Pac-12 Officiating crew at Pullman

[wazzubruce]

I see the ACC did the right thing and provided some 'wake-up call' for the officials who totally botched the end of the game, (Duke/Miami) missing the knee down and letting Miami get away to with 2 clipping penalties. That was a joke! Any normal person could have made a better decision with a FAIR outcome.

Now rewind to Pullman Sat. night and this officiating crew was horrible. They allowed a major personal foul penalty to go uncalled as the Stanford player threw down the coug at least 5-6 yards out of bounds.... NOTHING.

Then the interception, from the point of view on the game /stadium jumbotron, one could not tell if the ball touched the ground, it was inconclusive. But still they reverse the call and say no interception, no Pick 6.

Then the fumble on the sideline...by Stanford. The ball was clearly out of the RB's hands and his feet were not out of bounds. This was shown about 5 times on the jumbotron and the whole stadium knew it was a Coug recovered fumble. But NOOOOOOoooooooo! The officials foul that up and have Stanford retain the ball. Do these people behind the curtains have no eyes and no SHAME?!! This game had all the looks of 'let's make sure we have Stanford win, so that we don't mess up the Pac-12's chance at a playoff team'.

They already have one loss and two losses would have put our highest ranked team left out of the National Championship discussion/playoffs. The more I watch, the more I can't help but think the teams that are SUPPOSED to win, get help to win. (Cue Oregon and USC here)! This is compete bullshit and the Pac-12 should sanction these stupid refs for this game. But of course they have 'no guts' like the ACC Conference who did the right thing with their lame officials. The Pac-12 has absolutely NO GUTS about this officiating problem that is going on.... Sanction someone, if you want the fans to believe you mean it! WSU made enough mistakes to cost them the game on their own merit, but the officiating helped them lose for sure, with missed calls and no calls and 'seen calls' they couldn't get right!

PAC-12 office: You don't have one hair on your balls! Shame on you!

As a fan, I demand a level playing field !

 

[wulffui]

I see the ACC did the right thing and provided some 'wake-up call' for the officials who totally botched the end of the game, (Duke/Miami) missing the knee down and letting Miami get away to with 2 clipping penalties. That was a joke! Any normal person could have made a better decision with a FAIR outcome.

Now rewind to Pullman Sat. night and this officiating crew was horrible. They allowed a major personal foul penalty to go uncalled as the Stanford player threw down the coug at least 5-6 yards out of bounds.... NOTHING.

Then the interception, from the point of view on the game /stadium jumbotron, one could not tell if the ball touched the ground, it was inconclusive. But still they reverse the call and say no interception, no Pick 6.

Then the fumble on the sideline...by Stanford. The ball was clearly out of the RB's hands and his feet were not out of bounds. This was shown about 5 times on the jumbotron and the whole stadium knew it was a Coug recovered fumble. But NOOOOOOoooooooo! The officials foul that up and have Stanford retain the ball. Do these people behind the curtains have no eyes and no SHAME?!! This game had all the looks of 'let's make sure we have Stanford win, so that we don't mess up the Pac-12's chance at a playoff team'.

They already have one loss and two losses would have put our highest ranked team left out of the National Championship discussion/playoffs. The more I watch, the more I can't help but think the teams that are SUPPOSED to win, get help to win. (Cue Oregon and USC here)! This is compete bullshit and the Pac-12 should sanction these stupid refs for this game. But of course they have 'no guts' like the ACC Conference who did the right thing with their lame officials. The Pac-12 has absolutely NO GUTS about this officiating problem that is going on.... Sanction someone, if you want the fans to believe you mean it! WSU made enough mistakes to cost them the game on their own merit, but the officiating helped them lose for sure, with missed calls and no calls and 'seen calls' they couldn't get right!

PAC-12 office: You don't have one hair on your balls! Shame on you!

As a fan, I demand a level playing field !

I'd settle for making public the "official report card" that they supposedly get, and being available for mandatory media sessions. Hold them publicly accountable, like any other party in the game.

 

[CPtheCoug]

I see the ACC did the right thing and provided some 'wake-up call' for the officials who totally botched the end of the game, (Duke/Miami) missing the knee down and letting Miami get away to with 2 clipping penalties. That was a joke! Any normal person could have made a better decision with a FAIR outcome.

Now rewind to Pullman Sat. night and this officiating crew was horrible. They allowed a major personal foul penalty to go uncalled as the Stanford player threw down the coug at least 5-6 yards out of bounds.... NOTHING.

Then the interception, from the point of view on the game /stadium jumbotron, one could not tell if the ball touched the ground, it was inconclusive. But still they reverse the call and say no interception, no Pick 6.

Then the fumble on the sideline...by Stanford. The ball was clearly out of the RB's hands and his feet were not out of bounds. This was shown about 5 times on the jumbotron and the whole stadium knew it was a Coug recovered fumble. But NOOOOOOoooooooo! The officials foul that up and have Stanford retain the ball. Do these people behind the curtains have no eyes and no SHAME?!! This game had all the looks of 'let's make sure we have Stanford win, so that we don't mess up the Pac-12's chance at a playoff team'.

They already have one loss and two losses would have put our highest ranked team left out of the National Championship discussion/playoffs. The more I watch, the more I can't help but think the teams that are SUPPOSED to win, get help to win. (Cue Oregon and USC here)! This is compete bullshit and the Pac-12 should sanction these stupid refs for this game. But of course they have 'no guts' like the ACC Conference who did the right thing with their lame officials. The Pac-12 has absolutely NO GUTS about this officiating problem that is going on.... Sanction someone, if you want the fans to believe you mean it! WSU made enough mistakes to cost them the game on their own merit, but the officiating helped them lose for sure, with missed calls and no calls and 'seen calls' they couldn't get right!

PAC-12 office: You don't have one hair on your balls! Shame on you!

As a fan, I demand a level playing field !

Careful, this post is highly aggressive and "attacks" a different person/organization, prime recipe for deletion.

Sarcasm aside, I agree something needs to be done. This isn't just an isolated event, and this isn't unique to the Cougs. This happens over and over and over again year after year to all teams ---- with a lot of the benefit going to the supposed "top" teams in the conference.

Besides playing better, something needs to be done...

 

[MoreCougthanYou]

This game had all the looks of 'let's make sure we have Stanford win, so that we don't mess up the Pac-12's chance at a playoff team'.

If they were trying to make sure, they wouldn't have let us have a 43-yard FG attempt to win the game. The Falk fumble/incompletion would've stayed a fumble.

I *heart* a good conspiracy theory, but c'mon.

 

[wulffui]

If they were trying to make sure, they wouldn't have let us have a 43-yard FG attempt to win the game. The Falk fumble/incompletion would've stayed a fumble.

I *heart* a good conspiracy theory, but c'mon.

Well, THEN you would have been the Duke-Miami officials.

Besides, you can always throw a flag if you don't like what happens on a given play. They got the result they wanted, so no need.

 

[MoreCougthanYou]

Well, THEN you would have been the Duke-Miami officials.

Besides, you can always throw a flag if you don't like what happens on a given play. They got the result they wanted, so no need.

They didn't get the result they wanted. Stanford's close win dropped them in the polls.

 

[SaveFerris]

Well, THEN you would have been the Duke-Miami officials.

Besides, you can always throw a flag if you don't like what happens on a given play. They got the result they wanted, so no need.

Point is we were in position to win on a 43 yard FG so it wasn't really the Duke/Miami game. We can talk until we are blue (or crimson) in the face about the officials but that game was ours to win and the players know they let one slip away. Whining about the officials gets old. I didn't think they could overturn the pick-6 but on the fumble it looked like McClennan lost control when his foot came down out of bounds. On one of Stanford's late TDs it looked clear that Ekulae was being held a few steps or less from Hogan.

That's life. We can't change it and the bottom line is we were still in position to win so none of the calls cost us the game. As someone said in the thread this isn't a conspiracy and it's not changing any time soon even if you think it is. We just have to find a way to win and I think we will the rest of the way.

 

[CougEd]

Point is we were in position to win on a 43 yard FG so it wasn't really the Duke/Miami game. We can talk until we are blue (or crimson) in the face about the officials but that game was ours to win and the players know they let one slip away. Whining about the officials gets old. I didn't think they could overturn the pick-6 but on the fumble it looked like McClennan lost control when his foot came down out of bounds. On one of Stanford's late TDs it looked clear that Ekulae was being held a few steps or less from Hogan.

That's life. We can't change it and the bottom line is we were still in position to win so none of the calls cost us the game. As someone said in the thread this isn't a conspiracy and it's not changing any time soon even if you think it is. We just have to find a way to win and I think we will the rest of the way.

After the fumble call it kind of makes sense why they called it as they did. He did lose it before the foot was out of bounds, but McClennan didn't have total control when McCaffreys foot landed out of bounds. Once his foot hit and there wasn't clear possession the ball I believe by him touching it with the foot out of bounds is a ball that is out of bounds and goes to the last controlling party.

The Parker pic touched the ground. Inconclusive, it sure seemed that way to me. what hurt us more than any officials call is not making plays at critical times. That game could have been over by half. Dom catches the pass right before the pick and we are talking about something totally different. The little things....

 

[CrimsonWazzu]

Seriously you guys need to take an officiating course or at least pay closer attention to these rulings that occur several times over the course of dozens of football games every single week.

1. They didn't rule it a fumble on the field.

2. It was clear that McCaffrey lost control of the ball before he was down by contact, as he was falling towards the side lines.

3. At some point after the ball was loose, McCaffrey touched the ball again.

4. At some point after the ball was loose, but before we established possession, part of McCaffrey's body ended up being out of bounds.

5. *Critical Point* Given the camera angles provided, it is impossible to say indisputably whether McCaffrey simultaneously touched the ball as part of his body touched the line, or if he did not touch the out of the bounds area as he touched the loose ball.

6. Once #5 is established, you cannot by rule have "indisputable evidence" that a legal change of possession occurred. If the possibility exists that McCaffrey touched the loose ball while out of bounds, then it must be assumed given the ruling on the field, and the play would be dead at that point and Stanford retains.

7. Conversely, had the ruling of a clean fumble and recovery by the Cougs been made on the field, it absolutely should have(can never guarantee *would have*) also stood as called.

8. Had the officials overturned the call and given the Cougs the ball, Stanford would have had a legitimate grievance that would have needed to be reviewed by the conference.

My opinion....it was a clean fumble that was recovered by WSU. It was a break that didn't go our way. Yet we still had a FG attempt to win the game at the end and missed. Blaming the loss on this one play because of "momentum" or any other intangible factors is loser talk. Our players did not give up after this call, they fought it all the way til the last play.

 

[SaveFerris]

After the fumble call it kind of makes sense why they called it as they did. He did lose it before the foot was out of bounds, but McClennan didn't have total control when McCaffreys foot landed out of bounds. Once his foot hit and there wasn't clear possession the ball I believe by him touching it with the foot out of bounds is a ball that is out of bounds and goes to the last controlling party.

The Parker pic touched the ground. Inconclusive, it sure seemed that way to me. what hurt us more than any officials call is not making plays at critical times. That game could have been over by half. Dom catches the pass right before the pick and we are talking about something totally different. The little things....

No disagreements. After the Falk pick where Thompson misses the block that should have essentially been the game. We forced a FG and while it was ugly we were in position to win the game. It wasn't a total gimme like the Cal game last year but one Powell should and will make moving forward.

To get in that position shows a tremendous amount of growth. I am not calling it a "moral victory" because it's not and the players and coaches know they let one slip away (see Marks comments). Still, to not collapse after that pick showed some GD huge spherical things. If we haven't turned the corner we can definitely see it. To talk about the officials diminishes that we should have one bad calls or no bad calls. Every game is huge from here on out.

 

[wulffui]

After the fumble call it kind of makes sense why they called it as they did. He did lose it before the foot was out of bounds, but McClennan didn't have total control when McCaffreys foot landed out of bounds. Once his foot hit and there wasn't clear possession the ball I believe by him touching it with the foot out of bounds is a ball that is out of bounds and goes to the last controlling party.

The Parker pic touched the ground. Inconclusive, it sure seemed that way to me. what hurt us more than any officials call is not making plays at critical times. That game could have been over by half. Dom catches the pass right before the pick and we are talking about something totally different. The little things....

I thought "conclusive video evidence" was the standard for overturning. I mean, science tells me that ball hit the ground... But it told me the same thing in the last two minutes of the PSU game- and it still stood because the video couldn't corroborate.

 

[CougSinceBirth]

Zebras are using the replay as a crutch and not calling it as they see. Replay is there to help, not to solve all the problems. We know replay doesn't solve all the problems, because well, see any weekend in college football. I'd love to see conferences join together to get standard officials they can rotate through different conference games. Progress reports are published and keeps everyone fair.

 

[chipdouglas]

If they were trying to make sure, they wouldn't have let us have a 43-yard FG attempt to win the game. The Falk fumble/incompletion would've stayed a fumble.

I *heart* a good conspiracy theory, but c'mon.

I'm more a believer that refs are far more hesitant to penalize great teams than they are to penalize lovable losers like us, so I'm not on board the USS Playoffs Conspiracy at this point.

That said, nobody is arguing that Emperor Nero sits up there and just penalizes every big advance we make. If - a big IF - you wanted to engage in a little funny business, you wouldn't be that obvious. You would simply always give the benefit of the doubt to one team on 50/50 calls, or even 60/40 or 65-35 calls like we saw last week. Simply disallowing a field goal would not be a very discreet way of cheating. I mean, these guys may be dumb, but they're not DUMB.

 

[YakiCoug]

Seriously you guys need to take an officiating course or at least pay closer attention to these rulings that occur several times over the course of dozens of football games every single week.

1. They didn't rule it a fumble on the field.

2. It was clear that McCaffrey lost control of the ball before he was down by contact, as he was falling towards the side lines.

3. At some point after the ball was loose, McCaffrey touched the ball again.

4. At some point after the ball was loose, but before we established possession, part of McCaffrey's body ended up being out of bounds.

5. *Critical Point* Given the camera angles provided, it is impossible to say indisputably whether McCaffrey simultaneously touched the ball as part of his body touched the line, or if he did not touch the out of the bounds area as he touched the loose ball.

6. Once #5 is established, you cannot by rule have "indisputable evidence" that a legal change of possession occurred. If the possibility exists that McCaffrey touched the loose ball while out of bounds, then it must be assumed given the ruling on the field, and the play would be dead at that point and Stanford retains.

7. Conversely, had the ruling of a clean fumble and recovery by the Cougs been made on the field, it absolutely should have(can never guarantee *would have*) also stood as called.

8. Had the officials overturned the call and given the Cougs the ball, Stanford would have had a legitimate grievance that would have needed to be reviewed by the conference.

My opinion....it was a clean fumble that was recovered by WSU. It was a break that didn't go our way. Yet we still had a FG attempt to win the game at the end and missed. Blaming the loss on this one play because of "momentum" or any other intangible factors is loser talk. Our players did not give up after this call, they fought it all the way til the last play.

It's a stupid rule written by a stupid person/committee. A rule revision is in order. McLennan had the ball. McCaffery did not, and it shouldn't matter if he wimpily touches the ball after it's been taken away. That's just common sense.

 

[SaveFerris]

It's a stupid rule written by a stupid person/committee. A rule revision is in order. McLennan had the ball. McCaffery did not, and it shouldn't matter if he wimpily touches the ball after it's been taken away. That's just common sense.

Take a look at it again. McLennan rips the ball away from McCaffery's and seems to have it secure, it slips around his chest, McLennan then has the ball to his chest with one side of his forearm, his foot then hits out-of-bounds, then he secures the ball with his right hand. It comes down to whether you think he secured it with his left side of his forearm or his right hand.

In my book it wasn't nearly as cut-and-dry as I thought it was during the game and having viewed it a bunch of times I believe it looks to me the correct call.

 

[YakiCoug]

Take a look at it again. McLennan rips the ball away from McCaffery's and seems to have it secure, it slips around his chest, McLennan then has the ball to his chest with one side of his forearm, his foot then hits out-of-bounds, then he secures the ball with his right hand. It comes down to whether you think he secured it with his left side of his forearm or his right hand.

In my book it wasn't nearly as cut-and-dry as I thought it was during the game and having viewed it a bunch of times I believe it looks to me the correct call.

Guess I've never seen so many COUG fans try to explain away why WSU shouldn't have gotten the turnover.

 

[SaveFerris]

Guess I've never seen so many COUG fans try to explain away why WSU shouldn't have gotten the turnover.

Yaki, I have been a Cougar literally my entire life. So I say this having no problem if it results in a ban but you can GFY for implying otherwise.

 

[wulffui]

I just assume people are trying to understand the why of it, when there's a lot of moving parts to consider- most of the camera work treated the recovery as a given, while focusing on whether he (McCaffrey) was in bounds with possession. The fumble seemed like a given to me- the ball was already loose and out up high, before the rip brought it all the way out.

It's just irritating that, if the review showed them "OK, we were wrong about maintaining possession, but there was no established recovery, etc, etc...", that it just plays out as "call stands", but it seems like the alternative is a lengthy discussion (that plays like crap on TV) that ends up at the same place.

Oh well. Team doesn't care. Take it out on ASU.

 

[CougEd]

Yaki, I have been a Cougar literally my entire life. So I say this having no problem if it results in a ban but you can GFY for implying otherwise.

Save do you think Falk's incomplete pass was a pass or a fumble?

 

[SaveFerris]

Save do you think Falk's incomplete pass was a pass or a fumble?

Pass, his arm was coming forward.

 

[kougkurt]

Fumble 100%

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Guess I've never seen so many COUG fans try to explain away why WSU shouldn't have gotten the turnover.

FWIW, I think it's people trying to move on and worry about what we can control as opposed to stressing about the things we can't. At the end of the day, that call didn't end the game for us and it wasn't "the" deciding factor. The pick, missed FG, and overpursuit of McCaffery leading to huge Hogan gains were much bigger factors than whether or not we got the one call.

The best thing about our current situation is that you get the sense that our team is gaining confidence every week and playing better every week. We are 5-3 and are the betting favorites against ASU. 8-4 (or better) is still on the table at this point. We are where I hoped we would be at this point even though it happened far differently than I would have guessed. Lots of good going on right now. But....it is a free country and it's not my place to say that someone shouldn't be angry about the call.

 

[longtimecoug]

Save do you think Falk's incomplete pass was a pass or a fumble?

pass

 

[wulffui]

It looked like his arm was coming forward... but the cause of that looked to be not his momentum, but him getting hit from behind. Seems like they followed the rule as written.

 

[95coug]

Save do you think Falk's incomplete pass was a pass or a fumble?

In college, it was a pass. In the NFL, it was a fumble.

 

[CougEd]

Fumble 100%

I agree and I think Falk was so smart and exaggerated the throwing motion. But it wasn't the fumble, or the pick non pick, it was the offenses inability to put the game away in the first half. If it is 24-3 or even 20-3 at half the game totally changes.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Seriously you guys need to take an officiating course or at least pay closer attention to these rulings that occur several times over the course of dozens of football games every single week.

1. They didn't rule it a fumble on the field.

2. It was clear that McCaffrey lost control of the ball before he was down by contact, as he was falling towards the side lines.

3. At some point after the ball was loose, McCaffrey touched the ball again.

4. At some point after the ball was loose, but before we established possession, part of McCaffrey's body ended up being out of bounds.

5. *Critical Point* Given the camera angles provided, it is impossible to say indisputably whether McCaffrey simultaneously touched the ball as part of his body touched the line, or if he did not touch the out of the bounds area as he touched the loose ball.

6. Once #5 is established, you cannot by rule have "indisputable evidence" that a legal change of possession occurred. If the possibility exists that McCaffrey touched the loose ball while out of bounds, then it must be assumed given the ruling on the field, and the play would be dead at that point and Stanford retains.

7. Conversely, had the ruling of a clean fumble and recovery by the Cougs been made on the field, it absolutely should have(can never guarantee *would have*) also stood as called.

8. Had the officials overturned the call and given the Cougs the ball, Stanford would have had a legitimate grievance that would have needed to be reviewed by the conference.

My opinion....it was a clean fumble that was recovered by WSU. It was a break that didn't go our way. Yet we still had a FG attempt to win the game at the end and missed. Blaming the loss on this one play because of "momentum" or any other intangible factors is loser talk. Our players did not give up after this call, they fought it all the way til the last play.

This. It is amazing to me how many Coug fans are just outright ignoring the call that was actually made. "But, McCafferey clearly lost the ball before going OB". That doesn't matter. They ruled that he touched a loose ball while OB. That means, BY RULE, it is Stanford's ball. They reviewed and there is no way you can say with certainty that he DIDN'T touch the ball before McLennan secured it.

 

[CougEd]

This. It is amazing to me how many Coug fans are just outright ignoring the call that was actually made. "But, McCafferey clearly lost the ball before going OB". That doesn't matter. They ruled that he touched a loose ball while OB. That means, BY RULE, it is Stanford's ball. They reviewed and there is no way you can say with certainty that he DIDN'T touch the ball before McLennan secured it.

Exactly...when the call was made I thought they would reverse it because it was definitely out. But their call became they acknowledge it was out but by rule McCaffreys was out of bounds and the ball was touched before being secured.

What would have been interesting is if they saw the fumble and ruled it a fumble if they would have reversed it because it was touched by a player out of bounds.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Exactly...when the call was made I thought they would reverse it because it was definitely out. But their call became they acknowledge it was out but by rule McCaffreys was out of bounds and the ball was touched before being secured.

What would have been interesting is if they saw the fumble and ruled it a fumble if they would have reversed it because it was touched by a player out of bounds.

I don't think they would have. I've seen the screen shots from both angles and I don't think you can say, for certain, that he actually touched the ball.

I wonder what the reason is for that rule. It seems silly and in this particular case, it rewarded the ball to the team that probably didn't deserve it. I mean, he fumbled it in bounds and it was recovered by the other team in bounds. What does it matter if he touched it while out of bounds?

 

[CougEd]

I don't think they would have. I've seen the screen shots from both angles and I don't think you can say, for certain, that he actually touched the ball.

I wonder what the reason is for that rule. It seems silly and in this particular case, it rewarded the ball to the team that probably didn't deserve it. I mean, he fumbled it in bounds and it was recovered by the other team in bounds. What does it matter if he touched it while out of bounds?

What if a player is standing out of bounds, no opposing player within ten yards, and as they stand out of bounds they fall on it? The ball is automatically out of bounds. I get that in this case not nearly as black and white, but if McClennan doesn't have possession of the ball once McCaffrey does the toe tap the ball is out of bounds. Game of inches.

 

[YakiCoug]

This. It is amazing to me how many Coug fans are just outright ignoring the call that was actually made. "But, McCafferey clearly lost the ball before going OB". That doesn't matter. They ruled that he touched a loose ball while OB. That means, BY RULE, it is Stanford's ball. They reviewed and there is no way you can say with certainty that he DIDN'T touch the ball before McLennan secured it.

The rule lacks all common sense. If he had been battling a defender for a pass, got possession but had a foot out of bounds when he gained possession, it wouldn't have been a catch. Why should McCaffery's weak touching of the ball matter when McClennan was gaining possession while IN BOUNDS? Only McLennan had a shot at possessing the ball in bounds, which he in fact did. It's not enough to say, "Well, that's the rule!" No, some rules, like laws, need to be tossed or significantly changed.
And Stanford went on to score a FG on that possession, if I recall correctly. We lost by two.

 

[95coug]

The rule lacks all common sense. If he had been battling a defender for a pass, got possession but had a foot out of bounds when he gained possession, it wouldn't have been a catch. Why should McCaffery's weak touching of the ball matter when McClennan was gaining possession while IN BOUNDS? Only McLennan had a shot at possessing the ball in bounds, which he in fact did. It's not enough to say, "Well, that's the rule!" No, some rules, like laws, need to be tossed or significantly changed.
And Stanford went on to score a FG on that possession, if I recall correctly. We lost by two.

McClennan's foot might have touched OB before he controlled it, which makes McCaffrey's touch irrelevant. Hard to say though. And you can't really point at that play as the deciding one, because there were too many others. If we finish a drive with a TD in the first half, if Cracraft or Williams catch balls that bounced off their chests, if the D keeps Hogan in the pocket....any of those things change the outcome. But they didn't, and we've got ASU in 3 days.

 

[chipdouglas]

McClennan's foot might have touched OB before he controlled it, which makes McCaffrey's touch irrelevant. Hard to say though. And you can't really point at that play as the deciding one, because there were too many others. If we finish a drive with a TD in the first half, if Cracraft or Williams catch balls that bounced off their chests, if the D keeps Hogan in the pocket....any of those things change the outcome. But they didn't, and we've got ASU in 3 days.

I challenge anyone to produce evidence that McLennan's foot was OOB prior to possession. The first time you are able to see his right foot, then his left, touch OOB, he's on his back in bounds with two hands on the ball, not sliding or otherwise moving. At best, a bad rule. At worst, a bad rule and a bad call.

I'm not as old as some of the fellers on this board, but it seems to me that having the benefit of multiple camera angles, instant replay, slow motion, an annually evolving rulebook, etc. have actually done more to hurt the game than help it. I think 100 refs have 100 different definitions of what constitutes catches, fumbles, targeting, possession, etc. It seems to me that at any other level of football below it, that is a turnover. It is only with a congressional dictionary of bizarre rules and an arsenal of fact-checking equipment that we're paralyzed to the point where nobody is sure what happened on game-deciding calls.

I'm also confused by the idea I heard from Brock and from a couple other people that the call didn't decide the game. Um, yeah, if it was the wrong call (or even the wrong rule), it decided the game. As Yaki pointed out, keeping possession was worth 3. We lost by 2. Pretty clear.

 

[YakiCoug]

I challenge anyone to produce evidence that McLennan's foot was OOB prior to possession. The first time you are able to see his right foot, then his left, touch OOB, he's on his back in bounds with two hands on the ball, not sliding or otherwise moving. At best, a bad rule. At worst, a bad rule and a bad call.

I'm not as old as some of the fellers on this board, but it seems to me that having the benefit of multiple camera angles, instant replay, slow motion, an annually evolving rulebook, etc. have actually done more to hurt the game than help it. I think 100 refs have 100 different definitions of what constitutes catches, fumbles, targeting, possession, etc. It seems to me that at any other level of football below it, that is a turnover. It is only with a congressional dictionary of bizarre rules and an arsenal of fact-checking equipment that we're paralyzed to the point where nobody is sure what happened on game-deciding calls.

I'm also confused by the idea I heard from Brock and from a couple other people that the call didn't decide the game. Um, yeah, if it was the wrong call (or even the wrong rule), it decided the game. As Yaki pointed out, keeping possession was worth 3. We lost by 2. Pretty clear.

While I said to those near me at halftime, I wished we had more 7s than 3s, I felt that when we went up 22-10 in the third, the potential was there to blow them away. The Perfect Storm for a Stanford win soon followed. But it was "a great weekend" for at least one "Little Dick Baird."

 

[SCglory]

I see the ACC did the right thing and provided some 'wake-up call' for the officials who totally botched the end of the game, (Duke/Miami) missing the knee down and letting Miami get away to with 2 clipping penalties. That was a joke! Any normal person could have made a better decision with a FAIR outcome.

Now rewind to Pullman Sat. night and this officiating crew was horrible. They allowed a major personal foul penalty to go uncalled as the Stanford player threw down the coug at least 5-6 yards out of bounds.... NOTHING.

Then the interception, from the point of view on the game /stadium jumbotron, one could not tell if the ball touched the ground, it was inconclusive. But still they reverse the call and say no interception, no Pick 6.

Then the fumble on the sideline...by Stanford. The ball was clearly out of the RB's hands and his feet were not out of bounds. This was shown about 5 times on the jumbotron and the whole stadium knew it was a Coug recovered fumble. But NOOOOOOoooooooo! The officials foul that up and have Stanford retain the ball. Do these people behind the curtains have no eyes and no SHAME?!! This game had all the looks of 'let's make sure we have Stanford win, so that we don't mess up the Pac-12's chance at a playoff team'.

They already have one loss and two losses would have put our highest ranked team left out of the National Championship discussion/playoffs. The more I watch, the more I can't help but think the teams that are SUPPOSED to win, get help to win. (Cue Oregon and USC here)! This is compete bullshit and the Pac-12 should sanction these stupid refs for this game. But of course they have 'no guts' like the ACC Conference who did the right thing with their lame officials. The Pac-12 has absolutely NO GUTS about this officiating problem that is going on.... Sanction someone, if you want the fans to believe you mean it! WSU made enough mistakes to cost them the game on their own merit, but the officiating helped them lose for sure, with missed calls and no calls and 'seen calls' they couldn't get right!

PAC-12 office: You don't have one hair on your balls! Shame on you!

As a fan, I demand a level playing field !

It is ALL window dressing until the ncaa recognizes that you don't have part-time employees deciding the outcomes of games which are part of a multi-BILLION dollar sport!! Part-time refs are a hold-over from the Bobby Jones era understanding of college sports in which athletics is merely something that takes place after one's last class. Eventually college sports MUST employ full-time refs, have them trained in two sports, give them OTJ constantly, and have them rotating throughout the conferences.

As it is now, the refs simply reflect the demographic makeup of the region that dominates their conference. There are REASONS that Pac-12 refs behave like girls, and call more fouls, just as there are REASONS that SEC refs "let the boys play" more.....the refs are only reflecting their constituencies and demographics.....so we have careers decided by part-timers who are teachers, mechanics, pharmacists, dentists, in real life. It's a joke. So until that changes we will continue to get guys like "glasses ref" and that plump, effeminate weirdo that relish the drama and the spotlight, preening to get attention on them, rather than the players.

 

[CougEd]

I challenge anyone to produce evidence that McLennan's foot was OOB prior to possession. The first time you are able to see his right foot, then his left, touch OOB, he's on his back in bounds with two hands on the ball, not sliding or otherwise moving. At best, a bad rule. At worst, a bad rule and a bad call.

I'm not as old as some of the fellers on this board, but it seems to me that having the benefit of multiple camera angles, instant replay, slow motion, an annually evolving rulebook, etc. have actually done more to hurt the game than help it. I think 100 refs have 100 different definitions of what constitutes catches, fumbles, targeting, possession, etc. It seems to me that at any other level of football below it, that is a turnover. It is only with a congressional dictionary of bizarre rules and an arsenal of fact-checking equipment that we're paralyzed to the point where nobody is sure what happened on game-deciding calls.

I'm also confused by the idea I heard from Brock and from a couple other people that the call didn't decide the game. Um, yeah, if it was the wrong call (or even the wrong rule), it decided the game. As Yaki pointed out, keeping possession was worth 3. We lost by 2. Pretty clear.

Don't drop a pass, don't throw a key pick, score TD's and not fg's and take questionable calls which you can't control out of the equation. Stanford could complain that Falk fumbled the ball.

 

[Fab5Coug]

What if a player is standing out of bounds, no opposing player within ten yards, and as they stand out of bounds they fall on it? The ball is automatically out of bounds. I get that in this case not nearly as black and white, but if McClennan doesn't have possession of the ball once McCaffrey does the toe tap the ball is out of bounds. Game of inches.

Here is the actual rule...

"ARTICLE 3. a. A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores a
field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game official
or anything else that is out of bounds, or that is on or outside a boundary line."

So, basically, if a loose ball strikes ANYTHING that is OB (a player, an offical, the first down marker), it is considered OB and given back to the last team to possess it. Makes sense in that context.

 

[CougEd]

While I said to those near me at halftime, I wished we had more 7s than 3s, I felt that when we went up 22-10 in the third, the potential was there to blow them away. The Perfect Storm for a Stanford win soon followed. But it was "a great weekend" for at least one "Little Dick Baird."

Ummm...not sure who the "Little Dick Baird" is, but I would say it was a great weekend for the program. It wasn't a great weekend for me per se cause I was unable to go to the game. I had a good weekend none-the-less, but I would classify it as a great weekend for the program. Toe to toe with the number 8 team in the country. The dline especially Hercules showed great quickness off the ball. It is great that Joe S put two kids in the NFL last year, he loses two kids this year in Destiny and Paulo, and he will have Eukala, BArber and Hercules to bring up the next round of kids.

If I never saw either team play before last weekend, and after the game you asked me if the best team won, I would say the more physical team and the more physically talented team lost. I would say the more seasoned team, the team that made more plays won.

Great crowd, great game, great experience for all those attended and clearly raised the interest for the kids who are students there.

I supposed I could say it sucked, we didn't make enough plays and our defense gave up 27 points in the second half and Falk puked up the ball. Does that warm your heart?

 

[Fab5Coug]

The rule lacks all common sense. If he had been battling a defender for a pass, got possession but had a foot out of bounds when he gained possession, it wouldn't have been a catch. Why should McCaffery's weak touching of the ball matter when McClennan was gaining possession while IN BOUNDS? Only McLennan had a shot at possessing the ball in bounds, which he in fact did. It's not enough to say, "Well, that's the rule!" No, some rules, like laws, need to be tossed or significantly changed.
And Stanford went on to score a FG on that possession, if I recall correctly. We lost by two.

Not sure if I said it here, or in another thread, but if you take issue with that play, it should be with the rule, or even the review process, not with the officials. The officials actually called it correctly according to the rule book and the way the review process works.

 

[chipdouglas]

Don't drop a pass, don't throw a key pick, score TD's and not fg's and take questionable calls which you can't control out of the equation. Stanford could complain that Falk fumbled the ball.

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?