Phantom offsides call: So Wilcox doesn't even understand what the process is...?

5,810 Views | 47 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by SmellinRoses
TheFiatLux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bluehenbear said:

I'm still mad about the "one hop" TD pass gifted to $C years ago, even though I think we may have won that game? Funny I remember that detail but not much else.
No, we lost that game. That was just a bad, bad call. And it really wasn't a "one hop" so much as (IIRC) the ball hit the receiver who was parallel to the ground trying to make the catch, the ball fell to the ground then bounced back up. Somehow the officials missed that, but I can see that happening if body parts and shadows and sun or whatever are in just t the right position.

The best past about that play is the officials huddled to discuss it... while doing so SC decided to - inexplicably - show a replay of it on the huge screen that was right behind the officials huddling... it was actually funny because you could almost literally hear the SC crowd collectively sort of frantically saying "NIXAY ON THE REPLAY!!!"

That was another of those momentum plays... SC was DEAD and that play gave them life. They don't get that call, I think we win - and win easily (I think we were up 21-3 at that point in the game).
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MrGPAC said:

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.

How would you characterize the accumulation of THREE overturned Cal touchdown calls on ONE DRIVE in the 2014 Big Game (each one supposedly requiring irrefutable evidence... of which there was none)?

Also, has anyone tried any successful therapies to help us let this s*** go? Hypnotism? Anything?!?
hoop97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wilcox has done plenty behind the scenes. I think it would be a bad look for the head coach to go public. Knowlton should be the one going public yet he doesn't. It won't change the outcome but at least would show our players and coaches he has their backs.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hoop97 said:

Wilcox has done plenty behind the scenes. I think it would be a bad look for the head coach to go public. Knowlton should be the one going public yet he doesn't. It won't change the outcome but at least would show our players and coaches he has their backs.


Has this turd not been fired yet? Sheesh - getting sick of hearing about no-action Knowlton.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

MrGPAC said:

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.

How would you characterize the accumulation of THREE overturned Cal touchdown calls on ONE DRIVE in the 2014 Big Game (each one supposedly requiring irrefutable evidence... of which there was none)?

Also, has anyone tried any successful therapies to help us let this s*** go? Hypnotism? Anything?!?


That game also featured the targeting call on the opening kickoff ejecting our best remaining DB from a highly depleted backfield.

However, my favorite from that game was a Stanford fumble at mid-field. A Cal player emerged from the pile with the ball and ran with it held high to celebrate in of the student section. However, the ref apparently didn't see that and continued starring down at the pile pulling players away, then suddenly and emphatically signaled Stanford ball.
TheFiatLux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

I think I understand. That call was outrageous and hugely impactful. We all want Cal to make a clear, public statement that it was unacceptable and for those responsible to be held to full accountability. Correct?

And that not having seen a strong public statement on the topic is both a catalyst for speculation and highly frustrating.

I'm 100% with you.

The process that Jon Wilner suggests is but a guideline and trust me, Coach Wilcox went well beyond what Wilner outlined in pursuing the topic. However, we will have to agree to disagree if you want your HC to be the public torch bearer for an egregiously bad call by the officials. I want my HC to get his team and organization 100% focused on Arizona. To move on from that call and focus on the rest of the season. Their job is not to fix officiating in the ACC or anywhere else going forward, it's to win the next football game.

To give Cal fans the satisfaction we crave and for the betterment of officiating throughout college football going forward is one of the jobs, IMO, of the Athletic Director. It is that role that handles administrative and policy decisions such as this one in a public forum. It is that role that serves to fight for all the athletic teams under their purview and to leverage their leadership position to lobby and persuade the NCAA and conference leaders throughout the country both through private channels and the public stage. And they can do that without distracting the HC or his team.

Greg, this a very thoughtful and respectful reply.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGreg said:

I think I understand. That call was outrageous and hugely impactful. We all want Cal to make a clear, public statement that it was unacceptable and for those responsible to be held to full accountability. Correct?

And that not having seen a strong public statement on the topic is both a catalyst for speculation and highly frustrating.

I'm 100% with you.

The process that Jon Wilner suggests is but a guideline and trust me, Coach Wilcox went well beyond what Wilner outlined in pursuing the topic. However, we will have to agree to disagree if you want your HC to be the public torch bearer for an egregiously bad call by the officials. I want my HC to get his team and organization 100% focused on Arizona. To move on from that call and focus on the rest of the season. Their job is not to fix officiating in the ACC or anywhere else going forward, it's to win the next football game.

To give Cal fans the satisfaction we crave and for the betterment of officiating throughout college football going forward is one of the jobs, IMO, of the Athletic Director. It is that role that handles administrative and policy decisions such as this one in a public forum. It is that role that serves to fight for all the athletic teams under their purview and to leverage their leadership position to lobby and persuade the NCAA and conference leaders throughout the country both through private channels and the public stage. And they can do that without distracting the HC or his team.



Greg, good post. I agree, if there is a process that requires the HC to be the one to file the complaint, someone needed to set that up so he could do that. Otherwise, he needs to have the team focused on Arizona. Knowlton is the one who needs to raise hell and get back to Cal fans with the answers.
Go!Bears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

Cal8285 said:


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.

Was this the UCLA game, back in the 70's? I have a vague memory of them giving UCLA a touchdown to win the game, and it cost us a shot at the Rose Bowl?
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Big C said:

MrGPAC said:

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.

How would you characterize the accumulation of THREE overturned Cal touchdown calls on ONE DRIVE in the 2014 Big Game (each one supposedly requiring irrefutable evidence... of which there was none)?

Also, has anyone tried any successful therapies to help us let this s*** go? Hypnotism? Anything?!?


That game also featured the targeting call on the opening kickoff ejecting our best remaining DB from a highly depleted backfield.

However, my favorite from that game was a Stanford fumble at mid-field. A Cal player emerged from the pile with the ball and ran with it held high to celebrate in of the student section. However, the ref apparently didn't see that and continued starring down at the pile pulling players away, then suddenly and emphatically signaled Stanford ball.

Did the officials eventually get the fumble recovery right? I'm not able to recall.
harebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philbert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I guess all the b*tching and moaning was for nothing. The end result is still very unsatisfying and doesn't make up for that BS call.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philbert said:

I guess all the b*tching and moaning was for nothing. The end result is still very unsatisfying and doesn't make up for that BS call.

And it always would have been. They can't replay the game.
SmellinRoses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A formal public apology to the team from ACC officials, the naming of the ref who made the call, and specifically citing what the punishment is - would have been reasonably satisfying.

This lame development certainly doesn't discourage future refs from doing same.

Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.