Resolving the Parallax Error
EDIT: TLDR - From what I can estimate the tip of the ball crossed the plane of the first down (as I define it) by about two inches. The margin of error indicates there is a possibility it might not have, but that's unlikely :(
THE SPOT has been debated to death. Both OSU and us have provided camera angles that "prove the result", without really doing so because of the following resons: When a still camera image is analyzed, it begs the question "was that taken at the instant of forward progress by Barrett?". When a moving image is analyzed, the issue of parallax error is not resolved fully enough, even for #ThePerfectAngle. It is pretty important to do so simply because it is such a close call.
The most important variable to resolve is Time. Now both wolverines and buckeyes have all seen this GIF and drawn various conclusions and posted screenshots that vindicate their arguements and show their gross negligence of parallax error.
Let's a closer look at this. I've taken the liberty of running through the GIF frame by frame and have isolated the instant where Barrett has made the most forward progress. This would be Frame 53 shown below:
Okay, so now we've got Time out of the way. This image has been posted by many buckeye fans because they can just draw a line along the 15-yard line and say that the tip of the ball is clearly past that line demonstrating that education system in ohio has yet to incorporate the concept of a parallax error in the school syllabus.
The most important step in this is to determine exactly where along the width of the field the ball is at this instant. If we can do that, we can resolve the parallax. Fortunately we have a few clues. Here is Barron's picture from Ace's game recap:
It's a really useful shot because of when it was taken. The positioning of Jourdan Lewis' feet correspond to Frame 51/52 of the GIF above, which places this at almost the instant of most forward progress. The first thing this shot tells us is that the front tip of the ball is lined up vertically over Barrett's left pinky finger from this angle. [EDIT: I mean to say that the ball, Barrett's hand, and Barron's camera are all on the same vertical plane. The blue lines below are parallel to the intersection between this vertical plane and the field.]
The relative positioning of the hash marks in the bottom right corner actually give us a pretty good estimate of this angle shown by the light blue line. It also tels us that the ball is slightly past Wormley's right arm.
If we assume that Barron was sufficiently far away, we can slide that blue line down to the outside of Barrett's left hand we know where along the 15 yard line the ball would have had to be in order to cross the first down.
Here is where things start to get a little tricky. Where exactly is the plane for the first down located relative to the 15-yard line? If we assume that it is at the border of the 15-yard line facing midfield and assume that the TV camera that recorded the GIF is not rolled to either left or right, we can resolve the prallex error. First we draw the position of the presumed boundary for the first down (shown in pink):
The intersection of the pink and blue lines indicate the position of the ball projected down onto the field, if it had crossed the plane for a first down. Again, if there were no roll variations in the camera that recorded the GIF, we can simply draw a vertical line (in light green) from this intersection to mark the boundary of the first down with the parallax error resolved:
I've drew the green line with a gap around the area where the ball should be. I've run through the GIF frame by frame several times, and there is a light spot only a couple of pixles big to the left of Wormley's forearm and I believe that is the white stripe of the football. You'll notice on Barron's picture that the stripe is facing up so it makes sense that it should be barely visible from this angle. You can also see that it is literally a pixel past our hypothesized first down line. Given the dimensions of a typical football, that would make the tip 2-3 pixels past the green line.
It really depends on where exactly you define the plane of the first down to be. Is it the edge of the 15-yard line as I drew it? Is it on the opposite edge? Is it right down the middle? FWIW, the width of the line is 9-10 pixels on the GIF.
P.S. With regards to the tweet below,
Here was my angle of #SpotGate. From this view, Wormley's left hand is on the 15 yard line. JT never looks to get the ball past his arm. pic.twitter.com/zLCeRPJRdw
— Eric Lloyd (@EricLloyd) November 27, 2016
The frame in this video that corresponds to Frame 53 in the GIF above (I used the positioning of Gedeon's legs to figure this out) has OSU's #73 obstructing the view so it's not very conclusive, also the ball was under Wormley's arm and part of it was past his arm as clearly seen in Barron's photo.
November 28th, 2016 at 7:22 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 28th, 2016 at 12:04 PM ^
And why are we using distorted overhead pictures when there is this? Bad analysis.
November 28th, 2016 at 12:35 PM ^
Because such images in isolation provide no basis for the 'definitive' conclusions that many claim. It is because of the uncontextualized, unscientific, 'analysis' like this that I have done what I have done.
November 28th, 2016 at 5:51 PM ^
Note the position of the camera relative to the line. This angle will naturally make it appear the ball is farther behind the line than it is. If this were exactly parallel with the line, it would be conclusive, but as it stands, it's not.
This is why it's infuriating that so many times the endzone cameras are not exactly on the goal line.
November 29th, 2016 at 7:48 AM ^
We can tell from the photos that his left hand is extended out towards the 1st Down line and the ball is behind it in his right hand. So, in the video footage attached to these two tweets, if you look at where his left hand was {as a point of reference}, at his furthest point of forward progress, it is easy to see that his right hand/the ball were well behind where his left hand was extended to, and from that point on his left arm came up and out and his right arm/the ball fell back:
https://twitter.com/VermillionEli/status/802622200368930816
https://twitter.com/VermillionEli/status/802639483388755968
Most of all, HOW DO THEY NOT EVEN BRING OUT THE CHAINS to measure the spot in a game of that magnitude??? RIDICULOUS!!!
November 29th, 2016 at 8:51 AM ^
Once the official spotted the ball, there was no need to measure. They knew that it had to just reach the 15-yard-line since the series started on the 25.
November 28th, 2016 at 10:30 PM ^
this picture photoshopped? Where did it come from?
November 28th, 2016 at 7:28 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 7:29 AM ^
Ain't nobody got time for this during the game. Naked eye test is the best. Dude didn't make it. Game over. Much rejoicing. muppets. We were robbed of Muppets.
November 29th, 2016 at 12:55 AM ^
November 30th, 2016 at 6:53 PM ^
So according to your "reasoning," the non-calls on the defensive holding and PI that OSU committed had nothing to do with how few yards/inches UM gained in the 4th quarter? And the non-calls on OSU's offensive holding had nothing to do with how many yards/inches OSU gained in the 4th quarter? Seriously??
November 28th, 2016 at 7:30 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 28th, 2016 at 7:44 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 28th, 2016 at 9:34 AM ^
Because humans painting lines on a field are always 100% accurate right? Just like OSU fans refereeing football games are 100% accurate. Chains probably wouldn't have helped anyway, because it was the spot that was awful, but at least pretend you are doing things the right way.
November 28th, 2016 at 12:14 PM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 1:17 PM ^
Oh, they never change? Yeah, that's what the people behind this conspiracy WANT you to believe.
November 28th, 2016 at 5:26 PM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 11:46 AM ^
It does matter. As OP says, we don't know where exactly on the line the first down marker is. It could be on the front, back, or middle. The ball could have been literally one chain link short or 1 inch past it. That is why you bring out the chains. Looking at this through camera angles when they had a physical representation on the field is dumb.
November 28th, 2016 at 1:04 PM ^
It is at the beginning of the line. The tip of the ball to start OT is placed at the beginning of the 25. Thus the mark to gain is the beginning of the 15. Just like a TD is getting the ball to the beginning of the goal line.
The ref knew he had to spot it at the 15 for the first down and that is what he did. No need for chains if you mark it at the 15. I'm not thrilled with the spot but I have no complaint whatsoever that the chains were not brought out.
November 28th, 2016 at 3:57 PM ^
chains are. It matters where they are supposed to be on the first possession of OT. Whether it's the front of the line or the middle of the line, a measurement is not necessary, only the spot of the ball relative to the line. We should know exactly where that is by rule.
November 28th, 2016 at 11:49 AM ^
Don't the chains need to be tip to tip? Meaning if they put the ball square on the 25 to start, then the nose of the ball is already past it? Or do they put the tip of the ball on the 25? If it's square, then the tip-to-first-down is actually just inside the 15. Anyone know?
November 29th, 2016 at 1:43 AM ^
The ball is placed behind the yard line, with its tip just touching the line.
At least that's what's done on touchbacks. I assume the same is done to start the OT period.
November 29th, 2016 at 11:49 AM ^
That makes sense.
November 28th, 2016 at 7:31 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 8:43 AM ^
The spot was well onto the line. I'm not sure how they got that. The miliseconds that they would have saw the forward progress seems unlikely. I also keep looking at where number 88's ass is when Barret bounces off, and it is behind the line, and the ball is barely on top of him, I just don't see it. Live it did not look like he made it.
I know this has been brought up here, but number 88 had arms outside of Wormley, wrapping him up in a tackle. That is not a pancake and should have been a holding penalty. It should have been 4th and 10 with a 42 yard field goal to push for a 3rd OT. Wormley did an amazing job, seemingly stopping JT while being tackled himself.
November 28th, 2016 at 3:59 PM ^
(and it was, because it was practically across the 15 yard line) it doesn't matter. If the ref had determined that the tip of the ball had crossed over the line and spotted it just so, it still would have been a first down and not overturned.
November 28th, 2016 at 7:33 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 28th, 2016 at 7:33 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 8:44 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 7:39 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 7:54 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 8:13 AM ^
I don't get your argument...
November 28th, 2016 at 8:32 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 28th, 2016 at 9:02 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 9:27 AM ^
This makes more sense.
November 28th, 2016 at 9:30 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 7:41 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 7:54 AM ^
If you want to get real pissed watch the prior play. There are so many uncalled penalties on Samuels' run.
November 28th, 2016 at 8:17 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 8:36 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 28th, 2016 at 8:41 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 8:46 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 8:51 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 3rd, 2016 at 2:43 AM ^
Though they might never admit it, in the NFL coaches study how officials (and I believe how individual officials) call holding carefully, so they can go up to the limit. It wouldn't surprise me if Ohio State (and probably Michigan) do the same.
November 28th, 2016 at 8:20 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 8:38 AM ^
November 28th, 2016 at 11:51 AM ^
that have become public since Saturday: We have no sway as fans in claiming bias except in making that case directly to the league office. It won't have any official bearing but it will certainly make the point better than not doing so.
The worst thing for the league to experience is the concern that its officials are incompetent or unfair. And even the suggestion or perception of bias is enough to satisfy that claim. Officals are essentially judges when it comes to calling a game. So, they are subject to the same ethical considerations when assigned, especially to a matchup of the magnitude of Saturday's game.
The ides that officials who have been oublicly linked to Ohio State either because of residency or personal interest conflicts,raises doubts about their bias regardless of intent and judgment, At the very least the oerception makes the league culpable for the assignment. And if you want ammunition, you don't beed to show cettain plays or calls. Just show them the disparity of yardage markoffs and penalties accrued by both sides.
That is something worth pointing out to the league because it's a black and white issue, not some subjective question about judgment of a certain play.
November 28th, 2016 at 1:05 PM ^
as you said, the non-calls were worse than the calls.
Wouldn't even be having the "Spot" conversation, would have won in regulation.
November 28th, 2016 at 2:16 PM ^
I'm fucking pissed about all of it! The refs sucked in every way suckable. That spot was atrocious. How can anyone call that a first down:
The holds, the PI's, the bogus penalties, the bad spot, the ref's OSU slanted backgrounds all adds up to something that is highly suspicious. How can one sit back and look at all this data and say with any assurity that all of this is a natural confluence of negative events?
Comments