The non-turnover turnover [Image]

[chipdouglas]

I recorded the game and am able to go back and play it. This image shows the moment after McLennan rips it out. His back is on the ground in bounds, he has two hands on the ball (yellow arrow), both feet in the air, the ball is not moving around, and about 2 seconds later you see his right foot - then his left - go out of bounds. At that point his motion (and the ball's motion) has been completely stopped and he has had full possession for about a 2-Mississippi.

Next thing you know, Stanford ball, 3 more points, and we lose by 2. Ballgame.

Put this one up there with the missed DPI call on Oregon... was it last year?

 

[cr8zyncalif]

I still don't understand why the PAC refs are consistently the worst in the power 5. But it is what it is, and obviously the league and the commish have no desire to be less of a joke.

 

[Coug1990]

I recorded the game and am able to go back and play it. This image shows the moment after McLennan rips it out. His back is on the ground in bounds, he has two hands on the ball (yellow arrow), both feet in the air, the ball is not moving around, and about 2 seconds later you see his right foot - then his left - go out of bounds. At that point his motion (and the ball's motion) has been completely stopped and he has had full possession for about a 2-Mississippi.

Next thing you know, Stanford ball, 3 more points, and we lose by 2. Ballgame.

Put this one up there with the missed DPI call on Oregon... was it last year?

Chip, can you go back and look that at the time that McCaffrey's foot was out of bounds, was his hand still on the ball? Or during that entire time was he just touching McClennan?

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

I still don't understand why the PAC refs are consistently the worst in the power 5. But it is what it is, and obviously the league and the commish have no desire to be less of a joke.

ACC refs are apparently terrible too. Did you see the end of that Duke-Miami game? What a colossal display of either dishonesty or blindness or incompetence by the video review officials in the booth. How anyone could say that the Miami player's knee was not down is beyond comprehension.

View image on Twitter

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/11/1/9652810/miami-duke-ending-play-

 

[LoveJeffersonFanClub]

Chip, can you go back and look that at the time that McCaffrey's foot was out of bounds, was his hand still on the ball? Or during that entire time was he just touching McClennan?

Look at the other angle when McClennan's foot hits the ground out of bounds. At that time they ruled he never had control of the ball. When he did his foot was out of bounds. The first ruling was McCaffrey was out of bounds. They look at it and say that was obviously not the case. Then have to see if WSU got the ball. In the review they see McClennan's foot hit out of bounds before he had complete control. At that point you can't give it to WSU, it reverts to who had possession before the ball was out of bounds. In that case it should be Stanford's ball. Unfortunately, it was the correct call.

 

[Coug1990]

Look at the other angle when McClennan's foot hits the ground out of bounds. At that time they ruled he never had control of the ball. When he did his foot was out of bounds. The first ruling was McCaffrey was out of bounds. They look at it and say that was obviously not the case. Then have to see if WSU got the ball. In the review they see McClennan's foot hit out of bounds before he had complete control. At that point you can't give it to WSU, it reverts to who had possession before the ball was out of bounds. In that case it should be Stanford's ball. Unfortunately, it was the correct call.

I would love to see a replay on that to see if we agree that is what occurred.

 

[wulffui]

McLennan's ass was on the ground the whole time- one ass= one foot.

 

[LoveJeffersonFanClub]

www.wsucougars.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=30400&id=4617302

About 45 seconds in is the best I could find.

 

[LoveJeffersonFanClub]

McLennan's ass was on the ground the whole time- one ass= one foot.

If you do not have control of the ball it doesn't matter.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I would love to see a replay on that to see if we agree that is what occurred.

So now we get to have "didn't complete the process of the fumble" to add to the lexicon of interpreting the rules to favor someone else.

Its just like the Marks out of bounds play. That official marked the spot - if there wasn't replay he would have had to make that call on his own, and I get the feeling he would have said Marks went out on his own. Replay is giving these guys a crutch that they don't need - make the damn calls as you see them, use your head and your eyes, and review close, game changing calls. Seriously, I can't believe that play had to go to the booth.

 

[dgibbons]

I recorded the game and am able to go back and play it. This image shows the moment after McLennan rips it out. His back is on the ground in bounds, he has two hands on the ball (yellow arrow), both feet in the air, the ball is not moving around, and about 2 seconds later you see his right foot - then his left - go out of bounds. At that point his motion (and the ball's motion) has been completely stopped and he has had full possession for about a 2-Mississippi.

Next thing you know, Stanford ball, 3 more points, and we lose by 2. Ballgame.

Put this one up there with the missed DPI call on Oregon... was it last year?

I believe the "explanation" was that McCaffery was out of bounds before the ball was free. Or something like that.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I believe the "explanation" was that McCaffery was out of bounds before the ball was free. Or something like that.

The official explanation was that although he lost control before he went out of bounds, he contacted the ball while out of bounds before we had complete control, making it a dead ball at that point.

 

[dgibbons]

So now we get to have "didn't complete the process of the fumble" to add to the lexicon of interpreting the rules to favor someone else.

Its just like the Marks out of bounds play. That official marked the spot - if there wasn't replay he would have had to make that call on his own, and I get the feeling he would have said Marks went out on his own. Replay is giving these guys a crutch that they don't need - make the damn calls as you see them, use your head and your eyes, and review close, game changing calls. Seriously, I can't believe that play had to go to the booth.

You're right about the crutch. The officials have to make a call, not hope for replay to bail them out. Make the call on the field, not defer to the booth. When they do that they defer to the booth, it screws up the whole process. Unless the replay official sees clear evidence the call is wrong, the call stands.

Had the officials correctly called the fumble, it probably would have been "After further review the call stands" too.

 

[95coug]

If you do not have control of the ball it doesn't matter.

Ahh, but it does. If McClennan had control of the ball at any point, while on his back and in bounds, then that constitutes possession and becomes WSU's ball. The explanation, as I understood it, was that McClennan's foot touched OB before he established control, which I don't think is clear based on the replay. And by rule, without "indisputable video evidence", replay cannot overturn the call on the field.

I did not see "indisputable video evidence" in the replays of either of the turnovers. On the pick 6, it looked like you could see water spray off the turf where the ball touched the ground...but it wasn't clear if that's really what it was, or if it was caused by the ball or possibly the receiver's hands. Again, not disputable. That's a direct and immediate 6 points taken away. The fumble wasn't indisputable either, so the call on the field should have stood, which takes 3 away from the trees....which means if those two calls aren't overturned, we win 34-27.

But...the fact is that we could have won anyway, and were in a position to do so. Powell was a little amped up and pushed it too far (completely understandable)...the defense couldn't keep Hogan in the pocket...the offense couldn't finish a drive in the first half. There are lots of ways we should have won the game.

 

[fingerdisco]

Ahh, but it does. If McClennan had control of the ball at any point, while on his back and in bounds, then that constitutes possession and becomes WSU's ball. The explanation, as I understood it, was that McClennan's foot touched OB before he established control, which I don't think is clear based on the replay. And by rule, without "indisputable video evidence", replay cannot overturn the call on the field.

I did not see "indisputable video evidence" in the replays of either of the turnovers. On the pick 6, it looked like you could see water spray off the turf where the ball touched the ground...but it wasn't clear if that's really what it was, or if it was caused by the ball or possibly the receiver's hands. Again, not disputable. That's a direct and immediate 6 points taken away. The fumble wasn't indisputable either, so the call on the field should have stood, which takes 3 away from the trees....which means if those two calls aren't overturned, we win 34-27.

But...the fact is that we could have won anyway, and were in a position to do so. Powell was a little amped up and pushed it too far (completely understandable)...the defense couldn't keep Hogan in the pocket...the offense couldn't finish a drive in the first half. There are lots of ways we should have won the game.

Pretty sure they DIDN'T call a fumble on the Ivan strip, so they were saying there was not indisputable evidence a fumble occurred.

 

[chipdouglas]

Pretty sure they DIDN'T call a fumble on the Ivan strip, so they were saying there was not indisputable evidence a fumble occurred.

Which is... crazy

 

[95coug]

Pretty sure they DIDN'T call a fumble on the Ivan strip, so they were saying there was not indisputable evidence a fumble occurred.

I think you're correct, now that I think of it - the call on the field was that he was down. On review, they decided he fumbled, but that McClennan never controlled it, so it remained Stanford's ball.

This actually muddies the picture in my mind, because that would have meant there had to be indisputable evidence that McCaffrey fumbled AND that McClennan controlled it in bounds. The first part is indisputable, but I don't recall seeing an angle that showed for certain that McClennan controlled it before his foot touched OB. Without both elements, there can't be a change in possession...so maybe they actually did make the right call by rule.

 

[95coug]

Pretty sure they DIDN'T call a fumble on the Ivan strip, so they were saying there was not indisputable evidence a fumble occurred.

I think you're correct, now that I think of it - the call on the field was that he was down. On review, they decided he fumbled, but that McClennan never controlled it, so it remained Stanford's ball.

This actually muddies the picture in my mind, because that would have meant there had to be indisputable evidence that McCaffrey fumbled AND that McClennan controlled it in bounds. The first part is indisputable, but I don't recall seeing an angle that showed for certain that McClennan controlled it before his foot touched OB. Without both elements, there can't be a change in possession...so maybe they actually did make the right call by rule.

 

[chipdouglas]

I think you're correct, now that I think of it - the call on the field was that he was down. On review, they decided he fumbled, but that McClennan never controlled it, so it remained Stanford's ball.

This actually muddies the picture in my mind, because that would have meant there had to be indisputable evidence that McCaffrey fumbled AND that McClennan controlled it in bounds. The first part is indisputable, but I don't recall seeing an angle that showed for certain that McClennan controlled it before his foot touched OB. Without both elements, there can't be a change in possession...so maybe they actually did make the right call by rule.

I wish I could do video. As I said in my original post, in the video version you can see McLennan clutching the ball with both hands, back and butt in bounds on the turf, and about a second or two after he establishes possession you see his right leg, then his left, touch out of bounds. There is ZERO video evidence - at least from the angles I've seen - that he was in any way out of bounds prior to possessing the ball. The only question then, is whether he had possession. To me, the ball stops moving before you see his legs touch out. Nothing happens in between him apparently establishing control and touching his legs down. The idea that in that moment the refs saw something which they assumed to be sufficient evidence of touching out of bounds is... bananas.

 

[random soul]

I still don't understand why the PAC refs are consistently the worst in the power 5. But it is what it is, and obviously the league and the commish have no desire to be less of a joke.

Based on what I saw of the end of that Duke/Miami game, the ACC refs are going to try and challenge for the title

 

[Coug95man2]

Based on what I saw of the end of that Duke/Miami game, the ACC refs are going to try and challenge for the title

Yeah but at least that entire crew is getting suspended for their incompetence.

 

[wazzubruce]

The Pac-12 Officiating Crew was horrible in Pullman Saturday night. WSU got screwed and screwed and screwed... The Pac-12 Suits want the 'right team' to win, so that we have a Rep. in the Natty discussion! All total BS! Even during my watching the replay the announces on the tube were saying that Stanford needs to win..... Have at least one hair on your balls Pac-12 suits and sanction these idiots!​

 

[wazzubruce]

Then maybe we can start believing again there really IS a level playing field. There are teams that always seem to get the benefit of the calls....Cue in Oregon and USC here! It's total BS, year after year!