GivemTheAxe said:
Cal8285 said:
oskidunker said:
The game is over. We lost because of inferior line play. One bad call did not cost us the game. Move on.
One can almost never say with certainty that a bad call cost a game. The Dennis Dummit game might be an exception, but even in a situation like that, many other factors caused the game to be close enough that an end of game bad call (or bad or unlucky play) can turn victory into a loss. It isn't like Cal did everything right and only the failure to call Dummit down at the two yard line is the only thing that cost the game.
I'd say it is more than likely that Cal loses the game anyway. We'll never know, all we can know for sure is that things would have been different.
But corruption in college football matters, whether it cost Cal a game or not. And I don't have any explanation for that call besides corruption. Incompetence is not an explanation for that call, because even the most incompetent official doesn't make that call. It isn't just a bad call, it is a call that defies any explanation other than corruption.
Sure, the call bothers me because it hurt Cal. But it bothers me way more because, unless someone can come up with an explanation that makes sense, it was corrupt. It should be pursued for the good of college football. If it had been an offside call in against Notre Dame, I would say it needs to be pursued for the good of college football.
Cal got outplayed on both sides of the line and probably would have lost anyway? Sure, I can accept that. I can't accept corruption in a game official.
I have heard many explanations about why coaches should not go crazy about bad calls from John Madden on down
My understanding is that coaches feel that there will always be bad calls. Some in your favor and some against you.
The trick for players is to shake off the bad calls and use them as motivation to win. And not to dwell on them and use them as justification to
lose.
Many posts on this topic are the latter. If only we had not had the bad call. We would have won.
Not we should have played better and overcome the bad call.
If Cal had played just slightly better Cal could have tied the game on that last series.
If Cal had not made that boneheaded unnecessary roughing the passer penalty Cal could have tied the game.
Motivation to win is what we need.
There are bad calls due to incompetence / closeness of the play, and I agree the coach and especially the players should not dwell on those. Some will go against you, and may well cost you the game, and some will go for you, and may well win you a game.
Then there are bad calls due to corruption. These are plays that aren't judgement calls, and they should be handled differently.
Examples:
Corruption:
The offsides call vs ND. Until someone can give me any explanation other than the ref wanting to give ND another shot, this is blatant corruption and game manipulation.
Close calls that you have to move on from:
Targeting call to extend ND's drive and set up a TD.
Excessive celebration on our TD.
Questionable ones where you should give the benefit of the doubt unless that is lost:
Offensive PI call on Cal
Video review of Plummers rushing TD (*** was that?)
I'm sure there are others that I'm missing, but those are the ones that stuck out the most to me.
The last example I can think of where corruption was the only explanation was Skov's hit on Goff with no targeting call. That play is not only reviewable right after the fact, but is REVIEWABLE AFTER THE GAME. The Pac12 office saw a TEXT BOOK definition of targeting AFTER THE GAME and chose NOT to discipline the offender. There is NO excuse for that.
Doesn't help they doubled down by calling an extremely weak targeting call on Cal's safety on one of the first few plays of the game the next year. Likely retribution for Cal having the audacity to complain about corruption.
And there is NO excuse for the offsides penalty.
The rest you can't dwell on or you start playing victim and it effects the quality of your play...but you can't stand by and let corruption take over the sport.
