Replies

Nebraska and Idaho State are playing in the BCS Championship Football game. Nebraska is winning with a score of 47-3 in the 4th quarter. Nebraska’s tight end catches the ball about 2 yards out of bounds, runs back onto the field and runs it all the way for a touchdown. The referees put their hands up, indicating a TD.

The Idaho State coach asks for the referees to check the instant replay.

The referees say, “You loser, there’s no way you can win this game so you can’t ask for a review.”

Perhaps a more apt analogy would be:

Nebraska and Idaho State are playing in the BCS Championship Football game. Nebraska is winning with a score of 47-3 in the 4th quarter. Nebraska’s tight end catches the ball. He runs it all the way for a touchdown. The referees put their hands up, indicating a TD.

The Idaho State coach congratulates the Nebraska coach on his win.

Then one of the Idaho State fans asks for the referees to check the instant replay, to see if the player was out of bounds. The referees refuse, because they called it in bounds and no one on the opposing team disputes it. The fan then says he can’t get satisfaction because Idaho State has fixed the loss with the referees. He recommends that no one pays on any bets made until the referees comply with his demand.

Does the fan have standing to challenge the results of the game?

And he contested the call before the game was done. He actually contested the call before the next play ever started. The refs let the game go on without resolving the issue and then tried saying that it was too late to contest the issue because the game was already over.

So my question still stands, for anybody willing to answer it. Is that an OK thing for a ref to do - to tell somebody with skin in the game that they can’t ask for the rules to be followed because they have no chance of winning anyway?

That is the logic presented by these wise, learned men of the law.

I think a 2nd-grader playing two-hand touch football on the playground has more sense than that.