Hunt: Contradictions & ‘Running Pictures’

I tried to stay above the fray. I really did.

Go back and read SFN’s comments on the topic. Note that we were very careful to focus on the failure to use replay and didn’t harp on the result of the replay; which…upon further review…indicated that Akron’s running back failed to score a touchdown on the game’s final play. All we chose to stress was the same thing the rest of the world was stressing and that the Fayetteville Observer succintly expressed:

But it doesn’t matter whether the knee of Akron running back Dennis Kennedy hit the ground before the ball broke the plane of the end zone or not. If there’s a replay system in effect and a game-deciding score on the final play happens, it SHOULD be reviewed. Otherwise, what’s the point of having such a system?

I got pretty steamed yesterday when I saw quotes from UNC-CH grad and ACC director of officials Tommy Hunt. Hunt not only refused to admit the obvious that the play shuold have been reviewed more thoroughly by the game officials; he went so far as to use terms like “clearly” to describe the situation (as if there was no doubt about anything).

Hunt’s chutzpah really bothered me. His ability and willingness to proclaim without the slightest reservation that the result of the play was so unalienably clear was an insult to everyone’s intelligence. Again, I tried not to focus on the absurdity that everything that was so obviously murky was so crystal clear to Tommy Hunt.

But, today’s comments take the cake. Check out the following quote from today’s N&O:

Everything I saw looked like he scored; all the shots we got on video look like he scored,” Hunt said Monday. “We don’t count on still pictures. They are not dependable. We always get an amateur picture [in situations like this]. A running picture is much more valuable than a still photo.”

First, I need I need Cardiff Giant on this one. Cardiff, where are you? I challenge you to satire Hunt’s comments about “Running Pictures”. Running pictures? Is this 1930? I can’t get the thought of silent movies and Charlie Chaplin out of my head. It harkens to Lee Fowler and Bobby Purcell’s disdain 21st century techonology and the evil internet. Cardiff…this is your charge!

Second, I’d like to draw your attention to Hunt’s comments in the N&O ONE DAY EARLIER!

“We only had three shots of that play and no cameras on the goal line,” said Hunt, who attended the Duke-Wake Forest game in Winston-Salem. “[But] our person in the booth can slow it down, re-run it, FRAME IT, and he said it was a touchdown. Officials [also] said it was clearly a touchdown. When I saw it on ESPN, I concurred with their call.”

Wow. Could he be more of an idiot? Seriously. No wonder the moron is being forced into retirement this year. (Hopefully John Swofford can find another Carolina grad to slide into his spot before too many people post for the position)

* On one hand, Hunt procaims that the replay officials are in a great situation because they can STOP the video to “FRAME IT”…which then becomes the equivalent of…you guessed it…A PICTURE!

* But, on the other hand, they “don’t count on still pictures” because “they are not dependable”.

So, if “still pictures” are not dependable, then why do the replay officials slow down and STOP videos to make calls?

What Hunt should be articulating (even though it would make his case look even weaker) is the importance of THE ANGLE of the picture, be it a photograph or one of these fancy “moving pictures”. I actually believe and understand his comment that, “We always get an amateur picture [in situations like this].” But, just because something is an amateur photograph doesn’t make it any less credible. The key element in this is THE ANGLE OF THE PICTURE, not the nature of it being still or moving.

Hunt has talked so much that he has admitted the problem without being smart enough to recognize it, “We only had three shots of that play and no cameras on the goal line.” He is so married to his position that he can’t admit that his cameras were NOT in as good of a position as the photograph that was taken by Chris Coker in the stands.

The problem is not the nature of the pictures; the problem is the angle of the pictures and the inability of Tommy Hunt to (insert your complaint here).

General Headscratchers NCS Football

60 Responses to Hunt: Contradictions & ‘Running Pictures’

  1. WTNY 09/12/2006 at 8:29 AM #

    State lost. To Akron.

    Yes, the TD call should have been reviewed and possibly overturned.

    But in the end, State was in a position to lose and did.

    To Akron. *Sigh*

  2. Gopack80 09/12/2006 at 8:45 AM #

    ^ You still don’t get it do you? It’s not the fact that we lost. It’s the fact that a system that is in place to prevent exactly what is happening here (controversy) was not even used. And to further it, the man in charge of it all (Hunt) has made a complete ass of himself in trying to defend it. Plain and simple, the play should have been reviewed. If he would just simply admit they made a mistake in not reviewing (and weren’t in that great of a position to begin with to deal with goal line situations), many of us wouldn’t have a problem. Hell, I’m sure it wouldn’t have got overturned, but if they would have at least reviewed it there wouldn’t be as big a problem as there is. They screwed up, it’s time for the head of officials to take some accountability.

  3. Jeff 09/12/2006 at 8:48 AM #

    ^ But it was all so “clear”.

  4. Rick 09/12/2006 at 8:58 AM #

    Everyday I am more and more amazed at the incompetance of people in a postion of power. How this guy an even breath much less be the head of something for the record books.

  5. Jeff 09/12/2006 at 8:59 AM #

    ^ So funny. I just had the EXACT conversation with a UVa-grad colleague of mine.

  6. Matt E. 09/12/2006 at 8:59 AM #

    How do we know that the final play was never reviewed?

    Just because the officials on the field were never buzzed doesn’t mean that the play wasn’t reviewed by the replay official in the booth. Unless the replay official feels there is indisputable video evidence to overturn a call they wont buzz the officials on the field.

    Also, I still cant see how people can tell with 100% certainty that his elbow is actually down from that picture that was posted.

  7. Jeff 09/12/2006 at 9:04 AM #

    Can you tell with 100% certainty that his elbow wasn’t down?

    Why does the natural default say that it was “ok” to call a play a touchdown that isn’t obviously a touchdown?

    Forgive State fans for being a little pissed off after Tommy Hunt and crew had no problem taking a game winning touchdown off the board (after it was called) in Chapel Hill WITHOUT THE USE OF REPLAY.

  8. BoKnowsNCS71 09/12/2006 at 9:08 AM #

    Take the first comment on this page — go back a few years — and insert another name:

    State lost. To UNC

    Yes, the (no) TD call should have been reviewed and possibly overturned.

    But in the end, State was in a position to lose and did.

    To UNC. Sigh

    Critical plays bothched by officials are unfair regardless of the opponent. Great last minute plays that win a game for any opponent should be (fairly) reviewed. The ACC is covering up their goof.

  9. Matt E. 09/12/2006 at 9:08 AM #

    ^ that’s the thing. It was called a touchdown on the field so to overturn it they need to be 100% certain that his elbow was down. Without that, they’ll let the call on the field stand. Which appears to be exactly what happened.

  10. Rick 09/12/2006 at 9:11 AM #

    And the exact opposite of what happened the last time we were in this situation.

  11. choppack1 09/12/2006 at 9:28 AM #

    Matt – If they had a camera properly positioned – they could have had definitive evidence one way or the other. They didn’t – Hunt won’t apologize, he just continues to stupidly say that the runner was “clearly” in – when the photo indicates that there was nothing clear about it. Further aggravating the point was when they showed the replay on the jumbrotron, 40K people shrieked because the replay on the grainy jumbotron showed that he may have been down.

    If one thing is clear, it’s time for Swofford to remove Hunt and apologize for the pisspour handling of the final 2 plays. If that’s not clear to Swofford, then clearly, he should be removed from his job because under his tenure, NC State will not get a fair shake.

  12. choppack1 09/12/2006 at 9:29 AM #

    And finally, there’s this nugget:
    “We don’t count on still pictures.”

    I’m sure that they’ll find this interesting in Churchill Downs…

    SFN: “We don’t count on still pictures….yet, we slow down and stop the video to create still pictures to make calls.”

  13. for2n8son 09/12/2006 at 9:32 AM #

    Hey Matt E., go take a physics course and then look at that picture again. There is no way the ball made it into the endzone before his elbow touched even if it was a fraction of an inch above the ground when the picture was snapped.

  14. Great Dane Guy 09/12/2006 at 9:36 AM #

    After reading lots of articles on this mess, it seems to me that what Jeff said in the blog today is key: The lack of a proper camera angle prevented the correct call.

    How can a replay system be in use with no cameras on the goal lines? Isn’t that the most important place? So, I heard yesterday that the officials use all camera angles available, and sometimes it may just be a scoreboard camera. Is it ESPNU’s fault there were only three camera’s? Could State prevent this by having our own stadium setup with more camera’s and different angles? It soulds to me like the play WAS reviewed, but improper camera placement prevented a conclusive option.

  15. wufpaxno1 09/12/2006 at 9:42 AM #

    Interesting contradiction: Webster’s defines Hunt as “A diligent and thorough pursuit or search”; something that obviously did not happen in this case. Webster’s defines Tommy as “A loaf or piece of bread.â€? which seems to correspond with the level of intelligence of the ACC director of officials with respect to his defense of the actions of his crew on the field.

    One can only assume that Tommy Hunt would be defined as “a loaf aimlessly searching for direction�.

    I could not confirm this as a definition of the word Contradiction, but I think that if you look hard enough you will find it defined as “Tommy Hunt”.

  16. noah 09/12/2006 at 9:42 AM #

    I’m not an instant replay fan. Get rid of it and let the call on the field stand. I’ll take the results, good and bad.

    But damn…if you’re going to have instant replay, can’t it at least be used correctly???

  17. Dan 09/12/2006 at 9:45 AM #

    So if frame-by-frame review is not allowed per the genius, I wonder what the ACC mandated minimum playback speed is that is allowed in the review booth.

    Is it possible this guy is campaigning for Fowler’s position?

  18. Clarksa 09/12/2006 at 9:53 AM #

    I hate to link a Tarheel blog, but he has pretty good thoughts on the subject of Instant Replay…

  19. packpigskinfan23 09/12/2006 at 9:59 AM #

    its possible that everyone is a moron… I really hate to read about “officals” being everything BUT offical. They have a huge rule book… they need to FOLLOW IT! use COMMON SENSE.

    every goal line tochdown should have a camera on the goal line. regardless if the score is 45-0…

    who can we blame for this one?! I have no clue… who is in carge of camera placement? but I will say Hunt is an idiot for almost everything he has said so far… seems like he saw the play one time on ESPN and that is it. I bet he hasnt looked at it again since then. sad… really…

  20. Matt E. 09/12/2006 at 10:00 AM #

    for2n8son I’ve taken plenty of physics classes thanks.

    As Great Dane Guy brought up above. I’d like to see how you can make the statement that the ball couldn’t cross the line before the elbow was down from looking at a picture taken from inside the goal line and above the playing field. It’s all about the angles that we’re viewing it from. His elbow could appear be touching from the angle we’re looking at, but if we were looked at the same plane as his elbow there could be 2-3 inches there. The same goes for the angle at which we view the goal line, because of the 20 degree or so angle we’re looked at the goal line the ball might be much closer if we were looking along the plane of the goal line.

    Maybe someone should develop a goal line cam that would go in the pylon or something. Even with 10-20 cameras we might not always have the best angles to correct/confirm calls.

    Basically it comes down to the officials making a call on the field and there wasn’t enough evidence to overturn the call so it stood. If Chuck wanted it looked at further he’s going to have to start saving timeouts or something. Even then I think the call would have stood no matter how long they kept looking at it.

  21. BoKnowsNCS71 09/12/2006 at 10:08 AM #

    If only we had gotten our extra 18.3 plays……………One can only dream. — as Mack Brown would say.

  22. choppack1 09/12/2006 at 10:23 AM #

    Matt E. – You are correct – sometimes there isn’t a clear angle to review these things. It would appear that the official was in the correct position to make the call. However, the replay THEY SHOWED ON THE JUMBOTRON cast doubt on the accuracy of the call. (Not a problem, it’s a bang-bang call, and it’s difficult to get things right.)

    So here’s the thing:
    1) Review the call – Hunt hasn’t said that the booth reviewed the play. The officials left the field w/out an announcement that the play was being reviewed. Hunt says that they can review it.
    2) Hunt should confirm whether or not the play was reviewed in the booth w/in the guidelines provided for reviewing “game-changing plays” that should be reviewed. It’s really a simple yes or no question.
    3) If it wasn’t Hunt should apologize to NC State players, coaches and fans.
    4) If it was, he should outline clearly the explanation for upholding the TD. (Perhaps there wasn’t enough evindence to overturn.) Perhaps all TV angles show that he’s in.
    5) Finally, he should say it was a very close call and would be difficult to get right either way.
    6) We should have cameras on the goal-lines, LOS and sidelines to assist officials.

  23. PBdafan 09/12/2006 at 10:30 AM #

    Alright, I can’t stay above the fray either. Who cares? Who the hell cares if they blew the call, or if the celebration penalty hurt us? My god. The issue is we have a joke of a football program. We’re debating Akron? Akron? We’re celebrating beating AppState? Is this program improving, stagnant, or going backwards? After all these years with Chuck the mouth, I would have expected a game with Akron to be a laugher, just a tune up for the real games. Instead we’re debating a goal line call. Against Akron! This is ludicrous.

  24. Girlfriend in a Coma 09/12/2006 at 10:52 AM #

    Hunt’s ridiculous statements about how “clear” it was proves the opposite point.

    Both the new-phangled “moving pictures” and the still photo cast serious doubt on the TD call. And we still don’t even know if it was reviewed or not. All we get is this jackass making absurd statements about how clear it was when everyone with eyes knows it wasn’t.

    That leads me to guess that it wasn’t reviewed at all and Hunt is covering his ass on the whole thing by telling us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, as it were.

  25. for2n8son 09/12/2006 at 10:59 AM #

    As far as any question on his being down, I beg to differ. When you look at the expanded picture so that you have the perspective of the field and his entire body, he is far enough back from the goal line and based on the angle of his body, his trajectory would have taken him into the ground before the ball broke the plane on the line. I don’t see any question about that, personally.

Leave a Reply