Pac-12 Officiating crew at Pullman

[SaveFerris]

The point a few of us are disputing is whether that call could have singlehandedly been the difference between winning and losing. Indisputably, the outcome of that call was. WSU ball = no Stanford FG.

Anyway, I look forward to the day when we're not going over tape of losses like the Zapruder film. You think teams that rattle off 10 wins every season agonize over the rulebook and go frame-by-frame on their boards?

I understand your point of view but we were up 22-13 after their FG with 3:39 to go in the 3rd quarter. I have a hard time saying that was the difference in the game especially when we had a chance to get it back on the last play of the game on Powell's 43 yard FG attempt. I have watched the replay over a bunch of times as well and think we won't allow it to have the kind of impact it may have during the Stanford game. Nobody is going to enjoy playing WSU for some time to come.

 

[chipdouglas]

I understand your point of view but we were up 22-13 after their FG with 3:39 to go in the 3rd quarter. I have a hard time saying that was the difference in the game especially when we had a chance to get it back on the last play of the game on Powell's 43 yard FG attempt. I have watched the replay over a bunch of times as well and think we won't allow it to have the kind of impact it may have during the Stanford game. Nobody is going to enjoy playing WSU for some time to come.

What you're suggesting is that the entire approach shifts if we get it back up 22-13, and that this yields a different outcome. That may have happened. Unknown scenario.

In fact, the call went their way, they went on to score 3, and we lost by 2. Ballgame. This is what did happen. Known scenario.

 

[CougEd]

The point a few of us are disputing is whether that call could have singlehandedly been the difference between winning and losing. Indisputably, the outcome of that call was. WSU ball = no Stanford FG.

You are saying that it was one of a few key actions that did or could have had an impact. Importantly, this is not the same thing as disputing our point, which was to identify one action in particular.

The Falk non-fumble was bang-bang, but the fact that Stanford was not awarded the ball when Luke lost control on an attempted pass in which his arm was clearly moving forward should NOT have been a surprise to anyone. By contrast, even if the McLennan play was by the book, the idea that someone who rips the ball out and possesses it in bounds somehow did not just do what we all saw him do - that is orders of magnitude more outlandish as a claim.

Anyway, I look forward to the day when we're not going over tape of losses like the Zapruder film. You think teams that rattle off 10 wins every season agonize over the rulebook and go frame-by-frame on their boards?

What you're suggesting is that the entire approach shifts if we get it back up 22-13, and that this yields a different outcome. That may have happened. Unknown scenario.

In fact, the call went their way, they went on to score 3, and we lost by 2. Ballgame. This is what did happen. Known scenario.

Well that being the case do you think they might have played it differently on their last possession?

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Well that being the case do you think they might have played it differently on their last possession?

Therein lies the rub with our fans getting worked up about bad calls. Unless the mistake happens as time expires, there is no way to "know" that the call really was the deciding factor. The Miami-Duke situation is one where the ACC should do the right thing and give Duke the win (although their rules specifically say that they can't). Our loss to Oregon in basketball a few years ago is another case of a referee directly impacting the result of a game with a last second bad decision.

The woulda, coulda, shoulda's on bad calls is entertaining discussion, but at the end of the day, we all know that it isn't meaningful. I'm still surprised at all of the angst over the out of bounds play. Even though I disagree with the rule, I think it was correct as called. I bet the Stanford fans feel a little differently about Falk's non-fumble and whether or not they got screwed on that one.

 

[SaveFerris]

What you're suggesting is that the entire approach shifts if we get it back up 22-13, and that this yields a different outcome. That may have happened. Unknown scenario.

In fact, the call went their way, they went on to score 3, and we lost by 2. Ballgame. This is what did happen. Known scenario.

Like I said, I see your point of view. We had a FG to win the game. That's a known scenario as well.

 

[chipdouglas]

Well that being the case do you think they might have played it differently on their last possession?

Sure - and then it gets nested under the same theoretical scenario in which we can assume they may have tried for a TD. We don't know the outcome there; if they succeed or fail. If they fail, that might be ballgame - but that is again speculation. All we know is what did happen.

Anyway, this is quickly becoming a tiring discussion. Looking forward to exacting revenge on an ASU team that has humiliated us more than a few times in the last decade - by an average of 31+ points over the last 3 years, to be exact.

 

[SCglory]

C

The point a few of us are disputing is whether that call could have singlehandedly been the difference between winning and losing. Indisputably, the outcome of that call was. WSU ball = no Stanford FG.

You are saying that it was one of a few key actions that did or could have had an impact. Importantly, this is not the same thing as disputing our point, which was to identify one action in particular.

The Falk non-fumble was bang-bang, but the fact that Stanford was not awarded the ball when Luke lost control on an attempted pass in which his arm was clearly moving forward should NOT have been a surprise to anyone. By contrast, even if the McLennan play was by the book, the idea that someone who rips the ball out and possesses it in bounds somehow did not just do what we all saw him do - that is orders of magnitude more outlandish as a claim.

Anyway, I look forward to the day when we're not going over tape of losses like the Zapruder film. You think teams that rattle off 10 wins every season agonize over the rulebook and go frame-by-frame on their boards?

Cougar fans have no equals when it comes to finding the one bizarre thing that cost another loss. Which link in a chain is most important? Letting refs influence the game directly is the sure route to defeat. Leave no doubt.

 

[YakiCoug]

C


Cougar fans have no equals when it comes to finding the one bizarre thing that cost another loss. Which link in a chain is most important? Letting refs influence the game directly is the sure route to defeat. Leave no doubt.

Fans everywhere debate these matters. Green Bay Packer fans continue to gripe about the referees' controversial call on that pass play v. the Seahawks a few years ago. I'm sure some Cougar fans continue to throw darts at Gordon Riese's picture, thanks to the ending of the 2002 Apple Cup. The personal foul call against Rico Tipton in the 1984 AC is still considered a turning point. More recently, the non-call on PI v. Oregon last year is well remembered. As for the recent loss to Stanford, it was compelling enough for some to link it up with another Stanford-WSU game played 44 years ago, the glaring lack of relevance notwithstanding.

 

[95coug]

Fans everywhere debate these matters. Green Bay Packer fans continue to gripe about the referees' controversial call on that pass play v. the Seahawks a few years ago. I'm sure some Cougar fans continue to throw darts at Gordon Riese's picture, thanks to the ending of the 2002 Apple Cup. The personal foul call against Rico Tipton in the 1984 AC is still considered a turning point. More recently, the non-call on PI v. Oregon last year is well remembered. As for the recent loss to Stanford, it was compelling enough for some to link it up with another Stanford-WSU game played 44 years ago, the glaring lack of relevance notwithstanding.

And don't forget the phantom holding call, and the QB crawl for a TD in the Steelers-Seahawks Super Bowl.

 

[SCglory]

Fans everywhere debate these matters. Green Bay Packer fans continue to gripe about the referees' controversial call on that pass play v. the Seahawks a few years ago. I'm sure some Cougar fans continue to throw darts at Gordon Riese's picture, thanks to the ending of the 2002 Apple Cup. The personal foul call against Rico Tipton in the 1984 AC is still considered a turning point. More recently, the non-call on PI v. Oregon last year is well remembered. As for the recent loss to Stanford, it was compelling enough for some to link it up with another Stanford-WSU game played 44 years ago, the glaring lack of relevance notwithstanding.

the relevance was there, if perhaps wasted here. Only one cougar team that I know of (Leaf's 97 team) took "couging it" and flipped it on its head. The rest of the decades, it is the ever-present spectre--in quiet times to yak about, but far more often, as a ready scapegoat. In the Sweet game, as I said, there were any NUMBER of times in the final 5 minutes in which the game could have gone either way. Most of the time, it bounces the other way....but in 71 it didn't. But there is NO college team that is quicker to default to the "if only" or "what if" option than cougar football fans. And it's not close. Sure, all teams have a moment or a call or a play they gripe about (you don't think that Jethro Pugh heard about the time Jerry Kramer blocked him out of the way in the 67 "Ice Bowl?"), but cougar fans have hundreds....maybe thousands.....That's why "cougin' it" has legs.

 

[YakiCoug]

the relevance was there, if perhaps wasted here. Only one cougar team that I know of (Leaf's 97 team) took "couging it" and flipped it on its head. The rest of the decades, it is the ever-present spectre--in quiet times to yak about, but far more often, as a ready scapegoat. In the Sweet game, as I said, there were any NUMBER of times in the final 5 minutes in which the game could have gone either way. Most of the time, it bounces the other way....but in 71 it didn't. But there is NO college team that is quicker to default to the "if only" or "what if" option than cougar football fans. And it's not close. Sure, all teams have a moment or a call or a play they gripe about (you don't think that Jethro Pugh heard about the time Jerry Kramer blocked him out of the way in the 67 "Ice Bowl?"), but cougar fans have hundreds....maybe thousands.....That's why "cougin' it" has legs.

Ah, yes, the Grandview-YVCC-WSU (speaking of "cougin' it)-CWU to theological night school genius goes unrecognized...