[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?