Big Ten official allegedly tied to gambling, abuse

[kn1f3party]

No one asks why Tressel didn't throw the flag. Too early in the game?

I would prefer Tressel not being liberal with challenges. Had he saw it clearly, I'm sure he would have. Coaches often contest calls they didn't even see. The problem everyone should have with this is a touchdown isn't a touchdown unless you see it. It couldn't have been seen because there was no possession of the ball. The wrong call was made.

 

[BB73]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, everyone saw the fumble. Everyone blames the refs. No one asks why Tressel didn't throw the flag. Too early in the game? Didn't get the word from the booth (hard to believe)?

It was Tressel's call to make and for whatever reason, probably wanted to hold the challenge for a more important part of the game, he didn't challenge the call.

I'm sure he had his reasons and if he had challenged and lost then we might have an argument.

I will say that it makes me believe that a coach should be entitled to more than 1 challenge in a game and that the replay guy in the booth needs to work faster. They're way too slow in deciding if a call needs to be reviewed, especially when the right call is often seen by the home viewers long before the review is finished. Maybe its an equipment issue. I can believe that the replay capability of the networks is much greater than that of the officials.

DBB has pointed out that, by rule, monitors aren't allowed in the booth.

I agree that the replay booth should be faster, and should look at more plays. And since they have the coach's challenge, they need to change the rule so that if a coach wins the challenge he retains it.

I've always thought that if they looked at something and aren't going to change it, they should be able to quickly signal the referee to keep things going, without having a conversation. They could do that on plays where it's obvious that only one thing is in question - a catch on the sidelines, a ball spotted just short of the goal line, etc. That would allow them to review more plays and not delay the game any more than it is now.

 

[AKAK]

I would prefer Tressel not being liberal with challenges. Had he saw it clearly, I'm sure he would have. Coaches often contest calls they didn't even see. The problem everyone should have with this is a touchdown isn't a touchdown unless you see it. It couldn't have been seen because there was no possession of the ball. The wrong call was made.

Bingo.

If you want an example of the referees being incompetent... look at the replay and see how far behind the play the referee was that signaled the TD.

A few weeks ago, I talked to someone that knew a bit about this situation.

In addition to the previous point...

1st, yeah the Big 10 messed up having these guys call the game.

2nd, the replay system was down at the time of the fumble and though the replay officials wanted to stop play based on the live monitor shot, the protocol is to review the play and then stop the play, they couldn't review the play.

3rd, the protocol for the replay booth to communicate with the referee sucks, apparently... so you can't just "talk things through" (This may not be completely accurate, but its the impression I got). This is going to be a topic of discussion in the offseason.

4th, You won't see most of these officials ever again.

Finally, as to the rest of the game, lets say they didn't grade out well.

 

[jwinslow]

2nd, the replay system was down at the time of the fumble and though the replay officials wanted to stop play based on the live monitor shot, the protocol is to review the play and then stop the play, they couldn't review the play.

What I don't get is why you can't delay for like 5 seconds. Maybe it's just me, but most replays are easily deciphered on the first replay. On the controversial calls, stop for 3-5 seconds, and let them decide whether the call looks ok or they should take more time to review.

95% of the time, they aren't rushing to the line to get another play off... so that delay would go unnoticed. Usually in the time it takes to get the ball respotted, we at home can watch it again. If necessary, get another person in the booth watching a tivo (like the announcers), if the reffing feed is not fast enough to prevent the 'delayed buzzdowns'.

Perhaps make a provision for time-sensitive situations, as to not allow pseudo-timeouts.

 

[cincibuck]

...No one asks why Tressel didn't throw the flag...

Cinci'; I respect you like no other, but the above is an unfortunate choice of words.

How so? I follow it up with two reasons why he didn't challenge: 1. too early in the game for his 1 challenge? 2. his assistants in the booth didn't think it was a good call to challenge. They have a far better view of the field than he does down on the sideline. That's why they're in the booth.

It was Tressel's call. The only person in the stadium that could make it if the officials wouldn't and he chose not to. He's probably been asking himself the same thing, especially now that this news has broken. I admire the fact that he didn't/doesn't throw temper tantrums ala TCUN (no, that's not a spelling error).

Itty, piddly thing here... it wasn't a TD was it? I thought they gave Illinois the ball on the 1 or 2 yard line.

Frankly, I think that the overall tone of this board is that Illinois won that game straight up. If you want to see real whining, go to "grassy" and ask them about a call that was declared "demonstrably correct" by Referee Magazine (yes, there really is such a thing).

When you only get the ball three times in the second half and turn it over on two of those possessions, you got outplayed.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

How so? I follow it up with two reasons why he didn't challenge: 1. too early in the game for his 1 challenge? 2. his assistants in the booth didn't think it was a good call to challenge. They have a far better view of the field than he does down on the sideline. That's why they're in the booth...

Maybe when you said, "No one asks" it was just a figure of speech to you. I never heard it used to mean anything other than what it says, but I don't doubt the possibility.

But you said, "no one asks" when, in fact people did ask (a lot). That's what I meant by your "choice of words".

...
When you only get the ball three times in the second half and turn it over on two of those possessions, you got outplayed.

Agreed. And I think the vast majority of the people here agree as well.

 

[Powair7s]

reliable source in the booth

I heard froma reliable source in the booth (the guy sits by the replay officials) that they did not look at the play a second time for whatever reason.

On a side note, I do not buy the "there was not enough time to see a replay" arguement. It was an 80 yard run, both teams had to run the length of the field and then set up a new play. There was time to see the play numerous times.

I think OSU does the fans at the game a huge diservice by not showing questionable calls on the jumbotron. If that play gets shown the entire stadium goes nuts and Tress asks for a challenge.

 

[kn1f3party]

Itty, piddly thing here... it wasn't a TD was it? I thought they gave Illinois the ball on the 1 or 2 yard line.

Correct, it did lead to a touchdown though. The point still remains, how can you mark possession of the ball on the 2 yard line if you didn't see him go out of bounds or get tackled there? If I recall, they even acknowledged the fumble but not Ohio State's possession of it. Meaning they knew the ball was fumbled but still marked him down at the two as if he fumbled out of bounds or regained the ball and then lost it after being down.

What I don't get is why they don't automatically call a fumble in those circumstances and keep the ball live. Once its dead its dead and it would be better to have your call reversed than have it be completely bonehead and completely alter the momentum of a game.

 

[AKAK]

I heard froma reliable source in the booth (the guy sits by the replay officials) that they did not look at the play a second time for whatever reason.

The reason was that the replay system was broken....

As such, I'm not exactly sure what would have happened had Tressel challenged the play.

Much like the first half of the Browns/Ravens game we might have gotten, "After reviewing the play, the system is not functioning"

At least we could just blame the techies that way, and not Tress, I guess.

 

[lvbuckeye]

How so? I follow it up with two reasons why he didn't challenge: 1. too early in the game for his 1 challenge? 2. his assistants in the booth didn't think it was a good call to challenge. They have a far better view of the field than he does down on the sideline. That's why they're in the booth.

It was Tressel's call. The only person in the stadium that could make it if the officials wouldn't and he chose not to. He's probably been asking himself the same thing, especially now that this news has broken. I admire the fact that he didn't/doesn't throw temper tantrums ala TCUN (no, that's not a spelling error).

Itty, piddly thing here... it wasn't a TD was it? I thought they gave Illinois the ball on the 1 or 2 yard line.




When you only get the ball three times in the second half and turn it over on two of those possessions, you got outplayed.

i'll give you a better reason why Tressel didn't challenge. by his own admission he doesn't like the replay system because he doesn't think it's comprehensive. therefore, prior to The Game, he had NEVER challenged a play. he was content to let the replay official do his job. well, after that debacle, he was pretty quick to toss out that challenge the next week...

 

[smith403]

i'll give you a better reason why Tressel didn't challenge. by his own admission he doesn't like the replay system because he doesn't think it's comprehensive. therefore, prior to The Game, he had NEVER challenged a play. he was content to let the replay official do his job. well, after that debacle, he was pretty quick to toss out that challenge the next week...

Plus ass't coaches have no tv in their booth...they see what everyone else sees (no tv advantage)... I believe the whistle had blown...so the play was over

 

[CleveBucks]

LA Times (requires reg.)

Although there has not been any evidence linking Big Ten Conference referee Stephen Pamon to gambling on games, Las Vegas oddsmakers are leery of game-fixing at the college football level. Two games from the 2007 regular season have come into question regarding Pamon, an officiating crew chief with a history of bankruptcy and gambling: Penn State's victory over Purdue on Nov. 3 and Illinois' upset win over Ohio State on Nov. 10.

"Both games had disproportionate money bet on the teams that benefited from the objectionable calls in those games in Penn State and Illinois," said RJ Bell of Pregame.com. "On average, 70% of teams end games within one touchdown of the Las Vegas spread," Bell said. "Which means that a single corrupt call that results in one touchdown -- or a touchdown denied to an opponent -- would allow a gambler to win 70% of his bets."

It will be interesting to see the fallout regarding Pamon, whose officiating crew made several questionable calls in both games.

 

[BB73]

Imagine the outrage now if tOSU hadn't made the title game.

 

[buck e]

LA Times (requires reg.)

Doesn't it raise another red flag that those games took place back to back weeks?

 

[CleveBucks]

Doesn't it raise another red flag that those games took place back to back weeks?

And being the last two games of the year officiated by the same corrupt official? Yeah, it raises a few red flags. Wouldn't have taken much for Pamon to "ignore" the buzzer on the replay or claim it never worked. He knew it was his last game of the year. Time to go for the big money.