[jacketree]

Cool to finally see that sequence.  I was on emergency BBQ duty for a CCS game, so another Stanford guy and I were tracking the score using a phone app between our hand crafted charcoal and cheese masterpieces.  Score went from 31-13 to 31-10 so we had no idea what happened. Figured they just subtracted a field goal from Cal out of spite or something.

On further review, I think he got in on the first call back (terrible camera angle - hope they had an shot down the line to go on); didn't get in on the second; and the third is really open to interpretation. I think he caught the ball, had clear possession, spun and clipped the pylon before dropping it after that. Should probably be a touchdown.  Interesting that on the reviews Stanford was guilty of a face mask infraction and a couple of linemen sure looked like they were offside at the snap.

Mrs. Jacketree wasn't miffed at that sequence because the game was already decided.  She thought the first play ejection was B.S. though.  We really didn't talk about the game much more than that, although I'll be sneaking in a replay when she falls asleep on the couch one of these days.

I've certainly been on the other side of this and it's no fun.

[jacketree]

Cool to finally see that sequence.  I was on emergency BBQ duty for a CCS game, so another Stanford guy and I were tracking the score using a phone app between our hand crafted charcoal and cheese masterpieces.  Score went from 31-13 to 31-10 so we had no idea what happened. Figured they just subtracted a field goal from Cal out of spite or something.

On further review, I think he got in on the first call back (terrible camera angle - hope they had an shot down the line to go on); didn't get in on the second; and the third is really open to interpretation. I think he caught the ball, had clear possession, spun and clipped the pylon before dropping it after that. Should probably be a touchdown.  Interesting that on the reviews Stanford was guilty of a face mask infraction and a couple of linemen sure looked like they were offside at the snap.

Mrs. Jacketree wasn't miffed at that sequence because the game was already decided.  She thought the first play ejection was B.S. though.  We really didn't talk about the game much more than that, although I'll be sneaking in a replay when she falls asleep on the couch one of these days.

I've certainly been on the other side of this and it's no fun.

[71Bear]

Well..  Larry Scott had the final word today.  He said two of the three calls should not have been reversed due to lack of indisputable evidence. 

Hopefully, this results in a change in P12 officiating.

As I have said numerous times, P12 refs are the worst in the country.  Their only redeeming characteristic is they do not play favorites.  They punish every team with their incompetence....

[71Bear]

Well..  Larry Scott had the final word today.  He said two of the three calls should not have been reversed due to lack of indisputable evidence. 

Hopefully, this results in a change in P12 officiating.

As I have said numerous times, P12 refs are the worst in the country.  Their only redeeming characteristic is they do not play favorites.  They punish every team with their incompetence....

[g1313]

For what it's worth, I thought he got in on the second run, but not the first. This particular replay video makes it seem like the second one was definitely not in, but it doesn't show a critical part where Rebenzer reaches out his arm (and the ball) while he is going to the ground and then pulls it back (the video picks up only after he pulls it back), and to my eyes on the Fox broadcast it looked like he broke the plane when he reached out.

[g1313]

For what it's worth, I thought he got in on the second run, but not the first. This particular replay video makes it seem like the second one was definitely not in, but it doesn't show a critical part where Rebenzer reaches out his arm (and the ball) while he is going to the ground and then pulls it back (the video picks up only after he pulls it back), and to my eyes on the Fox broadcast it looked like he broke the plane when he reached out.

[OutsiderFan]

Anyone with functioning eyes could see Rubenzer got in on the second try but not the first.  Unfortunately, for the umpteenth time, there was no sideline view of the second play.  Still, you could tell from behind the end zone that the ball crossed the plane, not when the ball hit the ground, but before.  I'm not sure what a catch is and isn't anymore, so I don't have a beef with the 3rd overturn.  The second one was brutal because there was a dead ball foul after the play was over that moved the ball back 15 yards from inside the one.

Ca.l might have gained some momentum and Stanford might have gone full turtle on offense in the 4th to make the game interesting had the reversals not all happened, but difficult to imagine the winner would have been different.  Just more egg on the faces of the Pac-12 and its game officials for this particular game and every game they touch in general.

[OutsiderFan]

Anyone with functioning eyes could see Rubenzer got in on the second try but not the first.  Unfortunately, for the umpteenth time, there was no sideline view of the second play.  Still, you could tell from behind the end zone that the ball crossed the plane, not when the ball hit the ground, but before.  I'm not sure what a catch is and isn't anymore, so I don't have a beef with the 3rd overturn.  The second one was brutal because there was a dead ball foul after the play was over that moved the ball back 15 yards from inside the one.

Ca.l might have gained some momentum and Stanford might have gone full turtle on offense in the 4th to make the game interesting had the reversals not all happened, but difficult to imagine the winner would have been different.  Just more egg on the faces of the Pac-12 and its game officials for this particular game and every game they touch in general.

[CTcard]

Well..  Larry Scott had the final word today.  He said two of the three calls should not have been reversed due to lack of indisputable evidence. 

Interestingly, there seems to be no place on the Pac 12 web site where they actually post such an announcement - at least that I can find. I guess they have sent it out to media outlets. Somehow I would think that if they bother to do this they would want an official version available to everyone.

The following seems to be the text of the statement.

The Pac-12 Conference acknowledged that its instant replay crew made two errors in the Stanford-California game Saturday, November 22, Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott announced today.

During a California possession late in the third quarter, the instant replay crew reviewed three consecutive on-field touchdown calls by the game officials on one California offensive possession.

The NCAA Playing Rules state that to reverse an on-field ruling, the replay official must be convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence.

Through the Conference’s officiating and game management review process, it was determined that there was not enough evidence through video replay for the instant replay crew to overturn the second and third touchdown calls made by the officials on the field.

The replay crew will be held accountable for the errors through the Conference’s disciplinary process.

First of all, while I think it was pretty clear that they did not score on the second play in question, the fact that there was no TV-shot down the goal line probably means there wasn't indisputatble evidence.

The third one is technically interesting. The replays are completely clear about what happened, there is simply a judgement call as to whether Lawler made a "football move" before hitting the ground and dropping the ball or if he just fell into the end zone. There is no lack of evidence on the play, just a call to be made. Given that the spirit of replay review is to not overturn a call on the field unless one must, I can see that perhaps it should not have been overturned. However, given the rule as written and as practiced recently the call is in line with the current standard.

By the way, here is the example in the NCAA's "Instant Replay Casebook" that the officials used,

28. Pass in the end zone
First and goal on the B-5. A80 leaps and clearly controls a pass while airborne in the end zone. He is going to the ground and loses the ball as his body hits in the end zone. Officials rule TD.
RULING:
Reviewable play, regarding whether pass was complete. Reverse to incomplete pass, A 2-Goal on B-5 (Rule 12-3-2-a)

and further,

If there is any question of whether the catch has been completed, if he goes to the ground during the process of the catch and loses the ball, whether on his own or due to contact by an opponent, then the pass is incomplete (Rule 12-3-2-a).

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd.../FBC14.pdf p.18

[I also note that this is pretty high up on the most-hated and least-understood rules list. It doesn't make sense to most fans that a player can apparently have good control of the ball then lose the reception because of what happens when he hits the ground - the whole "ground can't cause a fumble" bit, even though we're not talking about a fumble here. Still, that's the rule.]

Finally, I think any necessary discipline for officials is best handled internally. I don't see where announcements like this do any good and makes the Pac 12 authorities seem overly PR-concious.

[CTcard]

Well..  Larry Scott had the final word today.  He said two of the three calls should not have been reversed due to lack of indisputable evidence. 

Interestingly, there seems to be no place on the Pac 12 web site where they actually post such an announcement - at least that I can find. I guess they have sent it out to media outlets. Somehow I would think that if they bother to do this they would want an official version available to everyone.

The following seems to be the text of the statement.

The Pac-12 Conference acknowledged that its instant replay crew made two errors in the Stanford-California game Saturday, November 22, Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott announced today.

During a California possession late in the third quarter, the instant replay crew reviewed three consecutive on-field touchdown calls by the game officials on one California offensive possession.

The NCAA Playing Rules state that to reverse an on-field ruling, the replay official must be convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence.

Through the Conference’s officiating and game management review process, it was determined that there was not enough evidence through video replay for the instant replay crew to overturn the second and third touchdown calls made by the officials on the field.

The replay crew will be held accountable for the errors through the Conference’s disciplinary process.

First of all, while I think it was pretty clear that they did not score on the second play in question, the fact that there was no TV-shot down the goal line probably means there wasn't indisputatble evidence.

The third one is technically interesting. The replays are completely clear about what happened, there is simply a judgement call as to whether Lawler made a "football move" before hitting the ground and dropping the ball or if he just fell into the end zone. There is no lack of evidence on the play, just a call to be made. Given that the spirit of replay review is to not overturn a call on the field unless one must, I can see that perhaps it should not have been overturned. However, given the rule as written and as practiced recently the call is in line with the current standard.

By the way, here is the example in the NCAA's "Instant Replay Casebook" that the officials used,

28. Pass in the end zone
First and goal on the B-5. A80 leaps and clearly controls a pass while airborne in the end zone. He is going to the ground and loses the ball as his body hits in the end zone. Officials rule TD.
RULING:
Reviewable play, regarding whether pass was complete. Reverse to incomplete pass, A 2-Goal on B-5 (Rule 12-3-2-a)

and further,

If there is any question of whether the catch has been completed, if he goes to the ground during the process of the catch and loses the ball, whether on his own or due to contact by an opponent, then the pass is incomplete (Rule 12-3-2-a).

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd.../FBC14.pdf p.18

[I also note that this is pretty high up on the most-hated and least-understood rules list. It doesn't make sense to most fans that a player can apparently have good control of the ball then lose the reception because of what happens when he hits the ground - the whole "ground can't cause a fumble" bit, even though we're not talking about a fumble here. Still, that's the rule.]

Finally, I think any necessary discipline for officials is best handled internally. I don't see where announcements like this do any good and makes the Pac 12 authorities seem overly PR-concious.

[StanfordMatt]

CTcard hit the nail on the head. I'm not sure which two plays Scott was referring to when he said that they should not have been overturned but I would suspect it was the first two. In my opinion, while the camera angles made the two runs difficult to judge on review, the pass/catch was unequivocally incomplete.

UCB's #4 clearly started going to the ground in the aftermath of catching the ball. By rule, once he initiates this process he could roll around on the ground for 5 minutes and if the ball comes out at the end it's an incomplete pass. The play is analogous to Calvin Johnson's catch vs. Chicago in 2010. Like it or hate it, the rule (for both college and NFL) is clear on this matter.

Calvin Johnson catch and explanation: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81...ohnsons-td

[StanfordMatt]

CTcard hit the nail on the head. I'm not sure which two plays Scott was referring to when he said that they should not have been overturned but I would suspect it was the first two. In my opinion, while the camera angles made the two runs difficult to judge on review, the pass/catch was unequivocally incomplete.

UCB's #4 clearly started going to the ground in the aftermath of catching the ball. By rule, once he initiates this process he could roll around on the ground for 5 minutes and if the ball comes out at the end it's an incomplete pass. The play is analogous to Calvin Johnson's catch vs. Chicago in 2010. Like it or hate it, the rule (for both college and NFL) is clear on this matter.

Calvin Johnson catch and explanation: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81...ohnsons-td

[CTcard]

I'm not sure which two plays Scott was referring to when he said that they should not have been overturned but I would suspect it was the first two.

The statement read,
" it was determined that there was not enough evidence through video replay for the instant replay crew to overturn the second and third touchdown calls"
[emphasis mine]

[CTcard]

I'm not sure which two plays Scott was referring to when he said that they should not have been overturned but I would suspect it was the first two.

The statement read,
" it was determined that there was not enough evidence through video replay for the instant replay crew to overturn the second and third touchdown calls"
[emphasis mine]

[StanfordMatt]

Thanks CTcard. I stand corrected on which plays Scott was referring to; however, I stand by my contention that the pass was incomplete.

[StanfordMatt]

Thanks CTcard. I stand corrected on which plays Scott was referring to; however, I stand by my contention that the pass was incomplete.

[stupac2]

I find it really odd that, of all the baffling and terrible calls we've seen this season, it's these two that the PAC-12 specifically calls out. Maybe they're only comfortable doing it when they have no effect whatsoever on the outcome? If so, get some goddamn balls. If not, get some goddamn consistency.

[stupac2]

I find it really odd that, of all the baffling and terrible calls we've seen this season, it's these two that the PAC-12 specifically calls out. Maybe they're only comfortable doing it when they have no effect whatsoever on the outcome? If so, get some goddamn balls. If not, get some goddamn consistency.

[FarmBoy]

I can't see the game playing out any differently if the score were 31-14 following that sequence vs. the 31-10 score they faced. In both cases, Kal is down by 3 scores. Dykes has an interest in distracting his base from the fact that his poorly prepared team gave up 5 turnovers which is the real reason they lost. The "questionable" ejection and overturned TDs make for convenient scapegoats. I'm bracing for a some animosity at the Thanksgiving table with claims of Pac12 bias for Stanford as the real culprit. Seriously, you were -4 on turnovers on the day. You don't win games when you're -4 on turnovers. Admit that Stanford deserved to retain the axe, that officiating didn't change the final outcome, and move on with your lives.

[FarmBoy]

I can't see the game playing out any differently if the score were 31-14 following that sequence vs. the 31-10 score they faced. In both cases, Kal is down by 3 scores. Dykes has an interest in distracting his base from the fact that his poorly prepared team gave up 5 turnovers which is the real reason they lost. The "questionable" ejection and overturned TDs make for convenient scapegoats. I'm bracing for a some animosity at the Thanksgiving table with claims of Pac12 bias for Stanford as the real culprit. Seriously, you were -4 on turnovers on the day. You don't win games when you're -4 on turnovers. Admit that Stanford deserved to retain the axe, that officiating didn't change the final outcome, and move on with your lives.

[CTcard]

I find it really odd that, of all the baffling and terrible calls we've seen this season, it's these two that the PAC-12 specifically calls out. Maybe they're only comfortable doing it when they have no effect whatsoever on the outcome? If so, get some goddamn balls. If not, get some goddamn consistency.

I think that the most important criterion for making such a statement is that there is a media-storm over the call. Not having an impact on the game helps, but we have occasionally seen such statements on key plays.

Actually being right or wrong, or the degree of wrongness, does not seem to be a criterion.

[CTcard]

I find it really odd that, of all the baffling and terrible calls we've seen this season, it's these two that the PAC-12 specifically calls out. Maybe they're only comfortable doing it when they have no effect whatsoever on the outcome? If so, get some goddamn balls. If not, get some goddamn consistency.

I think that the most important criterion for making such a statement is that there is a media-storm over the call. Not having an impact on the game helps, but we have occasionally seen such statements on key plays.

Actually being right or wrong, or the degree of wrongness, does not seem to be a criterion.

[Farm93]

The UCB claims that this three consecutive replay sequence was in any way critical is hilarious.

UCB could have earned 14 points on that play and it still would have changed NOTHING.  If Stanford had a 10 point lead going into the fourth quarter I am checking my phone to see when I will get to ride BART out of town.  Not a single worry for me.

The idea that the score COULD have been 31-14 was not at all a concern.  3 different scores in the fourth quarter on Shaw's team?  By UCB?  Without Stanford scoring too?  Are we serious?  If UCB was Oregon I might be concerned.  No other program in the country would make me worry about it for even a minute.

But hey, if I am a lousy coach that clearly can't beat any of the upper or middle tier Pac-12 teams I also might want to focus on anything else to keep my plum multi-million dollar salary.

The field was wet!  The blimp was distracting.  Their band was too noisy.  Our wealth alums need to stop eating those free wings and get back to their seat to support the team!  The referees are bad!  It is not fair that they wore white when our staff had the same color!  etc. etc.  Anything really to make sure that no one questions why the worst offense in the Pac-12 looked like as prolific as the Oregon Ducks even without their #1 playmaker on the field.

[Farm93]

The UCB claims that this three consecutive replay sequence was in any way critical is hilarious.

UCB could have earned 14 points on that play and it still would have changed NOTHING.  If Stanford had a 10 point lead going into the fourth quarter I am checking my phone to see when I will get to ride BART out of town.  Not a single worry for me.

The idea that the score COULD have been 31-14 was not at all a concern.  3 different scores in the fourth quarter on Shaw's team?  By UCB?  Without Stanford scoring too?  Are we serious?  If UCB was Oregon I might be concerned.  No other program in the country would make me worry about it for even a minute.

But hey, if I am a lousy coach that clearly can't beat any of the upper or middle tier Pac-12 teams I also might want to focus on anything else to keep my plum multi-million dollar salary.

The field was wet!  The blimp was distracting.  Their band was too noisy.  Our wealth alums need to stop eating those free wings and get back to their seat to support the team!  The referees are bad!  It is not fair that they wore white when our staff had the same color!  etc. etc.  Anything really to make sure that no one questions why the worst offense in the Pac-12 looked like as prolific as the Oregon Ducks even without their #1 playmaker on the field.

[stupac2]

The blimp was distracting.

It was certainly very distracting for the surprisingly large number of small children sitting near me. They payed more attention to that blimp than they ever gave the game.

What I found amusing about the blimp is that it was a DirectTV blimp. Why even bother advertising here? "Switch our service so you won't be able to watch a few of your team's games a year!" Definitely a winning message.

[stupac2]

The blimp was distracting.

It was certainly very distracting for the surprisingly large number of small children sitting near me. They payed more attention to that blimp than they ever gave the game.

What I found amusing about the blimp is that it was a DirectTV blimp. Why even bother advertising here? "Switch our service so you won't be able to watch a few of your team's games a year!" Definitely a winning message.

[TreeWeird]

t it was a DirectTV blimp.

DirectTV has Fox Sports 2 in the bay area.  Comcast does not. 

I *knew* there must have been a conspiracy!

[TreeWeird]

t it was a DirectTV blimp.

DirectTV has Fox Sports 2 in the bay area.  Comcast does not. 

I *knew* there must have been a conspiracy!

[Farm93]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=11204.msg106488#msg106488 date=1416941274]
t it was a DirectTV blimp.

DirectTV has Fox Sports 2 in the bay area.  Comcast does not. 

I *knew* there must have been a conspiracy!
[/quote]

My lovely DVR faithfully recorded the Fox Sports 1 channel during that 1st quarter.  Oklahoma was up by a million points.  And after the game they spent time with a post-game interview of the OU player.  Errrr....

The Pac-12 needs to take those games if the broadcaster is overbooked.  Should be an automatic.  It would not have helped my DVR or many others without Pac-12 nets, but it would send a message that if our conference is not important to you then we will broadcast it until you are ready.  Ideally a missed start would force a simulcast on Pac-12 Bay Area,  in this case, and whatever Fox Sports Channel Fox folks select.  Catch is that once the start is missed the Pac-12 channel gets to simulcast the rest of the way.

Not going to happen, but just hate that the Big Game was pushed away so that everyone could enjoy Oklahoma win by more than 30 points over Kansas in a driving rain storm.

At a minimum, the Pac-12 should be able to rebroadcast the entire game that same weekend so that everyone can record the full event.

[Farm93]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=11204.msg106488#msg106488 date=1416941274]
t it was a DirectTV blimp.

DirectTV has Fox Sports 2 in the bay area.  Comcast does not. 

I *knew* there must have been a conspiracy!
[/quote]

My lovely DVR faithfully recorded the Fox Sports 1 channel during that 1st quarter.  Oklahoma was up by a million points.  And after the game they spent time with a post-game interview of the OU player.  Errrr....

The Pac-12 needs to take those games if the broadcaster is overbooked.  Should be an automatic.  It would not have helped my DVR or many others without Pac-12 nets, but it would send a message that if our conference is not important to you then we will broadcast it until you are ready.  Ideally a missed start would force a simulcast on Pac-12 Bay Area,  in this case, and whatever Fox Sports Channel Fox folks select.  Catch is that once the start is missed the Pac-12 channel gets to simulcast the rest of the way.

Not going to happen, but just hate that the Big Game was pushed away so that everyone could enjoy Oklahoma win by more than 30 points over Kansas in a driving rain storm.

At a minimum, the Pac-12 should be able to rebroadcast the entire game that same weekend so that everyone can record the full event.

[Viking_Guy]

Speaking for myself, it was more fun to watch the game on Fox Deportes than search around for FS2.  My Spanish isn't good enough to follow the action, but the commentary provides a soundtrack of tone and volume that works, without subjecting me to announcer inanity.  I almost stayed with it even when FS1 switched over.

What was interesting is that Fox won't even invest in Spanish-language graphics for their broadcasts - it was just a voiceover of the video stream.  That shouldn't be that hard to do, although it does involve more production crew costs.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

Speaking for myself, it was more fun to watch the game on Fox Deportes than search around for FS2.  My Spanish isn't good enough to follow the action, but the commentary provides a soundtrack of tone and volume that works, without subjecting me to announcer inanity.  I almost stayed with it even when FS1 switched over.

What was interesting is that Fox won't even invest in Spanish-language graphics for their broadcasts - it was just a voiceover of the video stream.  That shouldn't be that hard to do, although it does involve more production crew costs.

VG