Florida FG against Kentucky
This had no impact on the outcome of the game (although it is notable that Kentucky won for the first time since 1986) but the Gators were robbed of a field goal in the third quarter that was obviously good.
While field goals are reviewable, field goals that pass over the top of the upright are NOT reviewable for some reason. As such, the SEC office can't comment on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AGQgtd29rE
I'm not crying any tears for Florida. But this is still incredibly stupid. Almost as stupid as A&M's fumble out of bounds at the 1 against Clemson that was called a touchback through the end zone.
September 10th, 2018 at 11:49 AM ^
I don't think it was obviously good. It looked 50/50 at best.
September 10th, 2018 at 1:10 PM ^
Yes there really isn’t a good angle where you can see exactly where it’s at as it’s going over the goal post. I wouldn’t over rule what the red saw standing right underneath it with the best angle
September 10th, 2018 at 1:35 PM ^
I don’t think it’s undeniably good, as there just isn’t that perfect camera angle but it was a good deal better than 50/50 from what I saw. The three angles they showed were “probably good”, “looks good”, and “can’t tell.” Nothing looked “probably not good.”
September 10th, 2018 at 11:52 AM ^
That... that looks good to me. Ref's have been abnormally shitty for the last 4-5 years.
September 10th, 2018 at 12:30 PM ^
I thought our crew from Saturday was abnormally good.
September 10th, 2018 at 11:54 AM ^
September 10th, 2018 at 11:54 AM ^
Yikes. The flight path was a little weird when it bent out like it was going to miss, but yeah that was good.
September 10th, 2018 at 11:54 AM ^
Those are tough to judge because camera angle is so important. The best camera angle they don't have: a camera mounted on the top of each upright, pointing straight up.
I'm going to guess that's why it's not reviewable: the two officials under the uprights have the best angle to judge the ball and whether it sails inside or outside.
September 10th, 2018 at 12:15 PM ^
Agree with this. I'm sure they could implement technology for these cases, but as it is, you have to assume the ref directly underneath had the best view. Too bad we don't actually get a view of the ref as the ball passes over the upright. I assume it would show the ref looking straight up.
Also, what is the standard here? Does the ball have to appear to be completely inside the upright? So if it passes directly over the upright, it's considered no good?
September 10th, 2018 at 12:29 PM ^
Exactly the standard - the ball has to be 100% inside the upright - no wiggle room there.
I don't have the exact verbiage, but if it appears to the ref underneath that the ball may graze the inside of the upright (had the upright extended upward to the placement of the ball) - even though the ball could conceivably bounce off the inside of the upright and ricochet in - it is still no good. The standard is pretty cut and dry
September 10th, 2018 at 4:13 PM ^
What is the exact rule here? My understanding is it's like the goalline...extend the goalpost vertically forever, if any part of the ball touches that imaginary vertical line above the edge of the goalpost it's ruled good. I could be wrong of course.
September 10th, 2018 at 3:28 PM ^
Extend goal post up another 10’ & Attach a net to both posts and tether them back like UEFA soccer goals. If it’s good it goes into the net. Add a camera from the ground looking straight up each upright. It’s shouldnt be rocket science. They can put a camera inside a pylon but can’t figure this out?
September 11th, 2018 at 10:44 AM ^
This is easy.
Field goal post: 30 feet high
Rugby goal post: 50+ feet high
September 10th, 2018 at 11:54 AM ^
I don't know man, I watched both and I couldn't definitively tell you they were both good or bad calls. The refs are directly under the posts and that is as good a place as any, and the fumble call could have gone either way. When they showed the camera from the pylon, it looked like it went inside of the pylon. If they would have called both the other way, the other side would have a good argument.
September 10th, 2018 at 11:56 AM ^
Hard to tell from those views I think. The one looking up is not straight up the goal post and you don't know when it passes the goal post on the one from the kickers view.
I will say that no one has a better view than the ref staring straight up.
Given that there isn't a camera shooting straight up, I get why they are not reviewable.
What is considered good anyways? Center of ball inside center of post?
September 10th, 2018 at 12:56 PM ^
Center of ball at center of post would bounce straight back, ignoring spin/rotation effects and strange force dynamics as the point of contact moves towards the stitched nose of the ball. Since you want the ball to pass through the plane formed by the crossbar and posts, the angle of incidence (defined by the angle between a horizontal projection of the line from the center of the ball to the center of the post and the horizontal line running between the two posts) must be less than 45 degrees, with a center of ball/center of post angle being defined as 90 degrees. The resulting trajectory would retain some velocity through the goal post plane. Distance wise, this is about the square root of two divided by two times the sum of the two (ball and post) radii (I don’t know the how big the suckers are). This would be the distance inside the center of the post that the center of ball must be inside of to at least squeak inside the uprights.
Or, maybe we shouldn’t leave this calculation up to refs. Probably a bad idea.
September 10th, 2018 at 11:58 AM ^
Not sure why we cannot fit a sensor at the top of the goal posts... this is technology we should use.
September 10th, 2018 at 12:09 PM ^
Strap a GoPro to each upright at least. They should actually have GoPro's on the pylons too. I'll bet GoPro would donate them if they got to use the footage in ads.
September 10th, 2018 at 12:18 PM ^
They should strap a Go Pro to the football as well.
September 10th, 2018 at 3:59 PM ^
They should strap a GoPro to every helmet as well.
September 10th, 2018 at 12:29 PM ^
For at least some games the end zone pylons do have cameras.
In Texas A&M v. Clemson the pylon cam seemed to show that the ball was out of bounds before crossing the end zone line. Still refused to overturn the incorrect call on the field.
Such cams should be mandatory on the pylons and the goal posts.
Plus, they should change the standard for replay review overturning a bad call on the field from 'indisputable evidence' to 'clear evidence showing that the on field call was more likely than not in error.'
September 10th, 2018 at 1:16 PM ^
Strictly because of the bad spot in 2016.....they should have cameras on the first down stick.
September 10th, 2018 at 11:59 AM ^
Yes, I get why it's not reviewable given the lack of camera perspective but that's really a cop-out. We already have the clear and convincing evidence requirement and would defer to the on-field call almost every time unless it's egregious. That sure looked good but I am not sure it would be enough to overturn a call. However, it should be POSSIBLE to review it in case it's clearly wrong.
September 10th, 2018 at 12:07 PM ^
you'd need the ability to watch the replays with multiple angles synced so that you can determine where the ball is when it goes past the goal post.
September 10th, 2018 at 12:01 PM ^
Looks like Mike Lantry's 1974 kick vs. OSU. Oh well.
September 10th, 2018 at 12:30 PM ^
I STILL am sure that Lantry's kick was good.
September 10th, 2018 at 12:51 PM ^
Mike's was ABSOLUTELY good. You guys think the 2016 game against OSU was bad? Take a look at this call (and check out who did color for ABC that game).
And yes, BOTH officials for that game were Ohio HS coaches for god's sake. Michigan getting screwed by the B1G officials in the OSU game - a tradition like no other.
September 10th, 2018 at 3:17 PM ^
I thought that this was a good kick but at least with the FL kick on Saturday, the ball was curving back in between the goal posts...
September 10th, 2018 at 9:08 PM ^
I was in Ohio Stadium when Ohio State's Matt Frantz missed the game winning field goal against Michigan in 1986 (the Harbaugh "Guarantee Game").
I ran out on the field after the game and stomped all over the Block O in revenge for the 1974 Mike Lantry bad call.
Felt real good.
September 10th, 2018 at 12:32 PM ^
Can they review Texas' kick to win the 2004-5 Rose Bowl while they're on it? That was wide.
September 10th, 2018 at 2:01 PM ^
No, no, it wasn't. But you can imagine what it'd be like if it had been!
Better. It would have been much better.
September 10th, 2018 at 12:43 PM ^
Alright, so I was on the sideline for this game and talked to one of the refs during the game shortly after this attempt.
Being a Florida staffer, I was displeased with the call but he explained it to me pretty well. It's not reviewable which is dumb but unless it's clear that the whole of the ball would have been inside the pole, they have to say it's no good. He conceded that it was close and probably would have been in had the poles been extended but since it passed over the top without clearly being inside, they had to call it a miss. Chalk it up to a weird trajectory on the kick. But yeah, that miss definitely hurt and killed the team's energy (if they had any to begin with). Kentucky...yeah.
September 10th, 2018 at 1:21 PM ^
If we can have imaginary lines to gain, why can't we have imaginary vertical uprights to the heavens?
September 10th, 2018 at 1:48 PM ^
It's the SEC. Too bad they couldn't both lose.
September 10th, 2018 at 2:00 PM ^
The best way to take all the guesswork out of field goal calls would be to put a crossbar on top of the posts and require the kick to make it into the box.
That will never happen, and I don't really think it actually should, but it sure would take every last bit of judgment out of calls.
September 10th, 2018 at 9:10 PM ^
They should at least do it on extra points. Add some actual meaning.
That would be cool.
September 10th, 2018 at 2:06 PM ^
You could probably figure out if it was good with an in-depth picture analysis. If you know the conditions on the field, the location of the camera relative to the field, then consider the size of the ball in the image and the time passing, it should give you an indication of where the ball is in relation to the goal posts at which point of time in the video.
September 10th, 2018 at 2:13 PM ^
UF wasn't "robbed" because it wasn't "obviously good." I've seen that replay a dozen times. Depth is not perceptible. Ball must be 100% inside the goal post (extended) at point in time it passes the crossbar. No way you can say it was; no way you have a better look than the ref who was standing right there.
September 10th, 2018 at 3:39 PM ^
It certainly looks good from the bottom view