The Refs Who Officiated the Play

1,457 Views | 16 Replies | Last: 9 days ago by nwbear84
CalVC2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you haven't seen/read it, in this month's California magazine, there's a fantastic article on the back story on the refereeing team officiating the Play. Such a good investigative piece that shines some terrific color on why the refs called The Play the way they did. Amazing!

40 Years Later, Officials Reflect on the Most Outrageous Football Finish
sosheezy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
lol when I first saw the thread I thought this was an expose on the refs in the ND game about the Offsides call :/
CalVC2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
yeah, I think I would have rather had that ref crew than the one we had in South Bend
Cal8285
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CalVC2 said:

yeah, I think I would have rather had that ref crew than the one we had in South Bend
They could have learned a lesson from the article:

"On one point of officiating wisdom, Moffett was adamant: Don't throw a penalty flag unless you are absolutely certain there has been an infraction."

Take that to heart, and Hearns doesn't get called for an offside he didn't commit. Of course, if that flag were thrown due to corruption and not incompetence, then I suppose it doesn't matter.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal8285 said:

CalVC2 said:

yeah, I think I would have rather had that ref crew than the one we had in South Bend
They could have learned a lesson from the article:

"On one point of officiating wisdom, Moffett was adamant: Don't throw a penalty flag unless you are absolutely certain there has been an infraction."

Take that to heart, and Hearns doesn't get called for an offside he didn't commit. Of course, if that flag were thrown due to corruption and not incompetence, then I suppose it doesn't matter.
When it comes to officiating or judging, incompetence is just another form of corruption. Take judge Cannon for example.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

Cal8285 said:

CalVC2 said:

yeah, I think I would have rather had that ref crew than the one we had in South Bend
They could have learned a lesson from the article:

"On one point of officiating wisdom, Moffett was adamant: Don't throw a penalty flag unless you are absolutely certain there has been an infraction."

Take that to heart, and Hearns doesn't get called for an offside he didn't commit. Of course, if that flag were thrown due to corruption and not incompetence, then I suppose it doesn't matter.
When it comes to officiating or judging, incompetence is judge another form of corruption. Take judge Cannon for example.
Thanks for bringing politics into a completely apolitical topic.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

heartofthebear said:

Cal8285 said:

CalVC2 said:

yeah, I think I would have rather had that ref crew than the one we had in South Bend
They could have learned a lesson from the article:

"On one point of officiating wisdom, Moffett was adamant: Don't throw a penalty flag unless you are absolutely certain there has been an infraction."

Take that to heart, and Hearns doesn't get called for an offside he didn't commit. Of course, if that flag were thrown due to corruption and not incompetence, then I suppose it doesn't matter.
When it comes to officiating or judging, incompetence is judge another form of corruption. Take judge Cannon for example.
Thanks for bringing politics into a completely apolitical topic.
It's not political, it's factual.
SmellinRoses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Langley, mentioned in article, has helped us out with electrical work on the peninsula. Very cool getting a chance to talk to him about it.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

heartofthebear said:

Cal8285 said:

CalVC2 said:

yeah, I think I would have rather had that ref crew than the one we had in South Bend
They could have learned a lesson from the article:

"On one point of officiating wisdom, Moffett was adamant: Don't throw a penalty flag unless you are absolutely certain there has been an infraction."

Take that to heart, and Hearns doesn't get called for an offside he didn't commit. Of course, if that flag were thrown due to corruption and not incompetence, then I suppose it doesn't matter.
When it comes to officiating or judging, incompetence is judge another form of corruption. Take judge Cannon for example.
Thanks for bringing politics into a completely apolitical topic.
It's not political, it's factual.


It is an apropos analogy.
TheFiatLux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank for sharing the link, but I gotta say, I found that a really, really odd write up. I felt almost as if a Stanford fan wrote it. In fact, in genuinely annoyed me.

The part about Moffett's history at Kansas was was really interesting and gave great insight into what his approach might be that led to the outcome.. Speaking of Moffett, don't you think it's kind of weird that a former Daily Cal writer, and now a guy submitting an article for our monthly might bring up the interesting coincidence that the ref had the same name as the undergrad library? That would be a fun thing to include...

And some of the points he makes:

The refs didn't "give us the game" or "flout the rules"

Quote:

In giving Cal the winning touchdown, the six men in black and white may or may not have flouted the rules.

I don't even know what this means, how did they "help violate" the conventions or orderly competition? What were they supposed to do?

Quote:

Without doubt, they had helped violate the conventions of orderly competition.
Actually, no, not this at all...

Quote:

And we also saw the things we never dare concede in loud, performative bull sessions with you TreePeople.

Nope, nope and nope.

Quote:

We saw Cal running back Dwight Garner squashed under a pile of Stanford players and acknowledge the powerful, magical thinking we must invoke to insist Garner couldn't possibly have been down.

But the most inane is this... *** "should have"????

Quote:

At the risk of surrendering my hard-earned Cal Fanatic card, I concede it here and now: The 85th Big Game righteously could have, maybe should have, finished with the penultimate play, a Mark Harmon field goal capping a heart-stopping 2019 Stanford victory.

And I could go on and on with the rest of the piece... oh you know I can :-) But I'll leave it at those.

The Firmite article that he references is sooooooo much better.

This article actually left me annoyed. Really annoyed. I'm laughing at myself at how annoyed I am with this!
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TheFiatLux said:

Thank for sharing the link, but I gotta say, I found that a really, really odd write up. I felt almost as if a Stanford fan wrote it. In fact, in genuinely annoyed me.

The part about Moffett's history at Kansas was was really interesting and gave great insight into what his approach might be that led to the outcome.. Speaking of Moffett, don't you think it's kind of weird that a former Daily Cal writer, and now a guy submitting an article for our monthly might bring up the interesting coincidence that the ref had the same name as the undergrad library? That would be a fun thing to include...

And some of the points he makes:

The refs didn't "give us the game" or "flout the rules"

Quote:

In giving Cal the winning touchdown, the six men in black and white may or may not have flouted the rules.

I don't even know what this means, how did they "help violate" the conventions or orderly competition? What were they supposed to do?

Quote:

Without doubt, they had helped violate the conventions of orderly competition.
Actually, no, not this at all...

Quote:

And we also saw the things we never dare concede in loud, performative bull sessions with you TreePeople.

Nope, nope and nope.

Quote:

We saw Cal running back Dwight Garner squashed under a pile of Stanford players and acknowledge the powerful, magical thinking we must invoke to insist Garner couldn't possibly have been down.

But the most inane is this... *** "should have"????

Quote:

At the risk of surrendering my hard-earned Cal Fanatic card, I concede it here and now: The 85th Big Game righteously could have, maybe should have, finished with the penultimate play, a Mark Harmon field goal capping a heart-stopping 2019 Stanford victory.

And I could go on and on with the rest of the piece... of you know I can :-) But I'll leave it at those.

The Firmite article that he references is sooooooo much better.

This article actually left me annoyed. Really annoyed. I'm laughing at myself at how annoyed I am this this!



Wow. Those ARE ridiculous. More than annoying. The quote about Garner the worst. If he was "buried" how did he pitch the ball?
Cal8285
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

TheFiatLux said:

Thank for sharing the link, but I gotta say, I found that a really, really odd write up. I felt almost as if a Stanford fan wrote it. In fact, in genuinely annoyed me.

The part about Moffett's history at Kansas was was really interesting and gave great insight into what his approach might be that led to the outcome.. Speaking of Moffett, don't you think it's kind of weird that a former Daily Cal writer, and now a guy submitting an article for our monthly might bring up the interesting coincidence that the ref had the same name as the undergrad library? That would be a fun thing to include...

And some of the points he makes:

The refs didn't "give us the game" or "flout the rules"

Quote:

In giving Cal the winning touchdown, the six men in black and white may or may not have flouted the rules.

I don't even know what this means, how did they "help violate" the conventions or orderly competition? What were they supposed to do?

Quote:

Without doubt, they had helped violate the conventions of orderly competition.
Actually, no, not this at all...

Quote:

And we also saw the things we never dare concede in loud, performative bull sessions with you TreePeople.

Nope, nope and nope.

Quote:

We saw Cal running back Dwight Garner squashed under a pile of Stanford players and acknowledge the powerful, magical thinking we must invoke to insist Garner couldn't possibly have been down.

But the most inane is this... *** "should have"????

Quote:

At the risk of surrendering my hard-earned Cal Fanatic card, I concede it here and now: The 85th Big Game righteously could have, maybe should have, finished with the penultimate play, a Mark Harmon field goal capping a heart-stopping 2019 Stanford victory.

And I could go on and on with the rest of the piece... of you know I can :-) But I'll leave it at those.

The Firmite article that he references is sooooooo much better.

This article actually left me annoyed. Really annoyed. I'm laughing at myself at how annoyed I am this this!



Wow. Those ARE ridiculous. More than annoying. The quote about Garner the worst. If he was "buried" how did he pitch the ball?
I don't think there is any doubt with respect to the Garner pitch -- if the only video that exists, cleaned up as best as it can be and blown up, were used for replay review, the call that Garner was not down would stand. It wouldn't be confirmed, it would stand. If he had been called down, it would stand. Anyone who argues otherwise is wearing red or blue colored glasses.

From the student side, I had a much better view of Garner's knee, I could see pretty clearly when it hit, as well as when the ball got out, and while it was extremely close, I did not think, and still do not think, his knee was down. At the time, I was thinking of how many blown calls I had seen in the 1982 season on fumbles, runner called down when he wasn't, runner called not down when he was, and this one was SO much closer than a lot of blown calls I had seen, so I was worried he would be called down even though I thought he wasn't. In a time before replay, it was a call that was so close, the officials couldn't really be "wrong" either way. But based on my view, they got it right.

The Ford pitch to Moen is another issue, but only in the era of replay could that possibly be overturned. Ford threw the ball back over his shoulder, relative to his body it was a backward pass, and only because his body was moving forward at the time could it have been a forward pass. I have NEVER seen an illegal forward pass called when the ball went backwards relative to the player, refs will NEVER see that, I don't think the spirit of the rules even calls for that to be an illegal forward pass, but the letter of the rule might, so in the replay era it could be overturned (even so, it is still likely that on review, the call would stand, even if from the video it PROBABLY was released in front of where it was caught).

Other than allowing Stanford to kickoff when Cal did not have 5 men in the 10-15 yard zone from the kickoff (as the Fimrite article first pointed out, there was no penalty, the officials should not have allowed the kickoff), the officials did nothing wrong. Other than that initial item, it was a perfectly officiated play.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal8285 said:

calumnus said:

TheFiatLux said:

Thank for sharing the link, but I gotta say, I found that a really, really odd write up. I felt almost as if a Stanford fan wrote it. In fact, in genuinely annoyed me.

The part about Moffett's history at Kansas was was really interesting and gave great insight into what his approach might be that led to the outcome.. Speaking of Moffett, don't you think it's kind of weird that a former Daily Cal writer, and now a guy submitting an article for our monthly might bring up the interesting coincidence that the ref had the same name as the undergrad library? That would be a fun thing to include...

And some of the points he makes:

The refs didn't "give us the game" or "flout the rules"

Quote:

In giving Cal the winning touchdown, the six men in black and white may or may not have flouted the rules.

I don't even know what this means, how did they "help violate" the conventions or orderly competition? What were they supposed to do?

Quote:

Without doubt, they had helped violate the conventions of orderly competition.
Actually, no, not this at all...

Quote:

And we also saw the things we never dare concede in loud, performative bull sessions with you TreePeople.

Nope, nope and nope.

Quote:

We saw Cal running back Dwight Garner squashed under a pile of Stanford players and acknowledge the powerful, magical thinking we must invoke to insist Garner couldn't possibly have been down.

But the most inane is this... *** "should have"????

Quote:

At the risk of surrendering my hard-earned Cal Fanatic card, I concede it here and now: The 85th Big Game righteously could have, maybe should have, finished with the penultimate play, a Mark Harmon field goal capping a heart-stopping 2019 Stanford victory.

And I could go on and on with the rest of the piece... of you know I can :-) But I'll leave it at those.

The Firmite article that he references is sooooooo much better.

This article actually left me annoyed. Really annoyed. I'm laughing at myself at how annoyed I am this this!



Wow. Those ARE ridiculous. More than annoying. The quote about Garner the worst. If he was "buried" how did he pitch the ball?
I don't think there is any doubt with respect to the Garner pitch -- if the only video that exists, cleaned up as best as it can be and blown up, were used for replay review, the call that Garner was not down would stand. It wouldn't be confirmed, it would stand. If he had been called down, it would stand. Anyone who argues otherwise is wearing red or blue colored glasses.

From the student side, I had a much better view of Garner's knee, I could see pretty clearly when it hit, as well as when the ball got out, and while it was extremely close, I did not think, and still do not think, his knee was down. At the time, I was thinking of how many blown calls I had seen in the 1982 season on fumbles, runner called down when he wasn't, runner called not down when he was, and this one was SO much closer than a lot of blown calls I had seen, so I was worried he would be called down even though I thought he wasn't. In a time before replay, it was a call that was so close, the officials couldn't really be "wrong" either way. But based on my view, they got it right.

The Ford pitch to Moen is another issue, but only in the era of replay could that possibly be overturned. Ford threw the ball back over his shoulder, relative to his body it was a backward pass, and only because his body was moving forward at the time could it have been a forward pass. I have NEVER seen an illegal forward pass called when the ball went backwards relative to the player, refs will NEVER see that, I don't think the spirit of the rules even calls for that to be an illegal forward pass, but the letter of the rule might, so in the replay era it could be overturned (even so, it is still likely that on review, the call would stand, even if from the video it PROBABLY was released in front of where it was caught).

Other than allowing Stanford to kickoff when Cal did not have 5 men in the 10-15 yard zone from the kickoff (as the Fimrite article first pointed out, there was no penalty, the officials should not have allowed the kickoff), the officials did nothing wrong. Other than that initial item, it was a perfectly officiated play.


One thing to remember about Dwight Garner, he was/is very bow legged. His knees don't bend forward, they bend outward. He tossed the ball with a chest high push looking Moen in the eye as he was going down. How do you do that on the ground under a pile? If he had let go later and it hit ground it would still have been a fumble. He wasn't even close to being down.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Didn't one of the officials also once say that if the Bears had not scored on the play, he might have had to award a touchdown anyway because of all the band interference?
nwbear84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal8285, I was there with you in the student section, and at no point did I think any of the Cal players were down.

I don't see the band interference causing anything other than maybe a re-kick or a play after the "defensive" penalty if a Cal player went down.

As others have said, I don't really see how the officials could have called it differently from what they did.

It was an amazingly lucky play in so many ways, and thus, it is the curse that will follow Cal forever, with few favorable calls and not getting all manner of plays to go their way. I'm sure you can rattle off a few, starting with last weekend.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nwbear84 said:

Cal8285, I was there with you in the student section, and at no point did I think any of the Cal players were down.

I don't see the band interference causing anything other than maybe a re-kick or a play after the "defensive" penalty if a Cal player went down.

As others have said, I don't really see how the officials could have called it differently from what they did.

It was an amazingly lucky play in so many ways, and thus, it is the curse that will follow Cal forever, with few favorable calls and not getting all manner of plays to go their way. I'm sure you can rattle off a few, starting with last weekend.


I was in the student section too.

If Moen hadn't scored, it would have been a penalty on Stanford for interference. The refs could have awarded us the TD. Worst case we get the ball on the 10 or something, with one last play no time on the clock and we kick the FG to win.

And I object to any implication that a correct call in 1982 "cursed" us in any way to deserve the horrific and clearly biased calls we have seen in Big Game or last weekend.
nwbear84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

nwbear84 said:

Cal8285, I was there with you in the student section, and at no point did I think any of the Cal players were down.

I don't see the band interference causing anything other than maybe a re-kick or a play after the "defensive" penalty if a Cal player went down.

As others have said, I don't really see how the officials could have called it differently from what they did.

It was an amazingly lucky play in so many ways, and thus, it is the curse that will follow Cal forever, with few favorable calls and not getting all manner of plays to go their way. I'm sure you can rattle off a few, starting with last weekend.


I was in the student section too.

If Moen hadn't scored, it would have been a penalty on Stanford for interference. The refs could have awarded us the TD. Worst case we get the ball on the 10 or something, with one last play no time on the clock and we kick the FG to win.


Nah, we would have missed the FG!
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.