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.
Itâs 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 didnât have the goal line angle that would make the call 100% certain. Thatâs just a dumb system.
5 Likes
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 itâs only two percent.
1 Like
Our seats were row 42 on the north side upper deck, about in line with the goal line. He was in.
4 Likes
It amazes me that in that game with a national major network broadcast they couldnât 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.
6 Likes
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 doesnât mean it wasnât shoddy production work.
2 Likes
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 âtoo close to callâ 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.
They already have âgoal line technologyâ in soccer. They can tell within the smallest of margins whether itâs 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).
1 Like
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 didnât matter but it shows just how important that goal line camera is for getting those close calls right.
1 Like
The better question is, why were we going for 2 at that point in the game anyway?
1 Like
Iâm not sure what the 2 point chart says to do. Iâve heard a lot people argue that you donât 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 hadnât scored in the quarter. Before the pick six, I wasnât feeling optimistic. I think we figured the 2 point conversion might be our only chance.
I think the chart says donât chase points in the 3rd UNLESS itâs late in the third and itâs 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
2 Likes
Iâve thought for years they should be using some kind of technology to determine spots. I mean weâre still using sticks and chains for God sake.
2 Likes
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.
Mathematically there may not be any scenarios where the failed/converted 2 played into the score. However, itâs always important to remember that football isnât linear. Once a variable such as the missed 2 pt. conversion is altered everything else that happened from there on out is completely subject to change. Washingtonâs OC doesnât necessarily call the same game if the 2 is good vs. the actual outcome. Momentum is a fickle mistress. In this case the failed 2 didnât switch Miss Mo. It easily could have.
I think the official call agrees with so many posts here. The call âstoodâ vs. being âconfirmedâ. I 100% think that 72 is on the right track. There wasnât indisputable evidence. Hence, is âstoodâ. Probably it was over the goal but not enough to say that it was. I agree with Rocker that the technology mus\t be there but I think there are also issues that arenât resolved yet.
2 Likes
I disagree with going for 2 with that much time left in the game. If you kick the PAT the score is 20-21. If UW scores another TD to go up 28-20, a Ute TD and two point conversion tie the game. If you miss on the 2 pt. and the game is 19-21 and UW scores a TD, it is two score game.
âŚmaybe Simpkins should just run the route a yard into the endzone.