Oklahoma 33, OREGON 34 (final)

[OregonBuckeye]

I haven't seen anything particularly atrocious. I don't think they should overturn the result, but filing a formal request doesn't seem out-of-line to me. Has he said/done something other than that?

Him wanting the game not to be counted isn't atrocious but the way he's handling the whole situation is downright pathetic. He's acting like a 3-year old who got his cookie taken away.

 

[Thump]

Don't blame this clusterfuck on the replay system itself, but rather on the blind fuck who couldn't see what was blatantly obvious. And tell me how this worse just because it was upheld by replay? A badly blown call is a badly blown call, period. You know what everyone on the planet would be screaming for it there were no replay in place and this shit happened? That's right, they'd be screaming for replay...

Totally agree. Don't know how 10 million people see one thing and the one guy who it matters most to can't see it.

If I were Stoops, I'd be ready to kill somebody.

Mili, keep in mind that you're reading a post by an umpire who we all know as a group are the most (and I'm not saying that XC is one of these) egotistical groups of officials around.

I like you feel this is no reason for instant replay to be axed.

Firing incompetent officials sounds like more of a solution.

 

[methomps]

Don't blame this clusterfuck on the replay system itself, but rather on the blind fuck who couldn't see what was blatantly obvious. And tell me how this worse just because it was upheld by replay? A badly blown call is a badly blown call, period. You know what everyone on the planet would be screaming for it there were no replay in place and this shit happened? That's right, they'd be screaming for replay...

Isn't the "blind fuck" part of the entire process that is the replay system? I think this bursts the bubble that people may have had about the infallibility of applying technology to sports (especially football).

People were complaining about the need for instant replay to "save us" from horrible decisions by officials. In theory, great. In practice, it suffers from these limitations/detriments:
(1) blind fuck replay officials
(2) malfunctions
(3) delays to the game
(4) burden on coaches (should I take time away from preparing my team for the next play to go explore what happened on the last play? Should I use my challenge now or save it? Can another coach in the booth see it? Should I trust the word of my receiver that he caught it?)
(5) the effect the presence of replay has on officials (Runner was down before he fumbled the football. Official is 70% sure the runner was down before fumbling. However, he knows that if he blows the play dead, there can be no review. So he lets it go as a fumble, knowing the replay officials will pick it up and take another look. But what if the replay officials don't? Or what if their equipment is malfunctioning? Or what if there is no camera angle that can provide conclusive video evidence?)


People also want to replace human voters with computers. I had many long debates with Sooner fans about this very topic. Most of them wanted computers and only computers.

Well, a computer is going to pay no heed to the controversial ending of this game. Oregon beat Oklahoma, be it questionably 34-33 or legitimately 34-33. Oregon goes up. Oklahoma goes down.

I suspect that many of the Sooners who were adament about computers then are today saying that Oklahoma shouldn't be punished too much in the polls for this loss.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Isn't the "blind fuck" part of the entire process that is the replay system? I think this bursts the bubble that people may have had about the infallibility of applying technology to sports (especially football).

People were complaining about the need for instant replay to "save us" from horrible decisions by officials. In theory, great. In practice, it suffers from these limitations/detriments:
(1) blind fuck replay officials
(2) malfunctions
(3) delays to the game
(4) burden on coaches (should I take time away from preparing my team for the next play to go explore what happened on the last play? Should I use my challenge now or save it? Can another coach in the booth see it? Should I trust the word of my receiver that he caught it?)
(5) the effect the presence of replay has on officials (Runner was down before he fumbled the football. Official is 70% sure the runner was down before fumbling. However, he knows that if he blows the play dead, there can be no review. So he lets it go as a fumble, knowing the replay officials will pick it up and take another look. But what if the replay officials don't? Or what if their equipment is malfunctioning? Or what if there is no camera angle that can provide conclusive video evidence?)

You don't disband the police department because of a crooked/incompetent cop (not saying the replay official was crooked, just using the cop analogy). I've heard many commentators say "They're seeing what we're seeing". The replay officials should have access to the same video feed (if they don't already) as what's on TV. As for your listed points:

1. Most replay officials are quite competent...fire those that aren't. Easy solution.
2. Malfunctions are fortunately rare. I don't recall seeing a game--either college or pro--where the replay equipment wasn't working.
3. Delays are a neccessary evil, and are acceptable provided the reviews do what they're intended to do, and that's to ensure the correct call is made.
4. If a coach can't handle the "burden" of deciding whether or not to challenge a call, then he shouldn't be a coach in the first place.
5. Officials should be instructed to call the game without regard to any outside considerations. They should call the game just as they would if there were no replay system in place.

 

[exhawg]

I can't believe that the replay official blamed it one his equipment. First of all if that is true it is ridiculous. Anyone with a 19 in monitor and a Tivo could tell those were bad calls. Invest in some technology. IIRC the Big 10 handles all of their replays in one location so that hopefully more than one person can look at it and make a good decision. I also can't believe that they used Pac-10 ref's for a game like this. IMO you should have to get a neutral crew for any out of conference games. I don't think you can fire the field refs for this, they screw up all the time. There is definitely reason to fire the replay guy and end his cursed career forever.

 

[methomps]

You don't disband the police department because of a crooked/incompetent cop (not saying the replay official was crooked, just using the cop analogy). I've heard many commentators say "They're seeing what we're seeing". The replay officials should have access to the same video feed (if they don't already) as what's on TV. As for your listed points:

I'm not saying get rid of replay because it didn't work in the Oregon game. And giving them access to the TV feeds is even worse of an idea. Do you really want the officials to have to rely on NBC to determine whether Notre Dame wins or not?

2. Malfunctions are fortunately rare. I don't recall seeing a game--either college or pro--where the replay equipment wasn't working.

Did you watch the Rose Bowl?

3. Delays are a neccessary evil, and are acceptable provided the reviews do what they're intended to do, and that's to ensure the correct call is made.

I don't know if it was worth 20 plays or whatever the effect of the new rules imposed.

4. If a coach can't handle the "burden" of deciding whether or not to challenge a call, then he shouldn't be a coach in the first place.

And if fans can't handle a few blown calls a game, they shouldn't be fans

5. Officials should be instructed to call the game without regard to any outside considerations. They should call the game just as they would if there were no replay system in place.

More theory versus reality disconnect.

 

[sandgk]

I'm not saying get rid of replay because it didn't work in the Oregon game. And giving them access to the TV feeds is even worse of an idea. Do you really want the officials to have to rely on NBC to determine whether Notre Dame wins or not?

Disagree on this point. Reportedly the replay official claims that he did not get a good enough view to overturn what was obvious from several TV feeds seen by broadcast audiences. His feed did not carry the same replays as those available over the air from ABC. The replay official need not be spoon fed by the network, he should have access to all available angles.
Clearly that was not the case per the reports on the Sooner vs Oregon contest. This is a matter that is simple enough to rectify, it is likely impeded only by money, which for a BCS conference match-up should not be a complete non-issue.
When coverage is provided by a national network and they have a better view than the in-stadium system, then make that available. It will still not be perfect, but you eliminate an attributable cause (and in this case apparently actual cause) of failure.

 

[methomps]

Disagree on this point. Reportedly the replay official claims that he did not get a good enough view to overturn what was obvious from several TV feeds seen by broadcast audiences. His feed did not carry the same replays as those available over the air from ABC. The replay official need not be spoon fed by the network, he should have access to all available angles.
Clearly that was not the case per the reports on the Sooner vs Oregon contest. This is a matter that is simple enough to rectify, it is likely impeded only by money, which for a BCS conference match-up should not be a complete non-issue.
When coverage is provided by a national network and they have a better view than the in-stadium system, then make that available. It will still not be perfect, but you eliminate an attributable cause (and in this case apparently actual cause) of failure.

Replay already gets the angles from tv. I'm just saying they shouldn't watch the actual feed. They should have access to all the cameras (which they already do according to the rules, despite what may have happened in Oregon). But NBC or ABC shouldn't get to choose which angle is watched.

 

[Bucklion]

Replay already gets the angles from tv. I'm just saying they shouldn't watch the actual feed. They should have access to all the cameras (which they already do according to the rules, despite what may have happened in Oregon). But NBC or ABC shouldn't get to choose which angle is watched.

This I agree with, especially when the Notredame Broadcasting Company is involved.

 

[sandgk]

Replay already gets the angles from tv. I'm just saying they shouldn't watch the actual feed. They should have access to all the cameras (which they already do according to the rules, despite what may have happened in Oregon). But NBC or ABC shouldn't get to choose which angle is watched.

Like Bucklion - I agree with you that the network shouldn't spoon feed the angles, they should simply be available. As for the statement that they already get the angles from television, that surely isn't totally true. If that is so, then why did the replay official and PAC-10 representative claim otherwise?
The Oregonian

But first you should know that Riese didn't see the ABC television feed that viewers watched at home, which you, your spouse and your children know showed an Oregon player touching the ball before it traveled the required 10 yards. And you should know that Riese will not talk about specifics on the call, but said: "My supervisor knows what happened up there and that's all that matters."

A source in the replay booth on Saturday said that Riese found himself crunched for time, pressured by television and the on-field referee for a rapid decision, and there was such a delay in getting the video feed to Riese that he never even got to properly review the play.

The Pac-10's coordinator of football officiating confirmed that Riese didn't get all of the replays that ABC was providing.

With all the cameras working the game that one half of the country was watching, Riese saw only a single frame of video, the source said. The angle was bad. But it appeared to show an Oklahoma player touching the ball with his helmet before it hit the Oregon player. (From other angles, clearly, it hits the Ducks player first.) With no other video immediately available, and television waiting, Riese did what he's told to do when he's out of time and has no conclusive evidence.

He upheld the call on the field.

Gentlemen - we need better equipment for our replay officials, regardless of where they call the (re)plays.

 

[Taosman]

And just how (good) is Oklahoma?

And how bad must the Big 12 be!

Texas is going through that conference like shit through a goose!

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

He's acting like a 3-year old who got his cookie taken away.

Just like the Oregon fans did when they didn't go to a BCS game last season. Oregon fans (not you in particular) have no basis for calling someone else whiny.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I'm not saying get rid of replay because it didn't work in the Oregon game. And giving them access to the TV feeds is even worse of an idea. Do you really want the officials to have to rely on NBC to determine whether Notre Dame wins or not?

Difference between TV "feeds" and the having the same access. Of course you don't want some color commentor's telestrater drawings and shit on the replay image nor the commens of him or the play-by-play guy, but the ref should be able to see all the angles that are shown to the viewing audience.

Did you watch the Rose Bowl?

Yeah, but I was pretty hammered by the end of the first quarter...

I don't know if it was worth 20 plays or whatever the effect of the new rules imposed.

I'm not sure what you're saying here...

And if fans can't handle a few blown calls a game, they shouldn't be fans

Not even close to being the same thing. There is no association at all between the responsibilities of being a coach and the right of a fan to be pissed off when his/her team gets hosed.

More theory versus reality disconnect.

So my "theory" is trumped by your "reallity". Tell me, how many refs have told you that they base any of their calls on whether or not there could be a replay?

 

[BB73]

For those that don't know, the games between tOSU and Texas had one league's refs on the field and the other league's in the replay booth. The Pac 10 requires that they have Pac 10 officials both on the field and in the replay booth.

si.com
OU may not play at Washington in 2008

Sooners want Pac-10 to change rule regarding officials

NORMAN, Okla. (AP) -- Oklahoma would consider canceling its game at Washington in 2008 if the Pacific 10 Conference doesn't change its rule requiring league officials to be used at its home stadiums, Sooners coach Bob Stoops said Tuesday.

The Sooners lost 34-33 at Oregon on Saturday, and Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen has since said that two incorrect calls by the league's officials on Oregon's behalf changed the outcome of the game.

On Monday, Oklahoma president David Boren sent a letter to Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg asking him to pursue having the Pac-10 remove its officiating policy.

"I think there's no question that (athletic director) Joe Castiglione and I and President Boren, if that rule is not changed that we may reconsider that game, and I think it's justified. We'll look into that."

Oklahoma defeated Washington 37-20 on Sept. 9 in the first game of the home-and-home series.

The Sooners also played a home-and-home series against UCLA of the Pac-10 in 2003 and 2005. The game at Oregon concluded a series that began in Norman in 2004.

 

[sandgk]

Pac-10's Officiating With Own Crews for Inter-Conference Games Questioned by Oklahoma

Oh boy, as if matters were not already sufficiently strained:

Now Oklahoma raises the specter of cancelling a game against Washington in 2008, unless the Pac-10 reviews their long standing policy of officiating such inter-conference games on the West Coast with neutral or visiting conference officials.
I can understand getting this changed for the next home-and-home series, but this series is halfway through.

Dispute with Pac-10 could affect Oklahoma-Washington series


The Associated Press
NORMAN, Okla. ? Oklahoma would consider canceling its game at Washington in 2008 if the Pacific 10 Conference doesn't change its rule requiring league officials to be used at its home stadiums, Sooners coach Bob Stoops said today.
The Sooners lost 34-33 at Oregon on Saturday, and Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen has since said that two incorrect calls by the league's officials on Oregon's behalf changed the outcome of the game.
On Monday, Oklahoma president David Boren sent a letter to Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg asking him to pursue having the Pac-10 remove its officiating policy.
"I think there's no question that (athletic director) Joe Castiglione and I and President Boren, if that rule is not changed that we may reconsider that game, and I think it's justified. We'll look into that."
Oklahoma defeated Washington 37-20 on Sept. 9 in the first game of the home-and-home series.
The Sooners also played a home-and-home series against UCLA of the Pac-10 in 2003 and 2005. The game at Oregon concluded a series that began in Norman in 2004.

So which officials were used in Norman on September 9th? Big 12? Should Oklahoma erase that game from their record books?