't the best the league has to offer...

Boy, is this true.

[Maxie the Taxi]

What would have happened if one of our guys would have slapped the ball out of Elliott's hand when he reached it forward? It looked to me like Brice was in a position to do so but chose to push against the pile instead. Maybe Brice didn't see the ball quick enough, or maybe he didn't think quick enough. I think they would have had to call it a fumble.

[mraynrand]

What would have happened if one of our guys would have slapped the ball out of Elliott's hand when he reached it forward? It looked to me like Brice was in a position to do so but chose to push against the pile instead. Maybe Brice didn't see the ball quick enough, or maybe he didn't think quick enough. I think they would have had to call it a fumble.

It's a dead ball once forward progress has been ruled. Forward progress requires the player to be held and restrained so motion is stopped. Once motion is ruled stopped, the ball is spotted where it was when forward progress was called, which the refs ruled (on review) was the extended reach (correct). If Beasly had been contacted when he first caught the pass on the previous play, he would have made the first down with forward progress. So the ball would have had to have been knocked out before the refs ruled forward progress stopped, just before the whistle.

[Cheesehead Craig]

He got the first, Packers won anyways. No biggie.

[Maxie the Taxi]

It's a dead ball once forward progress has been ruled. Forward progress requires the player to be held and restrained so motion is stopped. Once motion is ruled stopped, the ball is spotted where it was when forward progress was called, which the refs ruled (on review) was the extended reach (correct). If Beasly had been contacted when he first caught the pass on the previous play, he would have made the first down with forward progress. So the ball would have had to have been knocked out before the refs ruled forward progress stopped, just before the whistle.Understood. The question then becomes, when did the refs blow the whistle?

If we're gonna use overhead cams to review plays, maybe we ought to have enhanced sound in the replays the refs review.

[KYPack]

What would have happened if one of our guys would have slapped the ball out of Elliott's hand when he reached it forward? It looked to me like Brice was in a position to do so but chose to push against the pile instead. Maybe Brice didn't see the ball quick enough, or maybe he didn't think quick enough. I think they would have had to call it a fumble.

Maybe he could've swatted it, but that's like catching a lizard by his tongue.

On goal line and short yardage, you've gotta commit yourself. Brice was all bowed up to make a form tackle at the line. He did what he could.

It's getting to the point where I hate close plays that are reviewed. About the review, where was Zeke's knees in all of this? Were they on the pile or down in other words?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Maybe he could've swatted it, but that's like catching a lizard by his tongue.

On goal line and short yardage, you've gotta commit yourself. Brice was all bowed up to make a form tackle at the line. He did what he could.

It's getting to the point where I hate close plays that are reviewed. About the review, where was Zeke's knees in all of this? Were they on the pile or down in other words?

It looked to me that Zeke was on top of the pile, i.e., not down, which is what makes the play iffy. As for me, I wish they'd get rid of the whole process of challenges and replays. Let the refs call them as they see them and move on. For every replay that rectify's a mistaken call, there is one that ends up in la la land causing controversy. Not to mention the irritating delays. I'm too old to sit through delays. lol

[pbmax]

Maybe he could've swatted it, but that's like catching a lizard by his tongue.

On goal line and short yardage, you've gotta commit yourself. Brice was all bowed up to make a form tackle at the line. He did what he could.

It's getting to the point where I hate close plays that are reviewed. About the review, where was Zeke's knees in all of this? Were they on the pile or down in other words?

If Martinez kept his head up for another half second, he would have seen the stretch and been able to hit the ball. Which might have been good or bad, because if Dak gets it and there is a pile, he might have a lot of room to run on the outside.

[Harlan Huckleby]

https://therealweeklyshow.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/walking-men-size-illusion.jpg?w=500

The dummies in this thread who are so sure that the ball was over the first down line don't realize how easily your brain can be fooled by perspective tricks. That sky cam was not directly over the line-to-gain. Your brain really doesn't have enough information to judge how many feet off the line the camera is placed. That 2-D image doesn't tell you how high off the ground the ball is. There is NO WAY you have enough information to solve the trianglization problem and judge how far up the field the ball is. You simply see a ball on your 2D picture past the line, and you declare it a certain first down. #SAD

[pbmax]

https://therealweeklyshow.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/walking-men-size-illusion.jpg?w=500

The dummies in this thread who are so sure that the ball was over the first down line don't realize how easily your brain can be fooled by perspective tricks. That sky cam was not directly over the line-to-gain. Your brain really doesn't have enough information to judge how many feet off the line the camera is placed. That 2-D image doesn't tell you how high off the ground the ball is. There is NO WAY you have enough information to solve the trianglization problem and judge how far up the field the ball is. You simply see a ball on your 2D picture past the line, and you declare it a certain first down. #SAD

Every replay but Pylon Cam has this problem.

And you could solve for Elliot's height off the ground with another shot.

[mraynrand]

https://therealweeklyshow.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/walking-men-size-illusion.jpg?w=500

The dummies in this thread who are so sure that the ball was over the first down line don't realize how easily your brain can be fooled by perspective tricks. That sky cam was not directly over the line-to-gain. Your brain really doesn't have enough information to judge how many feet off the line the camera is placed. That 2-D image doesn't tell you how high off the ground the ball is. There is NO WAY you have enough information to solve the trianglization problem and judge how far up the field the ball is. You simply see a ball on your 2D picture past the line, and you declare it a certain first down. #SAD

when you have the impedance tomographic game recording, let us know.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Every replay but Pylon Cam has this problem.

True enough. But this was a particularly deceptive view. A replay is especially bad at showing ball position, so clear evidence is needed to overturn.

[mraynrand]

True enough. But this was a particularly deceptive view. A replay is especially bad at showing ball position, so clear evidence is needed to overturn.

there was sufficient visual evidence that the initial spot was wrong. They re-spotted as best they could. It's possible they were off. Was the roof open? If so, perhaps parallax imaging from several satellites could resolve the issue. If not, damn those crafty Cowboys.

[Zool]

I don't care at all about the position of the ball when he reached. I care about when the play was called dead and the location of the ball at that time. Was forward progress called exactly when his arm reached out the farthest? Was it 2 seconds before? Did they even call forward progress stopped? The position of the ball of secondary to the actual end of the play.

[mraynrand]

I don't care at all about the position of the ball when he reached. I care about when the play was called dead and the location of the ball at that time. Was forward progress called exactly when his arm reached out the farthest? Was it 2 seconds before? Did they even call forward progress stopped? The position of the ball of secondary to the actual end of the play.

But that's how forward progress works as I understand it - they call a play dead and the progress is to the farthest forward position of the ball after contact. The ball extension had to be after contact and before the play was called dead however. I think they got it right (with the possible exception of the placement of the ball - still waiting on Harlan's satellite parallax or tomography reconstructions)

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think forward progress often is enforced in a goofy way. The pass receiver can be going backwards due to his own momentum, or a runner may be dancing backwards trying to break open, and they give a generous spot. Of course forward progress makes sense when the defense is entirely responsible for driving the ball carrier backwards; otherwise they'd carry the dude into his endzone every play for a safety. Say, now that could be more fun.

[mraynrand]

otherwise they'd carry the dude into his endzone every play for a safety.

Except the runner's teammates would have something to say about it.



Say, now that could be more fun.

Yep, It's called Rugby. People love it. :)

[woodbuck27]

What would have happened if one of our guys would have slapped the ball out of Elliott's hand when he reached it forward? It looked to me like Brice was in a position to do so but chose to push against the pile instead. Maybe Brice didn't see the ball quick enough, or maybe he didn't think quick enough. I think they would have had to call it a fumble.

If that happened, yes, it would be a fumble; but would the Officials in that game realize that?