[Tycho124]

The man says the call on the field should not have been over-turned.  Sounds to me like this joker took Oregon and gave the points.  Fans may disagree (particulary those in Oregon and everyone who hates Notre Dame) but analysists agreed that Stanford got the TD.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball...all-111712

[Tycho124]

The man says the call on the field should not have been over-turned.  Sounds to me like this joker took Oregon and gave the points.  Fans may disagree (particulary those in Oregon and everyone who hates Notre Dame) but analysists agreed that Stanford got the TD.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball...all-111712

[jayasena]

Who's Mike Pereira and who cares what he thinks?

[jayasena]

Who's Mike Pereira and who cares what he thinks?

[OutsiderFan]

Let's keep in mind, the TD to Ertz was 1st down.  Even if it was not ruled a catch, which it sure as hell was to everyone watching who wasn't a Duck fan, Stanford still had three more plays to score.

And since when do refs not inject themselves into games, particularly Pac-12 football refs?  Did the ref not inject himself on the outrageous PI call on Reynolds against Lyerla?  Did the ref not insert himself in the game on the absurd PI call on Terrence Brown on 4th down against Eifert?  Did the ref not insert himself in the game on the ridiculous OPI call against Baldwin at Oregon in 2010?

Pereira offers nothing of value as an analyst, and he sure as heck didn't do much to improve Pac-12 football officiating in the aftermath of being retained to improve it.  The Pac-12 is week in and week out the home of the worst officiating in college football.

[OutsiderFan]

Let's keep in mind, the TD to Ertz was 1st down.  Even if it was not ruled a catch, which it sure as hell was to everyone watching who wasn't a Duck fan, Stanford still had three more plays to score.

And since when do refs not inject themselves into games, particularly Pac-12 football refs?  Did the ref not inject himself on the outrageous PI call on Reynolds against Lyerla?  Did the ref not insert himself in the game on the absurd PI call on Terrence Brown on 4th down against Eifert?  Did the ref not insert himself in the game on the ridiculous OPI call against Baldwin at Oregon in 2010?

Pereira offers nothing of value as an analyst, and he sure as heck didn't do much to improve Pac-12 football officiating in the aftermath of being retained to improve it.  The Pac-12 is week in and week out the home of the worst officiating in college football.

[FarmBoy]

Outsider hit it on the head. We had three more downs after that play. In some ways, we probably scored too early. There was a lot of time left on the clock for Oregon to pull off another 1 minute TD drill (which is their standard TD scoring drive.)

[FarmBoy]

Outsider hit it on the head. We had three more downs after that play. In some ways, we probably scored too early. There was a lot of time left on the clock for Oregon to pull off another 1 minute TD drill (which is their standard TD scoring drive.)

[washingtonismoney]

Outsider hit it on the head. We had three more downs after that play. In some ways, we probably scored too early. There was a lot of time left on the clock for Oregon to pull off another 1 minute TD drill (which is their standard TD scoring drive.)

With our defense, we expected the ball back to get another shot in the 4Q. And we would've, if it weren't for the bogus PI call.

I'd give Hogan a fighting chance to do it, too, if he had decent field position.

[washingtonismoney]

Outsider hit it on the head. We had three more downs after that play. In some ways, we probably scored too early. There was a lot of time left on the clock for Oregon to pull off another 1 minute TD drill (which is their standard TD scoring drive.)

With our defense, we expected the ball back to get another shot in the 4Q. And we would've, if it weren't for the bogus PI call.

I'd give Hogan a fighting chance to do it, too, if he had decent field position.

[Nan3cy]

I'm sure replay officials will love his theory that if fans or players disagree, a call shouldn't be changed. Under that policy, the replay officials could spend the afternoon drinking beer and ogling cheerleaders through binoculars, then collect their paychecks, because no play would ever be reversed.

When I read this I just had a vision of the refs who presided at the Screw of 82.  >:(

[Nan3cy]

I'm sure replay officials will love his theory that if fans or players disagree, a call shouldn't be changed. Under that policy, the replay officials could spend the afternoon drinking beer and ogling cheerleaders through binoculars, then collect their paychecks, because no play would ever be reversed.

When I read this I just had a vision of the refs who presided at the Screw of 82.  >:(

[ChicagoCard]

Not only was it 1st down, there's another point that never seemed to come up (with the announcers or other forums). What the heck does the rule book say? If whether the ball has crossed the plane of the goal line factors in to so many situations, why doesn't it come down to whether Ertz possessed the ball on top of the defender inside the plain. I know that you have to possess the ball and get one foot down typically. This particular situation was less common. Maybe I'm not thinking about this right, but what if Ertz possesses the ball entirely inside the planes and is on top of the defender? Not a TD?

[ChicagoCard]

Not only was it 1st down, there's another point that never seemed to come up (with the announcers or other forums). What the heck does the rule book say? If whether the ball has crossed the plane of the goal line factors in to so many situations, why doesn't it come down to whether Ertz possessed the ball on top of the defender inside the plain. I know that you have to possess the ball and get one foot down typically. This particular situation was less common. Maybe I'm not thinking about this right, but what if Ertz possesses the ball entirely inside the planes and is on top of the defender? Not a TD?

[Renaissance Man]

Interestingly, Pereira wrote an article after the ND game, and said that we were robbed.

[Renaissance Man]

Interestingly, Pereira wrote an article after the ND game, and said that we were robbed.

[shinsengumi]

I wondered about this, too. The point of the rule is to ensure that a throw and catch are made within the legal boundaries of the field. It makes no sense to shrink the definition of the field by whatever amount is taken up by bodies of lying-down defenders.

Is it possible to have the 11 defenders just lie down and cover the area of the end zone?  ;D

[shinsengumi]

I wondered about this, too. The point of the rule is to ensure that a throw and catch are made within the legal boundaries of the field. It makes no sense to shrink the definition of the field by whatever amount is taken up by bodies of lying-down defenders.

Is it possible to have the 11 defenders just lie down and cover the area of the end zone?  ;D

[Roberton3]

Not only was it 1st down, there's another point that never seemed to come up (with the announcers or other forums). What the heck does the rule book say? If whether the ball has crossed the plane of the goal line factors in to so many situations, why doesn't it come down to whether Ertz possessed the ball on top of the defender inside the plain. I know that you have to possess the ball and get one foot down typically. This particular situation was less common. Maybe I'm not thinking about this right, but what if Ertz possesses the ball entirely inside the planes and is on top of the defender? Not a TD?

I think the key is that if you catch a pass in the end zone, some part of your body needs to touch the ground in bounds after the catch.  So if you catch the ball, land on a defender (so you don't touch the ground) and then go out of bounds, it's not a touchdown.  It's the same as if you caught the ball in the air and got pushed out of bounds before coming down.  Under the old NFL force-out rule, there'd be no issue.  But college football doesn't have that rule.

[Roberton3]

Not only was it 1st down, there's another point that never seemed to come up (with the announcers or other forums). What the heck does the rule book say? If whether the ball has crossed the plane of the goal line factors in to so many situations, why doesn't it come down to whether Ertz possessed the ball on top of the defender inside the plain. I know that you have to possess the ball and get one foot down typically. This particular situation was less common. Maybe I'm not thinking about this right, but what if Ertz possesses the ball entirely inside the planes and is on top of the defender? Not a TD?

I think the key is that if you catch a pass in the end zone, some part of your body needs to touch the ground in bounds after the catch.  So if you catch the ball, land on a defender (so you don't touch the ground) and then go out of bounds, it's not a touchdown.  It's the same as if you caught the ball in the air and got pushed out of bounds before coming down.  Under the old NFL force-out rule, there'd be no issue.  But college football doesn't have that rule.

[Oasis]

We also don't know that Stanford wouldn't have found another way to score.  And we did get robbed at Rustbelt Dartmouth.

[Oasis]

We also don't know that Stanford wouldn't have found another way to score.  And we did get robbed at Rustbelt Dartmouth.

[Roberton3]

Is it possible to have the 11 defenders just lie down and cover the area of the end zone?

If they were all Lopi.

Being a total geek and taking a joke literally:

The area of the end zone is 4800 square feet, so each of the 11 defenders has to cover 436 square feet.  If you're 7 feet tall, that means you need to be roughly 62 feet wide.  Football players are getting bigger every year, but it'll still take them a while before this is a risk.

[Roberton3]

Is it possible to have the 11 defenders just lie down and cover the area of the end zone?

If they were all Lopi.

Being a total geek and taking a joke literally:

The area of the end zone is 4800 square feet, so each of the 11 defenders has to cover 436 square feet.  If you're 7 feet tall, that means you need to be roughly 62 feet wide.  Football players are getting bigger every year, but it'll still take them a while before this is a risk.

[TreeWeird]

You didn't take their arms into account.

Or Robin's hair.

[TreeWeird]

You didn't take their arms into account.

Or Robin's hair.

[76lsjumb]

Great quote from the column:

"I'm beginning to wonder if replay has gotten beyond the point of just correcting obvious errors. Are we just getting into the minutia of things?
TV announcer Mike Patrick once said of replay: If you look at it the first time and see it's wrong, then change it. But if you have to look at the play over and over again, then leave it alone.
I agree."

Mike Pereira just rendered himself a self-cancelling phrase. His sole job on Fox Sports, as far as I can tell, is to offer an opinion from the booth on the minutia of things when it comes to replay.  If all replays should be decided on the basis of one look at the video, who needs Mike Pereira?  And, especially, who needs Mike Pereira writing a column the day AFTER the game?  I'm reminded of Lou Holtz's reasoning after the N.D. game when he said that, of course, Taylor didn't score and N.D. won, because, after all, N.D. had not lost yet this season.

[76lsjumb]

Great quote from the column:

"I'm beginning to wonder if replay has gotten beyond the point of just correcting obvious errors. Are we just getting into the minutia of things?
TV announcer Mike Patrick once said of replay: If you look at it the first time and see it's wrong, then change it. But if you have to look at the play over and over again, then leave it alone.
I agree."

Mike Pereira just rendered himself a self-cancelling phrase. His sole job on Fox Sports, as far as I can tell, is to offer an opinion from the booth on the minutia of things when it comes to replay.  If all replays should be decided on the basis of one look at the video, who needs Mike Pereira?  And, especially, who needs Mike Pereira writing a column the day AFTER the game?  I'm reminded of Lou Holtz's reasoning after the N.D. game when he said that, of course, Taylor didn't score and N.D. won, because, after all, N.D. had not lost yet this season.

[Cardinal96]

Pereira wasn't taking a view as to whether Ertz scored a TD.  His point was merely that there was no inconclusive proof that he scored one sufficient to overturn the call on the field.  If the situation were reversed and the officials called it a TD, he would likewise argue that the call should not be overturned.

I respect Pereira and it is nice to hear his take on questionable calls.

[Cardinal96]

Pereira wasn't taking a view as to whether Ertz scored a TD.  His point was merely that there was no inconclusive proof that he scored one sufficient to overturn the call on the field.  If the situation were reversed and the officials called it a TD, he would likewise argue that the call should not be overturned.

I respect Pereira and it is nice to hear his take on questionable calls.

[CompSci87]

I respect Pereira in general. In this particular case, the call on the field was made by a ref who could not see what actually happened -- Ertz's back was to him, so there was no way he could tell whether Ertz had possession. The ref coming from the other direction should have made the call. In the pre-replay days the refs would have huddled and the one with the better view might well have called it a TD and prevailed. So I think a very careful look at the video without much concern for the original ruling was warranted.

[CompSci87]

I respect Pereira in general. In this particular case, the call on the field was made by a ref who could not see what actually happened -- Ertz's back was to him, so there was no way he could tell whether Ertz had possession. The ref coming from the other direction should have made the call. In the pre-replay days the refs would have huddled and the one with the better view might well have called it a TD and prevailed. So I think a very careful look at the video without much concern for the original ruling was warranted.

[Farm93]

I respect Pereira in general. In this particular case, the call on the field was made by a ref who could not see what actually happened -- Ertz's back was to him, so there was no way he could tell whether Ertz had possession. The ref coming from the other direction should have made the call. In the pre-replay days the refs would have huddled and the one with the better view might well have called it a TD and prevailed. So I think a very careful look at the video without much concern for the original ruling was warranted.

If you noticed the ref from the other side did nothing and said nothing.  The one ref is pointing and acting as if he was 100% certain.  The other ref was not confirming the call in any way.  My guess, and it is a guess, but my guess is that the other ref did see it differently.  However, he knew it would get to replay anyway.

However, in some ways we want to embrace this concept that they were robbed.  Oregon still has a chance at playing the SEC champ in the BCS CG.  At this point it will be either Notre Dame, Oregon, K-State or SEC #2 playing SEC #1 in the BCS CG.  Of that group, I want Oregon.  And voters will be sympathetic to the idea that Oregon lost a very, very close game while K-State was blasted by a losing team.  I don't really want SC to beat ND, but I don't want to spend all of December hearing about ND's rise to the top.

[Farm93]

I respect Pereira in general. In this particular case, the call on the field was made by a ref who could not see what actually happened -- Ertz's back was to him, so there was no way he could tell whether Ertz had possession. The ref coming from the other direction should have made the call. In the pre-replay days the refs would have huddled and the one with the better view might well have called it a TD and prevailed. So I think a very careful look at the video without much concern for the original ruling was warranted.

If you noticed the ref from the other side did nothing and said nothing.  The one ref is pointing and acting as if he was 100% certain.  The other ref was not confirming the call in any way.  My guess, and it is a guess, but my guess is that the other ref did see it differently.  However, he knew it would get to replay anyway.

However, in some ways we want to embrace this concept that they were robbed.  Oregon still has a chance at playing the SEC champ in the BCS CG.  At this point it will be either Notre Dame, Oregon, K-State or SEC #2 playing SEC #1 in the BCS CG.  Of that group, I want Oregon.  And voters will be sympathetic to the idea that Oregon lost a very, very close game while K-State was blasted by a losing team.  I don't really want SC to beat ND, but I don't want to spend all of December hearing about ND's rise to the top.

[g1313]

I respect Pereira in general. In this particular case, the call on the field was made by a ref who could not see what actually happened -- Ertz's back was to him, so there was no way he could tell whether Ertz had possession. The ref coming from the other direction should have made the call. In the pre-replay days the refs would have huddled and the one with the better view might well have called it a TD and prevailed. So I think a very careful look at the video without much concern for the original ruling was warranted.

I think that the ref standing behind the end zone made his call based on seeing Ertz land with his shoulder outside of the end zone - that's what I thought when watching it live, and that ref had the best view of it. If that had happened, then possession doesn't matter. It took quite a lot of replays to see that his other shoulder landed in bounds first, so I can't really fault him for that call.

If I had to be absolutely objective, I might question whether Ertz really had possession all the way through - on replay, it looked like when he landed, he had a firm grasp of the ball near his beltline, but his body hitting the ground caused it to come up a bit, and Ertz had to re-establish his grip.

At the end of the day, it was 1st and goal and we probably score anyway.

[g1313]

I respect Pereira in general. In this particular case, the call on the field was made by a ref who could not see what actually happened -- Ertz's back was to him, so there was no way he could tell whether Ertz had possession. The ref coming from the other direction should have made the call. In the pre-replay days the refs would have huddled and the one with the better view might well have called it a TD and prevailed. So I think a very careful look at the video without much concern for the original ruling was warranted.

I think that the ref standing behind the end zone made his call based on seeing Ertz land with his shoulder outside of the end zone - that's what I thought when watching it live, and that ref had the best view of it. If that had happened, then possession doesn't matter. It took quite a lot of replays to see that his other shoulder landed in bounds first, so I can't really fault him for that call.

If I had to be absolutely objective, I might question whether Ertz really had possession all the way through - on replay, it looked like when he landed, he had a firm grasp of the ball near his beltline, but his body hitting the ground caused it to come up a bit, and Ertz had to re-establish his grip.

At the end of the day, it was 1st and goal and we probably score anyway.

[CowboyIndian]

  If you're 7 feet tall, that means you need to be roughly 62 feet wide. 

They just need to get older guys. I am nearing 62 feet wide myself. I have a closet full of Wranglers that I keep in the fading hopes of going the other direction.

[CowboyIndian]

  If you're 7 feet tall, that means you need to be roughly 62 feet wide. 

They just need to get older guys. I am nearing 62 feet wide myself. I have a closet full of Wranglers that I keep in the fading hopes of going the other direction.

[M T]

According to the NCAA rules, it does appear that if an offensive player catches the ball on the 1 yard line, the defender can catch the player in the air and carry him on his shoulder (without ever stopping forward progress) through the endzone and out the back of the endzone before allowing the player to touch the ground, then the pass is incomplete.  If the offensive player's forward progress stops, then the player is considered down and the pass is completed.

The same thing is true on the sideline.  If you catch the offensive player in the air and carry him 10 yards without stopping forward progresss to the side line and out of bounds, it is an incomplete pass.

[M T]

According to the NCAA rules, it does appear that if an offensive player catches the ball on the 1 yard line, the defender can catch the player in the air and carry him on his shoulder (without ever stopping forward progress) through the endzone and out the back of the endzone before allowing the player to touch the ground, then the pass is incomplete.  If the offensive player's forward progress stops, then the player is considered down and the pass is completed.

The same thing is true on the sideline.  If you catch the offensive player in the air and carry him 10 yards without stopping forward progresss to the side line and out of bounds, it is an incomplete pass.