Replay - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Replay (/thread-16648.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Replay (/thread-16648.html)
Replay - BostonCard - 10-24-2018
Statement by the PAC-12
https://pac-12.com/article/2018/10/24/pac-12-athletic-directors-endorse-recommendations-improvements-instant-replay
BC
RE: Replay - qwerty49 - 10-25-2018
“Disciplinary measures” - LOL maybe they’ll take away Dixon’s comp tickets to PAC basketball games.
Scott has reached his level of incompetence. Time to say bye, Felicia.
RE: Replay - winflop - 10-25-2018
More wishy-washy equivocating political BS-doublespeak from the worst conference commissioner out there.
Doubleplusungood.
RE: Replay - Phogge - 10-25-2018
Of course the last para falls back on the tired Conference of Champions theme as if it matters here. Many of those championships occurred during the PCC and AAWU days so STFU.
RE: Replay - CTcard - 10-25-2018
(10-25-2018, 05:38 AM)Phogge Wrote: Of course the last para falls back on the tired Conference of Champions theme as if it matters here. Many of those championships occurred during the PCC and AAWU days so STFU.
The last paragraph is a signature, not intended to be related to the current matter. It describes winning more championships than any other conference in 52 of the past 58 years. That goes back to 1960. That explicitly rules out the PCC, which was disbanded in 1959.
The AAWU started as UCLA, USC, UW, Cal. Stanford joined immediately, WSU in 1962 and the Oregon schools in 1964. I think the actual name change to the Pacific-8 didn't happen until 1968 - but that was just a name change.
So, I guess it depends how picky you want to be. Counting back to the beginning of the AAWU (1959-60) covers the beginnings of the organizational structure now in place. Counting back to 1968 would cover the conference named as Pac-# (and lop 8 years off the total, not sure how many the conference won the most titles). If you want to count only explicitly Pac-12, then you cannot start counting until 2011-12 over which time I think the conference would have won the most titles in 6 of 6 seasons.
RE: Replay - OutsiderFan - 10-25-2018
So what's the restitution for the Washington State Football team? The conference is meting out discipline to those responsible for f*cking up a replay call, but hello, that gaffe cost the Cougars a possible win and may determine the outcome of both division champions. It also could be responsible for the Pac-12 missing the College Football Playoff and costing the conference millions of dollars.
It almost makes things worse to say they are going to be disciplining those involved in that specific game and that specific call. Because they are admitting they screwed up royally, and highlighting that what they screwed up could have a giant impact on the season's competitive outcome. If Oregon should beat Utah, and USC wins out, USC would be the South champ, and Utah would also be damaged by this gaffe.
All they had to do is say they have a new procedure to make sure the right calls are made by the right people. THAT'S IT!
What a cluster.
RE: Replay - cctop - 10-25-2018
"Mistakes have been made"
I dislike the passive voice in apologies.
(10-25-2018, 08:04 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: So what's the restitution for the Washington State Football team? The conference is meting out discipline to those responsible for f*cking up a replay call, but hello, that gaffe cost the Cougars a possible win and may determine the outcome of both division champions. It also could be responsible for the Pac-12 missing the College Football Playoff and costing the conference millions of dollars.
I don't consider it that dramatic because both teams had a questionable non-call for targeting. Also, unless the QB got injured I wouldn't put a non-call for targeting in the same category as, say, a non-call for pass interference with regard to how directly it affects the outcome of a game. The Pac-12 refs have certainly been more lenient about PI this season.
RE: Replay - CowboyIndian - 10-25-2018
(10-25-2018, 08:04 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: So what's the restitution for the Washington State Football team? The conference is meting out discipline to those responsible for f*cking up a replay call, but hello, that gaffe cost the Cougars a possible win and may determine the outcome of both division champions.
I believe Wazzu was also the beneficiary of a non-targeting call in the same game.
RE: Replay - SamuelMcF - 10-25-2018
(10-25-2018, 09:24 AM)cctop Wrote: "Mistakes have been made"
I dislike the passive voice in apologies.
100% agree. To me, this makes it no longer an apology.
RE: Replay - OutsiderFan - 10-25-2018
(10-25-2018, 09:41 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(10-25-2018, 08:04 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: So what's the restitution for the Washington State Football team? The conference is meting out discipline to those responsible for f*cking up a replay call, but hello, that gaffe cost the Cougars a possible win and may determine the outcome of both division champions.
I believe Wazzu was also the beneficiary of a non-targeting call in the same game.
I don't think what the Wazzu player did was nearly as flagrant as what Gustin did. Moreover, the timing of the Gustin call in terms of place on field, down, score, and time on clock was why it was so determinative in the game's outcome. This is why calling attention to it is so terrible. The conference is admitting it screwed up a call that had a real potential impact on who won the game and lost it, and signaling how bad a mistake it was by saying they are punishing those involved in making such a wrong decision.
RE: Replay - BostonCard - 10-25-2018
(10-25-2018, 09:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(10-25-2018, 09:41 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(10-25-2018, 08:04 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: So what's the restitution for the Washington State Football team? The conference is meting out discipline to those responsible for f*cking up a replay call, but hello, that gaffe cost the Cougars a possible win and may determine the outcome of both division champions.
I believe Wazzu was also the beneficiary of a non-targeting call in the same game.
I don't think what the Wazzu player did was nearly as flagrant as what Gustin did. Moreover, the timing of the Gustin call in terms of place on field, down, score, and time on clock was why it was so determinative in the game's outcome. This is why calling attention to it is so terrible. The conference is admitting it screwed up a call that had a real potential impact on who won the game and lost it, and signaling how bad a mistake it was by saying they are punishing those involved in making such a wrong decision.
The irony here is that the play that was subject to a "third party overrule" during replay was the play by Logan Tago (from WSU) on JT Daniels, not the play by Gustin on Minshew.
https://sports.yahoo.com/yahoo-sports-exclusive-document-shows-untrained-third-party-overruled-targeting-call-pac-12-game-040318946.html
And yes, it was pretty darned flagarant:
![[Image: 945ac6d919dcf5a1894d319e0901995d]](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/c1Gj2flxv7EohV98sItDZA--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NzAwO2g9Mzc2/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/945ac6d919dcf5a1894d319e0901995d)
BC
RE: Replay - OutsiderFan - 10-25-2018
(10-25-2018, 10:09 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-25-2018, 09:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(10-25-2018, 09:41 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(10-25-2018, 08:04 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: So what's the restitution for the Washington State Football team? The conference is meting out discipline to those responsible for f*cking up a replay call, but hello, that gaffe cost the Cougars a possible win and may determine the outcome of both division champions.
I believe Wazzu was also the beneficiary of a non-targeting call in the same game.
I don't think what the Wazzu player did was nearly as flagrant as what Gustin did. Moreover, the timing of the Gustin call in terms of place on field, down, score, and time on clock was why it was so determinative in the game's outcome. This is why calling attention to it is so terrible. The conference is admitting it screwed up a call that had a real potential impact on who won the game and lost it, and signaling how bad a mistake it was by saying they are punishing those involved in making such a wrong decision.
The irony here is that the play that was subject to a "third party overrule" during replay was the play by Logan Tago (from WSU) on JT Daniels, not the play by Gustin on Minshew.
https://sports.yahoo.com/yahoo-sports-exclusive-document-shows-untrained-third-party-overruled-targeting-call-pac-12-game-040318946.html
And yes, it was pretty darned flagarant:
BC
I'd call it a late hit, not targeting. The other replay angle showed it was more of a side swipe, but it definitely should have been a penalty.
RE: Replay - BostonCard - 10-25-2018
(10-25-2018, 02:41 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I'd call it a late hit, not targeting. The other replay angle showed it was more of a side swipe, but it definitely should have been a penalty.
Might be a good idea to read the rule:
Quote:No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
- Daniels was clearly a defenseless player; he had already taken a knee and had not ability to protect himself
- Tago clearly makes "forcible contact" to the head or neck area of Daniels; he clearly makes contact with the head
- Looking at Note 1, Tago clearly leads with the helmet and shoulder; hitting with the crown of the head is not necessary for a targetting call, so the fact that Tua turns his head and thus appears to sideswipe him is not relevant
BTW, no argument on Gustin's targetting; he clearly left his feet and made forcible contact with a defenseless Minshew.
https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/09/22/uscs-porter-gustin-got-away-with-obvious-targeting-against-washington-state/
BC
RE: Replay - Phogge - 10-25-2018
I don't care for signatures. Just adds more garbage to the release. KISS, address the issue. Tradition is important for the individual entities. The conference had nothing to do with those titles. Aren't we in an age of reduced paperwork?