[troyc]

A little late (thanks to calling Pac-12 volleyball this afternoon), but hopefully worth the wait! Inside Saturday's stunning result over Oregon, with postgame from David Shaw, Tanner McKee, Gabe Reid, and Elijah Higgins. We sort through all the dominoes that needed to fall for Stanford to win that game, the key plays for the Cardinal defense, the numerous lowlights from the officiating crew, and the wild -- but short -- celebration.

Download, listen, rate & review, and enjoy!

Troy C

The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Stun-ford Strikes Again (October 3, 2021)

[troyc]

A little late (thanks to calling Pac-12 volleyball this afternoon), but hopefully worth the wait! Inside Saturday's stunning result over Oregon, with postgame from David Shaw, Tanner McKee, Gabe Reid, and Elijah Higgins. We sort through all the dominoes that needed to fall for Stanford to win that game, the key plays for the Cardinal defense, the numerous lowlights from the officiating crew, and the wild -- but short -- celebration.

Download, listen, rate & review, and enjoy!

Troy C

The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Stun-ford Strikes Again (October 3, 2021)

[Papa John]

Nice job as always, Troy. One nit, that's been mentioned elsewhere: you refer to the penalty at the end of regulation as pass interference. It was actually defensive holding, which is a pretty big difference.

[Papa John]

Nice job as always, Troy. One nit, that's been mentioned elsewhere: you refer to the penalty at the end of regulation as pass interference. It was actually defensive holding, which is a pretty big difference.

[troyc]

Nice job as always, Troy. One nit, that's been mentioned elsewhere: you refer to the penalty at the end of regulation as pass interference. It was actually defensive holding, which is a pretty big difference.

Appreciate the correction. Thank you! (that being said, I've seen more rigorous contact than that not get called holding...)

Worth noting that during his media Zoom, Shaw said that when both sides are griping about the officiating & both teams get calls they like, that means the game was "done fairly and done the right way." (as you heard on the show, my thoughts differ)

Thank you for listening!

Troy C

[troyc]

Nice job as always, Troy. One nit, that's been mentioned elsewhere: you refer to the penalty at the end of regulation as pass interference. It was actually defensive holding, which is a pretty big difference.

Appreciate the correction. Thank you! (that being said, I've seen more rigorous contact than that not get called holding...)

Worth noting that during his media Zoom, Shaw said that when both sides are griping about the officiating & both teams get calls they like, that means the game was "done fairly and done the right way." (as you heard on the show, my thoughts differ)

Thank you for listening!

Troy C

[BostonCard]

I think both sides had legitimate gripes, as well as some illegitimate ones.  On balance, they probably cancelled out, but that doesn't mean the officiating was done the right way.

I think, in particular, the inconsistent way that the officials called PI/holding meant that both sides had good reason to gripe (Stanford for all the times it wasn't called; Oregon for the fact that the rules seemed to change at a critical moment).

And yes, holding, both the offensive kind and defensive kind frequently goes uncalled.  I think that's because it is simply not seen because there are so many spots on the field to be looking.  Pass interference is called more frequently because once the ball is thrown, everyone knows to focus their attention on the receiver and DB; before then, the refs have to look at all the receivers and DBs, so interfering with a receiver might be missed before the ball is thrown but is then seen after and called as PI.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think both sides had legitimate gripes, as well as some illegitimate ones.  On balance, they probably cancelled out, but that doesn't mean the officiating was done the right way.

I think, in particular, the inconsistent way that the officials called PI/holding meant that both sides had good reason to gripe (Stanford for all the times it wasn't called; Oregon for the fact that the rules seemed to change at a critical moment).

And yes, holding, both the offensive kind and defensive kind frequently goes uncalled.  I think that's because it is simply not seen because there are so many spots on the field to be looking.  Pass interference is called more frequently because once the ball is thrown, everyone knows to focus their attention on the receiver and DB; before then, the refs have to look at all the receivers and DBs, so interfering with a receiver might be missed before the ball is thrown but is then seen after and called as PI.

BC

[Spiny_Norman]

The referee even messed up the overtime coin toss! He correctly instructed the teams (and the tv audience) how the coin toss would work. The winner could choose offense first or defense first. Then the other team could choose which side of the field they would play on.

Oregon won the toss and chose defense. Then the referee asked Stanford if they wanted the ball. It doesn't matter if they wanted it or not! Stanford was going to be on offense first. The referee had just told them less than a minute earlier that their only decision was the side of the field to play on. Eventually, he straightened things out. Not a very good game for this crew.

[Spiny_Norman]

The referee even messed up the overtime coin toss! He correctly instructed the teams (and the tv audience) how the coin toss would work. The winner could choose offense first or defense first. Then the other team could choose which side of the field they would play on.

Oregon won the toss and chose defense. Then the referee asked Stanford if they wanted the ball. It doesn't matter if they wanted it or not! Stanford was going to be on offense first. The referee had just told them less than a minute earlier that their only decision was the side of the field to play on. Eventually, he straightened things out. Not a very good game for this crew.

[CowboyIndian]

Not a very good game for this crew.

I dunno...I thought they did a helluva job!

[CowboyIndian]

Not a very good game for this crew.

I dunno...I thought they did a helluva job!

[Papa John]

Nice job as always, Troy. One nit, that's been mentioned elsewhere: you refer to the penalty at the end of regulation as pass interference. It was actually defensive holding, which is a pretty big difference.

Appreciate the correction. Thank you! (that being said, I've seen more rigorous contact than that not get called holding...)

I've been thinking about this, mainly because the announcers went on about pass interference even though that wasn't the call. And then post-game analysis on, I think, Pac-12 Network, talked about pass interference shouldn't have been called on that play. And the truth is, it wasn't called pass interference. 

My understanding is that defensive holding occurs before the ball is thrown. From all of the TV angles that I saw, the receiver and defender don't come into view until the ball is in the air. The closest I found was this view:

https://youtu.be/bS_P-WGsNBQ?t=217

Just as Humphreys and the defender (Wright) come into view at 3:40, it looks like the defender has his hands on Humphreys mid-section. Humphreys is trying to push the defender away. But the ball is already in the air at this point, so the holding penalty would have been committed before that. There's another angle at 3:53 that shows them jostling, but again, the ball is already in the air.

So unless you were at the game and watching the receiver-defender and not the QB, you wouldn't have seen the holding.

Defensive holding might have been a questionable call, but I don't see how anyone can claim that from what they saw on the TV broadcast.

[Papa John]

Nice job as always, Troy. One nit, that's been mentioned elsewhere: you refer to the penalty at the end of regulation as pass interference. It was actually defensive holding, which is a pretty big difference.

Appreciate the correction. Thank you! (that being said, I've seen more rigorous contact than that not get called holding...)

I've been thinking about this, mainly because the announcers went on about pass interference even though that wasn't the call. And then post-game analysis on, I think, Pac-12 Network, talked about pass interference shouldn't have been called on that play. And the truth is, it wasn't called pass interference. 

My understanding is that defensive holding occurs before the ball is thrown. From all of the TV angles that I saw, the receiver and defender don't come into view until the ball is in the air. The closest I found was this view:

https://youtu.be/bS_P-WGsNBQ?t=217

Just as Humphreys and the defender (Wright) come into view at 3:40, it looks like the defender has his hands on Humphreys mid-section. Humphreys is trying to push the defender away. But the ball is already in the air at this point, so the holding penalty would have been committed before that. There's another angle at 3:53 that shows them jostling, but again, the ball is already in the air.

So unless you were at the game and watching the receiver-defender and not the QB, you wouldn't have seen the holding.

Defensive holding might have been a questionable call, but I don't see how anyone can claim that from what they saw on the TV broadcast.

[CTcard]

My understanding is that defensive holding occurs before the ball is thrown. From all of the TV angles that I saw, the receiver and defender don't come into view until the ball is in the air. ...

Just as Humphreys and the defender (Wright) come into view at 3:40, it looks like the defender has his hands on Humphreys mid-section. Humphreys is trying to push the defender away. But the ball is already in the air at this point, so the holding penalty would have been committed before that. There's another angle at 3:53 that shows them jostling, but again, the ball is already in the air.

While technically correct on the whole ball-is-in-the-air thing, it is common that the refs call holding on excessive grabbing that takes place before actual attempts to catch the ball occur.

Your point is still valid. It would seem that the action that you see at the time stamp of the video you link is the end of the interaction that led to the penalty. Still they are appear on camera a little late to evaluate the validity of the call.

[CTcard]

My understanding is that defensive holding occurs before the ball is thrown. From all of the TV angles that I saw, the receiver and defender don't come into view until the ball is in the air. ...

Just as Humphreys and the defender (Wright) come into view at 3:40, it looks like the defender has his hands on Humphreys mid-section. Humphreys is trying to push the defender away. But the ball is already in the air at this point, so the holding penalty would have been committed before that. There's another angle at 3:53 that shows them jostling, but again, the ball is already in the air.

While technically correct on the whole ball-is-in-the-air thing, it is common that the refs call holding on excessive grabbing that takes place before actual attempts to catch the ball occur.

Your point is still valid. It would seem that the action that you see at the time stamp of the video you link is the end of the interaction that led to the penalty. Still they are appear on camera a little late to evaluate the validity of the call.

[Snorlax94]

My understanding is that defensive holding occurs before the ball is thrown. From all of the TV angles that I saw, the receiver and defender don't come into view until the ball is in the air. ...

Just as Humphreys and the defender (Wright) come into view at 3:40, it looks like the defender has his hands on Humphreys mid-section. Humphreys is trying to push the defender away. But the ball is already in the air at this point, so the holding penalty would have been committed before that. There's another angle at 3:53 that shows them jostling, but again, the ball is already in the air.

While technically correct on the whole ball-is-in-the-air thing, it is common that the refs call holding on excessive grabbing that takes place before actual attempts to catch the ball occur.

Your point is still valid. It would seem that the action that you see at the time stamp of the video you link is the end of the interaction that led to the penalty. Still they are appear on camera a little late to evaluate the validity of the call.

>>  Still they are appear on camera a little late to evaluate the validity of the call.

Yes, exactly this. I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but at the game, they showed the holding infraction (on the final timed play) from a different angle on the Jumbotron, and it was a more obvious case of holding that impeded the receiver and affected the play. As you note, the footage they showed on TV wasn't as conclusive.

I don't know why they didn't show the more damning footage on TV. They obviously had it, and that's what the refs could see to make the call.

It bugs me to hear it was a "controversial" final call because if you saw it from the angle I saw it -- with a camera just watching that receiver, seeing the defensive back hold the receiver rendering him unable to run his route, letting go only at the last second -- it was not controversial. Why the producers only show the footage at the last instant when the defensive back stopped holding, I don't know.

[Snorlax94]

My understanding is that defensive holding occurs before the ball is thrown. From all of the TV angles that I saw, the receiver and defender don't come into view until the ball is in the air. ...

Just as Humphreys and the defender (Wright) come into view at 3:40, it looks like the defender has his hands on Humphreys mid-section. Humphreys is trying to push the defender away. But the ball is already in the air at this point, so the holding penalty would have been committed before that. There's another angle at 3:53 that shows them jostling, but again, the ball is already in the air.

While technically correct on the whole ball-is-in-the-air thing, it is common that the refs call holding on excessive grabbing that takes place before actual attempts to catch the ball occur.

Your point is still valid. It would seem that the action that you see at the time stamp of the video you link is the end of the interaction that led to the penalty. Still they are appear on camera a little late to evaluate the validity of the call.

>>  Still they are appear on camera a little late to evaluate the validity of the call.

Yes, exactly this. I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but at the game, they showed the holding infraction (on the final timed play) from a different angle on the Jumbotron, and it was a more obvious case of holding that impeded the receiver and affected the play. As you note, the footage they showed on TV wasn't as conclusive.

I don't know why they didn't show the more damning footage on TV. They obviously had it, and that's what the refs could see to make the call.

It bugs me to hear it was a "controversial" final call because if you saw it from the angle I saw it -- with a camera just watching that receiver, seeing the defensive back hold the receiver rendering him unable to run his route, letting go only at the last second -- it was not controversial. Why the producers only show the footage at the last instant when the defensive back stopped holding, I don't know.

[Papa John]

Thanks for confirming my suspicions, Snorlax94. Having the talking heads on TV and folks on the Internet bellyache about the non-existent pass interference call has only made things worse. The head ref clearly stated that the call was defensive holding.

[Papa John]

Thanks for confirming my suspicions, Snorlax94. Having the talking heads on TV and folks on the Internet bellyache about the non-existent pass interference call has only made things worse. The head ref clearly stated that the call was defensive holding.