Would you like some cheese with your whine? |
Posted on 11/10/2006 4:22:33 PM PST by LA Woman3
NEW YORK — Replay officials at last season's Rose Bowl were unable to properly review a Texas touchdown that should have been overturned because the wrong television feed was plugged into a monitor.
Big Ten and national coordinator of officials David Parry told The Associated Press that he went to the replay booth during January's Rose Bowl between USC and Texas to ask about Selvin Young's 12-yard touchdown run in the second quarter. It appeared on replays that Young received a pitch from Texas' Vince Young after the quarterback's knee touched the ground.
Parry said replay officials told him one of the TV feeds they were receiving while trying to review the play had shots of fans in the stands. They did not see a shot from the camera angle that definitively showed the wrong call was made on the field until it was too late.
The problem was fixed after that play. Texas went on to win the game 41-38 and the national championship.
The story first was reported Friday by Yahoo.com.
The assistant replay official from the Rose Bowl, Dick Honig, told Yahoo.com that the feed problem might have affected the review of an earlier play involving Reggie Bush losing a fumble while trying to lateral the ball.
Bush had gotten deep into Texas territory with a screen pass when he tried to toss the ball to a teammate.
Parry said after viewing the play several times in very slow motion, it appeared Bush's pitch went slightly forward, which would have been an illegal forward pass, resulting in a dead ball and a penalty on USC.
Instead, the lateral was ruled sideways, and Texas was able to recover the fumble.
Parry said he doesn't believe officials on the field or in the replay booth made an egregious mistake, just a difficult judgment call.
"It was a very close call, and they did not have indisputable evidence to overturn it," he said.
___
USC was the better team.....
Reminds me of Al Gore still claiming he was cheated out of the presidency.
Ping!
| Would you like some cheese with your whine? |
Anyone with a tivo could have told them that. It's too late. Who cares now?
I betcha we can get Henry Waxman to look into that.
Precisely. I can't believe that some people are actually fussing over this 10 months after the fact.
"USC was the better team....."
Boo hoo!!!
The Horns would have scored a TD the next play anyway.
Boo Hoo!!
Trying to work up some sympathy for the Trojans . . .
. . . nope can't do it.
Sorry, Texas deserved to win that game (and I say that as a USC fan).
Officials, National Championships, and bad calls... Two words: Terry Porter.
Do I feel sorry for USC? Heck no. Do I understand how they might feel? Absolutely.
One word....
Scoreboard
BTW
what was the spread on that game again? Miami by -12? 14?
Sure we can. After he's done beating other dead horses in Florida and Ohio.
In 2006, the NCAA Football Rules Committee enacted instant replay guidelines and added them to the football playing rules. For games involving two schools from the same conference, league policy determines whether replay will be used. For non-conference games, the home team makes the determination.
Plays involving the sideline, goal line, end zone and end line, as well as other detectable situations, are reviewable (e.g., fumble/no fumble, pass complete/incomplete, touchdown/no touchdown, runner down/not down, player or ball inbounds/out of bounds, clock adjustments). Most fouls (e.g., holding, offside, pass interference) are not reviewable, except that in 2006, illegal forward passes, handoffs and punts from beyond the line of scrimmage, and too many players on the field are reviewable and the foul may be called after replay review.
When replay is used, a Replay Official (usually a former college, NFL or XFL game official) reviews every play at its conclusion from a secure booth in the press box. Most plays are routine and the game continues without interruption. If, however, the following criteria are met, the Replay Official may interrupt the contest by paging the game officials to stop the game before the next play starts. The criteria are:
1. There is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made in the initial on-field ruling. 2. The play is reviewable. 3. Any reversal of the on-field ruling, which can only result from indisputable video evidence, would have a direct, competitive impact on the game.
Once per game, each head coach may also call a timeout and challenge the ruling on the previous play before the next play starts. A coach must have at least one timeout remaining in order to challenge (teams receive three timeouts per half). If the challenge is successful and the on-field ruling is overturned, the team keeps its timeout. If not, the team loses its timeout. In either event, the head coach may not challenge again during the game.
After reviewing the play from available video angles, the Replay Official decides if the call should be upheld or overturned. If the call is overturned, the Replay Official provides the proper information to restart the game, such as the team in possession, the yardline where the ball should be placed, the correct down and distance, and the correct time on the stadium clock.
Football officials are now instructed not to stop the play on potential turnovers, but rather let the play develop and then allow the review to make the final decision. Since overturning on-field calls by review requires "irrefutable evidence," this new officials policy increases the number of turnovers. For example, as a runner is tackled, the ball comes loose and the defense recovers. Officials believe the runner was downed but they follow the policy to allow the play to continue. Upon review, the fumble call can only be overturned with irrefutable evidence. Had the officials followed their initial beliefs and ruled the runner down, overturning the call would require evidence that the ball was fumbled before the runner was down. Thus the presumption of the runner being downed is replaced under the new policy with a presumption that the ball was fumbled. Overcoming this presumption requires irrefutable evidence, so the presumption of a fumble is likely to withstand replay simply because it is not certain whether the runner was downed or not before the ball was fumbled.
And then immediately following that game, we can do over the USC-Notre Dame game in which Matt Leinart pushed Reggie Bush (or vice-versa) over the goal line for the "winning" touchdown.
We (Ohio State) were such underdogs in that game. The media was salivating over Miami. I remember it well, you even had your "victory parties" planned. But we beat you, FAIR AND SQUARE.
One of my fondest memories is going the Buckeye Hall of Fame Cafe, and seeing the look on my late Daddy's face, seeing that Nat. Champ. Trophy. The only thing that surpassed that for him was watching my daughter, his Granddaughter, play BB for the Buckeyes during her four years on the team.
The only reason you won is because my wife and I were out of the country on our 10 year anniversary cruise, and I couldn't watch the game ;-)
Oh good gosh, another "obsessive compulsive fan"...lol
If I'm not with my daughter at an Ohio State game, we have to talk by phone, or we lose.....:)
Oh the humanity!
USC will NEVER have that championship, no matter how much its fans gripe and grumble. NEVER. NEVER.
But I bet it sure does make Texas fans feel good about that shiny little football on their campus, knowing that not only did they get it, they kept it from a bunch of whiny losers.
As a long time USC fan, I always find it amusing that those who know so little about USC continue to play on the stereo types and misconceptions they have in their minds about the Trojans and their fans.
Both before and after the game against Texas, my wife and I went out of our way to first welcome them and then congratulate the Longhorn fans. I saw nothing but the same attitude from the overwhelming number of fans on both sides.
Even in this thread, other then one comment, I do not see any "whining" from USC fans.
As I said above, Texas deserved the win because USC had one primary task: Stop Vince Young. They did not do it, end of story.
But, one thing we can be proud of and that is we are in the hunt once again for a BCS Championship. Three years in a row and now, in spite of weak performances, are on the verge again.
No other team in the country can say the same thing.
So let those who hate USC take their cheap shots, demonstrate their lack of class and sportsmanship. We will take the occasional lumps against teams like Oregon and against Champions like Texas. We will continue to cherish our rivalry against ND, some of the best fans in the country, and we will continue to savor, our as yet to beat their streak, victories against UCLA.
And we will continue to enjoy what has become arguably the three and perhapos four best consecutive Division I football seasons in modern NCAA history. Yes, we will enjoy it while we can, because it is not going to last forever.
"Yes, we will enjoy it while we can, because it is not going to last forever."
You're right. The last time the Trojans were dominant was when I was a student (1977-81). And they weren't as good then as they have been the last three years. I will not likely see another run like this in my lifetime.
...Meanwhile, Texas turned out to be a flash-in-the-pan, advancing on the talent of one great athlete, while USC lost 3 stars and still remains a contender! You gotta give some credit to Pete Carroll. 2007 looks mighty promising. Happy New Year!
OK --I know I'm posting late on this thread, but the Bowl Games got me in a "football" mood. There are a few things wrong with your analogy. 1. In the 2000 election, there was no pre-arranged decision to hand-count votes in close precincts. In the 2006 Rose Bowl, it was pre-determined that the entire game would be automatically reviewed. That didn't happen, due to human error and cheap Big 10 equipment. 2. When the press did go back to "review" the ballots in Florida, it was determined Bush would have won anyway. In this article, that clearly isn't the case with the bowl game. 3. Gore has gone on to be a joke no one takes seriously. USC continues to be a powerhouse team -- but I'm sure Texas is really pleased with their stunning 2-point victory over 6-7 Iowa in the prestigious Alamo Bowl!
Okay, I'll take that "do-over" at Notre Dame ---- if Weiss will mow the turf this time! :-)
OUCH!!
Not sure I would go that far in assessing Texas, they have a long history of being a solid program at Div I level. But I will say this:
USC w/o Matt Leinhart or Reggie Bush (Pick one) is a better team then Texas is w/o Vince Young.
And I like our chances for a few for a few more years after that!
Indeed. 2007 is coming up roses. Fight on!
Texas is certainly a respectable team. Don't get me wrong. My only point is, a team is more than one person. Texas wouldn't have been anywhere without Vince Young, though McCoy looks like he will be good in the future. As Mack Brown noted, it is tough to maintain after winning a national championship. Yet Pete Carroll has done it for 3 years straight and came within a sleepwalking game against UCLA of going back for a 4th time -- in what was supposed to have been a rebuilding year! You have to applaud Carroll's program. I don't begrudge Texas their championship --- I just take issue with those who want to pretend it was a convincing victory and /or that USC was overrated. If just one of those 2 bad calls had been caught, we'd be calling USC the greatest program in the history of college football.
USC is, and long has been, one of those teams that people love to hate. I saw it back in the early 70's when my future wife and I attended college (she at USC and I elsewhere) and we went to as many of the games as we could (she often took her father, to my dismay and her credit!). After so long of hearing the detractors I try to turn a deaf ear to it, because usually they fall into two classes:
1) They do not know what they are talking about or
2) they are just plain low class jerks.
The dominant teams usually are the ones people love to hate. What I find irrational, though, is the people on FR who want to make college football a red state/blue referendum. It is just silly! Interestingly, my son said that his school had a morning news item in which they discussed how people are identified as conservative or liberal based on certain habits/demographics. People who watch college football are more likely to be conservative. People who watch professional wrestling are more likely to be liberal. That made sense to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.