tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    Can someone (tfb12..?) take the video of ball going over upright and take still shots of the ball just before it goes over.  I'm curious to see if any ball crosses in front of the post as it is rising.  Also based on the principle of objects getting smaller as they get further away, you can measure the relative size of the ball to the post to find the point where they are the same distance away.

    once you have that, you can correct for the angle of the camera.

    the slo mo view that we've all seen skews the view to make it look more inside.  The view that wilfork had might do the opposite , slightly .

    would really like to have this analyzed as scientifically as possible to settle it.

    as for the future, how about lasers pointing a beam up the goalposts...?  If the beam gets broken it's no good .

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    It's impossible to tell when it goes over the the goal post.  You would need both front or back straight on angles with a side angle at the same time to where you can stop them together at the point the side angle showing the ball crossing over the upright.  Everything I have seen makes it look good, barely!

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    In response to bobbysu's comment:

    Anybody have an idea how much higher that ball was over posts? Keep it simple extend the Post 10ft for now.

    Hey TFB12!




    Seems to me that in this day and age this stuff could be solved with electronics. Not only the goal posts but also the goal line pylons. A couple of chips in the ball at each nose and sensors where needed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    It all depends on the angle.  This picture looks like the football breaks the outside post but it also looks like the ball is well past the goal post.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    TFB12... GREAT SHOT.  Don't forget that you have to correct for the angle which pushes the ball out more ...maybe a few inches.

    now we need width of the  post.

     

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from nyjoseph. Show nyjoseph's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    I always thought the whole process of evaluation a FG was comical.  You've got guys standing directly under the goal posts trying to look straight up (try doing this without snapping your neck or wrenching your back) while a ball flies overhead at up to 30 mph.  Of course they don't look straight up, they just kind of, sort of, well guess.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    Just read sportsmenu.com article ... Post is 6" ball is 6 1/2 ".

    Ball must be above post due to relative size principle .

    angle correction makes it wider....

    case CLOSED: WIDE RIGHT.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    the website is  thesportsmenu.com

    article "analyzing ravens game winning field goal "

     

    By Nicholas reguin

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    Great. I almost feel as bad as the greenbay fans after reading this post....however, good analysis and I agree....wide right..

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    In response to bobbysu's comment:

    Anybody have an idea how much higher that ball was over posts? Keep it simple extend the Post 10ft for now.

    Hey TFB12!




    there is a structural limit but they could put skinny extenders up with little problem.  ...3 feet would have been enough in this case.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    In response to bobbysu's comment:

    Anybody have an idea how much higher that ball was over posts? Keep it simple extend the Post 10ft for now.

    Hey TFB12!




    there is a structural limit but they could put skinny extenders up with little problem.  ...3 feet would have been enough in this case.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    In response to bobbysu's comment:

    Anybody have an idea how much higher that ball was over posts? Keep it simple extend the Post 10ft for now.

    Hey TFB12!




    there is a structural limit but they could put skinny extenders up with little problem.  ...3 feet would have been enough in this case.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    In response to JintsFan's comment:

    In response to coolade2's comment:

    Just read sportsmenu.com article ... Post is 6" ball is 6 1/2 ".

    Ball must be above post due to relative size principle .

    angle correction makes it wider....

    case CLOSED: WIDE RIGHT.




    ball inside/over post...the only camera angle shows the ball not only inside/over but ball is also through and past goalposts...left angle-if can be found-will show this clearer but even the one available shows fg is barely good...but good

    GOOD




    your comments are gibberish . This thread is about scientific analysis . If you can't follow the logic you may need to brush up on your high school math.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    Were they awarded the 3 points?

    Did BAL get the 'W' and NE the 'L'?

    Do Oriole fans feel any better knowing Jeffrey Maher reached out OVER the OFer and stole the ball?

    The refs called it good, the records reflect as much.

    'CASE CLOSED'

    Now, can we PLEASE just move on. It's been long enough, time to just let it go. Nothing is going to change it. Unless someone can hack a military satellite and show images taken from space that show a clear path of the ball in relation to the upright, stop doing this to yourselves. Even if it was unjust, we can still all take the loss with some class. It happens, in football and in life. And I know all of you will defend how Brady didn't fumble, and that was the correct call in 2001...even though 50 years of football suggest otherwise.

    The Pats could be 14-2 at season's end and people would still whine about this.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:

    Were they awarded the 3 points?

    Did BAL get the 'W' and NE the 'L'?

    Do Oriole fans feel any better knowing Jeffrey Maher reached out OVER the OFer and stole the ball?

    The refs called it good, the records reflect as much.

    'CASE CLOSED'

    Now, can we PLEASE just move on. It's been long enough, time to just let it go. Nothing is going to change it. Unless someone can hack a military satellite and show images taken from space that show a clear path of the ball in relation to the upright, stop doing this to yourselves. Even if it was unjust, we can still all take the loss with some class. It happens, in football and in life. And I know all of you will defend how Brady didn't fumble, and that was the correct call in 2001...even though 50 years of football suggest otherwise.

    The Pats could be 14-2 at season's end and people would still whine about this.




    yikes...

    Is this a discussion forum ?

    are we allowed to discuss last weeks game?

     what exactly are you adding with your post?  just because you can move on with the regularity of ex-lax doesn't give you any cred to beattch about this thread. News flash: some fans might want to know if Belichick was justified in approaching the official , for which he got fined $50k.  You're just not one of them apparently .

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tomhab. Show Tomhab's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:

    Were they awarded the 3 points?

    Did BAL get the 'W' and NE the 'L'?

    Do Oriole fans feel any better knowing Jeffrey Maher reached out OVER the OFer and stole the ball?

    The refs called it good, the records reflect as much.

    'CASE CLOSED'

    Now, can we PLEASE just move on. It's been long enough, time to just let it go. Nothing is going to change it. Unless someone can hack a military satellite and show images taken from space that show a clear path of the ball in relation to the upright, stop doing this to yourselves. Even if it was unjust, we can still all take the loss with some class. It happens, in football and in life. And I know all of you will defend how Brady didn't fumble, and that was the correct call in 2001...even though 50 years of football suggest otherwise.

    The Pats could be 14-2 at season's end and people would still whine about this.


    Why don't you move on to another thread if you don't like this one.  Most are looking for photographic evidence to see if the kick was good or bad, only you and our resident JETS Troll are whining...

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    I'm whining...really?

    HAHA. Kettle, meet pot.

    And if it's a discussion, I'd argue I have a right to discuss my opinion of moving on.

    At any rate, yes, go ahead and discuss it. It's just futile as nothing will change, and the more evidence you convince yourselves shows you the FG was no good, the more frustrated you're all going to get for no good reason.

    BB apologized for "illegal touching" and has moved on, 50k lighter.

    But, all that aside...fair enough. I didn't have to chime in at all. But I did...such is life on open internet forums.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: tech / photo shop wizards ...? a little help ...

    thanks for the profound wisdom ....  I was just about to file a protest with the league, and start a petition along with a fundraiser for screwed NFL teams.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share