SanseiBear;842364259 said:

---

Agree! These are calls commonly made in games, 6 players on the LOS or an ineligible receiver. Since the game cannot end on a penalty, Arizona would have gotten another chance after the penalty is enforced. Hopefully, Cal would have been able to defend the next Hail Mary better. Oh well, let's take down the Buffaloes!

---

I think the rule is that the game cannot end on a [U]defensive[/U] penalty. It can end on a penalty against the offense.

oskipeak;842363578 said:

---

PAC 12 refs. oh well, it should never have come to that, but depressing nonetheless.

---

They change the replay rules so often, that it's hard for me to keep track... especially since they are by conference and not NCAA wide - but if rich rod can challenge the number of men on the field, Cal should have been able to challenge the number of men on the LOS. I say should as in saying that would be what's fair not necessarily what the rules allow. In the NFL challenges in the last 2 minutes must come from the booth, what is it in college? Cal was out of TO's and it was under 2 minutes, but in college EVERY play is supposedly reviewed. It's funny to me that coaches can challenge the most basic procedural things before 2 minutes, but after that, they seemingly don't can't get checked.

The notion that every play is reviewed in college is a total BS statement by the way - there's no way the booth is checking for procedural things like men on field or formation every play. So it's stupid to only give one challenge. Anyway, replay sucks. The game might be better without it because it ruins the flow and is applied very haphazardly in college. More time for ads I guess. Would be very interested to see a response from the P12 office as to why the formation was not reviewed (it's 100% illegal as people have noted, either the OL is off the line, or the WR is on the line). Formation penalties seem really ticky tacky, yes, but if it's a rule, it needs to be enforced all the time, or get rid of it. Or at least get a ruling on how far off the LOS a player can be. Seems like 1 yard is fair. Is 1.5 yards, or 2 yards fair? On TV it looks small, but a yard is a long ways. I can see how it's tough for the refs if a player is 1-1.5 yards off the line can be either on the LOS or off it... and try counting that when a team is running a hurry up.

Anyway, it was a close game. We get this after any close loss - the refs robbed us here and there, etc etc. It just shows there are a whole number of somewhat random occurrences and a bunch of controllable occurrences that effect who wins and loses. In some ways that means one can absolutely say no one 'deserved' to win, or both teams played well enough to win. Sometimes the winner is a result of random shite. Always has been that ways. If this non-call was one of, say, 20 things that could have cost us the game, then it shouldn't necessarily be SINGLED out as the reason we lost. But looked at as 1 thing out of 20...

I still loved the way our team competed for well most of the game. Are there are lot of questions about the system and closing out games? Very much so. Will our coaching staff be able to make adjustments? I sure hope so. Even if it comes by studying what happens this year and puts us in a position to roll next year.

At the same time, don't forget Az absolutely balled out in the 4th Q and I respect them for it.

BerkeleyBear;842364097 said:

---

Some believe that people need to be constantly vigalent about all aspects of the game, including the officiating, or the second law of thermodynamics will overwhelm the game. See, for example, Saturday, October 17, 1970, California Memorial Stadium, Berkeley, California.

---

Dennis Dummitt is still down at the 2!

OaktownBear;842364188 said:

---

You cannot intentionally throw the ball out of bounds. This is football 101. As I said elsewhere, if you could, every team in a 2 minute drill would throw the ball out of bounds to stop the clock when they are about to be tackled.

---

100% obvious call. If we whine, it should at least be about legit complaints!

sycasey;842364226 said:

---

He wasn't always like that, but the Dykes Era has brought out a new side of OaktownBear. (Granted, much of this is justified after a 1-11 season, though I don't agree with the assertion that Dykes should have been fired after one year.)

---

LOL. Yah OTB has gotten pissier over the years, with good reason.

SanseiBear;842364259 said:

---

Agree! These are calls commonly made in games, 6 players on the LOS or an ineligible receiver. Since the game cannot end on a penalty, Arizona would have gotten another chance after the penalty is enforced. Hopefully, Cal would have been able to defend the next Hail Mary better. Oh well, let's take down the Buffaloes!

---

I hope it does not come down to a Hail Mary.

ColoradoBear1;842364350 said:

---

100% obvious call. If we whine, it should at least be about legit complaints!

---

not obvious if one does not know .... correct ? hence you ask ... asking a question is not whining is it is asking a question NO?

going4roses;842364365 said:

---

not obvious if one does not know .... correct ? hence you ask ... asking a question is not whining is it is asking a question NO?

---

Fair enough. And you aren't the only one to ask. What I meant by obvious is that there is really no room for interpretation by the refs, it doesn't happen often which is why many are not familiar with the call. And OTB says exactly why it's not just an automatic call, but why the rule is in there for good reason.

This might be one of those things due to inexperience - best thing is that it wasn't the first penalty to be called on Cal on the play, so the staff can and will make sure it won't happen again when it could actually cost us a game.

ColoradoBear1;842364371 said:

---

Fair enough. And you aren't the only one to ask. What I meant by obvious is that there is really no room for interpretation by the refs, it doesn't happen often which is why many are not familiar with the call. And OTB says exactly why it's not just an automatic call, but why the rule is in there for good reason.

---

Cal fans are probably more sore about this one because of that one Shane Vereen touchdown that was called back against USC several years ago, for basically the same kind of formation. The Trojans get this call, we don't.

sycasey;842364374 said:

---

Cal fans are probably more sore about this one because of that one Shane Vereen touchdown that was called back against USC several years ago, for basically the same kind of formation. The Trojans get this call, we don't.

---

when did shane vereen bat the ball out? just kidding. I remember the formation play. I think they are both are interpretations because there is not solid rule out there on what is LOS. Very important with the subbing and spread offenses these days. The difference with the Az one is that the OL is even with the WR, so you can't have it both ways. $C call, IIRC was that a WR was ~1 yards behind the line while another moved to right up on it. The 1 yard is kind of no mans land, but again the refs are so inconstant because I don't think they have a clear directive from the P12 offices. Damn shame on that one - you only get to pull out that kind of play to vereen once before the D knows it.

ColoradoBear1;842364371 said:

---

Fair enough. And you aren't the only one to ask. What I meant by obvious is that there is really no room for interpretation by the refs, it doesn't happen often which is why many are not familiar with the call. And OTB says exactly why it's not just an automatic call, but why the rule is in there for good reason.

This might be one of those things due to inexperience - best thing is that it wasn't the first penalty to be called on Cal on the play, so the staff can and will make sure it won't happen again when it could actually cost us a game.

---

i concur .. hands down

OaktownBear;842364188 said:

---

You cannot intentionally throw the ball out of bounds. This is football 101. As I said elsewhere, if you could, every team in a 2 minute drill would throw the ball out of bounds to stop the clock when they are about to be tackled.

Both teams got breaks. By the standard you guys want to apply to that Hail Mary, Allensworth would have been called for PI as he had his hands on the receiver riding him for 10 yards.

Suck it up. Have some sportsmanship. Take the loss like men instead of freeze framing things and trying to argue that a receiver's feet were 6 inches too close to the line which, even if it were true, gave them no advantage whatsoever.

---

OtB, where were you when Cal was winning?!! Your last post before the loss to AZ was Aug 29, before Cal's first game at NW. I've noticed some of BI's most critical posters of Dykes not commenting during the 3 weeks when Cal didn't lose. Yet, when Cal lost its first game, the floodgate opened.

Eeyore;842364396 said:

---

OtB, where were you when Cal was winning?!! Your last post before the loss to AZ was Aug 29, before Cal's first game at NW. I've noticed some of BI's most critical posters of Dykes not commenting during the 3 weeks when Cal didn't lose. Yet, when Cal lost its first game, the floodgate opened.

---

I decided to remain mostly silent and give the season a chance to play out. I haven't said one negative thing about the staff.

OaktownBear;842364409 said:

---

I decided to remain mostly silent and give the season a chance to play out. I haven't said one negative thing about the staff.

---

Did you at least enjoy the first two wins (and 1st half of AZ game) or did you mutter about almost losing to NW and 2nd/3rd stringers giving up 14 points to Sac St?

sycasey;842364226 said:

---

He wasn't always like that, but the Dykes Era has brought out a new side of OaktownBear. (Granted, much of this is justified after a 1-11 season, though I don't agree with the assertion that Dykes should have been fired after one year.)

---

You guys may want to try reading what I write instead of what you think I'm going to say. I have made no criticism of the coaches or players. I said both teams did enough to win. Both did enough to lose. I never even thought anyone was trying to "excuse" the performance by blaming the refs. Nor did I criticize the performance or say that it even needed to be excused.

We played a football game. Both teams played hard. We lost in heartbreaking fashion. They won in historic fashion. Honor the game and the players by accepting that. Trying to find ticky tack reasons to diminish their victory is weak sauce, like Stanford in 1982. So weak that I was moved to comment even though I'm trying not to comment on football until the season plays out some.

I'm giving the staff a chance to show something. If you guys would rather I go back to ripping them, I guess I could.

I have posted for many years through good and bad. I'm under no obligation to post whenever someone thinks I should.

Eeyore;842364415 said:

---

Did you at least enjoy the first two wins (and 1st half of AZ game) or did you mutter about almost losing to NW and 2nd/3rd stringers giving up 14 points to Sac St?

---

I did not get to see the Sac State game. The guys had me worried in the second half at NW, but they pulled it out and we are not in a position where we don't enjoy a win, ANY win against an FBS team.

Goff has been a stud. Watching him work these games has been fun. Most Cal fans always worry until the clock hits triple zero (sometimes after). Unfortunately the UA game proved deserving of the worry.

Cal fans should be sore about the Vereen call. That was a bullshyte call.

OaktownBear;842364425 said:

---

You guys may want to try reading what I write instead of what you think I'm going to say.

---

Well, you have to admit that a person's recent posting history tends to color your view of what else they post. Coming in here and chastising people for criticizing the refs seems a bit part-and-parcel with your previous negativity about Dykes (which, as I said, is not entirely unjustified). If that is not what you intend, my apologies.

OaktownBear;842364425 said:

---

Trying to find ticky tack reasons to diminish their victory is weak sauce, like Stanford in 1982. So weak that I was moved to comment even though I'm trying not to comment on football until the season plays out some.

---

I see it differently. I don't think the general tone of this thread has been "ARGH, we should have won!!!" a la the Stanford fans. Maybe in a few places, but not generally. It's been more, "Hey look, here's something the refs missed. Interesting." I find the thread interesting more from the standpoint of a technical discussion of football rules, and based on that the O.P. is right -- this should have been flagged as an illegal formation. Doesn't mean I think the game should be replayed or anything.

ColoradoBear1;842364283 said:

---

Anyway, it was a close game. We get this after any close loss - the refs robbed us here and there, etc etc. It just shows there are a whole number of somewhat random occurrences and a bunch of controllable occurrences that effect who wins and loses. In some ways that means one can absolutely say no one 'deserved' to win, or both teams played well enough to win. Sometimes the winner is a result of random shite. Always has been that ways. If this non-call was one of, say, 20 things that could have cost us the game, then it shouldn't necessarily be SINGLED out as the reason we lost. But looked at as 1 thing out of 20...

---

I don't think that anyone is stating that the missed infraction on the last play is the only reason that Cal lost. There were more than a few plays and events that contributed to Cal's loss, any one of which had gone differently would have led to a Cal victory. Obviously, that's the nature of close games.

What makes the infraction and the lack of penalty call on the last play doubly frustrating is that the infraction was not an error by Cal (such as a DB tripping and falling down leaving a receiver wide open, etc. which clearly would be Cal's responsibility), but rather a clear error by a third party (the officials) completely beyond Cal's control, and the fact that the error occurred with the game in the balance with no time remaining meant that there was no time left to compensate or mitigate for the error. If the exact same play had occurred in the middle of the first quarter, it would be frustrating, for certain, but there would be plenty of time to overcome the error and the error wouldn't seem so dispositive to the game. An error on the last play with the game in the balance allows for no time to overcome the mistake, which is annoying.

Certainly, if Cal had play better throughout the 4th quarter, Cal would have won the game, but that still doesn't change the fact the Arizona got away with an infraction that should have been called on the last play. Things like that do occasionally happen in football games, but that doesn't mean that people won't be frustrated by them or want to point out such events.

sycasey;842364475 said:

---

Well, you have to admit that a person's recent posting history tends to color your view of what else they post. Coming in here and chastising people for criticizing the refs seems a bit part-and-parcel with your previous negativity about Dykes (which, as I said, is not entirely unjustified). If that is not what you intend, my apologies.



I see it differently. I don't think the general tone of this thread has been "ARGH, we should have won!!!" a la the Stanford fans. Maybe in a few places, but not generally. It's been more, "Hey look, here's something the refs missed. Interesting." I find the thread interesting more from the standpoint of a technical discussion of football rules, and based on that the O.P. is right -- this should have been flagged as an illegal formation. Doesn't mean I think the game should be replayed or anything.

---

I was in no way stating anything about the performance of the team or the coaches.

On your last point, I see that YOU may be having a technical discussion, but I think you are naive regarding the intent of the others. Do you really think we would be having this discussion if we won this game on a Hail Mary? IMO, others are clearly complaining.

I'd also say that there is just no way that the losing fans get to have technical discussions about the many calls they think went against them without looking like poor sports. And honestly, even if you mean well, saying "Congratulations on the great win and here is a freeze frame of how the deciding play was illegal. I don't mean that to diminish what you accomplished, just that from a technical perspective, you obviously should have lost" is kind of like saying "Hey, congratulations on the rich, smart, gorgeous girlfriend. Though she has slept around a lot. I don't mean that as a put down or anything, it is just that we were debating what the scientific definition of "a lot" is and boy does she qualify."

Sour grapes man.

And, by the way, I've made these same points when Tedford was coach.

OaktownBear;842364499 said:

---

On your last point, I see that YOU may be having a technical discussion, but I think you are naive regarding the intent of the others. Do you really think we would be having this discussion if we won this game on a Hail Mary? IMO, others are clearly complaining.

---

Fair point, but even given that some are complaining, I don't think the tone is especially worthy of a call-out. People note bad calls after every loss; it's nothing new. Even those who are complaining are also noting that it's not the only reason we lost, etc.

OaktownBear;842364499 said:

---

I'd also say that there is just no way that the losing fans get to have technical discussions about the many calls they think went against them without looking like poor sports. And honestly, even if you mean well, saying "Congratulations on the great win and here is a freeze frame of how the deciding play was illegal. I don't mean that to diminish what you accomplished, just that from a technical perspective, you obviously should have lost" is kind of like saying "Hey, congratulations on the rich, smart, gorgeous girlfriend. Though she has slept around a lot. I don't mean that as a put down or anything, it is just that we were debating what the scientific definition of "a lot" is and boy does she qualify."

---

Yeah, but here's the difference: we're posting this on the Cal board, not the Arizona board. If someone went over there and started up with this stuff I'd agree he was a being a d***. Cal fans talking amongst themselves? It's fine.

OaktownBear;842364499 said:

---

I'd also say that there is just no way that the losing fans get to have technical discussions about the many calls they think went against them without looking like poor sports.

---

That my be your perspective, but I simply disagree with such a blanket statement. Do you think Cal fans look like poor sports when discussing the 1988 Cal-Oregon State game in Corvallis or the 1970 Cal-UCLA game in Berkeley or the 1949 Rose Bowl in Pasadena? Not all discussions regarding errors by the officials make those who participate in those discussions look like poor sports. If people don't point out errors by officials, the officials won't have as much incentive to improve in future games. I think most fans want the officials to improve with every opportunity that they have and to enforce the rules properly. That's why the replay rule was finally instituted.

OaktownBear;842364499 said:

---

Do you really think we would be having this discussion if we won this game on a Hail Mary?

---

If Cal had won the game in the exact same manner as Arizona did and someone pointed out the obvious infraction, I'd say, "Yeah, Cal got away with one, but I'll take the win, regardless." I wouldn't simply dismiss the infraction as not being relevant, as it clearly was one of the factors in determining the outcome of the game. I don't believe that anyone is disputing the fact that Arizona committed an infraction on the last play. These types of errors do occur from time to time in football games, and when they occur, they should be pointed out. Again, it's the pointing out of these types of errors that helps to lead to officiating improvement in future games.

This is what I'm telling you. They didn't throw the flag on the supposed illegal formation. You MAY be able to argue that a literal reading of the rule makes that illegal formation or ineligible receiver down field. However, based on the formation shown, that call is almost never going to be made and will never be made in a hail mary situation.

Granted that the WR in the right slot is roughly (though not exactly) in the same position with respect to the line as the WR out wide to the left. But the bottom line is that the official on the right is looking at a receiver who is plausibly off the line. And the official on the left is looking at a receiver who is plausibly on the line. They simply are not going to call that on most plays. Further, in a hail mary situation with the defenders off the line, lining up like that doesn't give the receiver any advantage. They will never call that. So yes, real world, I refute that it is a penalty.

Even if it is technically a penalty, freeze framing it and trying to pick off a technicality in the alignment is fundamentally different from a guy being down on the 2 yard line getting a touchdown or a home team putting 2 extra minutes on the clock. It is the equivalent to saying that because Gale Gilbert reacted to the Stanford team rushing the field by taking two steps on the field and immediately jumping back the Play should have been called back. The OSU/UCLA examples are obvious incompetence. The UA/Play examples are fans scouring replays looking for technicalities to complain about.

And no pointing these types of things out do not lead to officiating improvement. 1. They would ignore it. 2. They should never throw that flag on that play with that alignment. EVER. Frankly, if they did they should be fired.

OaktownBear;842364549 said:

---

Granted that the WR in the right slot is roughly (though not exactly) in the same position with respect to the line as the WR out wide to the left. But the bottom line is that the official on the right is looking at a receiver who is plausibly off the line. And the official on the left is looking at a receiver who is plausibly on the line. They simply are not going to call that on most plays. Further, in a hail mary situation with the defenders off the line, lining up like that doesn't give the receiver any advantage. They will never call that. So yes, real world, I refute that it is a penalty.

---

Here's the thing: the slot receiver is also in line with the right tackle, who is definitively ON the line and not behind it. If the RT is behind the line then it is a flag for illegal formation because it means the whole OL besides the center is in the backfield. If you grant that the RT is on the line, then that means the slot receiver is also on the line and ineligible. In the real world, that is a penalty. The inside receiver effed up in where he lined up and he is lucky the refs didn't catch it.

I'll agree that it probably didn't give Arizona any real advantage on the play. Everyone knew who the receivers were.

OaktownBear;842364549 said:

---

You MAY be able to argue that a literal reading of the rule makes that illegal formation or ineligible receiver down field. However, based on the formation shown, that call is almost never going to be made and will never be made in a hail mary situation.

Granted that the WR in the right slot is roughly (though not exactly) in the same position with respect to the line as the WR out wide to the left. But the bottom line is that the official on the right is looking at a receiver who is plausibly off the line. And the official on the left is looking at a receiver who is plausibly on the line. They simply are not going to call that on most plays. Further, in a hail mary situation with the defenders off the line, lining up like that doesn't give the receiver any advantage. They will never call that. So yes, real world, I refute that it is a penalty.

---

You may be alone with that opinion. At least one official is responsible for determining on his own that there are at least 7 players on the LOS (not two officials only counting half of the line each). I think it's clear by rule that it was an ineligible receiver down field infraction as Arizona had 8 players on the LOS. I don't think it's reasonable to look at that formation and think that Arizona had 7 rather than 8 players on the LOS (if there were not 8 players on the LOS, then based on player positioning Arizona only had 4 players on the LOS - the Center, the two Guards and the far right WR and the officials surely would have called that infraction).

The offense does have an advantage in that formation if the right inside WR is not deemed to be on the LOS because given the positioning of the Arizona offense it appears to the defense as if the right inside WR is on the LOS and is covered by the right outside WR and is, therefore, an ineligible receiver that the defense doesn't have to worry about with regard to catching a pass. If the right inside WR is clearly positioned at least 1 yard behind the LOS, as the right middle WR is, then the defense knows that the right inside WR is eligible and can adjust its pass coverage properly to account for that. The defense clearly needs to know if the right inside receiver is eligible or not, so it can adjust its defense accordingly.

OaktownBear;842364549 said:

---

Even if it is technically a penalty, freeze framing it and trying to pick off a technicality in the alignment is fundamentally different from a guy being down on the 2 yard line getting a touchdown or a home team putting 2 extra minutes on the clock. It is the equivalent to saying that because Gale Gilbert reacted to the Stanford team rushing the field by taking two steps on the field and immediately jumping back the Play should have been called back. The OSU/UCLA examples are obvious incompetence. The UA/Play examples are fans scouring replays looking for technicalities to complain about.

---

I don't agree with your analogy vis-a-vis Gale Gilbert (but I am glad that you appear to agree with my previous point that not all discussions about errors by the officials result in participants looking like poor sports), as whether a receiver is deemed eligible or not can have a much more significant impact on a play than a player on the sideline taking a step or two onto the field and immediately jumping back without any interaction with the play whatsoever. Certainly, there is no argument that some officiating errors have more impact than others. The impact of officiating errors can range across the spectrum from immaterial to minimal to significant to game changing. Each officiating error needs to be judged based on its own facts. One is not necessarily equivalent to another.

OaktownBear;842364549 said:

---

And no pointing these types of things out do not lead to officiating improvement. 1. They would ignore it. 2. They should never throw that flag on that play with that alignment. EVER. Frankly, if they did they should be fired.

---

We'll agree to disagree completely on that point. I don't think it's reasonable to think that critical feedback doesn't help lead to officiating improvement. I think you'd have a difficult time proving that it doesn't. Also, based on your statement I'm glad that you're not in charge of PAC-12 officiating. You aren't, are you? :skep:

sycasey;842364557 said:

---

Here's the thing: the slot receiver is also in line with the right tackle, who is definitively ON the line and not behind it. If the RT is behind the line then it is a flag for illegal formation because it means the whole OL besides the center is in the backfield. If you grant that the RT is on the line, then that means the slot receiver is also on the line and ineligible. In the real world, that is a penalty. The inside receiver effed up in where he lined up and he is lucky the refs didn't catch it.

---

Exactly. If the right inside receiver had been called for being ineligible down field, it would have been game over, and Cal wins.

sycasey;842364557 said:

---

I'll agree that it probably didn't give Arizona any real advantage on the play. Everyone knew who the receivers were.

---

Unless, the Cal defense did, in fact, believe that the inside slot receiver was ineligible, which could have caused some defensive assignment issues.

I hate making excuses because a call here would bail us out, but it did give AZ an advantage. When you are in hurry up mode, it helps if you don't have to line up correctly per the rules.

BerkeleyBear;842364596 said:

---

Unless, the Cal defense did, in fact, believe that the inside slot receiver was ineligible, which could have caused some defensive assignment issues.

---

Ehh, I kind of doubt that would have been the case. If it was two tight ends lined up together then I can see it, but when a WR is in the slot everyone knows he's going out for a pass. I doubt it caused assignment/coverage issues.

If there is an advantage gained by the offense then I think it is really about the rest of the OL being able to line up nearly a full yard back. If you had the WR in the slot in his current position, but forced the rest of the OL to line up right on the line (so that the slot WR was actually in the backfield like he's supposed to be) then we might have been able to generate a better pass rush to hurry the throw.

sycasey;842364693 said:

---

Ehh, I kind of doubt that would have been the case. If it was two tight ends lined up together then I can see it, but when a WR is in the slot everyone knows he's going out for a pass. I doubt it caused assignment/coverage issues.

---

It appears that at least Jefferson did have some assignment/coverage issues related to the inside slot receiver as Jefferson did initially appear to be briefly occupied with that receiver, and, therefore, as a consequence Jefferson ended up not being in the proper position to help defend the pass at the end of the play.

I would be interested to hear Jefferson's take on the play.

sycasey;842364506 said:

---

If someone went over there and started up with this stuff I'd agree he was a being a d***. Cal fans talking amongst themselves? It's fine.

---

Sounds like a job for Drunkoski!