On one angle you could see his foot adjacent to the goal line and on anther angle you see his body and the ball leaning past that foot.
It’s amazing how often replay gets it wrong. We have replay set up to fail because we defer to the call on the field. There is no reason to defer to the call on the field - a call made from a bad angle at full speed by a 50 year old idiot. There is every reason to defer to the call made by the guy watching every available angle in slow motion. Just let the guy in the box make his best judgment call instead of requiring 100%, irrefutable evidence.
In this case, everyone was 99% sure that the ball crossed, but they were unwilling to overturn the call simply because they didn’t have the goal line angle that would make the call 100% certain. That’s just a dumb system.
The rule on replay is that it has to be indisputable. Without a goal line camera and with Moss standing in that sightlines awfully tough to overturn. It looked to me like he was in, but is there room for dispute, yes. Even if it’s only two percent.
Our seats were row 42 on the north side upper deck, about in line with the goal line. He was in.
It amazes me that in that game with a national major network broadcast they couldn’t get a camera in place for a goal line shot in a 2 point attempt. A lot of the blame should go to Fox for blowing their camera work.
Not sure if even the camera would have helped given the sight line was blocked by a player. You could see the red move to watch the play.
Possibly, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t shoddy production work.
I agree that the booth should be able to make the call not just overrule the call. However, the 2 point conversion was a play that was simply too close to call. I expect that 99% of the Washington fans saw a stop right at the line and 99% of the Utah fans saw a just across the line catch. We have no solution in FB for the ‘too close to call’ play. If the refs on the field called a score, no way would the booth overrule and call it a stop. If that was a 4th down it is crazy because they would have to place the entire ball outside the end zone even though it was a question of less than an inch either way. You can spot the ball on the 1 inch line going in but nothing like that going out.
In this day and age actually I don’t get why they can’t line the football with some sort of electronic device or chip that would indicate it has crossed the plane of the end zone and just take the human judgment out of that aspect. Certainly has to be tech that wouldn’t even alter the feel of the ball.
They already have ‘goal line technology’ in soccer. They can tell within the smallest of margins whether it’s a goal or not. (Bit different in that in soccer the entire ball must cross the entire line, rather than the ball just having to break the plane in American football, but concept and technology are essentially the same).
We sure were. I was in the stands right over where the 2 point attempt went down. The ball was a good 4-6 inches over the goal line right as Simpkins got hit and then got knocked back out of the end zone after the fact.
In the end it didn’t matter but it shows just how important that goal line camera is for getting those close calls right.
The better question is, why were we going for 2 at that point in the game anyway?
It is one of those situations where if you go for 1 it makes no difference (you’ll still be behind and need a FG) whereas if you get the 2 you’ll be tied. But if you don’t you’ll be down by two still and you’ll still need the FG.
So Jaylon Johnson gets the interception and TD and the score is 19-21 for Washington. If you kick the extra point it is 20-21 for Washington and you’ll need at least a FG to win. If you go for 2, the score would be 21-21 (and may force OT or whatever). But if you miss, the score is still 19-21 and at least the FG is needed to win.
You go for 2 in that situation 100% of the time.
I’m not sure what the 2 point chart says to do. I’ve heard a lot people argue that you don’t chase points until the 4th quarter.
20-21 is better than 19-21 if they score a TD. That extra point would keep it a 1 score game (but we would still need a 2 point conversion at some point).
I think we had just fumbled it twice and hadn’t scored in the quarter. Before the pick six, I wasn’t feeling optimistic. I think we figured the 2 point conversion might be our only chance.
I think the chart says don’t chase points in the 3rd UNLESS it’s late in the third and it’s to tie the game, where that extra point is much more meaningful than, say, just getting wihtin a field goal or going up by a field goal. In those scenarios the benefit is hypothetical and depends a lot on what happens down the road, whereas actually tying the game is a much more direct, immediate, and far more certain benefit.
2 would have tied the game and made our 2 field goals = a touchdown.
In the end it was probably the right call because we ended up being up by 5, the pat would have made it 6, so either way a TD and PAT would have won. Had we made the 2 point conversion we would have been up 7, so thsy could only tie or go for 2. Also it was clearly a good play
Correct me if I am wrong but there is no scoring scenario except a safety where that PAT would have made a difference. So you go for two knowing you will essentially be no worse off.
I’ve thought for years they should be using some kind of technology to determine spots. I mean we’re still using sticks and chains for God sake.
No scoring scenario of one score only, at least. But it was the 3rd quarter. If they scored a FG next after our failed 2 point attempt, it would have been 19-24. In that case, 20-24 is better if we score a TD or if they make another FG. That kind of stuff is why people say not to chase points early.
I had no problem with the decision to go for two, though.