It was my understanding that, in order for someone to score a touchdown, all they have to do is “break the plane” of the End Zone before their knees hit the ground–that’s how we got that dramatic Superbowl ending with what’s his name from the Whatevers reaching for the goal line on the last play of the game a couple of years ago.
So, recently I was playing football on my computer and I thought I scored a TD on an end run - Tareek Vanover made a nice run around the right end and, I thought, scored a TD. But, the officials didn’t call it as such.
I posted pictures [here](It was my understanding that, in order for someone to score a touchdown, all they have to do is “break the plane” of the End Zone before their knees hit the ground–that’s how we got that dramatic Superbowl ending with what’s his name from the Whatevers reaching for the goal line on the last play of the game.
So, recently I was playing football on my computer and I thought I scored a TD on an end run–Tareek Vanover made a nice run around the right end and, I thought, scored a TD. But, the officials didn’t call it as such.). Please tell me where my mistake is.
Are you all telling me that a single knee down makes a runner “down”? I thought you needed two.
(I’ll ignore for the moment that Pic #2 clearly shows the ball across the plane as his knee goes down.)
August West, thanks for the correction on his name; I knew I was wrong, but I didn’t know what it was and I was too lazy to look it up.
FTR, Vanover scored on the next play with a vengeful run straight up the middle. We (KC) went on to win the game and Vanover was named NFL Offensive Player of the Week with 3 TD’s, two rushing and one recieving - a total of over 140 yards for the day.
#1 and #3 look like TDs. #2 doesn’t. So we have to agree with the call on the field.
A runner in football is down if any part of his body other than his hands hit the ground. In pro football, someone has to hit you for you to be down. In college and high school, you are down once you hit the ground, even if you trip over your own shoelaces.
I’d say that it is obvious to even a casual observer that Vanover WAS down before the ball crossed the plane of the goal as seen in camera angle 2.
As has been stated above, a ball carrier is down if any part of his body other than hands or feet touch the ground under the influence of a defender. In that image it obviosuly shows that Bashir Levingston makes the stop, forcing Vanover’s left knee to the turf before the pigskin breaks that plane of the goal. Had Vanover had the presence of mind to extend the ball over said goalline, he’d have scored. These are the types of little things that have always made the Chiefs runners-up, and not champs.
I would agree that photo #2 does make it appear that way, but how do you reconcile this with the other two photos? Remember, all three shots are pictures of the same play.
Look at Angle #1 - Vanover is lying on his right side, right knee raised. Both the ball and the knee are clearly over the Goal Line.
Now look at Angle #3 - Here Vanover is in the same position and, again, both the right knee and ball have already broken the plane.
Are you suggesting that his body slid along the ground once he landed? It’s obvious that in Angle #2, his body has not yet hit the turf!
Touchdown.
[GUNTHER]
What are you, blind?!? Check the fu*king replay you stupid @ssho!e!!!
[/GUNTHER]
BTW, I’m impressed that you could tell who the tackler was.
Well, from the looks of the images, it seems clear that while cameras 1 and 3 show the same moment in time, or very close to it anyways, camera 2 shows the moment his knee hit the ground before the other shots. The play is dead the moment his knee hits the ground, where his body falls after that fact is irrelevant.
Ah! But his knee HAS! You cannot take any meaning from where his body or knee is in any moments after the instant that his knee touches initially, pictures 1 and 3 show points in time after he was down. In the fraction of a second between picture 2 and 1,3 his upper body fell and his momentum carried his knee (and the ball) forward over the goal line. Picture 2 is the only one that matters since it happened first, and he is down.
Big thing to consider here is that it’s a computer game, and therefore fairly open to error in its rendering of these plays.
This is Madden 99 on PC we’re looking at. Even on my NFL2K1 on Dreamcast the replays show odd events that can’t physically happen (i.e. “Hmmm, why did that perfect spiral suddenly arc three feet to the right and into Champ Bailey’s hands?”) and that’s two years more advanced than the graphics here.
I believe most of these programs make very quick mathematical calculations that determine what happens at a decision point. The decision point in this case was Vanover getting hit by Levingston. The PC compared their strengths, momentums, experience, etc in some cool little algorithm, decided he was doing down in X yards, which may have put Vanover down on the .0002 yard line. Then it had to render the pics to show you what it thinks happened. Rendering technology here isn’t perfect, and thus we have these discussions.
That said, in an NFL scenario picture 2 would cause the ruling on the field to stand.
From the weblink you posted, there’s this quote at the top:
“This is the page I use to post questions I have about things. Right now, the only question I have regards EA Sports’ Computer Game Madden 1999 Football and the rules of football in general.”
Now, that could be outdated, but the graphics look sufficiently Madden99-esque.
This is incredible. I remember playing football on Atari as a kid, and now we’re debating a play from a computer game with as much attention as if it were a real game.
Maybe you should petition the league. (Is there such an option?!).
There actually was an “Overturn the call” option in Madden 93 for the Sega Genesis. I think they took it out when they realized how many last minute touchdowns were being disallowed for no good reason by the sore loser in a 2 player game.
Been under some strain because of the heat?
While we’re talking about, however, screw the line judge and what he’s looking at (It seems obvious to me he’s running up to the point where he should spot the ball. After the play is considered stopped, his job is to spot the line on the field, often an imaginary line, and quickly run to it and stand, thus marking the spot the play stopped.)
No, no, no. That’s not the issue here. Neither is the issue of whether or not the ball had crossed the plane of the end zone- it hadn’t.
The real disturbing issue is what’s up with that sideline judge. I mean, what the hell is he looking at? Huh? All he can see is the back of the line marker… and he seems content just staring away at it.
While we’re reminiscing, maybe we should give some props to the simplicity of, say, “Ten Yard Fight” for the old 8-bit Nintendo system. Line judges never had to worry about anything there. All the players were half a yard tall, and if you dropped the QB back far enough, he could throw a 99-yard pass with no arc to it.
In a way, it’s a commentary on how technology has made society a more difficult place in which to live. To paraphase Orwell, If we can’t trust our computerized sideline judges to do any more than stare at line markers while game defining plays are going on, who can we trust?
