# OT: Oregon/Oklahoma Game Thread



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

Good first drive by Oregon. 7-0.

Now Peterson's up to bat. Oregon's D will definately need to be on their game.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

Horrible goal line playcalling by Oregon. Why not just give it to Stewart again? Oklahoma can't stop him. Instead, they try to get cute, and don't get into the end zone. Field Goal. 10-0.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Oregon's run defense has been very impressive.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

I just woke up. Not surprised to see Oregon up on the scoreboard, but the highlights I've seen sort of make it look like an uglier game than I thought it would be. Something tells me today is the day that Oregon finally puts a W up against Oklahoma ... OU still has obvious talent but, to me, they seem more vulnerable this season than I can remember in the Stoops Era.

Michigan/Notre Dame, OTOH, looks "way funner." Bye bye Irish!


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

donk but still good and enough with the leaf thing!


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

yeah, no more Brady Leaf, please.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

The Ducks are shooting themselves in the foot. They are gonna lose this game if they don't score on this drive. Stewart needs to GET... THE.... BALL!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Mistakes have killed the Ducks. Pity because they looked like the better team.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Whoa! TD!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I guess the Ducks aren't dead yet! Now some D!!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wizmentor said:


> Whoa! TD!


was that before or after that absolutely attrocious call?


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Why kick it short like that? Doesn't make sense!


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Blocked!!!!!!


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Instant classic!

'grats Ducks.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Wow, what a game!


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Unreal...I am simply stunned.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> was that before or after that absolutely attrocious call?


A 'W' is a 'W' my friend.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I don't know how they said a Sooner touch the ball first on that on side kick, but even though the Duck player went up before 10 yards when he touch the ball it was real close to 10 yards and at least to close to say for sure one way or another.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I knew that squib kick was a bad idea before he kicked it! There's no telling what kind of great field position you'll give the other team on a squib kick, and all they needed was a field goal. Squib kicks are like prevent defenses.

I also knew Oregon was going to block the field goal right before they snapped the ball. I could feel it in my bones. That seems to happen all the time in football in that kind of situation.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> A 'W' is a 'W' my friend.


karma has a strange way of paying back W's like this.


----------



## Superblaze (Aug 6, 2006)

Amazing Game, I had a feeling they would make the 44 yard FG but when it got blocked, it was simply amazing. An instant classic.


----------



## ptownblazer1 (Oct 12, 2005)

As far as rules go...I am pretty sure that it was the correct call for the onside kick. I'm pretty sure that he touched the ball before the 10 yards, but an Oklahoma player touched him making it a live ball. So it doesnt matter if it was before or after the 10 yards. If that is the rule, then yes it was the correct call. Anyway it matters...You can't replay a game...GO DUCKS!


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

I was pretty sure they were going to block Hartley's kick in the final seconds. They would have been fools NOT to block it.

I was away from the house late in the 2d half so I did not actually see that final play that was so disputed with the apparent tipped ball. I had it on the radio in my vehicle, but I have a hard time with word pictures and football.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

That's not a classic. It was close, but it was ugly all along and it took two very bad calls at the end for the ducks to have that chance to win. It's a W, but it's hard to be too happy about a win when they needed such glaring gifts from the refs to get it.


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

It's probably the most exciting Duck game I've ever seen... :gbanana::banana::gbanana::banana::gbanana:












Keep on Truckin'


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

The Ducks definitely looked like the better team with 504 total yards and 6.7 yards per play vs Oklahoma's 370 total yards and 5.4 yards per play. They really need to cut down on the penalties and turnovers that have plagued them thus far though, if they want to put together a BCS quality season and have any chance vs USC.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> That's not a classic. It was close, but it was ugly all along and it took two very bad calls at the end for the ducks to have that chance to win. It's a W, but it's hard to be too happy about a win when they needed such glaring gifts from the refs to get it.


how did you feel about the Sooner reciever shoving off twice to clear himself for a TD and tie the game at 13? I think ABC agreed with me about that glaring gift/eyesore of a no call as they wouldn't even show replays of it.

The Ducks kept blowing it with the turnovers, but the bad calls went both ways. In the end the better team won.

STOMP


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> That's not a classic. It was close, but it was ugly all along and it took two very bad calls at the end for the ducks to have that chance to win. It's a W, but it's hard to be too happy about a win when they needed such glaring gifts from the refs to get it.


The only decisive call was the onside kick. If Oklahoma retains possession on that kickoff, it's big-time nails in the coffin. Even if the Ducks stop OK on four downs, they're going to have no time left, and are probably going to be working from deep in their own end (following a punt). 

The pass interference call was really not that big of a deal. Had it been overruled, it's an incomplete pass, and the Ducks still would have had the ball in OK territory with :50 left. As it was, they scored on the very next play. Had the penalty been overruled, I would say that Oregon most likely would have scored anyway, just with less time left on the clock. But in a game as unpredictable as today's was, it's hard to say. 

I agree though, that this isn't really a classic. But it's historic - as the first time UO has ever beaten OK.


----------



## m_que01 (Jun 25, 2003)

No way I turned it off thinking it was over. I should have kept it on.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

i am pissed. had to work all day so i DVR'ed it. well guess what? the satellite didnt turn on by itself. and by the time it did turn on, it only recorded the first 15 minutes of the 4th quarter. **** you direct tv.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> how did you feel about the Sooner reciever shoving off twice to clear himself for a TD and tie the game at 13? I think ABC agreed with me about that glaring gift/eyesore of a no call as they wouldn't even show replays of it.
> 
> The Ducks kept blowing it with the turnovers, but the bad calls went both ways. In the end the better team won.
> 
> STOMP


I don't know if you noticed, but ABC replayed each call the announcers saw as controversial a half dozen times. How does them not replaying it show they agreed with you? I didn't notice that one personally, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was a receiver pushing off, because that happens and gets not called all the time.

Certainly bad calls often do go both ways in a game, but in this one they made a very glaring mistake at a critical moment of the game that should have been fixed under review. The camera angle was clear. All I'm saying is that it takes some shine off the win when something like that happens. In the end, both teams played nearly even, although I thought OU played a little better considering they didn't turn the ball over, and the team that got the big gift from the ref won. Of course the Ducks made some huge plays to earn the win, but it just sucks having such a junk call swing the game.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Public Defender said:


> The only decisive call was the onside kick. If Oklahoma retains possession on that kickoff, it's big-time nails in the coffin. Even if the Ducks stop OK on four downs, they're going to have no time left, and are probably going to be working from deep in their own end (following a punt).
> 
> The pass interference call was really not that big of a deal. Had it been overruled, it's an incomplete pass, and the Ducks still would have had the ball in OK territory with :50 left. As it was, they scored on the very next play. Had the penalty been overruled, I would say that Oregon most likely would have scored anyway, just with less time left on the clock. But in a game as unpredictable as today's was, it's hard to say.
> 
> I agree though, that this isn't really a classic. But it's historic - as the first time UO has ever beaten OK.


Yeah, the PI I guess wasn't so significant, but the onside kick call was pretty bogus. The Ducks still came up huge when they had to though, so it's still a big win for the team and a definitely a dramatic finish. Historic? Well, it's a big Sooner monkey off the back, but I think we're going to see that OU team lose a couple more games this year, so I don't think it's a real giant-killing. I can tell I'm in a room full of more die-hard Ducks fans than myself, so I'll just desist in my pooh-poohing today and leave the room. Cheers. :cheers:


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> ... I think we're going to see that OU team lose a couple more games this year, so I don't think it's a real giant-killing. I can tell I'm in a room full of more die-hard Ducks fans than myself, so I'll just desist in my pooh-poohing today and leave the room. Cheers. :cheers:


I expect that "couple more games," one of them will be Texas, I can't put a finger on who the other one might be.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> I don't know if you noticed, but ABC replayed each call the announcers saw as controversial a half dozen times. How does them not replaying it show they agreed with you? I didn't notice that one personally, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was a receiver pushing off, because that happens and gets not called all the time.
> 
> Certainly bad calls often do go both ways in a game, but in this one they made a very glaring mistake at a critical moment of the game that should have been fixed under review. The camera angle was clear. All I'm saying is that it takes some shine off the win when something like that happens. In the end, both teams played nearly even, although I thought OU played a little better considering they didn't turn the ball over, and the team that got the big gift from the ref won. Of course the Ducks made some huge plays to earn the win, but it just sucks having such a junk call swing the game.


Oregon had 26 first downs to Oklahoma's 19, 523 yards to 378, and 6-49 to 8-49 penalties/yards. While Oregon tried to give it away with two turnovers by fumbles and two by interception compared to one turnover by Oklahoma, I'd say Oregon played better and the end result showed that. They were able to move the ball pretty much at will against the Sooners while the Sooners had problems moving the ball against them until late in the game. If not for Oregon TOs this game would have probably been a blow out.

There is no way a Sooner touch the ball first on the onside kick, but while the Duck jump for the ball before ten yards he might have not touch it until it had traveled ten yards. It was at least very close. But how the refs said a Sooner touch the ball first I have no idea.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Hap said:


> karma has a strange way of paying back W's like this.


 This was payback for the jobbing we've got in plenty of games over the past few years...

ALL SQUARE!


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> I don't know if you noticed, but ABC replayed each call the announcers saw as controversial a half dozen times. How does them not replaying it show they agreed with you? I didn't notice that one personally, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was a receiver pushing off, because that happens and gets not called all the time.
> 
> Certainly bad calls often do go both ways in a game, but in this one they made a very glaring mistake at a critical moment of the game that should have been fixed under review. The camera angle was clear. All I'm saying is that it takes some shine off the win when something like that happens. In the end, both teams played nearly even, although I thought OU played a little better considering they didn't turn the ball over, and the team that got the big gift from the ref won. Of course the Ducks made some huge plays to earn the win, but it just sucks having such a junk call swing the game.


I don't know what you are capable of noticing , but there was nothing subtle about that particular play. Both announcers commented on the blatent two handed shove while the ball was in the air that sent the defender flying on the actual play and the one time (not half dozen) that they replayed it. Tim Brant said it looked liked the Sooners got away with one. That you can't even recall that controvercial no-call on a TD pretty much makes my point. 

I also disagree with you about the camera angle being clear on the onside kick. It looked to me that it was almost certainly touched by Paysinger before the required 10 yards, but why the camera wasn't set directly at the proper spot square to this plane is a gaff on ESPN/ABC's part. Everyone knew that the Ducks were going to try an onside kick and the refs depend on their replays to overturn calls made on the field. Inexplicably, they also didn't have the camera lined up at the goal line when the Sooners ran the sneak for a score on 2nd down... that was another one that far from clear but unfortunately there was no decent camera angles to confirm things one way or another. 

To my observation scores early in a game count just as much as at the end. It sucks that questionable/bad calls help determine the outcome of games in any sport, but IMO bad calls at the end of a game don't suck anymore thenthe ones in the middle that set up the final scenario. I'm sure that Seahawk fans know this. I understand that getting things right is very difficult, and that various factors can contribute to officials messing things up... which is partially why as a fan I just try to live in the moment and not take things to heart too much. Especially in football, teams that succeed need a considerable amount of luck with calls, injuries, and bounces of the ball. Today the Ducks got the final breaks, but as mgb just detailed, statistically they were the better team throughout the afternoon. They led for most of the day, gained more yards, and made plays down the stretch. I've been on the other side of games like this to have no problem seeing this go in the win column.

STOMP


----------



## ThereIsNoTry (Oct 23, 2005)

You guys want to see Phil Knights money at work?
Heres proof that Oregon touched it before it went 10 yards. You happy?

















IT DOESNT MATTER IF HE TOUCHED THE BALL OR NOT!! OKLAHOMA RECOVERED DO YOU NOT SEE?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IhHPggLpSY
http://media.putfile.com/Ch9-view-from-behind

You have to admit something fishy was going on..


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

ThereIsNoTry said:


> You guys want to see Phil Knights money at work?
> Heres proof that Oregon touched it before it went 10 yards. You happy?
> 
> 
> ...


 lol...you have to be kidding me...

Was it a bad call? Yes. Was it a terrible call? Yes.

Did Phil Knight have anything to do with the replay official being blind? No.

If you don't think Oregon got the short end of a handful of calls, I'll be glad to point them out to you. Sadly, bad calls are a part of the game. I piss a moan just like anyone else when they go against my team, and I try to be honest and point them out when they help my team (just like today). At some point you have to realize the if you put yourself in the position where one bad call can cost you the game, you may not have done enough to win. 

The reality of the situation may not be fair, but that's the way it is.


----------



## ThereIsNoTry (Oct 23, 2005)

Bad calls can be lived with. These were reviewable calls. Replay official was clearly blind when he saw the Oklahoma WR barely step out of bounds.

You want to know who the replay official is? He is John Walters, the International Sales Coordinator at Nike. The booth job is something he does on weekends now. On Saturdays he referees high school football.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> I don't know what you are capable of noticing , but there was nothing subtle about that particular play. Both announcers commented on the blatent two handed shove while the ball was in the air that sent the defender flying on the actual play and the one time (not half dozen) that they replayed it. Tim Brant said it looked liked the Sooners got away with one. That you can't even recall that controvercial no-call on a TD pretty much makes my point.
> 
> I also disagree with you about the camera angle being clear on the onside kick. It looked to me that it was almost certainly touched by Paysinger before the required 10 yards, but why the camera wasn't set directly at the proper spot square to this plane is a gaff on ESPN/ABC's part. Everyone knew that the Ducks were going to try an onside kick and the refs depend on their replays to overturn calls made on the field. Inexplicably, they also didn't have the camera lined up at the goal line when the Sooners ran the sneak for a score on 2nd down... that was another one that far from clear but unfortunately there was no decent camera angles to confirm things one way or another.
> 
> ...


As I said before, offensive players push off on the defenders very often in college football. It's almost like travelling in the NBA. Actually, it's even more like the offensive player pushing off with the off arm in the NBA. It would be nice if refs called that one accurately and consistently, but in reality they rarely do. I don't dispute that it happened, I'm just saying that I don't expect refs to call that one. What I would expect them to do is get the very obvious calls, like one where a guy on the kicking team who is clearly visible on replay touches the ball before it travels 10 yards. It was obvious from the camera angles given, as shown in Thereisnotry's conspiracy post. I wouldn't get so haughty about what I failed to see when you failed to clearly see the most obvious no-call of the day, despite it being replayed many times. I don't think Phil Knight bought the call of course, but I still think it is an undesirable way to get the win.

And I disagree that the Ducks were statistically superior today. They gained more yards, but turned the ball over 4 times to OK's 0, mostly in their own territory or midfield. How many yards are -4 turnovers in good field position worth?


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

I think it's great the ducks won, but unfortunate that such a great win will have an asterisk next to it. 2 questionable calls, but the ducks still had to put the ball in the end zone. I hope Karma doesn't come around when Portland State pays a visit to Eugene.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm an idiot... I turned it off after we went down 30-20 and threw an interseption. Oh well... at least we won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

SheedSoNasty said:


> I'm an idiot... I turned it off after we went down 30-20 and threw an interseption. Oh well... at least we won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


D'oh! I guess it's a good surprise, but I'll bet you will watch games through to the end if they are within two possessions from now on :wink:.

As an OT for this OT thread: put me in the "we believe in Brandon Roy" club too if you please SSN.


----------



## J_Bird (Mar 18, 2005)

SheedSoNasty said:


> I'm an idiot... I turned it off after we went down 30-20 and threw an interseption. Oh well... at least we won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Man, I did the same damned thing. I was shocked when I saw the final score posted online.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

ThereIsNoTry said:


> Bad calls can be lived with. These were reviewable calls. Replay official was clearly blind when he saw the Oklahoma WR barely step out of bounds.


If anyone cares, the play clock was at 0 before the snap anyway.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

This almost makes up for the end of the Zags-UCLA game...









Well, actually it doesn't, but it still feels pretty good to not be on the **** end of the stick again.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> As I said before, offensive players push off on the defenders very often in college football. It's almost like travelling in the NBA. Actually, it's even more like the offensive player pushing off with the off arm in the NBA. It would be nice if refs called that one accurately and consistently, but in reality they rarely do. I don't dispute that it happened, I'm just saying that I don't expect refs to call that one. What I would expect them to do is get the very obvious calls, like one where a guy on the kicking team who is clearly visible on replay touches the ball before it travels 10 yards. It was obvious from the camera angles given, as shown in Thereisnotry's conspiracy post. I wouldn't get so haughty about what I failed to see when you failed to clearly see the most obvious no-call of the day, despite it being replayed many times.


did you read my post? The part where I said Paysinger almost certainly touched the ball before the required 10 yards? How could that leave any discrepency with my failing to clearly see a bad call by the refs takes some pretty creative reading comprehension. 

Unfortunately, ABC/ESPN provided poor video support throughout the game and failed to provide the officials the definitive proof they felt necessary to overturn their on-field calls. That you glaze over the importance of officiating the earlier parts of the game and focus on the end is fine... for you. I'll happily take the win as the results of the whole contest under a flawed system of judging. 

Of course I watched the whole game. While it's understandable that you'd place more importance on the part(s) you saw, it's sort of silly that you'd expect others to limit themselves to your experience.

STOMP


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> did you read my post? The part where I said Paysinger almost certainly touched the ball before the required 10 yards? How could that leave any discrepency with my failing to clearly see a bad call by the refs takes some pretty creative reading comprehension.
> 
> STOMP


I read your post. "Almost certainly" isn't the same as "certainly." I was saying that from the camera angle given it was clear so it should have been certain to everyone. See, my reading comprehension is fine. I even understand how adjectives like "almost" work. They can be subtle, but they do make a difference.

And I did watch the whole game by the way. When you assume otherwise you make an a$$ out of u and me. I think the previous no-calls were par for the course, but the later game-changing one was just much more egregious. It sucks having a bad call like that swing the outcome of a game like that. That's just my opinion, but feel free to direct as many snide remarks as you like in my direction.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> feel free to direct as many snide remarks as you like in my direction.


Whoa.. Open season, boys...


----------



## chevelle (Feb 8, 2004)

LameR said:


> If anyone cares, the play clock was at 0 before the snap anyway.



Am I the only one else that noticed that too? Its not like the refs didn't let a few bad calls go the Sooners way also. The Ducks just got them at very advantagous time.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> I read your post. "Almost certainly" isn't the same as "certainly." I was saying that from the camera angle given it was clear so it should have been certain to everyone.


It should be obvious that those in charge of officiating the game do not share your certainty. If ESPN/ABC had positioned themselves properly, they could have removed the remaining doubt. This wasn't the only time the coverage dropped the ball just as this wasn't the only bad/missed call. It's sort of funny that they blew it in providing the officials the proper shot and then went on to point fingers. 



> See, my reading comprehension is fine. I even understand how adjectives like "almost" work. They can be subtle, but they do make a difference.
> 
> And I did watch the whole game by the way. When you assume otherwise you make an a$$ out of u and me. I think the previous no-calls were par for the course, but the later game-changing one was just much more egregious. It sucks having a bad call like that swing the outcome of a game like that. That's just my opinion, but feel free to direct as many snide remarks as you like in my direction.


Oh I'm so sorry. How could I have had the nerve to respond to your snide comprehension remark with the same. And what an a$$ I am for assuming you not recalling that controvercial TDs the Sooners scored early on which were not replayed "a half dozen times" as you contended but backed off of, was because you didn't watch the whole game... I'm now guessing it's the same reason that you didn't recall questioning my ability to comprehend what I watched. What a jerk I am for shoveling your bleep back at you. 

Bad calls and poor video support helped swing the dynamics of the game thoughout the contest. That said, I thought the new collegiate system of officials utilizing video without resorting to coach's challenges is a step in the right direction of getting things correct, but it's clear they've some kinks to work out. For this system to work as best it can, the coverage crew needs to line up in the proper spots to get the conclusive evidence needed. That includes getting a camera square to the goal line, back of the end zone, down the sidelines, and 10 yards from the spot the ball is kicked off at least in obvious on-side situations like under 2 minutes with the kicking team trailing by 6. I'd hope thats not just my opinion.

STOMP


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Disputed play from different angle (about halfway through the video and sorry there's an ad to sit through too).

The refs probably blew it but it isn't like the game can be replayed.


----------



## chevelle (Feb 8, 2004)

As much as everyone wants to complain about the on-side kick call, was it the refs fault for allowing the Ducks to score the go ahead touch down? Or even for the blocked FG? 

The Sooners had plenty of chances to stop the Ducks despite the bad call. They lost the game because they choked when it mattered.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

chevelle said:


> As much as everyone wants to complain about the on-side kick call, was it the refs fault for allowing the Ducks to score the go ahead touch down? Or even for the blocked FG?
> 
> The Sooners had plenty of chances to stop the Ducks despite the bad call. They lost the game because they choked when it mattered.


Not disputing that.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

soonerterp said:


> Disputed play from different angle (about halfway through the video and sorry there's an ad to sit through too).
> 
> The refs probably blew it but it isn't like the game can be replayed.


wow, not only did they muff the onside kick call, but Oklahoma recovered the ball too.
you can't deny that that was home cooking.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

chevelle said:


> Am I the only one else that noticed that too? Its not like the refs didn't let a few bad calls go the Sooners way also. The Ducks just got them at very advantagous time.


Nope. I noticed it. Went back with the TIVO and saw that the Sooners clearly snapped the ball AFTER the clock was at 0.

That was a 3rd down play. After reviewing the sideline thingy the touchdown was called back. Yet is was still a 3rd down converted for a huge gain. Who knows what would have happened on a replay of 3rd down with the 5 yard penalty tacked on. However the Sooners took the momentum and scored on that drive.

Bad and/or missed calls went against both teams during the game.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

ThereIsNoTry said:


> You guys want to see Phil Knights money at work?
> Heres proof that Oregon touched it before it went 10 yards. You happy?
> 
> 
> ...


Im a ducks fan and im glad they won, but ruling the onsides a ducks ball was the worst bad call ive ever seen.

Im not talking about the 10 yard rule that was definately debateable, but the fact that oregon didnt have the football. oklahoma recovered the kick. 

inches can be seen wrong but the fact that oregon didnt even have the ball and came away with possession has to go down as one of the biggest robberies ive ever seen.

GO DUCKS!


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

What horrible officiating. The Ducks just got that game gift-wrapped to them. Didn't even recover the onside kick and they get it.

I guess the refs had to save the Ducks from choking against Oklahoma again, since they didn't save them in the Holiday Bowl.

Those refs and the replay review crew should be fired. That replay evidence was crystal clear that Oregon touched it before the ten yard mark had gone by.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

What that video doesn't show is the ref blowing the whistle and the play dead when Patrick Chung had the ball at the bottom of the pile. The fact that it squirts out after that and an Oklahoma player picks it up is irrelevant. Once the whistle blows, the play is over. End of story. I'm not disputing the Ducks may have touched the ball before it traveled 10 yards, but the stupid video that everyone is circulating is pointless. Whistle blew when Oregon had the ball.

And as has been pointed out numerous times here and other places, there were a whole slough of missed/bad calls that benefited both teams. It just happens that two that everyone is focusing on occurred at the end of the game and went in Oregon's favor. If you ask any coach, he'll tell you that no game is truly decided by one or two bad calls. The Sooners had every opportunity to slam the door shut on the Ducks and they couldn't get it done. THAT - and not the two controversial calls - is what should haunt Sooner fans the most.

As a Duck fan, I make no apologies for the way we won that game. We shut Oklahoma down when we needed to, and we scored when we needed to.

End of story. Scoreboard. Send 'em home.

-Pop


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Hap said:


> wow, not only did they muff the onside kick call, but Oklahoma recovered the ball too.
> you can't deny that that was home cooking.


Home cooking by a mixed crew of officials? Doesn't seem very likely.


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

It isn't the bad call. It is the fact that this bad call was reviewed by a replay team and still deemed Oregon's ball, when it was very, very clear that the ball had not traveled ten yards. 

Oh, and that scoreboard comment makes you sound like Lakers fans after their disgusting series win in the playoffs against the Timberwolves a few years ago. Blatant gift-wrapping by the refs in that one, too.


----------



## M3M (Jun 19, 2006)

That game was one of the best games i have seen i awile. I stayed home to watch it instead of playing golf, let me tell you i am glad i did.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> Home cooking by a mixed crew of officials? Doesn't seem very likely.


 It does to Beaver fan.

The officials were awful all game, and certainly not in Oregon's favor until the last minute of the game. I find it hard to believe people actually think the University of Oregon players, coaches, alumni, or fans had anything to do with a bad call being made. The refs stunk it up all game, don't read into anymore than that.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

The Sebastian Express said:


> It isn't the bad call. It is the fact that this bad call was reviewed by a replay team and still deemed Oregon's ball, when it was very, very clear that the ball had not traveled ten yards.


Not that this makes the booth call correct, but the booth never said the ball wasn't touched before it went 10 yards. The ruling was that the Oklahoma player touched the ball first. If the Oklahoma player touches the ball after only going 9 yards, it's a live ball.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> It should be obvious that those in charge of officiating the game do not share your certainty. If ESPN/ABC had positioned themselves properly, they could have removed the remaining doubt. This wasn't the only time the coverage dropped the ball just as this wasn't the only bad/missed call. It's sort of funny that they blew it in providing the officials the proper shot and then went on to point fingers.
> STOMP


As I said, the refs made a bad call. Look at the pictures posted in this very thread if you can handle the cognitive dissonance of acknowledging the obvious. The fact that you can't or won't is what I'm saying makes your criticisms of my recollection sound hollow.



STOMP said:


> Oh I'm so sorry. How could I have had the nerve to respond to your snide comprehension remark with the same. And what an a$$ I am for assuming you not recalling that controvercial TDs the Sooners scored early on which were not replayed "a half dozen times" as you contended but backed off of, was because you didn't watch the whole game... I'm now guessing it's the same reason that you didn't recall questioning my ability to comprehend what I watched. What a jerk I am for shoveling your bleep back at you.
> STOMP


I made no remarks about your "comprehension", although you have twice done so. I never said it makes you a jerk, but the shoe does fit. I did say that controversial calls were replayed a half dozen times, and every time there was a review that was the case. Technically, the "shove" was a controversial call that didn't got only one review, but BFD. Wow, you caught me making a slight overstatement! I already said it happened, yet you still go on with your reaching assertion that I didn't watch the game. Whatever.

I still stand by my assertion that the onside kick call was more egregious. Receivers push off of D-backs all the time and it rarely gets called. When the refs miss something that is obvious on review though, I consider that worse. On that play where OK got the big first down after the play clock had run down, that was also a regular bad call. But if they had not gotten the touchdown called back on review when the receiver clearly stepped out of bounds, then I'd be saying the Sooners were the ones who got the glaring gift from the refs. When replay is available, I just hope and expect that the refs will fix their obvious mistakes, and the fact that the ball was touched before it reached 10 yards was pretty obvious. When they fail to do so, it just ruins the excitement for me a little bit.

Now, the Ducks still had to make huge plays to get the win, and I'm not saying at all that it was undeserved. But if I was a Sooner fan I'd feel pretty jobbed by that one. I think this game was a great example of why CFB needs a playoff system.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

the worst non-call was the zero on the clock play it should of had a penality!


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

As a Beaver fan, first let me say congrats to the Ducks. Regardless of the calls, they still played well enough to win. One call isn't going to help you if you're down 35-0. I don't think OU will end up being as storied as some of their previous teams, but they are still a tough team.

However, one interesting aspect that was brought up by a poster on another board is that this game just highlights how bad the Pac-10 refs are in general and it may cause teams outside the Pac-10 to second guess whether they want to come play a home series against any of us. Of course, that hurts OSU more than UofO because UofO can still pay a ton of money per visit...but either way it's bad.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

ThereIsNoTry said:


> You guys want to see Phil Knights money at work?
> 
> You have to admit something fishy was going on..



Scoreboard. 

By the way, should an Oklahoma Sooner fan really be calling out other programs for transgressions from rich alumni? 

Oklahoma is not exactly sitting on a rich tradition of moral excellence.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Oil Can said:


> By the way, should an Oklahoma Sooner fan really be calling out other programs for transgressions from rich alumni?
> 
> Oklahoma is not exactly sitting on a rich tradition of moral excellence.


Excellent point. And going into it would hopelessly derail this thread.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> the worst non-call was the zero on the clock play it should of had a penality!


To me, the worst non-call was when Malcolm Kelly of OU blatantly shoved the Duck DB in the back on a 4th down play in the 3rd quarter. He caught the ball for a TD.

It was clearly offensive PI. The officials should apologize to Oregon for that gaffe.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

UPDATE

OU president in full meltdown mode.

http://www.soonersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=300&ATCLID=610256

_NORMAN, Okla. -- Today, University of Oklahoma President David Boren released a letter calling on the commissioner of the Big 12 Conference to take action related to the breakdown of officiating in the Oklahoma-Oregon football game last Saturday. 

The text of the letter is below and attached as a PDF. 

Dear Commissioner Weiberg:
To describe the lapses in accurate officiating at the Oklahoma-Oregon football game last Saturday as constituting an outrageous injustice is an understatement. Since officiating is a conference responsibility as opposed to an individual institutional responsibility, we must look to you to launch a vigorous effort to correct the situation. _ 

Nice priorities there. I wonder how the investigation over Bomar and Quinn's summer job is proceeding? Did the NCAA give OU a pass?


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Well, just to chime in on this love-fest, in my opinion, the Ducks did not receive the benefit of more bad/blown/missed calls than the Sooners. If anything, I thought the Sooners got most of the breaks until a couple of debateable calls at the very end.

I counted two times the Sooners were allowed to run a play after the play clock was dead. I noticed at least two (to me) obvious pass interference calls that were not made against them, plus the offensive interference for the touchdown.

As for fumble recoveries, there was one where the Ducks recovered the ball on the ground, but in the dog pile that followed, the Duck player who had recovered the ball was injured and the ball taken from him, and given to Oklahoma. Same on the on-side kick: when the ref sees a player on the ground with control, the play is dead, regardless of who ends up with the ball after the wrestling match. I'm often dismayed at the gutlessness of refs in cases where they let the tug-of-war play itself out when they could have just made the call that was right in front of them in the first place.

And the replay official cannot, and should not, overrule a ruling on the field without 'incontrovertible' video evidence. They can't, for example, overrule a call where the trajectory of the ball 'may' have been altered in flight, unless they can clearly see the ball being touched. 

The bottom line is that every game has a certain element of luck and human error. My teams have been on the short end of that stick many, many times. The Ducks gutted this game out and earned the win. That's my opinion.

(By the way, I'm a Beaver alum and fan, if it matters.)


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

papag said:


> UPDATE
> 
> OU president in full meltdown mode.
> 
> ...


Boren:
"• Fourth, the Big 12 should request that the game should not go into the record books as a win or loss by either team in light of the level of officiating mistakes."

Does he really, honestly, sincerely expect the NCAA to overturn the game? Lol what a nut.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Nut is right. I've seen bigger mistakes than anything in that game. Sheesh. Get over it man.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Finally the Pac10 responds and says what everyone expects...




> Pac-10 suspends officials for one game
> 
> By JEFF LATZKE, AP Sports Writer
> September 18, 2006
> ...


----------



## tr_west (Dec 15, 2003)

The onside kick did not lose it for Oklahoma. They could have made that field goal to win the game but didn't. They could have stopped Oregon from scoring 2 touchdowns in 4 minutes with 0 timeouts but they didn't. They let off the gas at the end of the game and now they are paying the price.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

tr_west said:


> The onside kick did not lose it for Oklahoma. They could have made that field goal to win the game but didn't. They could have stopped Oregon from scoring 2 touchdowns in 4 minutes with 0 timeouts but they didn't. They let off the gas at the end of the game and now they are paying the price.


Well said my East Coast Brutha'!


----------



## ThereIsNoTry (Oct 23, 2005)

Pac-10 Suspends the officiating crew and replay crew for one game.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Good grief, OU is taking whining to a new level. Ducks get ripped out of BCS games and no one gives a hoot... poor *sniff* sooners loose a game and the world ends. The sad damn fact is that if OU and the Ducks end with 1 loss (to USC) OU will be ranked ahead of them. 

Honestly... I don't see the Ducks getting to that point this year though. They are very good... but not great. I didn't even SEE the game... I was camping and listened to it on the radio... but if the replays did not overturn the calls... what are they whining about????!!!! There are only certain things you can see in a replay, we see fake punches in the movies all day long that seem to tell a story. I don't know... but I think if this game was in reverse, everyone would be telling the Ducks to STFU, as it is... the Sooners seem to be getting a lot of sympathy.


----------



## ThereIsNoTry (Oct 23, 2005)

Paxil said:


> Good grief, OU is taking whining to a new level. Ducks get ripped out of BCS games and no one gives a hoot... poor *sniff* sooners loose a game and the world ends. The sad damn fact is that if OU and the Ducks end with 1 loss (to USC) OU will be ranked ahead of them.
> 
> Honestly... I don't see the Ducks getting to that point this year though. They are very good... but not great. I didn't even SEE the game... I was camping and listened to it on the radio... but if the replays did not overturn the calls... what are they whining about????!!!! There are only certain things you can see in a replay, we see fake punches in the movies all day long that seem to tell a story. I don't know... but I think if this game was in reverse, everyone would be telling the Ducks to STFU, as it is... the Sooners seem to be getting a lot of sympathy.


I don't know, I am a Beaver fan and when Derek Anderson fumbled it in Boise State I said that was a horrible call and shouldn't be the way it ended.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

ThereIsNoTry said:


> I don't know, I am a Beaver fan and when Derek Anderson fumbled it in Boise State I said that was a horrible call and shouldn't be the way it ended.


When you've got a guy named Derek Anderson on your team, bad things are just going to happen.

barfo


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

I was at the game and stayed to the end. I have to argue that the onside kick call DID lose the game for Oklahoma. If the call is made correctly and the officials actually FIND the ball, the Sooners have possession and drop to a knee three times then climb in their bus with a "W". After that call momentum was completely switched and Oklahoma was rattled. That was directly the officials fault. 

If you don't understand the adverse effects of a few bad calls that go against you and the change of momentum...well...you haven't been a Blazer fan very long. To expect a bunch of college kids to handle it better is unrealistic, even for a team as good as Oklahoma.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

By the way, a player has to HAVE the ball to have possession. Chung never did.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Tince said:


> It does to Beaver fan.
> 
> The officials were awful all game, and certainly not in Oregon's favor until the last minute of the game. I find it hard to believe people actually think the University of Oregon players, coaches, alumni, or fans had anything to do with a bad call being made. The refs stunk it up all game, don't read into anymore than that.


Nevermind..I had heard the officials crew was madeup of Pac-10 and Big-10 officials..now I see this wasn't the case. Anyway I agree with you...this games wasn't rigged in any way..just a couple blown calls by the officials. Every human makes mistakes.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I was at this game and man I'm glad my friend made me stay till the end. What a scene Autzen was at the end, storming the field was great. I wish I could freeze that frame,because I am sick of this backlash. Bad calls were made all game long, but of course sicne they are OU, the media sympathizes with them. Usually in most games, the calls even out, and they did this time. We played the hand we were dealt hand and came out on top. Next game please.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Nobody seems to mention the terrible non call when the play clock ran out on Oklahoma with a critical 3rd and 10 late in the game. Refs let the play go, Oklahoma gets the 1st down (the ball was mis-spotted too) and Oklahoma scores the go ahead touchdown a coupld plays later. Without that blown call, we wouldn't even be talking about the rest of this stuff.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

nobody is talking about ANY of the blown sooner favorable calls,which is why i am so sick n tired of this.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Isn't it great to see blown calls go in favor of the team from Oregon for once?

And some here feel this is a problem?

'Bout time, if you ask me.

PBF


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah it is about time 

OU stuff it you had your fair share in your "storied" history wonder how many blown calls youve had to win your national championships?


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

It's nice that some of you think I'm too "diplomatic" about this (whoever you are thanks for repping me, I don't think I'm deserving of that). I might have to stop being that way for a minute, but I'll preface this by saying what's done is done and these will be my final statements about it. Although I can't believe I'm finding myself agreeing with the repugnant likes of Skip Bayless, who on any other day I would like to feed a feces sandwich topped with extra-bloody [Stimpy]_magic nose goblins._[/Stimpy]

ALL DAY LONG, starting with my alarm clock radio, has been nothing but listening to Angry Sooner Fan (some of whom are really embarassing) call up the media morons (and even I use that term loosely because the media here is monopolized by the Gaylord family -- to which, BTW, new Sonics owner Clayton Bennett belongs by marriage) and continue to P&M about this EVEN AFTER the official apology/announcement of suspension of these officials from the Pac 10. I'll state for the record I am satisfied with the punishment of the officials as proscribed by the Pac-10. And frankly, I felt from the get-go that the Ducks were going to win that game anyway -- Oklahoma is still a good team, but they aren't as strong this year as in the recent past.

I kind of thought the letter from President David Boren to Kevin Weiberg (the comissioner of the Big XII Conference) might have been a little over the top. Because I NEVER, in eleven years of making Norman, Oklahoma my home, ever remember him being quite so outspoken about an issue related purely to a regular-season sporting event.

Boren did tell an OKC television station (sorry can't find this online because I'm watching a replay of the late news on this station) and his reasoning for issuing the letter to Weiberg is, paraphrasing, so this doesn't happen to another team, and that this is no way to treat student athletes -- not just Oklahoma student athletes (who aren't all tools like ex-Sooner Rhett freakin' Bomar), but ALL student-athletes, who work hard and discipline themselves and it shouldn't happen again. I can understand his reasoning for that, but having the game expunged from the record books likely isn't going to happen.

I also tend to have a somewhat unrelated theory that Boren may be being extra outspoken about this issue because that perhaps is his way of keeping OU athletics administration on a short leash -- a reminder to the suits in the fancy offices that he is most certainly watching because OU's reputation -- which Boren is generally charged with upholding -- has taken a couple of hits recently. Even though incompetent officiating in a football game is quite removed from that, it shows he is more than just an aging retired US Senator who sits in a plush office and talks about professorial endowments and National Merit Scholars and promotes other centerpieces on the campus such as the art museum and the new weather research center that's being finished across from the basketball arena.

Oklahoma got a fairly light punishment for the sins of Kelvin Sampson (some of the punishment handed down by the NCAA in that case actually apply to Sampson himself even though he's at another school. Nevertheless, new BB coach Jeff Capel is doing what he can with the limitations he has to deal with because of what Sampson did with respect to recruiting). How the NCAA rules on the violations committed by disgraced ex-Sooners Rhett Bomar and JD Quinn remains to be seen. That might not be pretty when it comes down.

Okay, rant mode off.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I don't know how one call made the game more than other bad calls. The other calls are not made and Oregon may have been up at that point. Bad calls at crucial times are just unfortunate, but they will happen. Instant reply can't solve everything. In general is *sounded* LOL like the officiating was pretty damn even for a non-conference game. I mean... did you see the refs in the Boise State / Beaver game start to put the ball down, then look across to see where the first down marker was, then move the ball up so they get a first down!!! That is blatent! I doubt that kind of stuff was going on in the OU game. Lets hope OU and the Ducks meet in a BCS bowl, that would be a fitting ending.


----------



## BlazeTop (Jan 22, 2004)

Pat Forde of ESPN, telling Oklahoma and its' president to...STFU
From : ESPN.com



> OU reaction transitions from indignation to insanity
> 
> Forty names, games, teams and minutiae making news in college football ("Onside Kick Rules For Dummies" books sold separately -- discounted rates available for Pac-10 refs [1]):
> 
> ...


Nice to see SOMEONE at ESPN not beating the deadhorse and drinking the OU kool-aid. I thought the Bomar jab was especially nice. :clap:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Been in and out of the car all morning and it is non-stop talk about the call on national radio (Rome, Dan Patrick).

On one hand it does taint the victory. However, this is the most I have heard national radio talk about the Ducks. You know what the celebs say . . . any press is good press.

I hope UO follows this game up with a victory over ASU . . . it will be tough on the road against a top 25 team. But after all this controversy, they need this next win.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

The Ducks need to cut down on their mistakes. So far this season, only the Ducks have stopped the Ducks.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

After today I'm officially embarassed to have "sooner" in my name.

First of all, I'd like to disown the presumed mullet-maned ******* who probably has an '85 Camaro with four mismatched tires sitting in front of his trailer/meth lab/whatever who had the gall to CALL the official at his home and threaten him and his spouse. While there are plenty of "morans" (mispelling entirely intentional and I hope I don't need to explain the Bush-era reference) around here that cling to mullets and Camaros and live in trailers, let it be known that individual is in the minority and not representative of the Sooner fans that I do know who are for the most part classy, rational, and levelheaded individuals.

I just wish everybody around my neck of the woods would let it the hell go. It's over. The Pac-10 apologized, the officials suspended. Good God it's just a football game.

Okay that really is my last statement on the subject.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

It's hard to believe the officiating of that game is getting more press than the last Superbowl's officiating or the Miami/Dallas championship series, or hell even the Italy/US worldcup match. The calls in those games were at least as bad if not more biased and the stakes were so much higher.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

It all just goes to show how much Sooners Fan is not used to bad calls going against him. As Oregon (Beavers AND Ducks) football fans, we are used to getting the short end of the stick - especially vs. ranked non-conference opponents (BCS snafus, anyone?). And HECK YEAH it feels good to see it happen to the "other guy" for once. So no apologies or sympathy from me whatsoever. Welcome to the "real world" of college football, Mr. Entitled Sooners Fan. Sucks, donnit?

PBF


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

This guy is hilarious: http://youtube.com/watch?v=zlXgbKPUFt8&mode=related&search=

What a loser.

-Pop


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

SodaPopinski said:


> This guy is hilarious: http://youtube.com/watch?v=zlXgbKPUFt8&mode=related&search=
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> -Pop


That guy is awesome. I kept expecting a punchline to come, where they reveal it's just a gag to make fun of overserious FB fans, but it never comes. Instead, it goes to the wierd close-up with with the jazzy elevator music background. "Put an asterik (sic) next to that victory, Oregon" he says in a serious tone. Lol.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> As I said, the refs made a bad call. Look at the pictures posted in this very thread if you can handle the cognitive dissonance of acknowledging the obvious. The fact that you can't or won't is what I'm saying makes your criticisms of my recollection sound hollow.


and as I said, your reading comprehension sucks. I've referred to the on-side kick call as a bad one IMO in every one of my posts in this thread. I said it appeared to be a bad call but the camera angle could have been more definitive.... more on that later. That you're focusing on one single bad call in a game filled with bad calls... heck, in a sport where that is the norm... thats what I find wierd.



> I made no remarks about your "comprehension", although you have twice done so.


sure you did... 

_"I don't know if you noticed, but ABC replayed each call the announcers saw as controversial a half dozen times."_

Not only is this a smarmy condescending crack about my ability to comprehend what I'm observing, but it's complete BS. Along with the two questionable Sooner TDs I spoke of, the Sooners ran two plays on scoring drives after the play clock ran to zero. They were mentioned as they happened by the announcers, but weren't even replayed or even refered to even once afterwords. And then you go on to whine about the tone of my response...



> I never said it makes you a jerk, but the shoe does fit. I did say that controversial calls were replayed a half dozen times, and every time there was a review that was the case. Technically, the "shove" was a controversial call that didn't got only one review, but BFD. Wow, you caught me making a slight overstatement! I already said it happened, yet you still go on with your reaching assertion that I didn't watch the game. Whatever.


whatever indeed. Why make up stuff to support your views? Why not stick to what actually happened? 



> I still stand by my assertion that the onside kick call was more egregious. Receivers push off of D-backs all the time and it rarely gets called. When the refs miss something that is obvious on review though, I consider that worse. On that play where OK got the big first down after the play clock had run down, that was also a regular bad call. But if they had not gotten the touchdown called back on review when the receiver clearly stepped out of bounds, then I'd be saying the Sooners were the ones who got the glaring gift from the refs. When replay is available, I just hope and expect that the refs will fix their obvious mistakes, and the fact that the ball was touched before it reached 10 yards was pretty obvious. When they fail to do so, it just ruins the excitement for me a little bit.


And I'll stand by my earlier statement that bad calls early in the game help set up the final scenarios, so any key bad call pretty much sucks. It must be pretty tough for you to be a football fan though, as most every game is filled with them. Over the years I've years I've had more then a few important calls go against my rooting interest, and I've never seen the national media get up in arms about it. Having perennial football power OU cry a river about their perceived injustice makes me laugh... bad calls are a part of the game. Cry baby cry.

Now that the facts about this incident have come out we've learned that the replay official had only a single view of that play shot from well behind the scrum. It's also been reported that he reviewed the play on a 14" monitor. Like I said before, while I feel replay is moving in the right direction, obviously they've some kinks to work out. More camera agles and a better TV seem like logical next steps to take. 

I doubt they'll ever get it all right, and I expect to end up on the short end of those calls again. The only thing I feel bad about this 3-0 start is losing several key defenders to season ending injuries already. But like bad calls are a part of the game, thats just football.

STOMP


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Hap said:


> karma has a strange way of paying back W's like this.


 The karma in this situation is that Oklahoma beat Oregon last year with an ineligable QB. Looks like the situation took care of itself.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> and as I said, your reading comprehension sucks. I've referred to the on-side kick call as a bad one IMO in every one of my posts in this thread. I said it appeared to be a bad call but the camera angle could have been more definitive.... more on that later. That you're focusing on one single bad call in a game filled with bad calls... heck, in a sport where that is the norm... thats what I find wierd.
> 
> 
> sure you did...
> ...


For the second to last time: The thing you failed to acknowledge was that the proper call was clear. I saw that you said it was "almost certain(ly)" wrong, and re-inforced the idea that it wasn't actually certain by using an argument from authority regarding the refs call ("It should be obvious that those in charge of officiating the game do not share your certainty"), but that's not the same as acknowledging what is obvious: that it was CERTAINLY the wrong call, from what the whole country saw on ABC and from the pictures posted in this very thread.

Stated again for the last time: I didn't say you wouldn't admit that it was *probably* the wrong call, I said you wouldn't admit that it was *certainly* the wrong call even after seeing it replayed 6x and seeing a freeze frame photo of the ball being touched before it was at the 10 yard mark. See the difference? My language on this point was not abundantly clear the first time, but after restating it for you clearly previously in another thread and now again in this thread, I hope that it is.

Now, we have learned *later* that reportedly the official in the replay booth may not have been privy to a camera angle and technical equipment sufficient to make the call correctly. That's certainly relevant and interesting information. It changes my opinion about the accuracy we should expect from official reviews in college football, but I wasn't aware previously that the replay official did not have freeze frame and multiple camera angles on-demand and generally had a worse ability to review the play than those watching on TV. It's absurd that that's the state of things, and I'm guessing you weren't aware of that either before Canzano reported on it, so you can't really claim it supports your previous call for better camera angles from ABC/ESPN. Better angles wouldn't hurt, but the angles they had were sufficient, as we have seen (but you haven't acknowledged). It's the official's ability to review them that was the problem.

As for my comment "I don't know if you noticed..." That is slightly rude, I guess, about on par with many many comments on this message board. BUt it's pretty mild IMO. I said nothing about your "comprehension" (which actually has a much deeper meaning than just failing to notice something. If you think that's sufficient justification for you to assume the tone you have, then that's your choice. If you want to continue to keep getting angrier and post, that's your choice too. As for me, I think most people would agree that I've said more than enough on this devolved thread subtopic, so I'm done.


----------

