OH NO!!!! MY GOD!!!! IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN!!!!!

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

were the standards of photojournalism recently updated?

Nope, it would appear you found a rare exception.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/fea...s/jordan/main/

[TripletDaddy]

Nope, it would appear you found a rare exception.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/fea...s/jordan/main/

Here is an equally rare exception...from this May.



I'll stop now and allow you to quietly exit out the side door.

Not boding well for the Ducks....

[YOhio]

Because of your all's (and Max Hall's) conduct since the TCU game I don't think I can bring myself to pull for BYU in its bowl game. I hereby announce that I will be pulling for whatever team plays BYU. See what you've done?

OH NO!!!! MY GOD!!!! IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN!!!!!

[DU Ute]

OH NO!!!! MY GOD!!!! IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN!!!!!

[Color Me Badd Fan]

It is an excellent photo. Just not technically excellent.

Who knew that people calling the shots in the sports photog industry are pharisees? Could there have been a better angle for that Harline catch? Would an angle showing Harline's face also have shown all the stuff in the background (Beck, the fans). Would a shot from an angle showing Jordan's face when he made the last shot over Russell be better than one from behind showing the hoop and the fans? I think the merits of a photo and whether a player's face must be in the shot is more dependent on the circumstances of the photo and what needs to be included. A shot of the front of Michael Jordan during the final shot against Russell would have largely been indistinguishable from any other number of shots. From behind, everyone knows where it's from.

I don't deny that SI has the rules you mention. Look at this picture they had on the cover after the 1998 Finals:



Looking back, you don't know exactly when this photo was taken (with the exception of the shotclock in the background).

They should have gone with some version of this angle.



When they show the video of Jordan hitting this shot, they always show the back view even though there are undoubtedly different angles.

[beefytee]

Seems like some pretty simple rules to me.

Action shots: front

Contemplative shots: back

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Here is an equally rare exception...from this May.

I'll stop now and allow you to quietly exit out the side door.

Not boding well for the Ducks....

Yes 2 covers of 88 this year have no facial focus. Which side do you want me to exit through?
http://www.sicovers.com/SearchResults.aspx

You are a better poster as a front runner. This 5th place stuff really doesn't bring out the best in you.

[Jeff Lebowski]

A question for BYU folks: Would you rather have Beck to Harline type wins against Utah or would you rather have blowouts? Right now all of BYU's wins against Utah seem to come from Beck to Harline type plays.

A question to Utah folks: This might be difficult to remember what it feels like, but is it worse to lose to BYU on Beck to Harline type play or to get blown out (which hasn't happened since 1996)?

I think I enjoy the close games more. Looking back at that Harline photo brings back memories of that amazing euphoric rush. Something magical about teetering so close to the abyss and then pulling out the win.

[TripletDaddy]

Yes 2 covers of 88 this year have no facial focus. Which side do you want me to exit through?
http://www.sicovers.com/SearchResults.aspx

You are a better poster as a front runner. This 5th place stuff really doesn't bring out the best in you.

2007 seemed to be another rare year..







Either side exit will do!

[Fiyero]

I thought it would be funny to post a Playboy cover with a rear photo, but all 1000 of them appear to be front facing.

[TripletDaddy]

I thought it would be funny to post a Playboy cover with a rear photo, but all 1000 of them appear to be front facing.

There is a Sally Field cover from the 80s with her rear facing the camera or maybe she was more towards the side. Her face is towards the camera, for sure, but not her body. She is also clothed in a bunny costume. no nudity.

[Commando]

love the thread premise, btw. You have great institutional memory.

[Flattop]

A question for BYU folks: Would you rather have Beck to Harline type wins against Utah or would you rather have blowouts? Right now all of BYU's wins against Utah seem to come from Beck to Harline type plays.

A question to Utah folks: This might be difficult to remember what it feels like, but is it worse to lose to BYU on Beck to Harline type play or to get blown out (which hasn't happened since 1996)?

The TCU loss this year was much harder to take than the BYU loss. I have been on the wrong end of enough blowouts to know that losing a close game is better. The TCU game was an unremiting nightmare, the BYU game was a "well, you can't win them all" moment.

[Commando]

I'll agree that close is easier to handle than blowouts up until the loss crosses the threshold of "heartbreaker." Then it freaking sucks e.g. TCU and Utah games in '05.



Had we lost to FSU by just a touchdown, we'd probably feel better and be ranked higher.

[mUUser]

A question for BYU folks: Would you rather have Beck to Harline type wins against Utah or would you rather have blowouts? Right now all of BYU's wins against Utah seem to come from Beck to Harline type plays.

A question to Utah folks: This might be difficult to remember what it feels like, but is it worse to lose to BYU on Beck to Harline type play or to get blown out (which hasn't happened since 1996)?

Being on the wrong side of a blowout sucks.

The blowout loss to BSU at home stung far worse than the loss to BYU this year.

Being on the right side of a blowout isn't as fun as a last second win though.