Osterman STILL doesn't comprehend the ruling on "The Reach"

[Tokyo Steve]

I like listening to Osterman, but sometimes his mask slips, revealing that he fancies himself to be a son of Atlanta whose job is to decipher football for people who live north of the Ohio River.

In his most recent Mind Your Banners podcast, he declares that Penix's 2-point conversion attempt was unsuccessful because the ball hit the ground before it hit the pylon (and I'm being generous, because Osterman actually said "he," meaning Penix, rather than the ball, hit the ground before [he] hit the pylon). Osterman never once mentions the plane of the goal line, which means he either is being disingenuous or is clueless, the latter perhaps because of some sort of tunnel vision.

In one camera angle of the play, the pylon is lined up perfectly with the goal line. In fact it almost looks like the pylon is an orange part of the goal line. From that angle . . . .

1. the forward edge of the ball disappears behind the pylon before the other part of the ball touches the ground
2. the ball contact with the ground leaves a scuff mark out of bounds, and the distance between the scuff mark and the goal line is less than the distance between the the ball's forward edge and its part that first hit out of bounds, certainly much less than the full length of the ball

Geometry tells us that if the goal line and pylon are parallel and the ball disappears behind the pylon before contacting the ground, then the ball must have broken the plane of the goal line before contacting the ground.

The camera angle I'm referring to is at the 7:54 9:54 mark in the following video, a reaction video by a good ole Georgia boy who appears to be a bit more knowledgeable about football than Osterman . . . at least in this case.

Step up your game, Zach! The new season gets going in earnest this weekend!

Edit. My bad. I meant the 9:54, not 7:54, mark.

 

[Eyedoc991]

Yep. I was convinced he was out until considering that the forward-most part of the ball is not what hit the pylon when the ball was out. Therefore, the forward-most part of the ball must have been across the goal plane before the ball hit the pylon.

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

The vertical plane of a goal line starts at the front of the line and goes straight up. If the nose hit the pylon, it would have already broken the vertical plane. The call on the field was touchdown. There was not nearly enough evidence to convince any official otherwise.

 

[DANC]

The vertical plane of a goal line starts at the front of the line and goes straight up. If the nose hit the pylon, it would have already broken the vertical plane. The call on the field was touchdown. There was not nearly enough evidence to convince any official otherwise.

You can bet they were looking for anything to overturn the call, but couldn't.

That game was a classic.

 

[daddyhoosier]

I will say this on that. If I thought Penix was short I would say that. I'm not one of those who is going to be a homer at the expense of reality. When the play first happened I actually did think he was short. As I watched the replay a few times I changed my mind and took the position that Penix most likely...somehow...actually got the ball to break the plane. You kinda have to infer it but I literally recreated the angle of the ball and looked at it from directly over a makeshift pylon and it is very very possible for the nose to have broken the plane before the back part of the ball hit the ground - especially if the nose of the ball is angled up a little bit. The people who say it is not possible are just wrong. I don't think they are intentionally being obtuse I just think they struggle to conceptualize it in 3D. Anyway...

Beatwriters? I sort of ranted about this at the end of last year so I'm going to try and not rehash all that. I'll just say that a beatwriter's primary value to me is their access to the team and the breaking news they provide (usually via twitter). I certainly don't go to these guys for their analysis of x's and o's or to be taught the game of football. They can do their quasi-film study segments or what have you but they are getting beyond their depth when they do that lol.

 

[vesuvius13]

The more you see the video the clearer it is the ball broke the plane before hitting the field out of bounds. At the time, I said it was good because once you hit the pylon you have crossed the goal line. The only question I had was did Penix hit the ground first or did the ball hit out of bounds first; video clearly showed neither happened.

This play shows why I like some reviews because it happens so quick with so many factors to consider that only on the field reactions aren't always correct; with this play it was correct.

 

[Pazhoosier85]

If there was a camera high above the goaline pointing straight down I think we would have seen clear evidence that the ball broke the plane before hitting out of bounds.

 

[IU_Hickory]

If there was a camera high above the goaline pointing straight down I think we would have seen clear evidence that the ball broke the plane before hitting out of bounds.

seems like they could figure out how to add cameras for that.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

The tip of the ball clearly breaks the front of the plane prior to the fatter part of the ball touching the turf. Two point conversion.

Now, I FULLY expected the refs to overturn the call because after all this is IU Football but to their credit they did the right thing.

Penn state and purdue fans are STILL sobbing about it.

 

[Bowlmania]

It was close. The call on the field was 2 points. There must be indisputable video evidence to overturn the call on the field, and that evidence was lacking.

It's about time we got a call late in the game. I've been watching calls go against us literally my entire life.

 

[Coach Geez]

Honestly, I don't think you can say the ball definitively crossed the plane of the goal line. By the same token, you can't say it definitively didn't either. The call on the field was ruled a successful 2pt conversion, therefore the call can't be overturned.

 

[IU_Hickory]

It was close. The call on the field was touchdown. There must be indisputable video evidence to overturn the call on the field, and that evidence was lacking.

It's about time we got a call late in the game. I've been watching calls go against us literally my entire life.

Technically the call was 2 point conversion rather than touchdown.

 

[Bowlmania]

Technically the call was 2 point conversion rather than touchdown.

Yep. I corrected it. Moving too fast this morning.

 

[Jssanto]

The vertical plane of a goal line starts at the front of the line and goes straight up. If the nose hit the pylon, it would have already broken the vertical plane. The call on the field was touchdown. There was not nearly enough evidence to convince any official otherwise.

I think that was the key. The call on the field was going to stand. It went our way.

 

[Eyedoc991]

I don’t know this, but the call on the field was probably how that play is “supposed” to be called. A dive with an outstretched ball hits the pylon, you call it a touchdown (PAT) every time.

 

[IUgradman]

That ginger should stick to talking about Liverpool soccer.

 

[Palmbeachhoosier]

There actually is a still picture that was posted last year that clearly shows the ball crossed the goal line.

 

[Upset Alert]

seems like they could figure out how to add cameras for that.

There are such things as camera drones that get used all the time. I'm just not sure what the safe and proper distance would be down near the goal line as you wouldn't want it to interfere with the play going on. It really surprises me, we didn't get a replay look from an above angle.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

There are such things as camera drones that get used all the time. I'm just not sure what the safe and proper distance would be down near the goal line as you wouldn't want it to interfere with the play going on. It really surprises me, we didn't get a replay look from an above angle.

There are skycam systems that use a series of wires. Watched the operators manage the cable spool on the ground near the entry on the west side. Pretty cool. Anyway, that may have provided the evidence although the angle may have been from behind causing the ball to look more forward than it actually is.

 

[76-1]

There are at least two photos floating around out there that clearly show the nose of the football breaking the imaginary plane of the goal line (extended upward) Before it hits the inside of the orange pylon... That..., my friends, was a Two Point Conversion.

Bottom line: the Ref on the field called it a Conversion and the booth didn't overturn it so case closed...

Unless that was the crew in the booth that worked our game at Iowa in 2009 then p$u has no case 😉 (not to mention we were Due to finally get a call [even a no call]...)...😎

*To tell you all the truth though, I'm a whole lot more interested in this Saturday's game than one we already won last fall...*

 

[hookyIU1990]

That ginger should stick to talking about Liverpool soccer.

I don't give 2 $&@#$ about a premier league soccer fan's opinion about football anyway.

 

[IUNorth]

There are at least two photos floating around out there that clearly show the nose of the football breaking the imaginary plane of the goal line (extended upward) Before it hits the inside of the orange pylon... That..., my friends, was a Two Point Conversion.

Bottom line: the Ref on the field called it a Conversion and the booth didn't overturn it so case closed...

Unless that was the crew in the booth that worked our game at Iowa in 2009 then p$u has no case 😉 (not to mention we were Due to finally get a call [even a no call]...)...😎

*To tell you all the truth though, I'm a whole lot more interested in this Saturday's game than one we already won last fall...*

I actually think the replay officials saw it cross as well. As I’m convinced If there was any doubt on their part, they’d have overturned it. PSU is big brand. And B10 officials have a track record of protecting their big brands in those situations. The fact that they didn’t overturn it, tells me they were certain it crossed.