[BostonCard]

Our conference's reputation is preceding us

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...title-game

That's right, Pac-12 refs are working the title game, which means there's a decent chance the national title will be decided by a missed call.

BC

[BostonCard]

Our conference's reputation is preceding us

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...title-game

That's right, Pac-12 refs are working the title game, which means there's a decent chance the national title will be decided by a missed call.

BC

[stupac2]

The normal and expected "these refs suck" aside, has this actually been that bad of a year for Pac-12 refs? Our games always seem pretty well called. It's not like in the NFL where I can name several games where a missed call or a ridiclously ticky-tack call changed a game.

[stupac2]

The normal and expected "these refs suck" aside, has this actually been that bad of a year for Pac-12 refs? Our games always seem pretty well called. It's not like in the NFL where I can name several games where a missed call or a ridiclously ticky-tack call changed a game.

[CTcard]

The normal and expected "these refs suck" aside, has this actually been that bad of a year for Pac-12 refs?

In the past a major complaint was that Pac 10/12 refs call a lot more penalties. That doesn't seem to be overly so this year in looking through the national rankings in penalties. Though, UCLA is retaining it's perennial (under Mora) place in the bottom 10.

[CTcard]

The normal and expected "these refs suck" aside, has this actually been that bad of a year for Pac-12 refs?

In the past a major complaint was that Pac 10/12 refs call a lot more penalties. That doesn't seem to be overly so this year in looking through the national rankings in penalties. Though, UCLA is retaining it's perennial (under Mora) place in the bottom 10.

[winflop]

Also keep in mind that it's ONE crew of Pac-12 officials.  The conference could have a majority of sucko refs (yes, that's a technical term) but there may be a crew or two that is actually pretty good).

Or maybe it's because we are the conference without skin in the game?

[winflop]

Also keep in mind that it's ONE crew of Pac-12 officials.  The conference could have a majority of sucko refs (yes, that's a technical term) but there may be a crew or two that is actually pretty good).

Or maybe it's because we are the conference without skin in the game?

[OutsiderFan]

Pac-12 officiating was better this year than I can remember most years being.  Still don't know what a hold is, but they have been less anal about PI calls than in the past.  Even the replays have seemed to be handled correctly.  My one gripe this year has been about spotting the ball accurately.  But the NFL screws that up too.

[OutsiderFan]

Pac-12 officiating was better this year than I can remember most years being.  Still don't know what a hold is, but they have been less anal about PI calls than in the past.  Even the replays have seemed to be handled correctly.  My one gripe this year has been about spotting the ball accurately.  But the NFL screws that up too.

[ColoradoTree]

Pac-12 officiating was better this year than I can remember most years being.  Still don't know what a hold is, but they have been less anal about PI calls than in the past.  Even the replays have seemed to be handled correctly.  My one gripe this year has been about spotting the ball accurately.  But the NFL screws that up too.

I think I generally agree with that.  Sure, there were the occasional times where I was flabbergasted by calls (a few missed calls in the Wazzu game stand out, though not the alleged McCaffrey fumble, which was correctly called*), but unlike the Pac-12 crew that botched the ending of the ND game in South Bend a few years ago (when Stepfan crossed the plane twice), I don't recall a Stanford game this year where I pinned the outcome on the refs.  That said, I can't really comment on how the officiating was in the rest of the conference this year, since I didn't religiously watch the non-Stanford games. 

*Much of the media still refuses to understand that while, yes, McCaffrey lost possession before his foot touched out of bounds, that's not the end of the matter.  (1) He lost possession while in bounds; (2) he then stepped out of bounds while still touching the football, though he had lost control; and (3) the Wazzu player gained possession.  Per the rules, the second an out of bounds player touches the ball, it's a dead ball, the same as if McCaffrey had fumbled it out of bounds, making the Wazzu recovery irrelevant.  Some of the conference officials made mention of this during the game on Twitter and the like, and that penetrated to some media, but folks like Wilner hammered on this for days and still occasionally bring it up as evidence of bad Pac-12 officiating this year.  Sorry for the rant, as I know you all know this, but the seemingly willful blindness to understand the rules on that play still gets under my skin. 

[ColoradoTree]

Pac-12 officiating was better this year than I can remember most years being.  Still don't know what a hold is, but they have been less anal about PI calls than in the past.  Even the replays have seemed to be handled correctly.  My one gripe this year has been about spotting the ball accurately.  But the NFL screws that up too.

I think I generally agree with that.  Sure, there were the occasional times where I was flabbergasted by calls (a few missed calls in the Wazzu game stand out, though not the alleged McCaffrey fumble, which was correctly called*), but unlike the Pac-12 crew that botched the ending of the ND game in South Bend a few years ago (when Stepfan crossed the plane twice), I don't recall a Stanford game this year where I pinned the outcome on the refs.  That said, I can't really comment on how the officiating was in the rest of the conference this year, since I didn't religiously watch the non-Stanford games. 

*Much of the media still refuses to understand that while, yes, McCaffrey lost possession before his foot touched out of bounds, that's not the end of the matter.  (1) He lost possession while in bounds; (2) he then stepped out of bounds while still touching the football, though he had lost control; and (3) the Wazzu player gained possession.  Per the rules, the second an out of bounds player touches the ball, it's a dead ball, the same as if McCaffrey had fumbled it out of bounds, making the Wazzu recovery irrelevant.  Some of the conference officials made mention of this during the game on Twitter and the like, and that penetrated to some media, but folks like Wilner hammered on this for days and still occasionally bring it up as evidence of bad Pac-12 officiating this year.  Sorry for the rant, as I know you all know this, but the seemingly willful blindness to understand the rules on that play still gets under my skin. 

[Mick]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=13993.msg147242#msg147242 date=1449756901]
Pac-12 officiating was better this year than I can remember most years being.  Still don't know what a hold is, but they have been less anal about PI calls than in the past.  Even the replays have seemed to be handled correctly.  My one gripe this year has been about spotting the ball accurately.  But the NFL screws that up too.

I think I generally agree with that.  Sure, there were the occasional times where I was flabbergasted by calls (a few missed calls in the Wazzu game stand out, though not the alleged McCaffrey fumble, which was correctly called*), but unlike the Pac-12 crew that botched the ending of the ND game in South Bend a few years ago (when Stepfan crossed the plane twice), I don't recall a Stanford game this year where I pinned the outcome on the refs.  That said, I can't really comment on how the officiating was in the rest of the conference this year, since I didn't religiously watch the non-Stanford games. 

*Much of the media still refuses to understand that while, yes, McCaffrey lost possession before his foot touched out of bounds, that's not the end of the matter.  (1) He lost possession while in bounds; (2) he then stepped out of bounds while still touching the football, though he had lost control; and (3) the Wazzu player gained possession.  Per the rules, the second an out of bounds player touches the ball, it's a dead ball, the same as if McCaffrey had fumbled it out of bounds, making the Wazzu recovery irrelevant.  Some of the conference officials made mention of this during the game on Twitter and the like, and that penetrated to some media, but folks like Wilner hammered on this for days and still occasionally bring it up as evidence of bad Pac-12 officiating this year.  Sorry for the rant, as I know you all know this, but the seemingly willful blindness to understand the rules on that play still gets under my skin.
[/quote]


BTW, I know this isn't really reasonable, but it drives me crazy when one or more of the announcers get the call wrong, and continue to maintain the wrongness of the call.  Learn the rule book, fellas.

[Mick]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=13993.msg147242#msg147242 date=1449756901]
Pac-12 officiating was better this year than I can remember most years being.  Still don't know what a hold is, but they have been less anal about PI calls than in the past.  Even the replays have seemed to be handled correctly.  My one gripe this year has been about spotting the ball accurately.  But the NFL screws that up too.

I think I generally agree with that.  Sure, there were the occasional times where I was flabbergasted by calls (a few missed calls in the Wazzu game stand out, though not the alleged McCaffrey fumble, which was correctly called*), but unlike the Pac-12 crew that botched the ending of the ND game in South Bend a few years ago (when Stepfan crossed the plane twice), I don't recall a Stanford game this year where I pinned the outcome on the refs.  That said, I can't really comment on how the officiating was in the rest of the conference this year, since I didn't religiously watch the non-Stanford games. 

*Much of the media still refuses to understand that while, yes, McCaffrey lost possession before his foot touched out of bounds, that's not the end of the matter.  (1) He lost possession while in bounds; (2) he then stepped out of bounds while still touching the football, though he had lost control; and (3) the Wazzu player gained possession.  Per the rules, the second an out of bounds player touches the ball, it's a dead ball, the same as if McCaffrey had fumbled it out of bounds, making the Wazzu recovery irrelevant.  Some of the conference officials made mention of this during the game on Twitter and the like, and that penetrated to some media, but folks like Wilner hammered on this for days and still occasionally bring it up as evidence of bad Pac-12 officiating this year.  Sorry for the rant, as I know you all know this, but the seemingly willful blindness to understand the rules on that play still gets under my skin.
[/quote]


BTW, I know this isn't really reasonable, but it drives me crazy when one or more of the announcers get the call wrong, and continue to maintain the wrongness of the call.  Learn the rule book, fellas.

[BostonCard]

*Much of the media still refuses to understand that while, yes, McCaffrey lost possession before his foot touched out of bounds, that's not the end of the matter.  (1) He lost possession while in bounds; (2) he then stepped out of bounds while still touching the football, though he had lost control; and (3) the Wazzu player gained possession.  Per the rules, the second an out of bounds player touches the ball, it's a dead ball, the same as if McCaffrey had fumbled it out of bounds, making the Wazzu recovery irrelevant.  Some of the conference officials made mention of this during the game on Twitter and the like, and that penetrated to some media, but folks like Wilner hammered on this for days and still occasionally bring it up as evidence of bad Pac-12 officiating this year.  Sorry for the rant, as I know you all know this, but the seemingly willful blindness to understand the rules on that play still gets under my skin.

Wilner seems to go out of his way to talk about how egregious calls were that went in our favor.  In addition to hammering on the out of bounds call, he hammered on Reid's block during McCaffrey's kickoff return for a touchdown even though there was no holding (just a kicker being totally dominated by a good block).  He also hammered on a pass interference against Notre Dame that was in our favor (though he didn't explain why), when a) there was definite contact, b) because of the interference, our tight end had to jump outwards to catch the ball instead of jumping upwards, c) because he jumped out, he landed out of bounds.

I think Wilner tries really hard (sometimes a bit too hard) not to appear to be a homer for Stanford (and I think Cal fans feel the same way about him going out of his way to criticize the Bears).

BC

[BostonCard]

*Much of the media still refuses to understand that while, yes, McCaffrey lost possession before his foot touched out of bounds, that's not the end of the matter.  (1) He lost possession while in bounds; (2) he then stepped out of bounds while still touching the football, though he had lost control; and (3) the Wazzu player gained possession.  Per the rules, the second an out of bounds player touches the ball, it's a dead ball, the same as if McCaffrey had fumbled it out of bounds, making the Wazzu recovery irrelevant.  Some of the conference officials made mention of this during the game on Twitter and the like, and that penetrated to some media, but folks like Wilner hammered on this for days and still occasionally bring it up as evidence of bad Pac-12 officiating this year.  Sorry for the rant, as I know you all know this, but the seemingly willful blindness to understand the rules on that play still gets under my skin.

Wilner seems to go out of his way to talk about how egregious calls were that went in our favor.  In addition to hammering on the out of bounds call, he hammered on Reid's block during McCaffrey's kickoff return for a touchdown even though there was no holding (just a kicker being totally dominated by a good block).  He also hammered on a pass interference against Notre Dame that was in our favor (though he didn't explain why), when a) there was definite contact, b) because of the interference, our tight end had to jump outwards to catch the ball instead of jumping upwards, c) because he jumped out, he landed out of bounds.

I think Wilner tries really hard (sometimes a bit too hard) not to appear to be a homer for Stanford (and I think Cal fans feel the same way about him going out of his way to criticize the Bears).

BC

[Bruce Wang]

GlassesRef: Tan, Rested, and Ready.

[Bruce Wang]

GlassesRef: Tan, Rested, and Ready.

[fullmetal]

Better than ACC refs.  Did you see that offsides on the successful onside kick by UNC against Clemson?  Neither did the instant replay.  But the refs let that flag stand.

[fullmetal]

Better than ACC refs.  Did you see that offsides on the successful onside kick by UNC against Clemson?  Neither did the instant replay.  But the refs let that flag stand.

[CTcard]

BTW, I know this isn't really reasonable, but it drives me crazy when one or more of the announcers get the call wrong, and continue to maintain the wrongness of the call.  Learn the rule book, fellas.

Initially whether McCaffrey fumbled in bounds and whether the WSU guy recovered in bounds seemed like the relevant issues. However, a little later the announcers did get and report the reasoning from the replay guy and mentioned it on the air. It seems few people were listening at that point, but I think they handled it alright - though they could have been a little more clear and emphasized more what exactly the call was.

And, it seems that the officials did get the call technically wrong on the field as I think the initial ruling was that McCaffrey was out of bounds before he fumbled. 

Wilner seems to go out of his way to talk about how egregious calls were that went in our favor.  In addition to hammering on the out of bounds call, he hammered on Reid's block during McCaffrey's kickoff return for a touchdown even though there was no holding (just a kicker being totally dominated by a good block).  He also hammered on a pass interference against the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends that was in our favor

I noticed the same and thought his stream of reporting was a little odd.

He had a series of posts either on or refering to the McCaffrey fumble. First he described the issues incorrectly and concluded that it was so close one couldn't tell - and he was wrong on both counts. Then he interviewed the head of the Pac 12 officiating about the call, quoted the guy on some irrelevant things, still described the issues incorrectly (without any quotations), and seemed to conclude it was just one of those so close it could go either way calls.

Then, after the c.a.l. game, he lumps that in with the non-hold call and says Stanford is benefiting from major officiating errors down the line, with the PI call against und fitting the narrative. What struck me the most was his apparent re-evaluation of the McCaffrey fumble in the wrong direction.

[I think technically Reid was holding on the kickoff return as you are not allowed to use your hands outside the frame of the body, and Reid's left(?) hand can be seen on the outside of the c.a.l. guys shoulder. It was, however, the sort of thing that happens tens of times in every game without getting called.]

I also agree that Wilner's motivation for some of these things is to not appear as a homer. My guess is that among folks who consider themselves serious sports journalists (is that an oxymoron?), "homer" is a term of disdain.
Any truth to that Garvin?

[CTcard]

BTW, I know this isn't really reasonable, but it drives me crazy when one or more of the announcers get the call wrong, and continue to maintain the wrongness of the call.  Learn the rule book, fellas.

Initially whether McCaffrey fumbled in bounds and whether the WSU guy recovered in bounds seemed like the relevant issues. However, a little later the announcers did get and report the reasoning from the replay guy and mentioned it on the air. It seems few people were listening at that point, but I think they handled it alright - though they could have been a little more clear and emphasized more what exactly the call was.

And, it seems that the officials did get the call technically wrong on the field as I think the initial ruling was that McCaffrey was out of bounds before he fumbled. 

Wilner seems to go out of his way to talk about how egregious calls were that went in our favor.  In addition to hammering on the out of bounds call, he hammered on Reid's block during McCaffrey's kickoff return for a touchdown even though there was no holding (just a kicker being totally dominated by a good block).  He also hammered on a pass interference against the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends that was in our favor

I noticed the same and thought his stream of reporting was a little odd.

He had a series of posts either on or refering to the McCaffrey fumble. First he described the issues incorrectly and concluded that it was so close one couldn't tell - and he was wrong on both counts. Then he interviewed the head of the Pac 12 officiating about the call, quoted the guy on some irrelevant things, still described the issues incorrectly (without any quotations), and seemed to conclude it was just one of those so close it could go either way calls.

Then, after the c.a.l. game, he lumps that in with the non-hold call and says Stanford is benefiting from major officiating errors down the line, with the PI call against und fitting the narrative. What struck me the most was his apparent re-evaluation of the McCaffrey fumble in the wrong direction.

[I think technically Reid was holding on the kickoff return as you are not allowed to use your hands outside the frame of the body, and Reid's left(?) hand can be seen on the outside of the c.a.l. guys shoulder. It was, however, the sort of thing that happens tens of times in every game without getting called.]

I also agree that Wilner's motivation for some of these things is to not appear as a homer. My guess is that among folks who consider themselves serious sports journalists (is that an oxymoron?), "homer" is a term of disdain.
Any truth to that Garvin?

[stupac2]

Well a "homer" is a term of disdain for any fan, really, since it means that you're beyond reason with your love of your team. I tend to think that's universally a bad thing for everything except personal relationships.

The problem, of course, is when you go too far in the other direction. It's possible to just, you know, be accurate and be neither a homer nor excessively critical. I really like the Patriots beat writer on ESPN, who is perfectly willing to call bullshit on either anti- or pro-team narratives in the media. It's surprising how uncommon that is.

[stupac2]

Well a "homer" is a term of disdain for any fan, really, since it means that you're beyond reason with your love of your team. I tend to think that's universally a bad thing for everything except personal relationships.

The problem, of course, is when you go too far in the other direction. It's possible to just, you know, be accurate and be neither a homer nor excessively critical. I really like the Patriots beat writer on ESPN, who is perfectly willing to call bullshit on either anti- or pro-team narratives in the media. It's surprising how uncommon that is.