USC coach questions refs after Minnesota loss; best player on D may be out for year

[Jerry]

So I didn't watch the game, but apparently Minnesota's late TD to win it was awarded by replay officials after the call on the field was that the Gophers had been stopped short of the goal line on a 4th and 1.

Ironic as hell, given how Minnesota was jobbed in similar fashion the week before against Michigan. I guess maybe the USC game served as the league's version of Minnesota's make-up call...a week later.

Anyway, at his press conference Tuesday, Riley said there were a number of officiating "misses" in the 4th quarter with the decisive booth reversal being the biggest. The latter occurred after a lengthy review -- sound familiar? -- but when the coach questioned the conference office this week, they appeared to (verbally) agree that the evidence to overturn the call on the field had not met the criterion of "indisputable." Unfortunately, it still goes down as an L on USC's record.

I mean, when you hear that the video review was "lengthy," you know that the evidence can't be "indisputable." It doesn't take that long to see something "indisputable."

Poor Trojans. They're beginning to find out how things work in this conference.

Meanwhile, word is that Eric Gentry, the linebacker who's arguably been their best player on D this season may be gone for the year.

Lincoln Riley says officials reversed late call without video evidence in loss to Minnesota

USC coach Lincoln Riley says the Big Ten said there was no indisputable evidence to overturn a goal-line stand vs. Minnesota. Eric Gentry out 'indefinitely."

sports.yahoo.com

 

[mgkpsu]

Half of the Quarterback's torso crossed the goal line, so the only "issue" was that he was holding the ball tight against his chest, making it hard to see. But I feel it should have been ruled a TD on the field, and then "stands as called" after review.

 

[doctornick]

Half of the Quarterback's torso crossed the goal line, so the only "issue" was that he was holding the ball tight against his chest, making it hard to see. But I feel it should have been ruled a TD on the field, and then "stands as called" after review.

Oh yeah, that play. It was one of those where it was obviously a TD given how the QB went well over the goal line before being down; the issue in saying it was "indisputable" is that the ball isn't really visible the whole time so it is possible that he fumbled it before crossing the goal. Extremely unlikely given how the play evolved, but I suppose it cannot be claimed to be an absolute certainty. I don't really have a problem with the call being overturned as it was obvious they got the TD but I do think it is one of those situations where needing something to be "indisputable" is an issue.

 

[PSUPride1]

So I didn't watch the game, but apparently Minnesota's late TD to win it was awarded by replay officials after the call on the field was that the Gophers had been stopped short of the goal line on a 4th and 1.

Ironic as hell, given how Minnesota was jobbed in similar fashion the week before against Michigan. I guess maybe the USC game served as the league's version of Minnesota's make-up call...a week later.

Anyway, at his press conference Tuesday, Riley said there were a number of officiating "misses" in the 4th quarter with the decisive booth reversal being the biggest. The latter occurred after a lengthy review -- sound familiar? -- but when the coach questioned the conference office this week, they appeared to (verbally) agree that the evidence to overturn the call on the field had not met the criterion of "indisputable." Unfortunately, it still goes down as an L on USC's record.

I mean, when you hear that the video review was "lengthy," you know that the evidence can't be "indisputable." It doesn't take that long to see something "indisputable."

Poor Trojans. They're beginning to find out how things work in this conference.

Meanwhile, word is that Eric Gentry, the linebacker who's arguably been their best player on D this season may be gone for the year.

Lincoln Riley says officials reversed late call without video evidence in loss to Minnesota

USC coach Lincoln Riley says the Big Ten said there was no indisputable evidence to overturn a goal-line stand vs. Minnesota. Eric Gentry out 'indefinitely."

sports.yahoo.com

Riley is a clown. The Minnesota QB was in by a mile. The referee's had their head up their ass missing that call.
Riley has done nothing since leaving Oklahoma. I guess it's harder when you have to play more than one game a year.

 

[bdgan]

Half of the Quarterback's torso crossed the goal line, so the only "issue" was that he was holding the ball tight against his chest, making it hard to see. But I feel it should have been ruled a TD on the field, and then "stands as called" after review.

We couldn't see the ball in that scrum but the only way the ball didn't reach the white line is if Minny's QB was holding it down below his waist which is hard to believe.

 

[PSU2UNC]

We couldn't see the ball in that scrum but the only way the ball didn't reach the white line is if Minny's QB was holding it down below his waist which is hard to believe.

I've seen a still photo that makes it look like the ball was actually fumbled but impossible to know (from the still) if it happened before or after he crossed the goal line.
Super close call. Not convinced it should have be overturned.
This also speaks to the downside of the "Tush Push" -- it's super hard for the refs to actually see where the ball is (both live and on replay) due to the mass of humanity around the ball. So unless you make the line to gain pretty easily, there's a potential for a bad call.

 

[wilbury]

So I didn't watch the game, but apparently Minnesota's late TD to win it was awarded by replay officials after the call on the field was that the Gophers had been stopped short of the goal line on a 4th and 1.

Ironic as hell, given how Minnesota was jobbed in similar fashion the week before against Michigan. I guess maybe the USC game served as the league's version of Minnesota's make-up call...a week later.

Anyway, at his press conference Tuesday, Riley said there were a number of officiating "misses" in the 4th quarter with the decisive booth reversal being the biggest. The latter occurred after a lengthy review -- sound familiar? -- but when the coach questioned the conference office this week, they appeared to (verbally) agree that the evidence to overturn the call on the field had not met the criterion of "indisputable." Unfortunately, it still goes down as an L on USC's record.

I mean, when you hear that the video review was "lengthy," you know that the evidence can't be "indisputable." It doesn't take that long to see something "indisputable."

Poor Trojans. They're beginning to find out how things work in this conference.

Meanwhile, word is that Eric Gentry, the linebacker who's arguably been their best player on D this season may be gone for the year.

Lincoln Riley says officials reversed late call without video evidence in loss to Minnesota

USC coach Lincoln Riley says the Big Ten said there was no indisputable evidence to overturn a goal-line stand vs. Minnesota. Eric Gentry out 'indefinitely."

sports.yahoo.com

He was clearly over the goal line. Should have been called a TD initially. But since it wasn't, I'd agree that there was no way to definitely see where the ball was at so by their rule, there wasn't indisputable evidence.

 

[lazydave841]

I guess maybe the USC game served as the league's version of Minnesota's make-up call...a week later.

If this was a makeup call, they sure tried to foul it up. The QB was waist deep in the zone upon the initial push. The ball would have to have been at his knees to not be a TD. And all he has to do is cross the threshold and it's 6. The ball can come out after that since it's a rush.

Terrible call on the field. And replay could have bungled it with the indisputable stuff because those scrums are nuts.

 

[mgkpsu]

Oh yeah, that play. It was one of those where it was obviously a TD given how the QB went well over the goal line before being down; the issue in saying it was "indisputable" is that the ball isn't really visible the whole time so it is possible that he fumbled it before crossing the goal. Extremely unlikely given how the play evolved, but I suppose it cannot be claimed to be an absolute certainty. I don't really have a problem with the call being overturned as it was obvious they got the TD but I do think it is one of those situations where needing something to be "indisputable" is an issue.

That's one where they just need some kind of chip inside the ball.

 

[Lion_Backer]

That's one where they just need some kind of chip inside the ball.

Will that 'chip' be able to determine if and who is in possession of the football at the critical moment?

 

[mgkpsu]

Will that 'chip' be able to determine if and who is in possession of the football at the critical moment?

No, but it will say whether the ball broke the plane or not, which seems to be a prevalent issue today, and take some of the politics out of the replay booth.

 

[Jerry]

If this was a makeup call, they sure tried to foul it up. The QB was waist deep in the zone upon the initial push. The ball would have to have been at his knees to not be a TD. And all he has to do is cross the threshold and it's 6. The ball can come out after that since it's a rush.

Terrible call on the field. And replay could have bungled it with the indisputable stuff because those scrums are nuts.

Well I didn't watch the game or see the play in question, so I'd tend to defer to the majority here who apparently did.

I do think it's ironic that the Gophers were saved by the same mechanism, a "lengthy" booth review, that screwed them the week before against Michigan.

Apparently when Riley queried the league office, the view there was a "belief" that the call had been correctly overturned but not a statement affirming the "indisputability" of that judgment.

This criterion of "indisputable" appears to be selectively honored. It's actually a high bar to get over but as often as not, these booth calls seem to be judged by a lesser standard.

Hopefully, USC remains distracted by last week's upset loss at the wire. They're in pretty desperate straits with Riley's tenure at a possible tipping point. I think the stakes are huge for both teams on Saturday.

 

[mgkpsu]

Well I didn't watch the game or see the play in question, so I'd tend to defer to the majority here who apparently did.

I do think it's ironic that the Gophers were saved by the same mechanism, a "lengthy" booth review, that screwed them the week before against Michigan.

Apparently when Riley queried the league office, the view there was a "belief" that the call had been correctly overturned but not a statement affirming the "indisputability" of that judgment.

This criterion of "indisputable" appears to be selectively honored. It's actually a high bar to get over but as often as not, these booth calls seem to be judged by a lesser standard.

Hopefully, USC remains distracted by last week's upset loss at the wire. They're in pretty desperate straits with Riley's tenure at a possible tipping point. I think the stakes are huge for both teams on Saturday.

Their fans don't seem very interested either, considering there are many tickets available for Saturday for as low as $29. I don’t think we need to be concerned with a rowdy environment.

 

[ryoder1]

I saw the play a couple times and agree the QB clearly was across the goal line by about a yard. You can't see the ball so that is a good point but since his body was so far across the goal line you have to assume the ball was also.

These refs in these games, man you have to wonder. Go back to Minny vs Michigan. Minny's last TD, the receiver catches it clearly in bounds, the ref is standing right there like 3 yards away looking at the play and calls it an incompletion. Total wtf. I mean seriously dude what are you looking at. Thankfully it is overturned. Then the infamous phantom offsides that triggered a 20 page thread here, LOL.

Fast forward to last Saturday night and what the heck are they doing initially calling the play no TD. Just get into the scrum and look. At the very least needs to be called a TD on the field then review. Finally they seem to ignore what indisputable means unless they had some perfect camera angle review that showed where the ball was.

In other news, if this defensive player, Gentry, for USC is out then that obviously helps us. Both teams missing a key defensive player. Source for that USC injury report?

 

[SR108]

So I didn't watch the game, but apparently Minnesota's late TD to win it was awarded by replay officials after the call on the field was that the Gophers had been stopped short of the goal line on a 4th and 1.

Ironic as hell, given how Minnesota was jobbed in similar fashion the week before against Michigan. I guess maybe the USC game served as the league's version of Minnesota's make-up call...a week later.

Anyway, at his press conference Tuesday, Riley said there were a number of officiating "misses" in the 4th quarter with the decisive booth reversal being the biggest. The latter occurred after a lengthy review -- sound familiar? -- but when the coach questioned the conference office this week, they appeared to (verbally) agree that the evidence to overturn the call on the field had not met the criterion of "indisputable." Unfortunately, it still goes down as an L on USC's record.

I mean, when you hear that the video review was "lengthy," you know that the evidence can't be "indisputable." It doesn't take that long to see something "indisputable."

Poor Trojans. They're beginning to find out how things work in this conference.

Meanwhile, word is that Eric Gentry, the linebacker who's arguably been their best player on D this season may be gone for the year.

Lincoln Riley says officials reversed late call without video evidence in loss to Minnesota

USC coach Lincoln Riley says the Big Ten said there was no indisputable evidence to overturn a goal-line stand vs. Minnesota. Eric Gentry out 'indefinitely."

sports.yahoo.com

Amazing that even with replay, officials still can’t get it right.

 

[LandoComando]

As this complaint shows...every team thinks it's a bad call when it goes against them that's why everyone fan base thinks they're targeted by the refs. Every single one.

Replay got the call correct.

 

[PurposePitch]

Well I didn't watch the game or see the play in question, so I'd tend to defer to the majority here who apparently did.

I do think it's ironic that the Gophers were saved by the same mechanism, a "lengthy" booth review, that screwed them the week before against Michigan.

Apparently when Riley queried the league office, the view there was a "belief" that the call had been correctly overturned but not a statement affirming the "indisputability" of that judgment.

This criterion of "indisputable" appears to be selectively honored. It's actually a high bar to get over but as often as not, these booth calls seem to be judged by a lesser standard.

Hopefully, USC remains distracted by last week's upset loss at the wire. They're in pretty desperate straits with Riley's tenure at a possible tipping point. I think the stakes are huge for both teams on Saturday.

1. Why not bother to watch the play you're commenting on? It's out there on the internet via a quick google search.

2. The Gophers were not screwed by a lengthy booth review last week - the onside kick recovery was nullified by an offside call, and that call was NOT reviewable.

3. If it was a make-up call, it was one of the worst performed calls, given that it appeared he'd easily crossed the plane in real time, and they called him down short of the end zone.

4. Even though the play is available online, I haven't seen a video where they go through all of the camera angles - just one from behind the play where you see the ball loose, and one from up top showing at least half his body crossing the goal line ... then a separate one where they show all the side angles ... the "lengthy" nature of the review could have been trying to time up multiple camera angles ... so, from one view you could possibly seem him cross and see where his arms/hands are ... the other view you can see when the ball comes loose ... and when you sync those up, based on where other players are in the respective shots, you can possibly determine that the ball was definitively in or out of his possession when the ball crossed the plane. I can't verify that, as I haven't seen all the angles, as I already said ... but that's one possible explanation for a "lengthy" analysis that is "indisputable."

5. I will say that, based only on what I've seen ... and I don't think that's all of the camera angles ... this was a weird situation of everyone knowing what the "correct" call should have been, but not having enough evidence to overturn it on replay ... but, again, see #4 ... it's possible there was more to it.

 

[Jerry]

1. Why not bother to watch the play you're commenting on? It's out there on the internet via a quick google search.

2. The Gophers were not screwed by a lengthy booth review last week - the onside kick recovery was nullified by an offside call, and that call was NOT reviewable.

3. If it was a make-up call, it was one of the worst performed calls, given that it appeared he'd easily crossed the plane in real time, and they called him down short of the end zone.

4. Even though the play is available online, I haven't seen a video where they go through all of the camera angles - just one from behind the play where you see the ball loose, and one from up top showing at least half his body crossing the goal line ... then a separate one where they show all the side angles ... the "lengthy" nature of the review could have been trying to time up multiple camera angles ... so, from one view you could possibly seem him cross and see where his arms/hands are ... the other view you can see when the ball comes loose ... and when you sync those up, based on where other players are in the respective shots, you can possibly determine that the ball was definitively in or out of his possession when the ball crossed the plane. I can't verify that, as I haven't seen all the angles, as I already said ... but that's one possible explanation for a "lengthy" analysis that is "indisputable."

5. I will say that, based only on what I've seen ... and I don't think that's all of the camera angles ... this was a weird situation of everyone knowing what the "correct" call should have been, but not having enough evidence to overturn it on replay ... but, again, see #4 ... it's possible there was more to it.

1. OK, so I finally looked at the tape. I agree with the others that the guy appears to be over the goal line. However, the call on the field was no and I don't think the evidence is "indisputable" that the call was wrong...for the simple reason we can't see the ball. This is Riley's point, and it goes to the standard of "indisputable," which appears to be highly elastic depending on the day and the crew.

2. Right, my mistake...but the larger point is that the refs give and the refs take away. Minnesota got screwed against Michigan and then benefited the next week from a critical booth correction that was certainly not outrageous but as I see the play did not meet the strict letter of the law of "indisputability." Given how I've seen things work in this conference for 30 years since we joined, I wouldn't have a hard time believing Minnesota was given the benefit of the doubt.

3. Well if it were "make-up," the making up was done in the booth rather than on the field. But yeah, the term "make-up" was a stretch on my part. On the other hand, there were various other 4th-quarter calls that Riley termed "misses," to include two pass interferences and an intentional grounding. So maybe if you take the whole thing together, "make-up" might come closer to the mark. I have to stress that I'm taking Riley's word for some of this, but my cynicism about this league conditions me to interpret these sorts of controversies in a certain light.

4. I think that as a general rule "indisputable" judgments should not take a long time to arrive at. When Riley queried the league office, he says he was told that they "believed" there that the call was correctly overturned but could not affirm the "indisputability" of that judgment. If they had a different angle that eliminated any doubt, I'm pretty sure they would have produced it for Riley.

 

[Jerry]

I saw the play a couple times and agree the QB clearly was across the goal line by about a yard. You can't see the ball so that is a good point but since his body was so far across the goal line you have to assume the ball was also.

These refs in these games, man you have to wonder. Go back to Minny vs Michigan. Minny's last TD, the receiver catches it clearly in bounds, the ref is standing right there like 3 yards away looking at the play and calls it an incompletion. Total wtf. I mean seriously dude what are you looking at. Thankfully it is overturned. Then the infamous phantom offsides that triggered a 20 page thread here, LOL.

Fast forward to last Saturday night and what the heck are they doing initially calling the play no TD. Just get into the scrum and look. At the very least needs to be called a TD on the field then review. Finally they seem to ignore what indisputable means unless they had some perfect camera angle review that showed where the ball was.

In other news, if this defensive player, Gentry, for USC is out then that obviously helps us. Both teams missing a key defensive player. Source for that USC injury report?

The source on Gentry's status is the article I posted in the OP.

 

[bdgan]

I've seen a still photo that makes it look like the ball was actually fumbled but impossible to know (from the still) if it happened before or after he crossed the goal line.
Super close call. Not convinced it should have be overturned.
This also speaks to the downside of the "Tush Push" -- it's super hard for the refs to actually see where the ball is (both live and on replay) due to the mass of humanity around the ball. So unless you make the line to gain pretty easily, there's a potential for a bad call.

I wouldn't be surprised if he fumbled but most likely that would have been after contact on his up and over leap.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Only thing to say……Welcome to the B2G!

 

[PurposePitch]

1. OK, so I finally looked at the tape. I agree with the others that the guy appears to be over the goal line. However, the call on the field was no and I don't think the evidence is "indisputable" that the call was wrong...for the simple reason we can't see the ball. This is Riley's point, and it goes to the standard of "indisputable," which appears to be highly elastic depending on the day and the crew.

2. Right, my mistake...but the larger point is that the refs give and the refs take away. Minnesota got screwed against Michigan and then benefited the next week from a critical booth correction that was certainly not outrageous but as I see the play did not meet the strict letter of the law of "indisputability." Given how I've seen things work in this conference for 30 years since we joined, I wouldn't have a hard time believing Minnesota was given the benefit of the doubt.

3. Well if it were "make-up," the making up was done in the booth rather than on the field. But yeah, the term "make-up" was a stretch on my part. On the other hand, there were various other 4th-quarter calls that Riley termed "misses," to include two pass interferences and an intentional grounding. So maybe if you take the whole thing together, "make-up" might come closer to the mark. I have to stress that I'm taking Riley's word for some of this, but my cynicism about this league conditions me to interpret these sorts of controversies in a certain light.

4. I think that as a general rule "indisputable" judgments should not take a long time to arrive at. When Riley queried the league office, he says he was told that they "believed" there that the call was correctly overturned but could not affirm the "indisputability" of that judgment. If they had a different angle that eliminated any doubt, I'm pretty sure they would have produced it for Riley.

I don't think there's any rule, general or otherwise, that an indisputable judgment should not take a long time. That wouldn't make any sense. There's no connection between those two things in some circumstances. Sometimes you have to look at various angles, and various aspects of the play, to determine what is what. But when you see those things, finally, then the play indisputably should be called one way or the other. The only driving force is ... get the call correct ... and to this end, they have requirements ... can you determine there's indisputable evidence the call was wrong? Yes, then overturn. Can you clearly see the call was correct? Yes, then confirm. Can you not determine what happened? Yes, then the call stands. And sometimes that process can take time.

As you admit, YOU'RE the one letting your bias color your opinions here.

And, here, the bias argument doesn't even make sense. I haven't seen these various other calls Riley complained about, either ... but let's just say, for the sake of argument, that he's correct - the on-field officiating was terrible and wrong on those calls. OK, so if we're going with some kind of bias/conspiracy argument here ... why would the on-field refs, with the game on the line and with an apparently very easy on-field call that would win the game for the team that benefitted from the previous 4th quarter calls ... then go AGAINST the team that benefitted from the previous bad 4th quarter calls? To support that, you'd have to push a conspiracy between the on-field refs and review booth, where the on-field refs knew they'd overturn it, but they wanted to throw the call to them to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Half of the Quarterback's torso crossed the goal line, so the only "issue" was that he was holding the ball tight against his chest, making it hard to see. But I feel it should have been ruled a TD on the field, and then "stands as called" after review.

The complicating factor was that he lost control of the ball and it wasn't clear whether he lost control before or after he crossed goal-line because you could not see ball, just his body. I do agree with you that replay is clear that his body from waist up crossed the goal-line. But completely unclear at what point he losses control of ball because you never see the ball.

Was a little surprised they reversed it as you really can't tell when ball cones loose in scrum - all you see is ball come shooting out of back of scrum at end as Minny QB is being pushed back to other side of scrum.

 

[PurposePitch]

I wouldn't be surprised if he fumbled but most likely that would have been after contact on his up and over leap.

He DEFINITELY fumbled ... it's just a question of when.

You can see here ...



The play starts at the 3:47 mark of that video and you see the right arm of the QB extend right-ward as his body goes to the left at about the 3:53 mark. Then you see the ball all by itself in the air where his right arm used to be.

The question is, where was his body at that point?

That's why I think they took a long time to review ... there are other replays that you can more clearly see his body position ... and so you have to sync up (OK, given that this happened, and that happened, and this player's body was here, and that player's body was there on both angles, the ball came out right *here* ... and, oh, he's over).

But then you see these replays ... play starts at 3:08 ...



To me, the best replay starts at 3:40 ... you can see, where he's holding the ball before he goes into the scrum, then you see his body go over the line, and that part of the body crosses as well. So, you think ... obvious touchdown. And then when you look back at the first video I provided, you see you don't see his arm being pulled from the rest of his body until well after he's being pushed backward. So it's "obvious" he almost surely got in ... but, then again, you never see the ball itself cross, so is that "indisputable"?

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

He DEFINITELY fumbled ... it's just a question of when.

You can see here ...

View embedded media

The play starts at the 3:47 mark of that video and you see the right arm of the QB extend right-ward as his body goes to the left at about the 3:53 mark.

The question is, where was his body at that point?

That's why I think they took a long time to review ... there are other replays that you can more clearly see his body position ... and so you have to sync up (OK, given that this happened, and that happened, and this player's body was here, and that player's body was there on both angles, the ball came out right *here* ... and, oh, he's over).

I don't know - very difficult to tell when he loses control of ball as ball is not only underneath QB, but also several other players from both teams. It's a TD if ball torn loose after he crosses goal-line as ball is dead after he crosses goal-line, but no whistle had blown and it's near impossible to tell when the QB loses control (and again, the Officials did not blow the play dead prior to seeing ball come out back of scrum.

 

[Jerry]

I don't think there's any rule, general or otherwise, that an indisputable judgment should not take a long time. That wouldn't make any sense. There's no connection between those two things in some circumstances. Sometimes you have to look at various angles, and various aspects of the play, to determine what is what. But when you see those things, finally, then the play indisputably should be called one way or the other. The only driving force is ... get the call correct ... and to this end, they have requirements ... can you determine there's indisputable evidence the call was wrong? Yes, then overturn. Can you clearly see the call was correct? Yes, then confirm. Can you not determine what happened? Yes, then the call stands. And sometimes that process can take time.

As you admit, YOU'RE the one letting your bias color your opinions here.

And, here, the bias argument doesn't even make sense. I haven't seen these various other calls Riley complained about, either ... but let's just say, for the sake of argument, that he's correct - the on-field officiating was terrible and wrong on those calls. OK, so if we're going with some kind of bias/conspiracy argument here ... why would the on-field refs, with the game on the line and with an apparently very easy on-field call that would win the game for the team that benefitted from the previous 4th quarter calls ... then go AGAINST the team that benefitted from the previous bad 4th quarter calls? To support that, you'd have to push a conspiracy between the on-field refs and review booth, where the on-field refs knew they'd overturn it, but they wanted to throw the call to them to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

I use the term "general rule" figuratively...as in rule of thumb. I well realize it's not written into the instruction book. But it is common sense. Indisputable means overwhelmingly obvious, which in most cases should not require a lengthy time to judge.

Again, I think the guy may have scored. It may even be likely that the guy scored. But the call on the field was that he did not score, and the rule is there needs to be "indisputable" evidence to overturn it. I don't think that the video we've seen meets that standard. And if there were video that did, the league would have produced it for Riley.

As I've pointed out before more than once, the word "conspiracy" is a red herring. Conspiracy implies some sort of pre-planned rigging involving coordination among refs and league officials. Of course that doesn't exist. Rather, what I'm talking about is a more mundane feature of human psychology: internalized bias that can influence snap judgments.

USC is a newcomer to this league. I think they may have encountered some officiating bias on the road against both Michigan and Minnesota. Of course, if they were good enough, they'd have been unable to overcome that factor. Never a good idea to put yourself in a position where the refs can decide the game late. Need to take care of business before that. In any case, I doubt we're going to be recipients of the zebras' generosity in LA this Saturday.

As for me, yup, I plead guilty to my own bias, which has hardened into cynicism born of 30 years of our experience in this conference and observation of how it operates.

Speaking of bias, if Penn State had been in USC's shoes this past Saturday and seen that same call on the field overturned to give Minnesota the W, I'm pretty sure the majority of us would have some questions about its legitimacy. It might even bring back unpleasant memories of the phantom late-game pick call at the goal line that negated an obvious TD and resulted in a road L against the Gophers in 2019.

 

[PurposePitch]

I use the term "general rule" figuratively...as in rule of thumb. I well realize it's not written into the instruction book. But it is common sense. Indisputable means overwhelmingly obvious, which in most cases should not require a lengthy time to judge.

This was already explained to you. If you were all-seeing, each call would be quick and entirely correct. But we have limits. Views are blocked. And this extends to cameras, as well. So, sometimes the evidence needs to be pieced together. Just because many times it'll be quick to make a determination (or it'll be quick to determine that a definitive determination can't be made), other times it takes more time and effort. Common sense.

Again, I think the guy may have scored. It may even be likely that the guy scored. But the call on the field was that he did not score, and the rule is there needs to be "indisputable" evidence to overturn it. I don't think that the video we've seen meets that standard. And if there were video that did, the league would have produced it for Riley.

We don't know what the conference, not league, has or has not discussed with Riley since that time.

As I've pointed out before more than once, the word "conspiracy" is a red herring. Conspiracy implies some sort of pre-planned rigging involving coordination among refs and league officials. Of course that doesn't exist. Rather, what I'm talking about is a more mundane feature of human psychology: internalized bias that can influence snap judgments.

As I've pointed out before, your focus on "conspiracy" as a red herring is, itself, a red herring. I also used the term "bias," and I included the term "conspiracy" here because an actual conspiracy would be necessary for your assertion to hold true in this particular instance, as the actual on-field final call went against the alleged victim of this bias/conspiracy, as I explained in detail in the previous post.

USC is a newcomer to this league. I think they may have encountered some officiating bias on the road against both Michigan and Minnesota.

You think this because???? No reason is given. It's because of your BIAS. You admit you didn't even see the on-field calls that allegedly went against USC. In fact, when you made this thread, you hadn't seen any of the game, but you felt compelled to accuse others of bias. THAT'S bias.

Of course, if they were good enough, they'd have been unable to overcome that factor. Never a good idea to put yourself in a position where the refs can decide the game late. Need to take care of business before that. In any case, I doubt we're going to be recipients of the zebras' generosity in LA this Saturday.

As for me, yup, I plead guilty to my own bias, which has hardened into cynicism born of 30 years of our experience in this conference and observation of how it operates.

That's fine. At least you admit that you won't be rational on this topic. I applaud that admission. Which begs the question ... what in the hell are we going back and forth about, if you realize your views are skewed?

Speaking of bias, if Penn State had been in USC's shoes this past Saturday and seen that same call on the field overturned to give Minnesota the W, I'm pretty sure the majority of us would have some questions about its legitimacy. It might even bring back unpleasant memories of the phantom late-game pick call at the goal line that negated an obvious TD and resulted in a road L against the Gophers in 2019.

There are plenty of PSU fans who want to focus on refs, rather than gameplay ... we've already seen that. If you listen to CJFIsJoePaII, PSU is the victim of about 20 illegitimate calls/non-calls each game, and has never benefitted from a call/non-call. It's what losers do, IMO. You can acknowledge blown calls or questionable calls here and there, while also acknowledging gameplay is the most important thing, not look to blame refs for losses and also acknowledge that you probably missed "blown" calls that went in favor of your squad at some point in the game.

It's something I had to talk my children out of doing, because they hadn't properly learned how to handle their emotions ... when they were pre-teens and young teens. If they were still doing it when they're teenagers, I'd be very disappointed. My youngest seems to have just "gotten" it, and, wouldn't you know it, life on the athletic fields is so much better for him ... he's much more successful now. He still acknowledges when a "strike" wasn't actually a strike (or vice versa), but he doesn't pout, he doesn't blame the ump for his strike out, he doesn't whine that the ump was biased toward the other team because [insert rationalization here}. His focus is on self-accountability, and he's grown as a person and a player, and that has instilled more confidence, which then also adds to his ability to compete and better himself.

Try to be a successful fan.

 

[Wandering Spectator]

Half of the Quarterback's torso crossed the goal line, so the only "issue" was that he was holding the ball tight against his chest, making it hard to see. But I feel it should have been ruled a TD on the field, and then "stands as called" after review.

I agree. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. It “had” to be a TD but we couldn’t see the ball. It was a tough call for the officials because of the scrum, but I think they ultimately got the call right.

 

[africamurphy]

And while we’re talking about this one play…it’s also one of the most striking examples I’ve ever seen of the ridiculousness of the polls.

If the original awful call had been upheld by replay as it should have (it was not “indisputable”), USC would have won the game and—due to the other upsets—would have at least stayed ranked #11 and more likely would have moved up to #9.

Instead, Minny gets the call and USC is dropped out of the polls.

You’re supposed to tell me that one singular play determines whether a team is the 9th or 26th best team in the country? 🤣🙃🤦

 

[Fletchster1]

In related news, Gentry is a Philly kid from Neumann Goretti.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

I agree. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. It “had” to be a TD but we couldn’t see the ball. It was a tough call for the officials because of the scrum, but I think they ultimately got the call right.

I don't know about that - again, when the QB first dives forward his entire upper torso from waist up crosses goal-line; however, he's holding the ball with both hands to his upper-midsection as he goes in, but he's diving into a mass of humanity with head and shoulders down - so you never see the ball again after he starts his dive until it shoots out the back of the scrum well away from QB. Utterly impossible to really tell when precisely the ball is separated from QB and the on-field Officials never blew the play dead with their whistle (i.e., if they saw the QB in possession of ball after his first surge where the entire upper-half of his body crosses goal-line, they would have blown the play dead).

 

[lazydave841]

If the original awful call had been upheld by replay as it should have (it was not “indisputable”), USC would have won the game

I'm not positive that USC would have won, but at the very least they would have been driving for a FG to win with overtime looming if they miss or don't get into range.

I'm not sure that I'm against indisputable in this case. The primary function of replay should be to get ALL calls correct as close to 100% as possible. The QB appeared to clearly get into the end zone. The ball just wasn't visible. How do they ever call these? The ball is seldom more visible than it was on this play on these types of plays.

I get the indisputable part, but also am a firm believer that getting it correct is the most important thing. I, personally, cannot see any way this isn't a TD.

 

[Obliviax]

I'm not positive that USC would have won, but at the very least they would have been driving for a FG to win with overtime looming if they miss or don't get into range.

I'm not sure that I'm against indisputable in this case. The primary function of replay should be to get ALL calls correct as close to 100% as possible. The QB appeared to clearly get into the end zone. The ball just wasn't visible. How do they ever call these? The ball is seldom more visible than it was on this play on these types of plays.

I get the indisputable part, but also am a firm believer that getting it correct is the most important thing. I, personally, cannot see any way this isn't a TD.

Agree. I think the on-field refs couldn't see the ball either. I think this happens a lot more than we think. But the ref has to make a call and goes with his/her gut.

All replays now go to a central authority rather than the replay booth in each stadium. So there should be more consistency across games and the teams of officials nationwide. I've seen several replays where you can't see the ball but they piece it together with different angles and the body position of the player. I think they got the call right but I understand why USC is complaining.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

I'm not positive that USC would have won, but at the very least they would have been driving for a FG to win with overtime looming if they miss or don't get into range.

I'm not sure that I'm against indisputable in this case. The primary function of replay should be to get ALL calls correct as close to 100% as possible. The QB appeared to clearly get into the end zone. The ball just wasn't visible. How do they ever call these? The ball is seldom more visible than it was on this play on these types of plays.

I get the indisputable part, but also am a firm believer that getting it correct is the most important thing. I, personally, cannot see any way this isn't a TD.

Had the QB not lost control of the ball (again, no whistle had sounded and the ball comes squirting out of the back of the scrum and goes to the ground), I'd have no problem with the Replay Booth call, but given that the QB did in fact lose control of ball, and it is impossible to ascertain when he lost control of the ball, I don't think there is indisputable evidence he scored.

The complicating factor is the QB losing control of ball.

 

[lazydave841]

Had the QB not lost control of the ball (again, no whistle had sounded and the ball comes squirting out of the back of the scrum and goes to the ground), I'd have no problem with the Replay Booth call, but given that the QB did in fact lose control of ball, and it is impossible to ascertain when he lost control of the ball, I don't think there is indisputable evidence he scored.

The complicating factor is the QB losing control of ball.

The refs didn't see the ball come out as it happened. They immediately spotted the ball just short of the end zone. I don't believe the entire fumble thing was even noticed until replay got involved. Watching it live and going on my memory, I don't really remember "was this a fumble" being much of a question, but I could have been on this board discussing it and not fully listening.

In my own, unbiased opinion, I saw TD Minnesota.

I'd rather it been "fumble Minnesota" and have us facing a top 12ish USC in 2 days, if they could have won.

 

[Jerry]

Had the QB not lost control of the ball (again, no whistle had sounded and the ball comes squirting out of the back of the scrum and goes to the ground), I'd have no problem with the Replay Booth call, but given that the QB did in fact lose control of ball, and it is impossible to ascertain when he lost control of the ball, I don't think there is indisputable evidence he scored.

The complicating factor is the QB losing control of ball.

Yup, it's another one that will be argued about forever. Riley said the guy may have scored...or not. But the call on the field was that he did not score and unless the evidence otherwise is "indisputable," the booth by rule is obligated to uphold the call on the field.

The dictionary meaning of "indisputable" is: beyond question; not subject to debate; undeniable. That's a pretty lofty criterion, but as we all know, it's inconsistently and selectively applied.

In fact, if this game had been played a couple years ago in LA with a PAC-10 officiating and replay crew, do you think the call on the field would have been overturned? I don't.

Heck, I'll admit up front: substitute Penn State for USC, and I'd probably be thinking we got robbed. Substitute Penn State for Minnesota, and I'd probably be praising the replay crew for its courage. Not because I'm dishonest but rather because I'm guessing my emotions and biases would affect my judgment.

As a more or less objective observer in this case, I think the guy probably scored but I don't think the evidence is indisputable, and with the call on the field being no, the standard of "probable" doesn't obtain...or it's not supposed to.

It's sort of like a jury case I sat on several months ago in Pennsylvania. The charges were the illegal possession of drugs and firearms. I honestly thought the defendant was guilty, but I also thought the state's case was weak and had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So I voted not guilty -- the jury split 8-4 not guilty in the end -- because the standard of proof under the law is not "probable" but rather "beyond a reasonable doubt"...which I guess falls just short of "indisputable."

 

[knickslions]

Bottom line college refs are terrible. They miss so many calls anymore and can’t even spot ball correctly. They should have been able to see he was in

 

[Obliviax]

Bottom line college refs are terrible. They miss so many calls anymore and can’t even spot ball correctly. They should have been able to see he was in

I don't know why anything isn't reviewable. If a coach abuses it, give him 4 timeouts and/or review requests. A failed request costs him a timeout. If a review is requested and wins, he is not charged a timeout. Make it part of the strategy of the game.