71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

kaplanfx said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

espn puts the onus on Ole Miss AD. Larry got some explainin' to do.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27669968/ole-miss-questions-pac-12-refs-bizarre-finish

---

This paragraph says it all:

"I thought at the very least, it should have been buzzed and reviewed," Luke said. "We didn't have a timeout. We could not spike it. Our only option was to get a quarterback sneak and get the ball off.''

It's their fault for getting in that situation, and they want a magical bailout from the refs?

---

Let's put it this way. If the shoe were on the other foot, would you have wanted the clock stopped for a review?

Of course, you would.

Bottom line, the P12 blew it. That's two weeks in a row at a key point in a game.

I still think inter-conference games should be officiated by neutral refs.....

Anyway, it will be interesting to read the P12's point of view tomorrow when they explain why the refs did not review the play. I would anticipate another apology for screwing up.

---

I wouldn't. Of course I would want it reviewed if the shoe were on the other foot. However, the rule is not that you review every close play. Or even a close play at the end. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. They can only review when they have reasonable evidence an error was made. Do you think they had that? They would have to have had that on basis of watching it real time because they didn't have time to get the replay, review it, and call it down. I would like to know if anyone has reviewed that fast.

The call was correct. There was no evidence of error. There was no time to review it. They followed the rules and made the right call. No apology necessary

---

IMO, there was definitely a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, I have no idea if the call was right or wrong. That is the purpose of review. I do not have access to all the camera angles that review officials use to determine whether a play is correctly called.

I do agree that every close play should not be reviewed. However, in this instance, yes, they should have reviewed the play. It could have had a material impact on the outcome of the game.

Most annoying are Cal fans who cry about every call that goes against Cal saying there is some kind of officiating conspiracy against Cal (one poster suggested there were eight questionable calls in the UW game and all of them went against the Bears - no matter how bad the P12 officials are and they are definitely the worst in college football, the odds of that happening are astronomical). Anyway, when a call like the one today occurs, these same people sing the praises of the officials. That leads me to believe the rule these fans use determine whether a call is correct or incorrect is based on whether it benefits Cal. Hmmmm. 'nuff said about that.

I prefer an honest approach - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but no one is trying to put their thumb on the scales (except, of course, the guy that tilted things in favor of SC last year).

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree on this one........

---

In this case, though, you are just getting the rule wrong, and since you are criticizing the refs, you have to get the rule right. The rule is not "reasonable doubt" that the play was called correctly. It is not having a material impact on the game. (Though you are not supposed to review if it does not have that.). The rule is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made. Not might have been made. Not, that was close. Lets take a look and see if it is right. And they did not have benefit of getting even one look at a replay. We all saw that after. I'm sure they were trying to get a replay up to see if they should buzz down. I'm fairly certain that if Ole Miss had a time out and used it, they would have run a slow motion, and then buzzed for replay, and then confirmed at the very least being inconclusive. But they didn't have a chance to do that.

I believe in being honest too. I thought they should review it UNTIL I SAW THE RULE. The implication being thrown around by ESPN and the AD that the PAC-12 cheated is wholly unwarranted.

And as to ESPN, they are full of it for another reason. They obviously don't have a goal line camera showing the ball cross the plane. If they did, they would have shown it. They either don't have the angle at all which begs the question why don't they? Or worse, they have the angle and it doesn't show the ball crossing the plane but they aren't showing it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

The conference should tell them, we followed the procedure. We did not have evidence in the first 8 seconds to call for a review. Our review of all available angles shows the call would have been confirmed. If ESPN has another angle that they made available to our officials, we are happy to review and issue a modified statement if warranted.

---

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC19.pdf

The rule book......

---

Thank you. I assume you are posting as a public service since the rule for stopping play and initiating review says exactly what I said. Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) for those that want to read it themselves

---

Take a peek at Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) #3. That is what caught my eye and applies in this instance.

---

71 - all 3 of the conditions need to apply. Not just one of them. Look at subsection 2 which merely states that the play is reviewable. They clearly don't mean they are supposed to review every play that is reviewable. So to review a play the review official needs 1. Reasonable evidence that the initial call was an error. 2 that the call fits into a category that by rule they can review and 3. The call has a direct impact on the game.

3 merely means they do not do things like review a spot to make it 4th and 18 instead of 4th and 19

sycasey said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

kaplanfx said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

espn puts the onus on Ole Miss AD. Larry got some explainin' to do.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27669968/ole-miss-questions-pac-12-refs-bizarre-finish

---

This paragraph says it all:

"I thought at the very least, it should have been buzzed and reviewed," Luke said. "We didn't have a timeout. We could not spike it. Our only option was to get a quarterback sneak and get the ball off.''

It's their fault for getting in that situation, and they want a magical bailout from the refs?

---

Let's put it this way. If the shoe were on the other foot, would you have wanted the clock stopped for a review?

Of course, you would.

Bottom line, the P12 blew it. That's two weeks in a row at a key point in a game.

I still think inter-conference games should be officiated by neutral refs.....

Anyway, it will be interesting to read the P12's point of view tomorrow when they explain why the refs did not review the play. I would anticipate another apology for screwing up.

---

I wouldn't. Of course I would want it reviewed if the shoe were on the other foot. However, the rule is not that you review every close play. Or even a close play at the end. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. They can only review when they have reasonable evidence an error was made. Do you think they had that? They would have to have had that on basis of watching it real time because they didn't have time to get the replay, review it, and call it down. I would like to know if anyone has reviewed that fast.

The call was correct. There was no evidence of error. There was no time to review it. They followed the rules and made the right call. No apology necessary

---

IMO, there was definitely a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, I have no idea if the call was right or wrong. That is the purpose of review. I do not have access to all the camera angles that review officials use to determine whether a play is correctly called.

I do agree that every close play should not be reviewed. However, in this instance, yes, they should have reviewed the play. It could have had a material impact on the outcome of the game.

Most annoying are Cal fans who cry about every call that goes against Cal saying there is some kind of officiating conspiracy against Cal (one poster suggested there were eight questionable calls in the UW game and all of them went against the Bears - no matter how bad the P12 officials are and they are definitely the worst in college football, the odds of that happening are astronomical). Anyway, when a call like the one today occurs, these same people sing the praises of the officials. That leads me to believe the rule these fans use determine whether a call is correct or incorrect is based on whether it benefits Cal. Hmmmm. 'nuff said about that.

I prefer an honest approach - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but no one is trying to put their thumb on the scales (except, of course, the guy that tilted things in favor of SC last year).

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree on this one........

---

In this case, though, you are just getting the rule wrong, and since you are criticizing the refs, you have to get the rule right. The rule is not "reasonable doubt" that the play was called correctly. It is not having a material impact on the game. (Though you are not supposed to review if it does not have that.). The rule is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made. Not might have been made. Not, that was close. Lets take a look and see if it is right. And they did not have benefit of getting even one look at a replay. We all saw that after. I'm sure they were trying to get a replay up to see if they should buzz down. I'm fairly certain that if Ole Miss had a time out and used it, they would have run a slow motion, and then buzzed for replay, and then confirmed at the very least being inconclusive. But they didn't have a chance to do that.

I believe in being honest too. I thought they should review it UNTIL I SAW THE RULE. The implication being thrown around by ESPN and the AD that the PAC-12 cheated is wholly unwarranted.

And as to ESPN, they are full of it for another reason. They obviously don't have a goal line camera showing the ball cross the plane. If they did, they would have shown it. They either don't have the angle at all which begs the question why don't they? Or worse, they have the angle and it doesn't show the ball crossing the plane but they aren't showing it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

The conference should tell them, we followed the procedure. We did not have evidence in the first 8 seconds to call for a review. Our review of all available angles shows the call would have been confirmed. If ESPN has another angle that they made available to our officials, we are happy to review and issue a modified statement if warranted.

---

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC19.pdf

The rule book......

---

Thank you. I assume you are posting as a public service since the rule for stopping play and initiating review says exactly what I said. Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) for those that want to read it themselves

---

Take a peek at Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) #3. That is what caught my eye and applies in this instance.

---

I think the rule is stating that all three conditions have to be met, not one of the three. Otherwise, subsection 2 would apply and you'd stop if for every reviewable play.

---

You are correct - and this is obvious when you consider the implication of 5(1)(a)(2). You wouldn't stop play if the play isn't reviewable, so if 1 and 3 could stand alone, this wouldn't make any sense.

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

kaplanfx said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

espn puts the onus on Ole Miss AD. Larry got some explainin' to do.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27669968/ole-miss-questions-pac-12-refs-bizarre-finish

---

This paragraph says it all:

"I thought at the very least, it should have been buzzed and reviewed," Luke said. "We didn't have a timeout. We could not spike it. Our only option was to get a quarterback sneak and get the ball off.''

It's their fault for getting in that situation, and they want a magical bailout from the refs?

---

Let's put it this way. If the shoe were on the other foot, would you have wanted the clock stopped for a review?

Of course, you would.

Bottom line, the P12 blew it. That's two weeks in a row at a key point in a game.

I still think inter-conference games should be officiated by neutral refs.....

Anyway, it will be interesting to read the P12's point of view tomorrow when they explain why the refs did not review the play. I would anticipate another apology for screwing up.

---

I wouldn't. Of course I would want it reviewed if the shoe were on the other foot. However, the rule is not that you review every close play. Or even a close play at the end. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. They can only review when they have reasonable evidence an error was made. Do you think they had that? They would have to have had that on basis of watching it real time because they didn't have time to get the replay, review it, and call it down. I would like to know if anyone has reviewed that fast.

The call was correct. There was no evidence of error. There was no time to review it. They followed the rules and made the right call. No apology necessary

---

IMO, there was definitely a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, I have no idea if the call was right or wrong. That is the purpose of review. I do not have access to all the camera angles that review officials use to determine whether a play is correctly called.

I do agree that every close play should not be reviewed. However, in this instance, yes, they should have reviewed the play. It could have had a material impact on the outcome of the game.

Most annoying are Cal fans who cry about every call that goes against Cal saying there is some kind of officiating conspiracy against Cal (one poster suggested there were eight questionable calls in the UW game and all of them went against the Bears - no matter how bad the P12 officials are and they are definitely the worst in college football, the odds of that happening are astronomical). Anyway, when a call like the one today occurs, these same people sing the praises of the officials. That leads me to believe the rule these fans use determine whether a call is correct or incorrect is based on whether it benefits Cal. Hmmmm. 'nuff said about that.

I prefer an honest approach - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but no one is trying to put their thumb on the scales (except, of course, the guy that tilted things in favor of SC last year).

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree on this one........

---

In this case, though, you are just getting the rule wrong, and since you are criticizing the refs, you have to get the rule right. The rule is not "reasonable doubt" that the play was called correctly. It is not having a material impact on the game. (Though you are not supposed to review if it does not have that.). The rule is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made. Not might have been made. Not, that was close. Lets take a look and see if it is right. And they did not have benefit of getting even one look at a replay. We all saw that after. I'm sure they were trying to get a replay up to see if they should buzz down. I'm fairly certain that if Ole Miss had a time out and used it, they would have run a slow motion, and then buzzed for replay, and then confirmed at the very least being inconclusive. But they didn't have a chance to do that.

I believe in being honest too. I thought they should review it UNTIL I SAW THE RULE. The implication being thrown around by ESPN and the AD that the PAC-12 cheated is wholly unwarranted.

And as to ESPN, they are full of it for another reason. They obviously don't have a goal line camera showing the ball cross the plane. If they did, they would have shown it. They either don't have the angle at all which begs the question why don't they? Or worse, they have the angle and it doesn't show the ball crossing the plane but they aren't showing it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

The conference should tell them, we followed the procedure. We did not have evidence in the first 8 seconds to call for a review. Our review of all available angles shows the call would have been confirmed. If ESPN has another angle that they made available to our officials, we are happy to review and issue a modified statement if warranted.

---

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC19.pdf

The rule book......

---

Thank you. I assume you are posting as a public service since the rule for stopping play and initiating review says exactly what I said. Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) for those that want to read it themselves

---

Take a peek at Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) #3. That is what caught my eye and applies in this instance.

---

71 - all 3 of the conditions need to apply. Not just one of them. Look at subsection 2 which merely states that the play is reviewable. So to review a play the review official needs 1. Reasonable evidence that the initial call was an error. 2 that the call fits into a category that by rule they can review and 3. The call has a direct impact on the game.

3 merely means they do not do things like review a spot to make it 4th and 18 instead of 4th and 19

---

Hmmm...

Ok, I do agree all three must be present.

Now, the question is whether there is reasonable evidence that the initial call was in error. Only the replay official can answer that question. I expect a statement tomorrow detailing his thinking. It will be an interesting read.......

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

kaplanfx said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

espn puts the onus on Ole Miss AD. Larry got some explainin' to do.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27669968/ole-miss-questions-pac-12-refs-bizarre-finish

---

This paragraph says it all:

"I thought at the very least, it should have been buzzed and reviewed," Luke said. "We didn't have a timeout. We could not spike it. Our only option was to get a quarterback sneak and get the ball off.''

It's their fault for getting in that situation, and they want a magical bailout from the refs?

---

Let's put it this way. If the shoe were on the other foot, would you have wanted the clock stopped for a review?

Of course, you would.

Bottom line, the P12 blew it. That's two weeks in a row at a key point in a game.

I still think inter-conference games should be officiated by neutral refs.....

Anyway, it will be interesting to read the P12's point of view tomorrow when they explain why the refs did not review the play. I would anticipate another apology for screwing up.

---

I wouldn't. Of course I would want it reviewed if the shoe were on the other foot. However, the rule is not that you review every close play. Or even a close play at the end. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. They can only review when they have reasonable evidence an error was made. Do you think they had that? They would have to have had that on basis of watching it real time because they didn't have time to get the replay, review it, and call it down. I would like to know if anyone has reviewed that fast.

The call was correct. There was no evidence of error. There was no time to review it. They followed the rules and made the right call. No apology necessary

---

IMO, there was definitely a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, I have no idea if the call was right or wrong. That is the purpose of review. I do not have access to all the camera angles that review officials use to determine whether a play is correctly called.

I do agree that every close play should not be reviewed. However, in this instance, yes, they should have reviewed the play. It could have had a material impact on the outcome of the game.

Most annoying are Cal fans who cry about every call that goes against Cal saying there is some kind of officiating conspiracy against Cal (one poster suggested there were eight questionable calls in the UW game and all of them went against the Bears - no matter how bad the P12 officials are and they are definitely the worst in college football, the odds of that happening are astronomical). Anyway, when a call like the one today occurs, these same people sing the praises of the officials. That leads me to believe the rule these fans use determine whether a call is correct or incorrect is based on whether it benefits Cal. Hmmmm. 'nuff said about that.

I prefer an honest approach - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but no one is trying to put their thumb on the scales (except, of course, the guy that tilted things in favor of SC last year).

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree on this one........

---

In this case, though, you are just getting the rule wrong, and since you are criticizing the refs, you have to get the rule right. The rule is not "reasonable doubt" that the play was called correctly. It is not having a material impact on the game. (Though you are not supposed to review if it does not have that.). The rule is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made. Not might have been made. Not, that was close. Lets take a look and see if it is right. And they did not have benefit of getting even one look at a replay. We all saw that after. I'm sure they were trying to get a replay up to see if they should buzz down. I'm fairly certain that if Ole Miss had a time out and used it, they would have run a slow motion, and then buzzed for replay, and then confirmed at the very least being inconclusive. But they didn't have a chance to do that.

I believe in being honest too. I thought they should review it UNTIL I SAW THE RULE. The implication being thrown around by ESPN and the AD that the PAC-12 cheated is wholly unwarranted.

And as to ESPN, they are full of it for another reason. They obviously don't have a goal line camera showing the ball cross the plane. If they did, they would have shown it. They either don't have the angle at all which begs the question why don't they? Or worse, they have the angle and it doesn't show the ball crossing the plane but they aren't showing it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

The conference should tell them, we followed the procedure. We did not have evidence in the first 8 seconds to call for a review. Our review of all available angles shows the call would have been confirmed. If ESPN has another angle that they made available to our officials, we are happy to review and issue a modified statement if warranted.

---

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC19.pdf

The rule book......

---

Thank you. I assume you are posting as a public service since the rule for stopping play and initiating review says exactly what I said. Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) for those that want to read it themselves

---

Take a peek at Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) #3. That is what caught my eye and applies in this instance.

---

71 - all 3 of the conditions need to apply. Not just one of them. Look at subsection 2 which merely states that the play is reviewable. So to review a play the review official needs 1. Reasonable evidence that the initial call was an error. 2 that the call fits into a category that by rule they can review and 3. The call has a direct impact on the game.

3 merely means they do not do things like review a spot to make it 4th and 18 instead of 4th and 19

---

Hmmm...

Ok, I do agree all three must be present.

Now, the question is whether there is reasonable evidence that the initial call was in error. Only the replay official can answer that question. I expect a statement tomorrow detailing his thinking. It will be an interesting read.......

---

Well, we saw the TV replays from crappy angles. We've now seen better angles on Twitter. Do any of them show evidence the ball was over the goal line? It doesn't look like it to me.

BearGoggles said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

kaplanfx said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

espn puts the onus on Ole Miss AD. Larry got some explainin' to do.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27669968/ole-miss-questions-pac-12-refs-bizarre-finish

---

This paragraph says it all:

"I thought at the very least, it should have been buzzed and reviewed," Luke said. "We didn't have a timeout. We could not spike it. Our only option was to get a quarterback sneak and get the ball off.''

It's their fault for getting in that situation, and they want a magical bailout from the refs?

---

Let's put it this way. If the shoe were on the other foot, would you have wanted the clock stopped for a review?

Of course, you would.

Bottom line, the P12 blew it. That's two weeks in a row at a key point in a game.

I still think inter-conference games should be officiated by neutral refs.....

Anyway, it will be interesting to read the P12's point of view tomorrow when they explain why the refs did not review the play. I would anticipate another apology for screwing up.

---

I wouldn't. Of course I would want it reviewed if the shoe were on the other foot. However, the rule is not that you review every close play. Or even a close play at the end. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. They can only review when they have reasonable evidence an error was made. Do you think they had that? They would have to have had that on basis of watching it real time because they didn't have time to get the replay, review it, and call it down. I would like to know if anyone has reviewed that fast.

The call was correct. There was no evidence of error. There was no time to review it. They followed the rules and made the right call. No apology necessary

---

IMO, there was definitely a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, I have no idea if the call was right or wrong. That is the purpose of review. I do not have access to all the camera angles that review officials use to determine whether a play is correctly called.

I do agree that every close play should not be reviewed. However, in this instance, yes, they should have reviewed the play. It could have had a material impact on the outcome of the game.

Most annoying are Cal fans who cry about every call that goes against Cal saying there is some kind of officiating conspiracy against Cal (one poster suggested there were eight questionable calls in the UW game and all of them went against the Bears - no matter how bad the P12 officials are and they are definitely the worst in college football, the odds of that happening are astronomical). Anyway, when a call like the one today occurs, these same people sing the praises of the officials. That leads me to believe the rule these fans use determine whether a call is correct or incorrect is based on whether it benefits Cal. Hmmmm. 'nuff said about that.

I prefer an honest approach - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but no one is trying to put their thumb on the scales (except, of course, the guy that tilted things in favor of SC last year).

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree on this one........

---

In this case, though, you are just getting the rule wrong, and since you are criticizing the refs, you have to get the rule right. The rule is not "reasonable doubt" that the play was called correctly. It is not having a material impact on the game. (Though you are not supposed to review if it does not have that.). The rule is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made. Not might have been made. Not, that was close. Lets take a look and see if it is right. And they did not have benefit of getting even one look at a replay. We all saw that after. I'm sure they were trying to get a replay up to see if they should buzz down. I'm fairly certain that if Ole Miss had a time out and used it, they would have run a slow motion, and then buzzed for replay, and then confirmed at the very least being inconclusive. But they didn't have a chance to do that.

I believe in being honest too. I thought they should review it UNTIL I SAW THE RULE. The implication being thrown around by ESPN and the AD that the PAC-12 cheated is wholly unwarranted.

And as to ESPN, they are full of it for another reason. They obviously don't have a goal line camera showing the ball cross the plane. If they did, they would have shown it. They either don't have the angle at all which begs the question why don't they? Or worse, they have the angle and it doesn't show the ball crossing the plane but they aren't showing it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

The conference should tell them, we followed the procedure. We did not have evidence in the first 8 seconds to call for a review. Our review of all available angles shows the call would have been confirmed. If ESPN has another angle that they made available to our officials, we are happy to review and issue a modified statement if warranted.

---

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC19.pdf

The rule book......

---

Thank you. I assume you are posting as a public service since the rule for stopping play and initiating review says exactly what I said. Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) for those that want to read it themselves

---

Take a peek at Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) #3. That is what caught my eye and applies in this instance.

---

Here is the rule:

Section 5 - Article 1

a. The replay official and his crew shall review every play of a game. He may stop a game at any time before the ball is next legally put in play (Exception: Rule 12-3-6-d) whenever he believes that:

1. There is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made in the initial on-field ruling.

2. The play is reviewable.

3. The outcome of a review would have a direct, competitive impact on the game.

You are misreading the rule. For a play to be reviewed by the booth, all three prongs need to be met. Not just the third one.

In this case, there was not reasonable evidence to believe an error occurred - certainly not from watching the play live in the booth. They can't stop the play until they have that. As a practical matter, there wasn't time for a review because they would have to review a replay to find "reasonable evidence of an error." But that doesn't mean the booth stops the play in the meantime. If that were the case, then teams wouldn't race to the line to snap the ball when trying to avoid review.

Everything happened the way it was supposed to. Ole Miss was in a tough spot - it wasn't for the replay booth to bail them out without reasonable evidence of an erro.

---

As noted in my response (while you were typing yours), yes, I agree all three elements must be present.

However, as I said, only the replay official can determine reasonable evidence (fans, no matter how much they would like to be part of the process, can not determine reasonable evidence - they have not received the necessary training to be able to do so.

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

kaplanfx said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

espn puts the onus on Ole Miss AD. Larry got some explainin' to do.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27669968/ole-miss-questions-pac-12-refs-bizarre-finish

---

This paragraph says it all:

"I thought at the very least, it should have been buzzed and reviewed," Luke said. "We didn't have a timeout. We could not spike it. Our only option was to get a quarterback sneak and get the ball off.''

It's their fault for getting in that situation, and they want a magical bailout from the refs?

---

Let's put it this way. If the shoe were on the other foot, would you have wanted the clock stopped for a review?

Of course, you would.

Bottom line, the P12 blew it. That's two weeks in a row at a key point in a game.

I still think inter-conference games should be officiated by neutral refs.....

Anyway, it will be interesting to read the P12's point of view tomorrow when they explain why the refs did not review the play. I would anticipate another apology for screwing up.

---

I wouldn't. Of course I would want it reviewed if the shoe were on the other foot. However, the rule is not that you review every close play. Or even a close play at the end. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. They can only review when they have reasonable evidence an error was made. Do you think they had that? They would have to have had that on basis of watching it real time because they didn't have time to get the replay, review it, and call it down. I would like to know if anyone has reviewed that fast.

The call was correct. There was no evidence of error. There was no time to review it. They followed the rules and made the right call. No apology necessary

---

IMO, there was definitely a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, I have no idea if the call was right or wrong. That is the purpose of review. I do not have access to all the camera angles that review officials use to determine whether a play is correctly called.

I do agree that every close play should not be reviewed. However, in this instance, yes, they should have reviewed the play. It could have had a material impact on the outcome of the game.

Most annoying are Cal fans who cry about every call that goes against Cal saying there is some kind of officiating conspiracy against Cal (one poster suggested there were eight questionable calls in the UW game and all of them went against the Bears - no matter how bad the P12 officials are and they are definitely the worst in college football, the odds of that happening are astronomical). Anyway, when a call like the one today occurs, these same people sing the praises of the officials. That leads me to believe the rule these fans use determine whether a call is correct or incorrect is based on whether it benefits Cal. Hmmmm. 'nuff said about that.

I prefer an honest approach - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but no one is trying to put their thumb on the scales (except, of course, the guy that tilted things in favor of SC last year).

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree on this one........

---

In this case, though, you are just getting the rule wrong, and since you are criticizing the refs, you have to get the rule right. The rule is not "reasonable doubt" that the play was called correctly. It is not having a material impact on the game. (Though you are not supposed to review if it does not have that.). The rule is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made. Not might have been made. Not, that was close. Lets take a look and see if it is right. And they did not have benefit of getting even one look at a replay. We all saw that after. I'm sure they were trying to get a replay up to see if they should buzz down. I'm fairly certain that if Ole Miss had a time out and used it, they would have run a slow motion, and then buzzed for replay, and then confirmed at the very least being inconclusive. But they didn't have a chance to do that.

I believe in being honest too. I thought they should review it UNTIL I SAW THE RULE. The implication being thrown around by ESPN and the AD that the PAC-12 cheated is wholly unwarranted.

And as to ESPN, they are full of it for another reason. They obviously don't have a goal line camera showing the ball cross the plane. If they did, they would have shown it. They either don't have the angle at all which begs the question why don't they? Or worse, they have the angle and it doesn't show the ball crossing the plane but they aren't showing it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

The conference should tell them, we followed the procedure. We did not have evidence in the first 8 seconds to call for a review. Our review of all available angles shows the call would have been confirmed. If ESPN has another angle that they made available to our officials, we are happy to review and issue a modified statement if warranted.

---

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC19.pdf

The rule book......

---

Thank you. I assume you are posting as a public service since the rule for stopping play and initiating review says exactly what I said. Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) for those that want to read it themselves

---

Take a peek at Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) #3. That is what caught my eye and applies in this instance.

---

71 - all 3 of the conditions need to apply. Not just one of them. Look at subsection 2 which merely states that the play is reviewable. So to review a play the review official needs 1. Reasonable evidence that the initial call was an error. 2 that the call fits into a category that by rule they can review and 3. The call has a direct impact on the game.

3 merely means they do not do things like review a spot to make it 4th and 18 instead of 4th and 19

---

Hmmm...

Ok, I do agree all three must be present.

Now, the question is whether there is reasonable evidence that the initial call was in error. Only the replay official can answer that question. I expect a statement tomorrow detailing his thinking. It will be an interesting read.......

---

I think the statement will simply say: (i) they followed the rule; (ii) that at game speed,there was no reasonable evidence that the spot was wrong; and (iii) Ole Miss (understandably) elected to snap the ball before a replay could be watched.

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

kaplanfx said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

espn puts the onus on Ole Miss AD. Larry got some explainin' to do.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27669968/ole-miss-questions-pac-12-refs-bizarre-finish

---

This paragraph says it all:

"I thought at the very least, it should have been buzzed and reviewed," Luke said. "We didn't have a timeout. We could not spike it. Our only option was to get a quarterback sneak and get the ball off.''

It's their fault for getting in that situation, and they want a magical bailout from the refs?

---

Let's put it this way. If the shoe were on the other foot, would you have wanted the clock stopped for a review?

Of course, you would.

Bottom line, the P12 blew it. That's two weeks in a row at a key point in a game.

I still think inter-conference games should be officiated by neutral refs.....

Anyway, it will be interesting to read the P12's point of view tomorrow when they explain why the refs did not review the play. I would anticipate another apology for screwing up.

---

I wouldn't. Of course I would want it reviewed if the shoe were on the other foot. However, the rule is not that you review every close play. Or even a close play at the end. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. They can only review when they have reasonable evidence an error was made. Do you think they had that? They would have to have had that on basis of watching it real time because they didn't have time to get the replay, review it, and call it down. I would like to know if anyone has reviewed that fast.

The call was correct. There was no evidence of error. There was no time to review it. They followed the rules and made the right call. No apology necessary

---

IMO, there was definitely a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, I have no idea if the call was right or wrong. That is the purpose of review. I do not have access to all the camera angles that review officials use to determine whether a play is correctly called.

I do agree that every close play should not be reviewed. However, in this instance, yes, they should have reviewed the play. It could have had a material impact on the outcome of the game.

Most annoying are Cal fans who cry about every call that goes against Cal saying there is some kind of officiating conspiracy against Cal (one poster suggested there were eight questionable calls in the UW game and all of them went against the Bears - no matter how bad the P12 officials are and they are definitely the worst in college football, the odds of that happening are astronomical). Anyway, when a call like the one today occurs, these same people sing the praises of the officials. That leads me to believe the rule these fans use determine whether a call is correct or incorrect is based on whether it benefits Cal. Hmmmm. 'nuff said about that.

I prefer an honest approach - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but no one is trying to put their thumb on the scales (except, of course, the guy that tilted things in favor of SC last year).

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree on this one........

---

In this case, though, you are just getting the rule wrong, and since you are criticizing the refs, you have to get the rule right. The rule is not "reasonable doubt" that the play was called correctly. It is not having a material impact on the game. (Though you are not supposed to review if it does not have that.). The rule is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made. Not might have been made. Not, that was close. Lets take a look and see if it is right. And they did not have benefit of getting even one look at a replay. We all saw that after. I'm sure they were trying to get a replay up to see if they should buzz down. I'm fairly certain that if Ole Miss had a time out and used it, they would have run a slow motion, and then buzzed for replay, and then confirmed at the very least being inconclusive. But they didn't have a chance to do that.

I believe in being honest too. I thought they should review it UNTIL I SAW THE RULE. The implication being thrown around by ESPN and the AD that the PAC-12 cheated is wholly unwarranted.

And as to ESPN, they are full of it for another reason. They obviously don't have a goal line camera showing the ball cross the plane. If they did, they would have shown it. They either don't have the angle at all which begs the question why don't they? Or worse, they have the angle and it doesn't show the ball crossing the plane but they aren't showing it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

The conference should tell them, we followed the procedure. We did not have evidence in the first 8 seconds to call for a review. Our review of all available angles shows the call would have been confirmed. If ESPN has another angle that they made available to our officials, we are happy to review and issue a modified statement if warranted.

---

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC19.pdf

The rule book......

---

Thank you. I assume you are posting as a public service since the rule for stopping play and initiating review says exactly what I said. Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) for those that want to read it themselves

---

Take a peek at Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) #3. That is what caught my eye and applies in this instance.

---

71 - all 3 of the conditions need to apply. Not just one of them. Look at subsection 2 which merely states that the play is reviewable. So to review a play the review official needs 1. Reasonable evidence that the initial call was an error. 2 that the call fits into a category that by rule they can review and 3. The call has a direct impact on the game.

3 merely means they do not do things like review a spot to make it 4th and 18 instead of 4th and 19

---

Hmmm...

Ok, I do agree all three must be present.

Now, the question is whether there is reasonable evidence that the initial call was in error. Only the replay official can answer that question. I expect a statement tomorrow detailing his thinking. It will be an interesting read.......

---

And to flog this horse one last time, reasonable evidence before Ole Miss snapped it. As I said, I'm fairly certain they review the play if there is a timeout

Sigh.

71Bear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

kaplanfx said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

espn puts the onus on Ole Miss AD. Larry got some explainin' to do.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27669968/ole-miss-questions-pac-12-refs-bizarre-finish

---

This paragraph says it all:

"I thought at the very least, it should have been buzzed and reviewed," Luke said. "We didn't have a timeout. We could not spike it. Our only option was to get a quarterback sneak and get the ball off.''

It's their fault for getting in that situation, and they want a magical bailout from the refs?

---

Let's put it this way. If the shoe were on the other foot, would you have wanted the clock stopped for a review?

Of course, you would.

Bottom line, the P12 blew it. That's two weeks in a row at a key point in a game.

I still think inter-conference games should be officiated by neutral refs.....

Anyway, it will be interesting to read the P12's point of view tomorrow when they explain why the refs did not review the play. I would anticipate another apology for screwing up.

---

I wouldn't. Of course I would want it reviewed if the shoe were on the other foot. However, the rule is not that you review every close play. Or even a close play at the end. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. They can only review when they have reasonable evidence an error was made. Do you think they had that? They would have to have had that on basis of watching it real time because they didn't have time to get the replay, review it, and call it down. I would like to know if anyone has reviewed that fast.

The call was correct. There was no evidence of error. There was no time to review it. They followed the rules and made the right call. No apology necessary

---

IMO, there was definitely a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, I have no idea if the call was right or wrong. That is the purpose of review. I do not have access to all the camera angles that review officials use to determine whether a play is correctly called.

I do agree that every close play should not be reviewed. However, in this instance, yes, they should have reviewed the play. It could have had a material impact on the outcome of the game.

Most annoying are Cal fans who cry about every call that goes against Cal saying there is some kind of officiating conspiracy against Cal (one poster suggested there were eight questionable calls in the UW game and all of them went against the Bears - no matter how bad the P12 officials are and they are definitely the worst in college football, the odds of that happening are astronomical). Anyway, when a call like the one today occurs, these same people sing the praises of the officials. That leads me to believe the rule these fans use determine whether a call is correct or incorrect is based on whether it benefits Cal. Hmmmm. 'nuff said about that.

I prefer an honest approach - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but no one is trying to put their thumb on the scales (except, of course, the guy that tilted things in favor of SC last year).

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree on this one........

---

In this case, though, you are just getting the rule wrong, and since you are criticizing the refs, you have to get the rule right. The rule is not "reasonable doubt" that the play was called correctly. It is not having a material impact on the game. (Though you are not supposed to review if it does not have that.). The rule is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made. Not might have been made. Not, that was close. Lets take a look and see if it is right. And they did not have benefit of getting even one look at a replay. We all saw that after. I'm sure they were trying to get a replay up to see if they should buzz down. I'm fairly certain that if Ole Miss had a time out and used it, they would have run a slow motion, and then buzzed for replay, and then confirmed at the very least being inconclusive. But they didn't have a chance to do that.

I believe in being honest too. I thought they should review it UNTIL I SAW THE RULE. The implication being thrown around by ESPN and the AD that the PAC-12 cheated is wholly unwarranted.

And as to ESPN, they are full of it for another reason. They obviously don't have a goal line camera showing the ball cross the plane. If they did, they would have shown it. They either don't have the angle at all which begs the question why don't they? Or worse, they have the angle and it doesn't show the ball crossing the plane but they aren't showing it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

The conference should tell them, we followed the procedure. We did not have evidence in the first 8 seconds to call for a review. Our review of all available angles shows the call would have been confirmed. If ESPN has another angle that they made available to our officials, we are happy to review and issue a modified statement if warranted.

---

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC19.pdf

The rule book......

---

Thank you. I assume you are posting as a public service since the rule for stopping play and initiating review says exactly what I said. Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) for those that want to read it themselves

---

Take a peek at Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) #3. That is what caught my eye and applies in this instance.

---

Here is the rule:

Section 5 - Article 1

a. The replay official and his crew shall review every play of a game. He may stop a game at any time before the ball is next legally put in play (Exception: Rule 12-3-6-d) whenever he believes that:

1. There is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made in the initial on-field ruling.

2. The play is reviewable.

3. The outcome of a review would have a direct, competitive impact on the game.

You are misreading the rule. For a play to be reviewed by the booth, all three prongs need to be met. Not just the third one.

In this case, there was not reasonable evidence to believe an error occurred - certainly not from watching the play live in the booth. They can't stop the play until they have that. As a practical matter, there wasn't time for a review because they would have to review a replay to find "reasonable evidence of an error." But that doesn't mean the booth stops the play in the meantime. If that were the case, then teams wouldn't race to the line to snap the ball when trying to avoid review.

Everything happened the way it was supposed to. Ole Miss was in a tough spot - it wasn't for the replay booth to bail them out without reasonable evidence of an erro.

---

As noted in my response (while you were typing yours), yes, I agree all three elements must be present.

However, as I said, only the replay official can determine reasonable evidence (fans, no matter how much they would like to be part of the process, can not determine reasonable evidence - they have not received the necessary training to be able to do so.

---

I find the bolded statement odd. You're the one who originally posted "Bottom line, the P12 blew it." How can you make that "judgment" without the necessary training? I'm not criticizing you for posting that - just pointing out that we all do it from time to time.

To this point, there is not a single replay available that would show the original call was indisputably right or wrong. 100% the ruling on the field would have been upheld (unless there's an angle no one has seen).

If I was an Ole miss fan, I'd be pissed that the correct application of the rule worked against my team - and even more pissed about my coach's awful time management and play calling. Just like as a Cal fan I'm glad the rule was correctly applied. If I thought the rule was incorrectly applied, I'd say that and be glad that Cal caught a break and probably point out that "those things balance out and Cal is overdue" (and that their db pushed off on the long pass play - lol).

It was not even close. There was no need for a review.

71Bear said:

---

Nice catch...

My first response was a knee-jerk reaction. Upon further reflection (and upon reading the rule, which always helps ), I altered my opinion to something less strident.

And you are certainly correct about Mississippi poor clock management late in the quarter. I read some comments in The Athletic that roundly criticized Coach Luke's play selections suggesting that he had no one to blame but himself for putting the Rebs in the untenable situation in which they found themselves at the end of the game.

Anyway, since I commented earlier about what annoys me about this site, may I add that one thing really like is well-thought out opinions that cause one to think and reconsider positions on issues.

---

Indeed. None of us is always correct (at least not me). But it is the engagement that makes it fun, not to mention 4-0. Go Bears!

71Bear said:

---

Nice catch...

My first response was a knee-jerk reaction. Upon further reflection (and upon reading the rule, which always helps ), I altered my opinion to something less strident.

And you are certainly correct about Mississippi poor clock management late in the quarter. I read some comments in The Athletic that roundly criticized Coach Luke's play selections suggesting that he had no one to blame but himself for putting the Rebs in the untenable situation in which they found themselves at the end of the game.

Anyway, since I commented earlier about what annoys me about this site, may I add that one thing really like is well-thought out opinions that cause one to think and reconsider positions on issues.

---

You're a good man for admitting the error of your ways. Jk we are all glad we're 4-0. Can't wait for Friday. I hope we can get a big crowd there.

I was right there on the goal-line. The call was correct.

The end

Bottom line Ole Miss had poor time management and used up their timeouts and Cal's D crushed them at the goal line. Tomorrow we will be in the top 20.

Now SEC. stop whining

Weird ESPN didn't show a replay down the line. The very next play for the QB sneak they had a replay down the line. SEC-centric much ESPN?

NeverOddOrEven said:

---

Here's the biggest point in my mind. Ole Miss tied the refs hands when they ran the last 4th down play. If they wanted it reviewed, their only option was to let the clock run out, which would have given the refs ample time to buzz down for a review. Much like a team that runs to the line of scrimmage to prevent a review from happening on a questionable play, they prevented a review by running the last play. When the clock hits zero, the officials would have likely reviewed it as a close TD/no TD call.

---

No, it doesn't work like that. Should a game reach 0:00 they can't review a play unless it was running as the clock reaches 0:00. The receiver caught the ball and there were 12 seconds remaining. If the booth doesn't call down during those last 12 seconds, the game ends and they never would have reviewed it. The game would have been over.

Last night I looked at two Reb message boards. The Ole Miss miss fans weren't talking about the last two plays. They were talking about wanting to fire Matt Luke because they think he's a terrible coach.

BearGoggles said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

kaplanfx said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

espn puts the onus on Ole Miss AD. Larry got some explainin' to do.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27669968/ole-miss-questions-pac-12-refs-bizarre-finish

---

This paragraph says it all:

"I thought at the very least, it should have been buzzed and reviewed," Luke said. "We didn't have a timeout. We could not spike it. Our only option was to get a quarterback sneak and get the ball off.''

It's their fault for getting in that situation, and they want a magical bailout from the refs?

---

Let's put it this way. If the shoe were on the other foot, would you have wanted the clock stopped for a review?

Of course, you would.

Bottom line, the P12 blew it. That's two weeks in a row at a key point in a game.

I still think inter-conference games should be officiated by neutral refs.....

Anyway, it will be interesting to read the P12's point of view tomorrow when they explain why the refs did not review the play. I would anticipate another apology for screwing up.

---

I wouldn't. Of course I would want it reviewed if the shoe were on the other foot. However, the rule is not that you review every close play. Or even a close play at the end. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. They can only review when they have reasonable evidence an error was made. Do you think they had that? They would have to have had that on basis of watching it real time because they didn't have time to get the replay, review it, and call it down. I would like to know if anyone has reviewed that fast.

The call was correct. There was no evidence of error. There was no time to review it. They followed the rules and made the right call. No apology necessary

---

IMO, there was definitely a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, I have no idea if the call was right or wrong. That is the purpose of review. I do not have access to all the camera angles that review officials use to determine whether a play is correctly called.

I do agree that every close play should not be reviewed. However, in this instance, yes, they should have reviewed the play. It could have had a material impact on the outcome of the game.

Most annoying are Cal fans who cry about every call that goes against Cal saying there is some kind of officiating conspiracy against Cal (one poster suggested there were eight questionable calls in the UW game and all of them went against the Bears - no matter how bad the P12 officials are and they are definitely the worst in college football, the odds of that happening are astronomical). Anyway, when a call like the one today occurs, these same people sing the praises of the officials. That leads me to believe the rule these fans use determine whether a call is correct or incorrect is based on whether it benefits Cal. Hmmmm. 'nuff said about that.

I prefer an honest approach - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but no one is trying to put their thumb on the scales (except, of course, the guy that tilted things in favor of SC last year).

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree on this one........

---

In this case, though, you are just getting the rule wrong, and since you are criticizing the refs, you have to get the rule right. The rule is not "reasonable doubt" that the play was called correctly. It is not having a material impact on the game. (Though you are not supposed to review if it does not have that.). The rule is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made. Not might have been made. Not, that was close. Lets take a look and see if it is right. And they did not have benefit of getting even one look at a replay. We all saw that after. I'm sure they were trying to get a replay up to see if they should buzz down. I'm fairly certain that if Ole Miss had a time out and used it, they would have run a slow motion, and then buzzed for replay, and then confirmed at the very least being inconclusive. But they didn't have a chance to do that.

I believe in being honest too. I thought they should review it UNTIL I SAW THE RULE. The implication being thrown around by ESPN and the AD that the PAC-12 cheated is wholly unwarranted.

And as to ESPN, they are full of it for another reason. They obviously don't have a goal line camera showing the ball cross the plane. If they did, they would have shown it. They either don't have the angle at all which begs the question why don't they? Or worse, they have the angle and it doesn't show the ball crossing the plane but they aren't showing it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

The conference should tell them, we followed the procedure. We did not have evidence in the first 8 seconds to call for a review. Our review of all available angles shows the call would have been confirmed. If ESPN has another angle that they made available to our officials, we are happy to review and issue a modified statement if warranted.

---

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC19.pdf

The rule book......

---

Thank you. I assume you are posting as a public service since the rule for stopping play and initiating review says exactly what I said. Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) for those that want to read it themselves

---

Take a peek at Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) #3. That is what caught my eye and applies in this instance.

---

Here is the rule:

Section 5 - Article 1

a. The replay official and his crew shall review every play of a game. He may stop a game at any time before the ball is next legally put in play (Exception: Rule 12-3-6-d) whenever he believes that:

1. There is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made in the initial on-field ruling.

2. The play is reviewable.

3. The outcome of a review would have a direct, competitive impact on the game.

You are misreading the rule. For a play to be reviewed by the booth, all three prongs need to be met. Not just the third one.

In this case, there was not reasonable evidence to believe an error occurred - certainly not from watching the play live in the booth. They can't stop the play until they have that. As a practical matter, there wasn't time for a review because they would have to review a replay to find "reasonable evidence of an error." But that doesn't mean the booth stops the play in the meantime. If that were the case, then teams wouldn't race to the line to snap the ball when trying to avoid review.

Everything happened the way it was supposed to. Ole Miss was in a tough spot - it wasn't for the replay booth to bail them out before there was reasonable evidence of an error. You don't stop the clock to see if there's reasonable evidence.

---

Agreed. If there's no evidence, you don't look for it to see if you can justify looking some more.

mvargus said:

---

NeverOddOrEven said:

---

Here's the biggest point in my mind. Ole Miss tied the refs hands when they ran the last 4th down play. If they wanted it reviewed, their only option was to let the clock run out, which would have given the refs ample time to buzz down for a review. Much like a team that runs to the line of scrimmage to prevent a review from happening on a questionable play, they prevented a review by running the last play. When the clock hits zero, the officials would have likely reviewed it as a close TD/no TD call.

---

No, it doesn't work like that. Should a game reach 0:00 they can't review a play unless it was running as the clock reaches 0:00. The receiver caught the ball and there were 12 seconds remaining. If the booth doesn't call down during those last 12 seconds, the game ends and they never would have reviewed it. The game would have been over.

---

This is just simply untrue. It happens all the time on last second plays. This means that if a team wins (or loses) the game on the play the clock hits 0:01 that the last play is not reviewable? Now you're just making stuff up...

On reflection, could this be a symptom that SEC teams are used to getting an unfair advantage (via the polls, the media, in recruiting and revenue from fans etc.) and they just can't handle it when they don't?

Also, I do have respect for SEC officiating, much more than Pac-12 officiating. So I am assuming that, had their been SEC officiating, they would have made the same call, which was the right, although unusual, call under the circumstances.

Having said that, the original call might just as easily have been a TD, resulting most likely in a review. And it's possible that another crew would have done that. But officials cannot make a call on a pass reception until the receiver has gone to the ground and maintained control the whole way, so the official had to focus on the whole play, not just the point where the ball was at the very beginning of the reception. The official had to mark the ball where it was after the ball was clearly secured as a reception. And these days the rule is that it is rarely at the initial point when the receiver makes the catch. It is sometime after that.

The receiver may have had the ball in the end zone initially but not full secured it (tucked it under his arm) until the ball was back out of the end zone.

IMO folks/fans are still rather confused about that. It used to be that the moment the nose of the ball breaks the plane it is a score. That is still pretty much true on running plays, but the definition of a reception has changed in recent years and a ball is not received until it is fully secured. The time lag between initial contact and securement of the football on receptions has changed the outcome of games. And it will continue to do so as long as the rule exists.

Rules changes in football have been very aggressive in recent years and have caused more controversies and problems than they have solved. But the intent of these changes is to make the officiating of the game more black and white so there is less room for interpretation and error and so the games can be officiated more consistently and fairly: That and to make it safer to play. Unfortunately I think that many of these rules have done the opposite, giving more room for officiating to determine the outcome of games.

However, the officials did not determine the outcome of the game on Saturday because Cal would still have had the lead had Mississippi scored the TD and they still would not have lost had Ole' Miss succeeded in a 2 point conversion. So a lot was going to have to happen for Ole' Miss to win the game. And officiating was going to have very little to do with those things.

Oski87 said:

---

It was not even close. There was no need for a review.

---

Really? Of course it was close. But was it "reasonable" to think the call was wrong? I don't know. It was reasonable to think the call might have been wrong. It certainly was a crucial play. So is all that enough to stop the game for a replay (which as it turns out would have let the call stand but might have changed the spot)? In my opinion, probably so. But I would guess that while the replay officials were hurriedly trying to decide Mississippi snapped the ball, thus making the question moot. There wasn't time for them to mull the question over. They should have made a quicker decision but could not. So game over. That's my guess. We'll see what they say.

JimSox said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

It was not even close. There was no need for a review.

---

Really? Of course it was close. But was it "reasonable" to think the call was wrong? I don't know. It was reasonable to think the call might have been wrong. It certainly was a crucial play. So is all that enough to stop the game for a replay (which as it turns out would have let the call stand but might have changed the spot)? In my opinion, probably so. But I would guess that while the replay officials were hurriedly trying to decide Mississippi snapped the ball, thus making the question moot. There wasn't time for them to mull the question over. They should have made a quicker decision but could not. So game over. That's my guess. We'll see what they say.

---

The section I bolded is all that really matters.

I've said this a couple times before and it seems to keep getting forgotten.

The way the rules are written if a play is run and ends with less than 30 seconds left in the game, the review needs to start BEFORE the close runs out. If there is a TD or turnover, the clock will stop, allowing time for the booth to decide to start a review. Unfortunately, this play occurred in the field of play and the receiver was called down without reaching the end zone so the clock DID NOT STOP. There were just 11 seconds left on the clock. So the only actions that could occur were very specific.

1) If a team calls timeout to stop the clock there can be a review. Cal wasn't going to and Ole Miss was out of time outs, so this was not an option.

2) if the booth reviews the replays they have access to, they can decide that the call warrants additional review. Note, they don't do it from the first view, they check a couple angles and then decide "we need more time, its close". But usually it takes 20-25 seconds for them to make this call. There was just 10 seconds left. Most likely time runs out. And the way the rules are written if time runs out, the game ENDS. Its over, even if the booth later decides, you know we should review that play that ended with 10 seconds left in the game.

3) the offense can rush to get a play off, which is what Ole Miss did.

People can keep trying to claim "there should have been a review", but the way the rules are written, there was no time for one to occur. Ole Miss handled the clock horribly at the end of the game and it cost them.

NeverOddOrEven said:

---

mvargus said:

---

NeverOddOrEven said:

---

Here's the biggest point in my mind. Ole Miss tied the refs hands when they ran the last 4th down play. If they wanted it reviewed, their only option was to let the clock run out, which would have given the refs ample time to buzz down for a review. Much like a team that runs to the line of scrimmage to prevent a review from happening on a questionable play, they prevented a review by running the last play. When the clock hits zero, the officials would have likely reviewed it as a close TD/no TD call.

---

No, it doesn't work like that. Should a game reach 0:00 they can't review a play unless it was running as the clock reaches 0:00. The receiver caught the ball and there were 12 seconds remaining. If the booth doesn't call down during those last 12 seconds, the game ends and they never would have reviewed it. The game would have been over.

---

This is just simply untrue. It happens all the time on last second plays. This means that if a team wins (or loses) the game on the play the clock hits 0:01 that the last play is not reviewable? Now you're just making stuff up...

---

A TD can be reviewed because the clock STOPS after the TD. As can any turnover.

And a play that occurs as the clock hits 0:00 can be reviewed if its a TD or turnover. But this WASN'T a scoring play. It was a non-scoring play that ended in the field of play so the clock keeps running.

If the clock then winds down to 0:00 the game is over and they can't say "Wait, we want to go back 12 seconds to check a call." The game ended with no play and not on a TD or turnover. The rules DON'T allow you to get an ex-post facto recheck on a call just because it might have changed the game. There has to be a clear reason to question the call. The angle of the main video was horrible in regards to seeing where the ball was as the receivers knee touches the turf, and the Head Linesman showed quite a bit of confidence in his spot.

And Ole Miss rushed to line up, which makes it clear that they weren't confident they had a TD.

Overall, there was no reason for the video review officials to stop the play in the 10 seconds they had to make a decision.

mvargus said:

---

2) if the booth reviews the replays they have access to, they can decide that the call warrants additional review. Note, they don't do it from the first view, they check a couple angles and then decide "we need more time, its close". But usually it takes 20-25 seconds for them to make this call. There was just 10 seconds left. Most likely time runs out. And the way the rules are written if time runs out, the game ENDS. Its over, even if the booth later decides, you know we should review that play that ended with 10 seconds left in the game.

---

Wait. You're saying the officials have to look at at least one and usually more than one replay before they can call for a review? Is that just common practice, or is it an actual rule? Can you cite the rule? If that is the rule, then clearly there was not enough time for the replay officials to view video and call for a review.

Anyway, the runner's knee was pretty clearly down before he lateraled the ball, and that last lateral was actually a forward pass. Oh, wait. That wasn't yesterday. That was 1982, before there was a replay rule. So the call stands. Cal wins. Both games!

JimSox said:

---

mvargus said:

---

2) if the booth reviews the replays they have access to, they can decide that the call warrants additional review. Note, they don't do it from the first view, they check a couple angles and then decide "we need more time, its close". But usually it takes 20-25 seconds for them to make this call. There was just 10 seconds left. Most likely time runs out. And the way the rules are written if time runs out, the game ENDS. Its over, even if the booth later decides, you know we should review that play that ended with 10 seconds left in the game.

---

Wait. You're saying the officials have to look at at least one and usually more than one replay before they can call for a review? Is that just common practice, or is it an actual rule? Can you cite the rule? If that is the rule, then clearly there was not enough time for the replay officials to view video and call for a review.

Anyway, the runner's knee was pretty clearly down before he lateraled the ball, and that last lateral was actually a forward pass. Oh, wait. That wasn't yesterday. That was 1982, before there was a replay rule. So the call stands. Cal wins. Both games!

---

How can the booth decide which plays might warrant review if they don't look at the play again?

If the call is clearly bad they can call down immediately, but remember that the way the rule is written they are supposed to have reasonable evidence that the call might be in error. Watching a play live is rarely going to be considered enough evidence. Especially on a play like that one at the goal line. I know some people are claiming that there was reasonable evidence to warrant a replay just based on that first look, but if you were the replay booth official, do you want to make that call? Its going to be controversial no matter how it turns out, and the angle of the live action shot didn't really supply any evidence one way or the other as to where the ball might have been.

They would have had to try to call up a replay that was closer to looking down the goal line. That takes time and by that time Ole Miss was snapping the play for the QB sneak that Weaver stopped.

Rushinbear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

kaplanfx said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

espn puts the onus on Ole Miss AD. Larry got some explainin' to do.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27669968/ole-miss-questions-pac-12-refs-bizarre-finish

---

This paragraph says it all:

"I thought at the very least, it should have been buzzed and reviewed," Luke said. "We didn't have a timeout. We could not spike it. Our only option was to get a quarterback sneak and get the ball off.''

It's their fault for getting in that situation, and they want a magical bailout from the refs?

---

Let's put it this way. If the shoe were on the other foot, would you have wanted the clock stopped for a review?

Of course, you would.

Bottom line, the P12 blew it. That's two weeks in a row at a key point in a game.

I still think inter-conference games should be officiated by neutral refs.....

Anyway, it will be interesting to read the P12's point of view tomorrow when they explain why the refs did not review the play. I would anticipate another apology for screwing up.

---

I wouldn't. Of course I would want it reviewed if the shoe were on the other foot. However, the rule is not that you review every close play. Or even a close play at the end. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. They can only review when they have reasonable evidence an error was made. Do you think they had that? They would have to have had that on basis of watching it real time because they didn't have time to get the replay, review it, and call it down. I would like to know if anyone has reviewed that fast.

The call was correct. There was no evidence of error. There was no time to review it. They followed the rules and made the right call. No apology necessary

---

IMO, there was definitely a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, I have no idea if the call was right or wrong. That is the purpose of review. I do not have access to all the camera angles that review officials use to determine whether a play is correctly called.

I do agree that every close play should not be reviewed. However, in this instance, yes, they should have reviewed the play. It could have had a material impact on the outcome of the game.

Most annoying are Cal fans who cry about every call that goes against Cal saying there is some kind of officiating conspiracy against Cal (one poster suggested there were eight questionable calls in the UW game and all of them went against the Bears - no matter how bad the P12 officials are and they are definitely the worst in college football, the odds of that happening are astronomical). Anyway, when a call like the one today occurs, these same people sing the praises of the officials. That leads me to believe the rule these fans use determine whether a call is correct or incorrect is based on whether it benefits Cal. Hmmmm. 'nuff said about that.

I prefer an honest approach - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but no one is trying to put their thumb on the scales (except, of course, the guy that tilted things in favor of SC last year).

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree on this one........

---

In this case, though, you are just getting the rule wrong, and since you are criticizing the refs, you have to get the rule right. The rule is not "reasonable doubt" that the play was called correctly. It is not having a material impact on the game. (Though you are not supposed to review if it does not have that.). The rule is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made. Not might have been made. Not, that was close. Lets take a look and see if it is right. And they did not have benefit of getting even one look at a replay. We all saw that after. I'm sure they were trying to get a replay up to see if they should buzz down. I'm fairly certain that if Ole Miss had a time out and used it, they would have run a slow motion, and then buzzed for replay, and then confirmed at the very least being inconclusive. But they didn't have a chance to do that.

I believe in being honest too. I thought they should review it UNTIL I SAW THE RULE. The implication being thrown around by ESPN and the AD that the PAC-12 cheated is wholly unwarranted.

And as to ESPN, they are full of it for another reason. They obviously don't have a goal line camera showing the ball cross the plane. If they did, they would have shown it. They either don't have the angle at all which begs the question why don't they? Or worse, they have the angle and it doesn't show the ball crossing the plane but they aren't showing it because it doesn't fit their narrative.

The conference should tell them, we followed the procedure. We did not have evidence in the first 8 seconds to call for a review. Our review of all available angles shows the call would have been confirmed. If ESPN has another angle that they made available to our officials, we are happy to review and issue a modified statement if warranted.

---

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC19.pdf

The rule book......

---

Thank you. I assume you are posting as a public service since the rule for stopping play and initiating review says exactly what I said. Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) for those that want to read it themselves

---

Take a peek at Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) #3. That is what caught my eye and applies in this instance.

---

Here is the rule:

Section 5 - Article 1

a. The replay official and his crew shall review every play of a game. He may stop a game at any time before the ball is next legally put in play (Exception: Rule 12-3-6-d) whenever he believes that:

1. There is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made in the initial on-field ruling.

2. The play is reviewable.

3. The outcome of a review would have a direct, competitive impact on the game.

You are misreading the rule. For a play to be reviewed by the booth, all three prongs need to be met. Not just the third one.

In this case, there was not reasonable evidence to believe an error occurred - certainly not from watching the play live in the booth. They can't stop the play until they have that. As a practical matter, there wasn't time for a review because they would have to review a replay to find "reasonable evidence of an error." But that doesn't mean the booth stops the play in the meantime. If that were the case, then teams wouldn't race to the line to snap the ball when trying to avoid review.

Everything happened the way it was supposed to. Ole Miss was in a tough spot - it wasn't for the replay booth to bail them out before there was reasonable evidence of an error. You don't stop the clock to see if there's reasonable evidence.

---

Agreed. If there's no evidence, you don't look for it to see if you can justify looking some more.

---

If a bear ****s in the woods and no one sees it....did it really happen....Go Bears!

JimSox said:

---

mvargus said:

---

2) if the booth reviews the replays they have access to, they can decide that the call warrants additional review. Note, they don't do it from the first view, they check a couple angles and then decide "we need more time, its close". But usually it takes 20-25 seconds for them to make this call. There was just 10 seconds left. Most likely time runs out. And the way the rules are written if time runs out, the game ENDS. Its over, even if the booth later decides, you know we should review that play that ended with 10 seconds left in the game.

---

Wait. You're saying the officials have to look at at least one and usually more than one replay before they can call for a review? Is that just common practice, or is it an actual rule? Can you cite the rule? If that is the rule, then clearly there was not enough time for the replay officials to view video and call for a review.

Anyway, the runner's knee was pretty clearly down before he lateraled the ball, and that last lateral was actually a forward pass. Oh, wait. That wasn't yesterday. That was 1982, before there was a replay rule. So the call stands. Cal wins. Both games!

---

The replay booth refs have to have video evidence to initiate a review, else they assume the call on the field stands. Under normal conditions you'll see a team line up for the next play and use every second of the 25 second play clock and sometimes the booth will call down before the ball is snapped for an official timeout for replay booth review. The only issue with our circumstances is that the replay booth didn't have the full 25 seconds, which the system is necessarily reliant on .

Personally, I prefer the old days when we let the refs on the field be human and make calls as they see them or not.

My takeaway here? The Bernie-loving commies at Ole Miss wanted a free timeout. Bernie wants to give away free college, free medical care, free monthly income .... why not free timeouts?

Screw Ole Miss, the SEC and ESPN...bless their heart, now go to hell. A bunch of commies kicked your butts.