"Major" overhaul in PAC12 review process...

[79COUG]

It's too late to get back the calls/non-calls in the sc game but at least its something. A very damning report and article, if you ask me. But a very good one and expresses opinions many of us have.

https://collegefootballtalk.nbcspor...rence-official-overruling-decision-in-a-game/

 

[wazzubruce]

It's time to replace Scott. He can't be fair or honest.

 

[79COUG]

It's time to replace Scott. He can't be fair or honest.

We need a guy to come in and clean house.

 

[BiggsCoug]

I have seen WSU on the receiving end of so many game changing calls I have no doubt in my mind that the PAC 12 officiating has been sold.

 

[kougkurt]

I have seen WSU on the receiving end of so many game changing calls I have no doubt in my mind that the PAC 12 officiating has been sold.

It is not in the Pac 12’s internet to see WSU do well

 

[BiggsCoug]

It is not in the Pac 12’s internet to see WSU do well

Agree. Large media market teams prob gain more viewers. Point spread and gambling prob play a role as well. If Im looking to fix a game, Im looking for a middle of the road, less scrutiny, less attention, small impact on conference and national rankings.... WSU would be on my radar....

 

[avabob1]

This has been an issue on basketball for 40 years going back to the lane violation call in Pauley.

 

[79COUG]

It is not in the Pac 12’s internet to see WSU do well

This is true. And while I see that coming into play on the gustin non-call, you would think just the opposite in this case. Head scratcher for sure.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Nothing out of his mouth can be trusted. Explains his irrational defense of the Gustin call; he knew all along exactly what had happened.

He had to be gone, now.

 

[wazzubruce]

WSU isn't supposed to beat SC. The commish doesn't want that and ESPN doesn't want that. You'd think with all the variables against WSU (rural, very small town/pop., etc) that at least our own conference could provide a level playing field for all 12 teams in the Pac. As CF has gotten bigger and bigger, more protection seems to be afforded to the SC and ND's of the world. It's sickening. FIRE SCOTT! The Pac-12 deserves better leadership than his stinking brand!

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Everyone who is talking anti-WSU conspiracy -

you realize that the call that got over-ruled by some pencil neck was the Tago hit, right? What would be their motivation for giving Tago a pass on that call?

Obviously, the Gustin no-call was egregious and can be perceived as anti-WSU, but since it happened after the Tago no-call it doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[wazzubruce]

Togo's wasn't the same. You can see he tried to ease up, plus in real time he was coming around a corner and couldn't see that SC's dumb Qb took a knee and basically failed to protect himself in a scrum. The dirty SC player knew what he was doing and purposefully went 'head hunting' with the crown of his helmet. That hit IS the DEFINITION of targeting. Plus, with Tago, there was a penalty. There was no outcome indoubt with Tago. But the hit on Minshew was game changing. WSU would have had a first down at the 10 and most likely, given our red zone stats, would have scored. I stand behind my previous statement.

 

[wazzubruce]

Scott's time at the head of the Pac-12 Conf. should be coming to an end. Yes, he helped bring in the tv money when he was new, but what has he done lately... No direct TV contract..... now he's just a figure head, that can't even pretend to look look like he's fair.

 

[chipdouglas]

There is no anti-WSU conspiracy. Refs are not for or against any team.

But referees are human beings and they understand how a game is supposed to go. To protect their credibility, there is a default setting for close calls even before the game starts so that one team gets the benefit of the doubt on tough decisions. To wit:

• Stanford makes a BCS bowl every year, and they're bulldozing their way through the PAC again, 5-0 in conference. Little ol' Washington State's Ivan Mclennan strips Christian McAffrey and recovers. Zapruder film shows a clear fumble recovery, but refs confab - and vote for Stanford. It's worth 3 points to Furd and they only needed 2 to win.
• Oregon's Dior Mathis wraps up Isiah Myers like a mummy late in a game on a 3rd down conversion strike from Connor Halliday. Refs felt it was a judgment call and keep their flags. Clear PI, but they had some doubt, and this is Mariota-era Oregon. Ducks go on to win by 1 TD.
• USC, this year. No need to recap - you get the point, but we again lose by enough
• Can't recall the team, but several years ago there was a home game where Wicks (?) dove into the end zone but was ruled down at the 1. That one was legitimately a close call but the Cougs just don't have the reputation to pull it off, and they lose.

We're just in this frustrating era of football where we're not a legacy team, and we haven't been good for long enough to command the benefit of the doubt, or to be expected to win vs other conference teams. As a result, we lose perhaps a game a year to a team whose fortunes rode on a reputation built 5 years earlier.

I think there are other 'cheats' used by referees as well. The game gets called based on who is supposed to win, but refs also do make-up calls as we all know, and very often you'll see them start calling it favorably for the underdog if the hero gets out in front too far.

Not a conspiracy, just an unfortunate fact about human nature and how the underdog's fortunes are decided.

 

[dgibbons]

It’s not a conspiracy, but this is a level of incompetence that would make corruption pretty easy. Apparently the officials don’t even know who is in charge. That’s damning.

 

[CrimsonDisciple]

There is no anti-WSU conspiracy. Refs are not for or against any team.

But referees are human beings and they understand how a game is supposed to go. To protect their credibility, there is a default setting for close calls even before the game starts so that one team gets the benefit of the doubt on tough decisions. To wit:

• Stanford makes a BCS bowl every year, and they're bulldozing their way through the PAC again, 5-0 in conference. Little ol' Washington State's Ivan Mclennan strips Christian McAffrey and recovers. Zapruder film shows a clear fumble recovery, but refs confab - and vote for Stanford. It's worth 3 points to Furd and they only needed 2 to win.
• Oregon's Dior Mathis wraps up Isiah Myers like a mummy late in a game on a 3rd down conversion strike from Connor Halliday. Refs felt it was a judgment call and keep their flags. Clear PI, but they had some doubt, and this is Mariota-era Oregon. Ducks go on to win by 1 TD.
• USC, this year. No need to recap - you get the point, but we again lose by enough
• Can't recall the team, but several years ago there was a home game where Wicks (?) dove into the end zone but was ruled down at the 1. That one was legitimately a close call but the Cougs just don't have the reputation to pull it off, and they lose.

We're just in this frustrating era of football where we're not a legacy team, and we haven't been good for long enough to command the benefit of the doubt, or to be expected to win vs other conference teams. As a result, we lose perhaps a game a year to a team whose fortunes rode on a reputation built 5 years earlier.

I think there are other 'cheats' used by referees as well. The game gets called based on who is supposed to win, but refs also do make-up calls as we all know, and very often you'll see them start calling it favorably for the underdog if the hero gets out in front too far.

Not a conspiracy, just an unfortunate fact about human nature and how the underdog's fortunes are decided.

It’s not about the referees, it’s clear it’s now about what is good for the league. Hence the 3rd party medeling in the game. The good news, they’ll stay far away from medeling again.

 

[Glad Cougar]

There is no anti-WSU conspiracy. Refs are not for or against any team.

But referees are human beings and they understand how a game is supposed to go. To protect their credibility, there is a default setting for close calls even before the game starts so that one team gets the benefit of the doubt on tough decisions. To wit:

• Stanford makes a BCS bowl every year, and they're bulldozing their way through the PAC again, 5-0 in conference. Little ol' Washington State's Ivan Mclennan strips Christian McAffrey and recovers. Zapruder film shows a clear fumble recovery, but refs confab - and vote for Stanford. It's worth 3 points to Furd and they only needed 2 to win.
• Oregon's Dior Mathis wraps up Isiah Myers like a mummy late in a game on a 3rd down conversion strike from Connor Halliday. Refs felt it was a judgment call and keep their flags. Clear PI, but they had some doubt, and this is Mariota-era Oregon. Ducks go on to win by 1 TD.
• USC, this year. No need to recap - you get the point, but we again lose by enough
• Can't recall the team, but several years ago there was a home game where Wicks (?) dove into the end zone but was ruled down at the 1. That one was legitimately a close call but the Cougs just don't have the reputation to pull it off, and they lose.

We're just in this frustrating era of football where we're not a legacy team, and we haven't been good for long enough to command the benefit of the doubt, or to be expected to win vs other conference teams. As a result, we lose perhaps a game a year to a team whose fortunes rode on a reputation built 5 years earlier.

I think there are other 'cheats' used by referees as well. The game gets called based on who is supposed to win, but refs also do make-up calls as we all know, and very often you'll see them start calling it favorably for the underdog if the hero gets out in front too far.

Not a conspiracy, just an unfortunate fact about human nature and how the underdog's fortunes are decided.

Wasn't the Wicks play during the end of the Cal game (monster game by Halliday) when we missed that chip shot FG? Never understood why that play wasn't reviewed....we see so many reviews on potential TDs even when it seems obvious.

A lot of screwy calls against WSU over the years. Avabob is correct, it seems even more egregious in basketball, including the incredible technical foul call in the Oregon game (Ernie was coaching the Ducks and lobbying the officials to make that call) that led to an OT loss that, in my opinion, the doomed Ken Bone never recovered from. Also saw WSU lose to Arizona in the Eastman years when a technical foul was called on the crowd because of a paper cup that landed in the backcourt when all the players were in the frontcourt. Without that bizzarre call, UA doesn't make a comeback and send the game into OT.

Ahhhh, memory lane is so fun.

Glad Cougar

 

[Loyal Coug]

Everyone who is talking anti-WSU conspiracy -

you realize that the call that got over-ruled by some pencil neck was the Tago hit, right? What would be their motivation for giving Tago a pass on that call?

Obviously, the Gustin no-call was egregious and can be perceived as anti-WSU, but since it happened after the Tago no-call it doesn't fit the narrative.

Togo's wasn't the same. You can see he tried to ease up, plus in real time he was coming around a corner and couldn't see that SC's dumb Qb took a knee and basically failed to protect himself in a scrum. The dirty SC player knew what he was doing and purposefully went 'head hunting' with the crown of his helmet. That hit IS the DEFINITION of targeting. Plus, with Tago, there was a penalty. There was no outcome indoubt with Tago. But the hit on Minshew was game changing. WSU would have had a first down at the 10 and most likely, given our red zone stats, would have scored. I stand behind my previous statement.

Bleed - I agree that there is no overt WSU conspiracy, but the other post about subtle anti-WSU bias seems about right. And the fact remains that Tago was called for a penalty, Gustin was not. The Pac-12 lawyer's opinion is simply mystifying.

bruce - No Tago didn't try to ease up. How many times do we have to watch that play? He takes 2-3 steps, lowers his head and drills a guy who is literally sitting on his knee. And who saw it coming and tried to cringe out of Tago's way.

That said, Gustin's was more egregious than Tago's, and how it didn't warrant at least a roughing call is criminal and cost WSU the game. The worst part about that play was that Gustin drove Minshew head first into the turf. That should have been roughing whether he had gone helmet to helmet or not.

 

[Fab5Coug]

There is no anti-WSU conspiracy. Refs are not for or against any team.

But referees are human beings and they understand how a game is supposed to go. To protect their credibility, there is a default setting for close calls even before the game starts so that one team gets the benefit of the doubt on tough decisions. To wit:

• Stanford makes a BCS bowl every year, and they're bulldozing their way through the PAC again, 5-0 in conference. Little ol' Washington State's Ivan Mclennan strips Christian McAffrey and recovers. Zapruder film shows a clear fumble recovery, but refs confab - and vote for Stanford. It's worth 3 points to Furd and they only needed 2 to win.
• Oregon's Dior Mathis wraps up Isiah Myers like a mummy late in a game on a 3rd down conversion strike from Connor Halliday. Refs felt it was a judgment call and keep their flags. Clear PI, but they had some doubt, and this is Mariota-era Oregon. Ducks go on to win by 1 TD.
• USC, this year. No need to recap - you get the point, but we again lose by enough
• Can't recall the team, but several years ago there was a home game where Wicks (?) dove into the end zone but was ruled down at the 1. That one was legitimately a close call but the Cougs just don't have the reputation to pull it off, and they lose.

We're just in this frustrating era of football where we're not a legacy team, and we haven't been good for long enough to command the benefit of the doubt, or to be expected to win vs other conference teams. As a result, we lose perhaps a game a year to a team whose fortunes rode on a reputation built 5 years earlier.

I think there are other 'cheats' used by referees as well. The game gets called based on who is supposed to win, but refs also do make-up calls as we all know, and very often you'll see them start calling it favorably for the underdog if the hero gets out in front too far.

Not a conspiracy, just an unfortunate fact about human nature and how the underdog's fortunes are decided.

That Wicks play against Cal comes up a lot, as does the Marquess Wilson catch late against Utah. Both were really close, IMO, too close to claim conspiracy. As I recall, in both instances, we had to rush to the line to get the next play off. Perhaps there was not enough time to buzz down to review it?

And, the McCaffrey call was actually correct, or at least very close. He fumbled yes, but then there was a bit of a scrum for the ball and McCaffrey was touching it while standing out of bounds. By rule, that is a dead ball. It was really close to when McLennan had recovered it, but that call has been blown way out of proportion by people who I assume just didn't understand the rule.

 

[Fab5Coug]

It’s not about the referees, it’s clear it’s now about what is good for the league. Hence the 3rd party medeling in the game. The good news, they’ll stay far away from medeling again.

Except the third party meddled in favor of WSU, so...¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

 

[Fab5Coug]

Bleed - I agree that there is no overt WSU conspiracy, but the other post about subtle anti-WSU bias seems about right. And the fact remains that Tago was called for a penalty, Gustin was not. The Pac-12 lawyer's opinion is simply mystifying.

bruce - No Tago didn't try to ease up. How many times do we have to watch that play? He takes 2-3 steps, lowers his head and drills a guy who is literally sitting on his knee. And who saw it coming and tried to cringe out of Tago's way.

That said, Gustin's was more egregious than Tago's, and how it didn't warrant at least a roughing call is criminal and cost WSU the game. The worst part about that play was that Gustin drove Minshew head first into the turf. That should have been roughing whether he had gone helmet to helmet or not.

Sure looked to me like Tago eased up a bit. I'm sure Logan could have hit him much harder than he did.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Togo's wasn't the same. You can see he tried to ease up, plus in real time he was coming around a corner and couldn't see that SC's dumb Qb took a knee and basically failed to protect himself in a scrum. The dirty SC player knew what he was doing and purposefully went 'head hunting' with the crown of his helmet. That hit IS the DEFINITION of targeting. Plus, with Tago, there was a penalty. There was no outcome indoubt with Tago. But the hit on Minshew was game changing. WSU would have had a first down at the 10 and most likely, given our red zone stats, would have scored. I stand behind my previous statement.

How is any of this relevant to your theory that the Pac-12 is conspiring against WSU? A Pac-12 official called into the review booth to say, "Don't make things worse for WSU by ejecting Tago" and you think that he was conspiring against us? How? Do you think that they knew that Gustin was going to commit a foul later in the game so they wanted to establish a precedent? Does that mean the entire game was scripted? Have they already decided the Pac-12 champion this year and all the coaches are in on it? Or is it more likely that it's simply incompetence shining through and it's got nothing to with any agenda against any particular team?

 

[Coug90]

Bleed - I agree that there is no overt WSU conspiracy, but the other post about subtle anti-WSU bias seems about right. And the fact remains that Tago was called for a penalty, Gustin was not. The Pac-12 lawyer's opinion is simply mystifying.

bruce - No Tago didn't try to ease up. How many times do we have to watch that play? He takes 2-3 steps, lowers his head and drills a guy who is literally sitting on his knee. And who saw it coming and tried to cringe out of Tago's way.

That said, Gustin's was more egregious than Tago's, and how it didn't warrant at least a roughing call is criminal and cost WSU the game. The worst part about that play was that Gustin drove Minshew head first into the turf. That should have been roughing whether he had gone helmet to helmet or not.

He absolutely tried to hold up its clear as frickin day. What video are you watching.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

He absolutely tried to hold up its clear as frickin day. What video are you watching.

The rest of the world wonders what video you are watching. I'm glad that Tago didn't get tossed for targeting, but only a fool or a fan blinded by loyalty thinks he was holding up and that the hit was not deserving of a penalty. Initially, I was thinking that Tago lowered his head down because he was going for the ball, but the more I watch this, I start wondering about why Tago never made a swipe or any attempt to get the ball from Daniels. Normally, when a player is going after a loose ball, he scrambles and grabs at it, he doesn't flatten the other player and walk away like nothing happened. At the end of the day, no matter what anyone thinks, it's obvious that the officials were going to call targeting until it was over-ruled by a "3rd party". Outside of a few WSU fans, nobody watching that play is thinking, "that's a bang-bang play". They see a QB on his knee getting hit by a guy who took 2-3 steps before he hit him. That's a classic roughing the passer call and with the head to head contact....it should have been targeting. Of course, given that Porter Gustin got away with a hit without even getting an RPS, I'm glad that we didn't lose Tago for a hit that was less egregious.

 

[Coug90]

The rest of the world wonders what video you are watching. I'm glad that Tago didn't get tossed for targeting, but only a fool or a fan blinded by loyalty thinks he was holding up and that the hit was not deserving of a penalty. Initially, I was thinking that Tago lowered his head down because he was going for the ball, but the more I watch this, I start wondering about why Tago never made a swipe or any attempt to get the ball from Daniels. Normally, when a player is going after a loose ball, he scrambles and grabs at it, he doesn't flatten the other player and walk away like nothing happened. At the end of the day, no matter what anyone thinks, it's obvious that the officials were going to call targeting until it was over-ruled by a "3rd party". Outside of a few WSU fans, nobody watching that play is thinking, "that's a bang-bang play". They see a QB on his knee getting hit by a guy who took 2-3 steps before he hit him. That's a classic roughing the passer call and with the head to head contact....it should have been targeting. Of course, given that Porter Gustin got away with a hit without even getting an RPS, I'm glad that we didn't lose Tago for a hit that was less egregious.

So watching that replay...in slow mo...there’s zero indication to you that Tago slowed down and turned his head at the last second? Not sure what to tell you and Loyal if you don’t see it. I’m not arguing it should have been overlooked and not flagged. I’m saying if a player shows clear intent to hold up and reduce contact you have to take that into consideration when considering an ejection. It was an awkward play because the dipshit QB took an awkward knee.

 

[Loyal Coug]

He absolutely tried to hold up its clear as frickin day. What video are you watching.

So watching that replay...in slow mo...there’s zero indication to you that Tago slowed down and turned his head at the last second? Not sure what to tell you and Loyal if you don’t see it. I’m not arguing it should have been overlooked and not flagged. I’m saying if a player shows clear intent to hold up and reduce contact you have to take that into consideration when considering an ejection. It was an awkward play because the dipshit QB took an awkward knee.

All right just for the sake of Cougcomradery I will look at it again - later. But no - if Tago was "holding up", why was his head going down towards the QB?

And the QB - so what if he took an awkward knee? He had full control of the ball before he took a knee, then he took a knee and damn near sat down, then Tago came in, the QB saw it coming and had time to shrink away from the impending hit. Tago shouldn't have had to turn his head because his head shouldn't have been 3 feet off the ground as he lowered it to smack the QB in the head. Everyone else on every (non-Coug) site and media outlet thinks that Tago should have been flagged for targeting as well - but that at least the roughing call was made. And those same people (including the Coug sites) are 100% of the opinion that Gustin's was worse and should have been called.

Anyway, it doesn't matter now. The Gustin hit was the outrage and game coster. We have 100% agreement on that.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

So watching that replay...in slow mo...there’s zero indication to you that Tago slowed down and turned his head at the last second? Not sure what to tell you and Loyal if you don’t see it. I’m not arguing it should have been overlooked and not flagged. I’m saying if a player shows clear intent to hold up and reduce contact you have to take that into consideration when considering an ejection. It was an awkward play because the dipshit QB took an awkward knee.

It's possible that he turned his head slightly. It's possible that the turn of his head is because his helmet is contacting Daniels. I don't know for sure but I do know one thing. If it was Porter Gustin hitting Gardner Minshew in the exact same situation....you wouldn't be making excuses for him and you'd be saying he should have been kicked out for targeting. That I do know.

 

[Fab5Coug]

The rest of the world wonders what video you are watching. I'm glad that Tago didn't get tossed for targeting, but only a fool or a fan blinded by loyalty thinks he was holding up and that the hit was not deserving of a penalty. Initially, I was thinking that Tago lowered his head down because he was going for the ball, but the more I watch this, I start wondering about why Tago never made a swipe or any attempt to get the ball from Daniels. Normally, when a player is going after a loose ball, he scrambles and grabs at it, he doesn't flatten the other player and walk away like nothing happened. At the end of the day, no matter what anyone thinks, it's obvious that the officials were going to call targeting until it was over-ruled by a "3rd party". Outside of a few WSU fans, nobody watching that play is thinking, "that's a bang-bang play". They see a QB on his knee getting hit by a guy who took 2-3 steps before he hit him. That's a classic roughing the passer call and with the head to head contact....it should have been targeting. Of course, given that Porter Gustin got away with a hit without even getting an RPS, I'm glad that we didn't lose Tago for a hit that was less egregious.

The rest of the world minus me, I guess. And the announcers, since they mentioned it. And Terry Dixon, I suppose.

Looked to me like Tago held up. But, you're the expert.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

The rest of the world minus me, I guess. And the announcers, since they mentioned it. And Terry Dixon, I suppose.

Looked to me like Tago held up. But, you're the expert.

What did the announcers mention?

EDIT: I just watched the 1:41 long video that ESPN has posted about this and nowhere in that video do the announcers say that they thought he might have held up and that was all the way through the official making the call. Now, they might have said something afterwards along the line of "they must have thought he held up" in an attempt to justify the lack of a targeting call.....which is what you are doing, but if you read the Pac-12 replay transcript, if you listen to the announcers before the play and you look a that officials face as he says it wasn't targeting........nobody thought it wasn't targeting.

If you watch the official as he says that the ruling is that there was no targeting, his face says, "Man this is total bullsh!t and I hate my job".

 

[Fab5Coug]

What did the announcers mention?

EDIT: I just watched the 1:41 long video that ESPN has posted about this and nowhere in that video do the announcers say that they thought he might have held up and that was all the way through the official making the call. Now, they might have said something afterwards along the line of "they must have thought he held up" in an attempt to justify the lack of a targeting call.....which is what you are doing, but if you read the Pac-12 replay transcript, if you listen to the announcers before the play and you look a that officials face as he says it wasn't targeting........nobody thought it wasn't targeting.

If you watch the official as he says that the ruling is that there was no targeting, his face says, "Man this is total bullsh!t and I hate my job".

I thought the announcer mentioned it. Maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe it was after when they were talking about "forceable contact".

And no, I'm not justifying the lack of targeting call. I'm saying I thought Tago held up a bit.

 

[YakiCoug]

It's too late to get back the calls/non-calls in the sc game but at least its something. A very damning report and article, if you ask me. But a very good one and expresses opinions many of us have.

https://collegefootballtalk.nbcspor...rence-official-overruling-decision-in-a-game/

Fire Scott now.

 

[Coug90]

I thought the announcer mentioned it. Maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe it was after when they were talking about "forceable contact".

And no, I'm not justifying the lack of targeting call. I'm saying I thought Tago held up a bit.

Yes he did, clearly. Not understanding how anyone can argue he didn’t. Whether or not you think he deserved a targeting because of it is a a different conversation. IMO if you are going to eject a kid from a ballgame you’ve got to take that into account. And I’d say that if Minshew took a knee the same as SCs QB.