11-24-2014, 03:07 PM
My thought was that the first on-field call clearly was mistaken and rightfully should have been overturned. The second on-field call certainly looked like it was mistaken, but I would have understood if the replay thought the ruling should stand (as in, the evidence was not clear to overturn). On the third call, I definitely thought the call should have stood (though on moral grounds, I was happy to see if it was overturned). In fact, I wouldn't have even been surprised had the decision been confirmed.
I'm glad that the refs (or, in this case the replay booth) blew some calls that benefited us but clearly didn't affect the outcome of the game. Because this shows that we can criticize the refereeing decisions without our views being colored by our natural biases for Stanford. Yes I was happy that the calls were overturned from my perspective as a Stanford fan, and especially glad that we made it not matter in the end (could you imagine the fury if we had only won by 3 points?). But from the perspective of wanting good, clean, fair football, I thought the refereeing was crap, not just based on those three calls. Cal fans have a legitimate gripe... but of course, it wouldn't have made a difference.
BC
I'm glad that the refs (or, in this case the replay booth) blew some calls that benefited us but clearly didn't affect the outcome of the game. Because this shows that we can criticize the refereeing decisions without our views being colored by our natural biases for Stanford. Yes I was happy that the calls were overturned from my perspective as a Stanford fan, and especially glad that we made it not matter in the end (could you imagine the fury if we had only won by 3 points?). But from the perspective of wanting good, clean, fair football, I thought the refereeing was crap, not just based on those three calls. Cal fans have a legitimate gripe... but of course, it wouldn't have made a difference.
BC