November 15, 2004

Officials from UF/UT game blow 'Bama/LSU Game

It was shaping up to be a great college football game in Baton Rouge Saturday night, one for the ages. Two outstanding defensive teams making life miserable for the opposing offenses. A low scoring, but relatively clean game... and then it happened.

On third and 7 from the LSU 9 yard line, Alabama quarterback Spencer Pennington was looking for flanker Keith Brown in the front corner of the end-zone. Brown had position on LSU DB Corey Webster as the pass was in the air, and Webster did what all good DBs are trained to do in a situation like that: do anything necessary to prevent the TD. As the ball was in the air, Webster pushed Brown down, intercepted the pass and returned it 44 yards. Webster was undoubtedly thinking "well, first and goal from the one is better than a touchdown"

Except that it wasn't an Alabama first down at the one yard line. With at least two officials within 10 yards of the play (one within 10 feet), not a single flag was thrown -- LSU first down on their own 44. The horrible non-call was referenced by the ESPN commentators, without fail, every 10 minutes for the rest of the game -- and for good reason.

But that's not all -- the play that effectively ended the game, the Alabama fumble that LSU returned for a touchdown, Alabama ran only one wide receiver out on the play: #11, Matt Caddell. Prior to Pennington being flushed from the pocket, Caddell, the only down-field receiver on the play, was obviously held not once, but TWICE. The slowly-developing route created a pressure situation in the pocket which, when combined with Pennington's inexperience, created a gigantic opportunity for Marcus Spears, one of the best defensive ends in the SEC.

This isn't the first time this season that this crew has made a horrific call that could easily have changed the outcome of the game. You might remember their work from the Florida/Tennessee game -- when, with an official staring at the altercation, only one flag was thrown for a pair of equally severe traded blows.

The crew in question isn't the only SEC crew that seems to have problems -- SEC officiating is getting to be as bad as the Big Ten's was when they began experimenting with instant replay.

It's a shame that such a good football game, one that could've easily come down to the wire, had to be ruined by such obviously bad officiating.

Note: I'm working to get video and screen captures of the calls in question -- they'll be posted as soon as I get them.

Posted by Pete Holiday

Trackback

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.fanblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2107

You can use this specified URL in a weblogging program that supports pinging, such as Movable Type. If your blog software does not support Trackback, click here to send a manual ping.

Comments & Trackbacks

Sam says:
posted on November 15, 2004 02:10 PM — link
One bad call and everybody is up in the air yelling foul look at the game overall LSU beat them with or without the call. Go back to the LSU/Auburn game if you want to yell and scream foul that did make a difference in the game and the season for LSU - one lousy call.
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 15, 2004 02:22 PM — link
Your counting skills need some work, Sam. Outlined above are TWO bad calls which, if called correctly, result a net change of 14 points. If nothing changes besides those two plays, the final score is LSU by two points. TWO.

And that's before you consider the two huge momentum swings that those two non-calls made and the fact that LSU gained half of its points and a large portion of it's offensive yardage in the fourth quarter after the aforementioned momentum swings.

Would 'Bama have won if the calls were different? There's no way of knowing -- it would've been a great game to watch. As it stands, though, LSU won with a lot of help from the officials, and there's really no denying that.

PS: you might also note the poor call on the LSU fumble that was ruled down. LSU probably would've recovered it anyway, but it was still the wrong call. So that makes three calls... and those are just the obvious ones.
Rob Knodell says:
posted on November 15, 2004 02:23 PM — link
Two wrongs never make a right, and bad call against one team never justifies one against another. No matter who is playing whom, SEC officiating is a laughingstock and an embarrassment to what should be a proud league. A league like the SEC should be able to field a crew of competent officials.

Face it, college football is a huge, multimillion dollar business and should be run as such. That means demanding accountability for big mistakes and spending the necessary dollars for better officials, better training, and replay technology, if warranted.

I can't say whether Bama wouldn't beaten LSU had the game been called fairly, but it certainly would've given them a fighting chance and might have changed the outcome.
Aaron says:
posted on November 15, 2004 02:24 PM — link
Sam, you're missing the point of the article. The article is documenting the horrible SEC officiating overall this year. The author even makes note that "t's a shame that such a good football game, one that could've easily come down to the wire, had to be ruined by such obviously bad officiating." And he is correct because it could have been much closer.

You seem a little defensive about your Tigers. But the officials blew the FL/TN game and made a major mistake in the Ark/SC game as well that could have resulted in an early 14 point swing.

Anyway, your Tigers are headed for another loss the day after Thanksgiving. Just thought I'd let ya know. :)
Michael Hickerson says:
posted on November 15, 2004 03:20 PM — link
Pete has a point...two bad calls can change momentum. There's no way to know if LSU wouldn't have taken Bama behind the woodshed like they did witout those calls...but I can see how momentum would swing in a game when the calls go against you.
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 15, 2004 03:30 PM — link
Especially on the road in what LSU fans claim is one of the most intimidating places to play in the nation. A 'Bama touchdown instead of an interception could've gone a long way to taking the crowd out of the game -- instead, just the opposite happened. Having the momentum is incredibly important when you're playing on the road and in a hostile environment like Baton Rouge... for an LSU fan to discount that would be tantamount to them saying that the fans don't really have any impact in Death Valley -- which I don't think any visiting team would agree with.
Richard says:
posted on November 15, 2004 03:40 PM — link
Pete, I will be upfront that I am an LSU fan. One of the posts above mentioned the Auburn call against LSU with your response that there were 2 blown calls. The fact remains that we lost to Auburn and Alabama was statistically dominated by LSU. Good teams have a way of winning despite officials or excuses
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 15, 2004 04:11 PM — link
Richard: "statistically dominated" eh? Might want to re-think that little assertion. Going back to the momentum aspect, which some LSU fans seem to be conveniently ignoring:

Prior to the missed pass interference call:
ALA: 30 plays; 119 yards (3.97 avg)
LSU: 33 plays; 138 yards (4.18 avg)

AFTER the missed interference call:
ALA: 23 plays; 42 yards (1.83 avg)
LSU: 20 plays; 94 yards (4.70 avg)

Total for game:
ALA: 53 plays; 161 yards (3.04 avg)
LSU: 53 plays; 232 yards (4.38 avg)

The other stats seem to track this same way, too. As you can see, the "statistical dominance" (sad if this meets the standard for statistical dominance, but nevertheless) came only after the swing of momentum, not before.
James Thompson says:
posted on November 15, 2004 04:38 PM — link
Pete, you are right on target. I have been saying for years that SEC Officals SUCK. The no call probably cost Alabama the game. If it is a close game in the SEC it is likey the Officals and not the players who will determine the outcome of the game. Officals of the SEC--You Suck.
Anthony says:
posted on November 15, 2004 04:54 PM — link
I normally don't say much when Bama loses a game, but let's face the facts. Bama does have a good team this year. Not a great team but a team that could be undefeated or have maybe 1 loss. Anyone who argues that point doesn't know college football. Bama's problem is inexperience and depth. This all leads up to my point. Bama cannot beat a good team like LSU and have to deal with horrible officiating. They can't beat both the teams and the officials. One more point, I don't like the whole conspiracy theories but the facts speak for themselves. The last time i checked the most penalized team in the SEC was Alabama and the team who's opponents were penalized the least was Alabama. The facts do not lie. There was a point when arkansas and south carolina were penalized 0 times through nearly 8 quarters. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I guess those two teams play flawless football. Well at least flawless when they play against the tide.
dave frey says:
posted on November 15, 2004 05:07 PM — link
First off, the blown interference call (or non-call) definitely swung the momentum LSU's way. No denying that. Still, I don't look at it as an excuse for Bama losing or LSU winning. Bad calls by the officials are part of the game of football, and they happen to every team from time to time, just like injuries, player suspensions, bad weather, and fluke bounces of the ball that favor opponents. It's part of the game, and the better teams find ways to overcome it.

Maybe I'm a little biased as a Tiger fan (although I think most people here would say I'm objective, and perhaps even too cynical and too hard on LSU), but my gut tells me LSU was going to win that game anyway, bad call or not. If that call hadn't swung the momentum, something else would've. Just my 2 cents.
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 15, 2004 05:17 PM — link
Dave: for what guts are worth, mine said exactly the opposite. Alabama had LSU's number prior to the interception. The LSU offense was faltering, and Alabama was finding a way to get things done.

It's not just as simple as "bad calls" and "good calls" -- there's a definite continuum of bad and questionable calls. Ranging from ignoring holding away from the play to those that we saw in the LSU game... officiating will always be imperfect, but there's simply no excuses for the kind of calls that SEC officials have been making this year. They're so bad as to invite conspiracy theories (none of which I beleive, for the record).

When you get such blatantly bad calls like the two/three above, it really starts to get to players... two or three questionable calls might inspire a team to play harder... two or three obviously bad calls tend to demoralize a team, no matter how good they are.

Gut feelings aside, at the end of the day, though, with better calls the game would've been decided solely by the players and coaches... not with one team getting substantial help from the refs.
Anthony says:
posted on November 15, 2004 05:23 PM — link
Maybe LSU would have won. Maybe the horrible officiating wouldn't have mattered but were not talking about one bad call. There were several against the tide. Mostly no calls against LSU. The real thing is that these officials have to be held responsible for the work they do. If i don't perform at my job then i get suspended or fired. Shouldn't we have the same expectations of the officials. What i do feel is that these teams on paper are very close. LSU is a little better on offense and I think Bama is a little better on defense. I think LSU wins this game 6 out of 10 times just because they can move the ball a little better than Bama. However, i truly feel that saturday was BAMA's night and a bad call cost them. More important than the loss of points on the play was the fact that it shifted field position which in this defensive struggle was of vital importance. Don't listen to what I say just listen to what the media has to say. Almost all of them agree.
Jeff says:
posted on November 15, 2004 06:10 PM — link
Have you seen ACC officiating this year? (Heck...in the last 5 years)?
Jeff Quinton says:
posted on November 15, 2004 06:20 PM — link
The quality level of most officiating has gone down in the past 5 years.
Richard says:
posted on November 15, 2004 07:17 PM — link
Well, Pete, thanks for reinforcing my stats. LSU stats were better before and after the "blown" calls. The best team won this time. Maybe next year.
lawrence says:
posted on November 15, 2004 07:27 PM — link
if the officials had made the right call there then the tide would have scored a td and lsu would probley have lost because that caused a grate momentom shift
lawrence says:
posted on November 15, 2004 07:30 PM — link
also the officals need to be held accountable for the bad calls in some way maby like not getting paid for the game
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 15, 2004 07:32 PM — link
Sure, Richard... if you neglect the "score" statistic... 10-6 (Bama) before the blown call, 20-0 (LSU) after.

I know it's tough for some LSU fans to accept the fact that 'Bama was very much in the game until the refs started playing... tough to fathom that it very easily could've been an LSU loss without a little help... but denial is the first stage leading toward acceptance, so maybe you'll come around.

Anyway, congrats on LSU's second home win against 'Bama in 35 years -- sorry it couldn't have been without all the speculation of what might've been if the officials had been on their game.
Bob says:
posted on November 15, 2004 07:43 PM — link
While most don't embrace the conspiracy theory in the officiating of atheletics, the increased number of inaccurate calls does beg the question... how can referees, well trained in their skills of observation, view a play in plain site and make an incorrect call.

The UT/FL and Bama/LSU are two good examples, but the number of "missed" calls across NCAA football is and has been on the upswing.

And is doesn't stop there. In the last two Olympics there have been judging indecretions rooted in less than honorable sources. How many boxing matches over the years have been subjectively judged in controversy? And while the Pete Rose betting scandal isn't an officiating issue, it is just one more example of how outside influences affect sports.

Referees are more or less judges on a feild of play, not unlike judges in a courtroom. If one is willing to believe that there have been no crooked judges in Americas' courtrooms throughout the ages, then one may also believe that officials are impervious to subjectivity on occasion.

It will be interesting to see if there will be any repercussion for the ref who "missed" the call Saturday night, after Bobby Gaston extends an apology to Mike Shula. I think I already know the answer.
Richard says:
posted on November 15, 2004 08:41 PM — link
Pete, upset Auburn and you will make both of us happy. Thanks for the conversation.
Amy says:
posted on November 15, 2004 09:12 PM — link
Two or three years ago everyone in the Big 10 was complaining about our officials like crazy, and for a good reason - they sucked. Someone somewhere must have gotten the hint because the Big Ten officiating has improved dramatically. I don't know if it's because of the instant replay this year, but even the calls on non-reviewable plays have improved.
Are any other conferences planning on implementing the instant replay?
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 15, 2004 09:44 PM — link
Trust me, Richard... I'll do everything within my power to make it happen!
Tom Doise says:
posted on November 15, 2004 11:06 PM — link
I watched the noncall several times. Could interference been called? Yes! Has there been worse non-calls? YES !!! Did it affect momentum? Yes!! Now that said, teams must deal with calls going against them. If they do not, then they do not deserve to win. Bad calls, non-calls happen. Period end of story. I have seen bad calls in every league and no crew is perfect. You deal with what is called. We can never know what would have happened otherwise. The better team will win more than lose when a bad call happens to them. Bama needs to suck it up and LSU needs to count its blessings.
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 15, 2004 11:19 PM — link
You'd be hard pressed to find worse calls, Tom. There's no conceivable way that it was a legitimate non-call, and with two officials staring right at the play, there was no excuse not to call it.

That, combined with the non-call on the fumble, and the wrong call on the OTHER fumble... it's way more than is reasonable for one game... especially considering the lack of serious mistakes going in the other direction.

Furthermore, "sucking it up" is for the players to do, and for the coaches to pretend like they did. The fans "sucking it up" is exactly why this crap continues. It happens so often in the SEC... if a team is the benefactor of a BS call, the fans of that team circle the wagons around the officials and try to defend it.

In today's day and age there's really no excuse for a blatantly wrong call to occur and to stand. We have so many technological options available to us, that these kind of things absolutely need to stop. These aren't just games we're talking about, it's a multi-billion dollar industry.
Brandon Bonds says:
posted on November 16, 2004 01:10 AM — link
Just in case anyone even begins to think the call was either good or insignificant, go here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1923589

Basic jist: Apology made to Alabama from the SEC. This kind of thing does not happen unless it's beyond obvious.
Lenny says:
posted on November 16, 2004 09:27 AM — link
You mention that "SEC officiating is getting to be as bad" I think the difference is that it is one thing to be bad and make a mistake, but it is another thing to deliberately ignore a situation. I think the latter is the case when the SEC is involved, especially when a home game involving the evil empire is concerned. I think that the SEC needed an LSU win so that Auburn looks better, since that is their only close game.
Their is absolutely no way that Auburn should be anywhere near OU in the BCS or any poll. According to Sagarin OU has the #10 toughest schedule and Auburn #97. OU oppnents have won 12 more games than Auburn foes. Why is OU penalized for a close game against Texas A&M, has anyone checked but the aggies have only lost to one team that is not undefeated!
Bob says:
posted on November 16, 2004 12:55 PM — link
Hey did anyone see the pass interference call in the Texas/Kansas game Saturday night. That one changed the direction too. Kansas coach Mark Mangino spoke out against the ref's and the BSC. ESPN thinks he should be fined for trashing the ref's call in a post game interview. That makes sense...fine the coaches while the referees get off with an occasion slap on the wrist.
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 16, 2004 12:56 PM — link
FWIW -- I saw that call and thought it was the right one. It's not often called, but it was a legit flag.
From Slowplay.com
pinged on Nov 16, 2004 2:28 PM
Last week I gave out Alabama as one of my plays on college football and bellyached when they got what I thought was a raw non-call on a play in the end zone. I firmly believe they would have covered the number had the call not been flubbed. Today, th...
Bob says:
posted on November 16, 2004 04:49 PM — link
Yes Pete...not often called. Just called when convient I guess.
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 16, 2004 04:53 PM — link
Well... if it was the right call, you can't very well complain about it. If it's not being called other times when it should be, complain about those. If it's not a good penalty, complain about that... but if it was the right call based on the current rules... it was the right call. Case closed. The receivers know the rules (or should) and should follow them. If they don't, they run the risk of getting called for it at the worst possible times.
Will says:
posted on November 16, 2004 09:20 PM — link
First off, the calls in question in the LSU-Bama game were horrific. But, how many of you that bitch and moan about how bad that officials suck really know anything about it? Got off the couch and officiate a few pee-wee games and then move on up the ladder if it's something that you enjoy. I officiate at the high school level and trust me it's not as easy as it looks sitting on the comfort of your couch! All that being said, the SEC has a problem that needs to be addressed.
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 16, 2004 10:42 PM — link
Two things, Will:

1st: I have officiated before. No, it's not easy... that doesn't mean it's excusable to do it poorly. Engineering space shuttles isn't easy, either, but when Columbia exploded you didn't hear people saying "Well, it's not easy to build a space ship!" It's a job... if they can't do it well, they need to find a new line of work. Period.

2nd: It doesn't matter what the experience is of those watching... the quality of the calls remains the same, and not having officiated does not exclude one from being able to notice a poor call or complain about it... so, essentially, officiating experience doesn't even really enter into this discussion.
tom says:
posted on November 16, 2004 11:34 PM — link
The call or lack thereof is easily made. Reviewing the video has both players with hands on each other. We should go back to pass interference on both players...beyond 5 yards you touch its interference. That wont happen though. Was there a push, yes but the problem goes deeper than that. As to the non-call on the fumble...I am sorry but that is the first I have heard anything about problems with the calls on fumbles, enlighten us please.

LSU remains behind after that drive anyway. The game turned on the fumble by the QB for a score. Maybe that is what Pete is talking about. It looked perfectly fine to me.

If anyone here can remember the days of "the Bear" at alabama. Pure muggings happened on the field with no call made by the officials. Should that happen today, no. Did it happen, NO. As reported in the link given by Brandon says, the official did not have line of sight on the call.

As to what Pete says, about blatantly wrong calls standing. In no way should we have a replay system in college ball. It sucks, it takes up too much time, and bad calls even out in the long run. Can they effect the game, yes but that is part of the game. For this call to be reversed, the only way to do so is with instant replay. NO THANKS! I will take bad calls for or against my team long before I will take that stupidity. Its a game, its human judgement, mistakes happen.
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 16, 2004 11:49 PM — link
Wow, Tom... not only ignoring the momentum shift but ALSO the fact that Alabama didn't get to put points on the board. I wonder if there's another purple elephant in the room you could overlook.

a) there's a difference between feeling an opponent and pass interference. "Feeling" is all that was going on until Webster shoved Brown down. There was absolutely no offensive pass interference on the play.

b) Reading the above link the fact that you miss is that Gaston says there's "no excuse" for missing the call... yet you're trying to offer them up anyway. Furthermore, the "no line of sight" is an excuse, and a poor one. I've reviewed the video a dozen times and it's pretty clear that at least two officials not only had angles on the play, but were watching it.

c) As to the two fumble calls -- I've already covered those.

d) I suppose if you'd rather have a game decided by the officials than the players that's your choice... but personally I want the right calls to be made so that the players and coaches determine the outcome of the game... not some elderly guy from two states away. (I'd also like to add that if the official hadn't had an angle on the play, that's a perfect justification for instant replay -- it gives him the angle to make the correct call) but hey... you'd prefer a poorly officiated, but quick and convenient, game to a fair one... it takes all types.
tom says:
posted on November 17, 2004 12:33 AM — link
a) There is no way to say that Ala would have scored. So wow yourself. The problem is that you can not say what would have happend. Period end of story.

b)Feeling used to be and should be interference. By either player. If you still have that rule. The play is played over because the official could see your "touchy feeliness" on the play. Then we could have your maybe score by bama.

c)The comments by Gaston is typical of somebody covering both bases. "If you look at it, he's straight-lined and has a hard time seeing the push and he can't call something that he doesn't see," Gaston said. "With the mechanics (positioning) that we use, we should have gotten that play.

"It just so happens that the receiver and the defender were straightlined down the goal line from where he was. That's no excuse for us not being able to see it." He does not say how it could have been seen. He is pandering to both sides.

d)Your supposed holding during the route. First I have heard or seen anything on that. LOL. Lets just chalk it up to "feeling" the reciever. LOL Other than that, nobody else mentions that noncall. The SEC didn't. But then they played both sides of the controversy for the other call. Funny they do not mention your "feeling" during the fumble. As to the other fumble. I do not remember it but will go with your comment that LSU would have probably recoved it so no controversy there.

e) Ok so what would make you happy on calls? I know lets get the calls correct on every play. Take every official off the field. Put in 10,000 cameras for all kinds of angles, and instant replay looking for penalties from linemen holding in the trenches to cameras straight up on the goal posts to getting those done right. Would only take about 2 or 3 hours per play.

Play the game. Make the calls as best as the officials can, and go on.

BTW instant replay is not used to call penalties. Its for ball placement,in or out of bounds and change of possesion. Even with instant replay, the interception would stand. There is no way any sane coach or official would want replays for penalties.
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 17, 2004 12:54 AM — link
Put the Kool-Aid down, Tom...

a) No, we can't say for sure... but nobody has kept Alabama out of the end-zone yet from the 2 yard line. You can pretend, if you wish, that the LSU defense could keep one of the top rushing teams in the SEC out of the endzone on four tries from the 2... you know, if that helps you sleep at night.

b) Feeling has no effect on the play, does not keep a defender from getting at the ball. According to the NCAA Rulebook, which you might want to look at before you start debating technicalities on rules, offensive pass interference requires... wait for it... "interference" with the defensive player. Mere touching is not interference, and so long as nobody is pushing, it can even be called "incidental"

c) The SEC doesn't issue random apologies to pander to both sides. The only reason he hedged was to save face for the official. The only unequivocal terms Gaston used were... again... "no excuse" -- that's not "pandering" it's a very firm statement of fact. He's also only talking about one official. If you frame-by-frame the play (I have), you'll see that the official on the goal line could not see the initial contact (the one 10 yards down the sideline could, though), but he could see it shortly after it happened while Webster was still pushing Brown to the ground.

d) Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Go ahead and re-watch the game tape. I'll wait. As to the other fumble... just because the outcome was the same doesn't mean the call was correct. The ends do not justify the means.

e) If it takes 10,000 cameras to keep officials from deciding the games, then yes. That's what I'd like to see. I presume, however, it wouldn't take that many.

Also, just becuase IR is not currently used to handle penalties does not mean that it couldn't be. I'm really quite surprised that this didn't occur to you...

The bottom line is that the call was so bad that the SEC issued an apology... it was not the only awful call in the game, and it had a noticable effect on the game.

I also think you neglect the fact that the SEC has some of the worst officiating in the nation. It's NOT this bad everywhere, so acting like "these things happen" is silly. "Oh, you were driving drunk and killed somoene? Oh well. These things happen!"
tom says:
posted on November 17, 2004 01:50 AM — link
a) kool aid? who is holding out on the koolaid?

b) Fumbles, interceptions, missed field goals all happen. Just because an action has not happened recently does not mean that it will not happen. Does not matter if it is the LSU 2 yard line or the bama 2. Makes NO difference. Supposition is meaningless, move on.

b) Feeling used to be against the rules. Or are you incapable of comprehending that the rules today have not always been the rules? Problem is most feeling is more than feeling its pushing by both players but is considered inccidental. I did not say it was not allowed now. Did not argue the rule as it is now. I was pointing out how the rule now is bad. But you take it and turn into something its not. Its funny the end result of the comment was to be on your side on the issue. Have a better rule for interference but you take it someplace I did not go.

c) Why is the other official not mentioned? I have to laugh at your comment. He could see it after it happened LMAO Great comment. I love it. He could see it after it happened. OMG Are you serious. If it was after it happened, The force of the touch could not be determined after the fact. Seeing a player fall is not reason to assume a shove. He could be simply falling over his own feet but the defender was "feeling" him. He could see it after it happened. LMAO Such great comic relief! Thanks!!! Great spotting on frame by frame review of the film. I guess you mean he could see the result of a shove by seeing a player fall and hand(s) on him. That is not enough to throw a flag. Sorry the defender might have only "felt" the reciever and the reciever tripped. Calling those kinds of plays will result in more errors for officials. I thought you were against officiating errors.

d) No thanks. I typically do not pour over game film since I stopped playing. I will go by what I watch in person, on tv or highlights of games. For every error that you think you see in the game against bama I could find just as many that I could see against lsu also.

e)10,000 was an exageration to make a point. But apparently you like the idea. LMAO.

If you read my comment, I did realize it could be used but said nobody sane would want it because it would be a nightmare. An overwhelming majority of plays has infraction(s) on them. They are not called. Could you imagine. Play a play. Instant replay to find infractions. Play has offsetting penalties, play over. We would rarely get beyond the opening kickoff and have games lasting days possibly weeks but by God lets do it so no error by an official could be made. The game would be decided by players actions and the rules. Officiating errors be gone. LOL.

Bottom line is the game is over LSU won. No amount of moaning and complaining will change that.

As to the officiating in the SEC. Yes there are blown calls(I could name several big leagues with far worse officiating). But that is why officials review the films and try to improve. After all it is only a game.
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 17, 2004 02:08 AM — link
b) So supposing LSU would win if the correct calls were made... also worthless? Or... wait, did you have a point?

c) Feeling doesn't need to be against the rules, pushing does. Feeling doesn't effect the play. Pushing does. Heh. "Problem is most feeling is more than feeling" -- feeling is feeling. If it's more, it's more. Very simple. Slippery slopes don't work here.

I have no idea why Gaston does anything he does, least of all not mentioning the second (or third) official within 10 yards of the play.

It's pretty obvious that I need to spell out things in excuciating detail for you. The referee in quesiton did not see the initial contact, but COULD see the continuation of the contact and, yes, the pushing as they passed him and Brown started falling. Again, Tom... "no excuse". That's why.

d) Of course you don't... if you did, you might actually know what you're talking about here.

e) If you feel like extrapolating to unreasonable levels (like the 10,000 camera idea) EVERYTHING looks stupid. Fact is, though, that a system could easily be devised to counter major, obvious errors like the ones from this game and still "let the boys play."

If you were to read the post you're commenting on you might notice that I'm not suggesting the outcome of the game be changed.

As to the other leagues with worse officiating... would you like to try? I'd love to see you come up with a worses calls this year than the three from the SEC (UF/UT, AU/LSU, 'Bama/LSU). I really don't think it's possible.
tom says:
posted on November 17, 2004 03:13 AM — link
b) yes supposition is worthless no matter what you supposed could have happened. LSU win with different calls, bama win with different calls. All worthless.

c) More than feeling was going on by both players in that play and most plays officials let them play unless they go beyond a point. That is the reason you get uproars about calls in the Texas game. Besides Article 8b and 8c of the rules says in contact not contact more than feeling.

Gaston does not mention the officials because that is the "mechanics" failed to put another official to be able to make the call. Do you honestly believe that the call was seen and the official said I am not making that call today? Not likely. Gaston talks about mechanics (positioning) failing in the no call.

AGAIN if the official could not see the initial contact and how it was came about that official will NEVER make that call. If he doesnt see what caused the fall he will not call it. That is what happened. If refs make calls based upon what they think might have happened there will be uproars constantly throughout every game. It is better to err by letting the players play the game than to over officiate it.

d) Again I will go by what I see, not need to pour relentlessly frame by frame looking for a conspiracy that does not exist.

e) The fact is NO system could be easily devised or accepted to include penalties in instant replay. If a system was suggested it would be laughed out of committees. The reason is that what calls should you look at. If the call is not made on the pass interference should the holding be called on the line of scrimmage. Wait was that illegal motion lets check that too. Hmmm was that defender in the neutral zone at the snap of the ball? It will go on and on. Just the obvious ones. Wait I thought you were against bad calls. So only ones the replay shows you on tv is the ones we should look at? It is a slippery slope. Ask any college or pro coach if they would be for instant replay for penalties and you would get a response of NO that would be deafening.

I did not comment that you were for changing the outcome of the game. I was commenting that the game is over, LSU won and moaning and complaining about blown calls do not change that. Did not say you were suggesting otherwise.

ou/tam tex/kan unlv/byu ps/os those are from top of head...not sure about anything else i do not keep a running count of blown calls hell most do not even make the news because most know complaining does little good
tom says:
posted on November 17, 2004 03:37 AM — link
According to the bama website your numbers for the stats of the game is wrong. I am posting what you have and what the bama website shows.

Prior to the missed pass interference call:
ALA: 30 plays; 119 yards (3.97 avg) 32/133 (4.15)
LSU: 33 plays; 138 yards (4.18 avg) 26/115 (4.42)
AFTER the missed interference call:
ALA: 23 plays; 42 yards (1.83 avg) 26/63 (2.42)
LSU: 20 plays; 94 yards (4.70 avg) 28/168 (6)
Total for game:
ALA: 53 plays; 161 yards (3.04 avg) 58/196 (3.79)
LSU: 53 plays; 232 yards (4.38 avg) 54/283 (5.24)

No comments about the meaning of it just setting the numbers correct...unless you want to argue with the bama site.
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 17, 2004 03:48 AM — link
c) Reading is good for you, Tom. Here's the rule:

Offensive pass interference by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone during a legal forward pass play in which a forward pass crosses the neutral zone is contact that interferes with a Team B eligible player.

So, yes, it DOES require more than just contact -- that contact must interfere with the other player (among other things). In fact, if you read the interpretations section of the rulebook they outline a large number of circumstances where contact -- even contact more than just touching -- is not a foul.

Pushing is not an instantaneous action... there's a beginning of the push and an end. If an official sees a hand on a face mask he throws the flag -- he doesn't have to see the had placed there. Same with pushing... you don't have to see the instant the hands touch the other player as long as you see pushing. Two officials (again, if you watch the tape) were looking directly at the play. I don't know what the refs were or were not thinking, all I know is they were looking at the play and didn't call it. ("no excuse")

d) No conspiracy theories here, just straight-up facts. Blown call, two officials watching. Fact. A conspiracy would be to say that the officials chose to make bad calls (as opposed to making a mistakes) to help LSU. Fact is that they're just the most incompetent crew in the SEC and, by extension, probably in D-IA football.

e) It could be done. It wouldn't be perfect, of course, but it would be much closer than what we've got now. Then again, it wouldn't be ACCEPTED, but it could be done. Kinda like a play-off system. Just because it won't be done doesn't mean it can't.

Four calls in three conferences (which are MAYBE as bad as the three from the SEC, but I'd have to look at them again) versus 3 calls in one conference. I rest my case.

Do you have any more straws to grasp at?
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 17, 2004 03:56 AM — link
Got a link for those numbers? Mine came from the ESPN play-by-play page. ( link )
tom says:
posted on November 17, 2004 04:04 AM — link
No straws being grasped at on my end.

What you are missing most is that the offical did not see the foul. If the official saw it they would throw the flag. You say that he saw it after the initiation of the push. You DO NOT KNOW when that came into focus. You only know that the officials head eventually was turned in that general area. And you concede that the beginning of the push was not seen.

A hand to the face mask is differnt than a push. As you say it takes more than contact to have a pass interfernce. Seeing a hand on somebody and the person falling does not tell the ref there was interference. I love that you are taking both sides of this. Interference is more than contact but an official only needs to see contact and a player fall for it to be interference. GIVE IT UP and choose one side or the other.

To say that a official witnessed an interference and did not call is not reasonable thing. To say that two saw it and did not call it is like calling it a conspiracy.

To say a system can be done for penalties is beyond belief. You are living in a dreamworld. The system would be so flawed and take too long.

As to the calls those were all I could come up with at the top of my head. Doesnt mean there were not more. Just means those are the only ones I remember. Most blown calls go by the wayside because most people realize its just part of the game and complaining does no good.
tom says:
posted on November 17, 2004 04:06 AM — link
here is the link
tom says:
posted on November 17, 2004 04:15 AM — link
Did not check anything else but totals for game was my numbers at espn and bama site not yours....

Good night
tom says:
posted on November 17, 2004 04:21 AM — link
any errors in numbers is due to time of night. I will check all of them tomorrow...again good night.
Robert Lyons says:
posted on November 17, 2004 09:59 AM — link
College football needs to get away from these conference "affiliations" with the guys in stripes. E.g. Kansas/Texas game this past weekend, USC/Arkansas game two weeks ago,...

This opens the leagues up to too many instances like these. There should be a large pool of officials that are assigned to games on a per game basis. Draw names out of a hat if you have to but get away from "ACC" officials, "SEC" officials, etc...
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 17, 2004 10:53 AM — link
Note on the stats: ESPN's play-by-play numbers don't seem to match the drive totals (which is what I was working based on) not sure why that is. The stats you put out there, though, don't really say anything substantially different... except to emphasize the point more... so I'm not really too concerned with the descrepancy.

I love how the support for your arguments, Tom, is "because I said so."

"What you are missing most is that the offical did not see the foul."

Why?

"If the official saw it they would throw the flag."

Oh, really?

By this logic, referees are incapable of mistakes... only thing you can claim is that an official didn't see it. Because, obviously, if the official saw it he would've thrown the flag... mistakes don't happen. You're begging the question. Just wishing doesn't make it so, Tom. Watch the tape. Furthermore, if the official didn't see the foul, he really needs to be relieved of his duties... it was 2 yard away and he was looking at it. I'm not sure where his mind was or what he thought he was seeing, but he's not cut out for the job.

I concede that the initial contact of the push was not seen, but that at least half of the push WAS seen -- more than enough to make the call.

As to the rules: I'm not taking more than one side... I'm taking exactly one side: that pass interference requires interference and there was none on the part of the wide-receiver on this play. Is the rule too complicated for you to understand, Tom? After all... the rule book takes both sides! Maybe it should pick one!

To say that an official made an incorrect (non) call is not at all unreasonable. It happens all the time. To say that two saw it and called nothing is less probable, but still easily possible and not yet a conspiracy. (Link goes to a definition of the word)

Honestly, Tom, I'm tiring of trying to unwind your logical fallacies and circular reasoning... I'm done with this debate until you can come back up your assertions with something more than the assertions themselves. The logical smoke and mirrors that you're trying to use just aren't going to cut it.
tom says:
posted on November 17, 2004 01:44 PM — link
ok I am sorry but your idiocy is getting going too far.

First. I said nothing about offensive interference What drugs are you on that you got that out of my quote??? I said "I love that you are taking both sides of this. Interference is more than contact but an official only needs to see contact and a player fall for it to be interference." This was in response to YOUR statements about the rules for interference and YOU saying that the official did not see the beginning of the "shove." Nothing in that about offensive interference.

You concede that half of the push was seen. HOW BIG OF YOU. To determine if it was a push or simply "feeling"(in your words) and a trip or losing balance is undeterminable. PERIOD. Cant be done. And that is if the ref actually did come into focus on the play at the moment you think. How great you must be to be able to determine on film when a refs mind is able to focus in on a particular action when turning to face that action. LOL. You can state irrefutably that he did not see the beginning of the shove because he wasnt looking in that direction but can see the end of it and know that precise moment. WOW, did you interview him? Do you have the internal SEC reports from officials? Do you have accounts from anyplace saying that he did in fact see what you said when you said. NO you do not, that is conjecture and that is worthless supposition just like many of your arguements.

As to the rule on interference, let my try to clear this up for you one LAST time. I support returning to older rules that are much more strict on both the offense and defense. Going by those rules, you would like the result. Interference on both players, off setting penalties, play the play over. By the old rules, both officials would have seen enough to call that.

Your saying that an official will see a shove and make a mistake and think that is not a shove? Ok possible. But you also argue that two officials see a shove and not think it is a shove.

Go back to what the SEC reported. They report that the first official was blocked, so he didnt see it.

The second official you report did not see the beginning of the shove. By this it is correct for him to not call it because of doubt as to how the players got to the positions they were in. The SEC says that the mechanics of the situation (positioning) broke down. Not that there was a misinterpetation of the rules. They said it was not excuse to not see it but that is what happened. Anything more than that by you is conjecture.

I am not asserting anything. I am merely showing you that your reasoning is flawed.

As to the stats, I said "No comments about the meaning of it just setting the numbers correct...unless you want to argue with the bama site." Did not infer anything was different was simply pointing out an error. Those numbers are meaningless anyway, by those same numbers you could argue LSU is better conditioned (by the way I am not argueing that so dont start up that arguement i am just saying that those numbers are meaningless).

You said "Blown call, two officials watching" earlier. I say blown call two officials didnt see it. End result the same. No penalty on the play.
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 17, 2004 02:21 PM — link
Heh. My idiocy. That's rich.

No reply to the content of the post, though... seeing as you're still failing to meet any sort of logical standards for argument. You might as well give up... unless you're the Boston Red Sox of logic, I don't see you battling your way back out from the hole you've already dug.

Score still stands... Tom: Opinion backed up by nothing; Pete: opinion backed up by rulebooks, video footage, and physics.

We can call that a draw, if it makes you feel better.
tom says:
posted on November 17, 2004 05:02 PM — link
Rulebook? LMAO What part of I support going to the older rules do you not understand. I know they are not the current rule. I want to go to them. My god its like talking to Raymond when he wants to watch Judge Wapner. Only seeing what you want to see. And repeating the same dribble. Instead of "Its time for Wapner, Its time for Wapner", its "feelings, nothing more than feelings."

As to the video tape and physics LMAO I have easily showed you how you are wrong and why you are wrong and you have no facts, just conjecture which has no basis on any known reality. Nobody has reported seeing the things you do (sec office, newspapers, tv or other blogs), do you see dead people too? End result is the same LSU kicked Bama's rear and you have to stew in that for a while. Call it whatever you like to make yourself feel good. But end result is LSU won and if blaming ref's is your thing to cope, blame the refs. My only wish for this year is for enough teams to falter before end of season for the Utes to play for the NC. Kinda would like to see Utes and Boise State (you gotta love smurf field) but no way enough happens for that to come off.

Finally, I still wish I knew what drugs you were on for you to respond how you responded sometimes. LMAO. That drug filled haze that you are living in must be something else. Must be expensive to get the haze that thick. Go get in rehab, maybe transfer to the best school in Bama...Troy. I am kidding I meant to say Auburn, although Troy would be an improvement according to my coworkers who attended Auburn.
dave frey says:
posted on November 17, 2004 05:31 PM — link
Easy on the "LMAO" there, cowboy.
Pete Holiday says:
posted on November 17, 2004 05:44 PM — link
"according to my coworkers who attended Auburn."

Ahhh... a farm worker, eh? Give my regards to the livestock.
tom says:
posted on November 17, 2004 06:03 PM — link
Just saw the play that your qb fumbled on for an LSU score. 2 wide recievers downfield, one back in the flat for a total of 3 possible recievers not one and a couple of bumps of one reciever who fell as he tried to reverse field because the qb was scrambling to the left but no holds whatsoever. Your imagination went overboard for that play Pete, as usual.

No my Auburn friends are 3 CE's and 2 EE's. Its the price that you pay for working for a company that is headquartered in AL. Funny thing I am sure there must be at least one engineer working for the company who went to bama, but nobody ever claims to be. Can't say I blame them for laying low and not calling attention to themselves.
tom says:
posted on November 17, 2004 06:20 PM — link
Funny it did not post that I wished bama good luck against Auburn. I can see why a filter would stop that, wishing luck to bama that is. I can not bear the thought of auburn winning out. Since they beat us this year. So Good luck Bama. Win one to keep those tigers that cry war eagle at bay. (never could understand all auburns mascots must be something to do with bama having a crimson tide symbolized with an elephant)
dave frey says:
posted on November 17, 2004 08:23 PM — link
What I never quite got was people yelling "War Damn Eagle". WTF is THAT supposed to mean? Maybe Auburn and Oklahoma should play, and it should be called the Incohrent Chant Bowl.
Charlie says:
posted on November 18, 2004 08:18 PM — link
1) SEC officials do suck...they blew MANY calls last weekend although the pushoff was pretty obvious.

2) Why didn't LSU get an aplogy for the blown call that cost us the game against Auburn? We recovered a fumble that was ruled out of bounds when the defender was clearly in bounds. We get that ball...we run out the clock. But we let them score after this...our defense was bothered by the call and didn't respond.

But referees are human and will make mistakes...actually they will make a lot of them. It's jut the ones that occur at the end of the game that usually get talked about because it hurts one team or the other.

Point is that you have to learn to overcome a bad call. Alabama was too young and inexperienced to do that. Last year in LSU's championship run, there were many games where a call could've changed the momentum but they didn't let it get to them. I've seen Auburn do the same thing this year and I hope they do beat Bama and go all the way. You guys have to remember that after our rivalries are over, the SEC will always be scrutinized by the ignorant PAC 10 loving media around the country and I'd certainly love for Auburn to get the chance LSU didn't have last year and beat the hell out of USC! Go War Eagles!!
Richard says:
posted on November 21, 2004 01:31 AM — link
charlie, I totally agree. I watched the Alabama Auburn game and wanted an Alabama to win so badly because Tommy T. coaches Auburn. I am a die-hard LSU fan but feel we are very fortunate to be 8-2 considering we have no quarterback, We could have easily lost to Oregan State, Troy, Ole Miss and even Alabama. But, we did win and poor officiating was also present tonight. The good teams win, the lesser teams complain. The solution is to not put yourself into a position that 1 Single call can turn the game around.

Richard
Richard says:
posted on November 21, 2004 01:34 AM — link
Pete, I was very disappointed that Alabama didn't hammer Auburn. It looked like things were working out for the first half but Auburn's depth dominated. I think that Alabama will soon be a major force to contend with, even if the officials don't always see it you way. Thanks for the conversation.
Richard
dave frey says:
posted on November 21, 2004 07:00 PM — link
Yet more dreadful officiating last night in Tiger Stadium. They completely blew the handling of the clock at the end of the first half, allowing Ole Miss to run its kick team onto the field, line up and kick a field goal when there should not have been enough time to do so. In the 2nd half, they called pass interference on Ole Miss, and there was definitely no interference on the play. Look for Saban to get fined for his post-game remarks (he said he really didn't care if they fined him).

They've really got to do something about the SEC officiating crews in the off season. It's gotten out of control.
Jeff Quinton says:
posted on November 21, 2004 07:05 PM — link
Dave,
I agree... the SEC crew working Clemson-SC mishandled the pushing and shoving and post-play stuff throughout the whole game so badly that they didn't have control of the game at all - and we saw what happened there.
Au says:
posted on November 21, 2004 11:25 PM — link
What did St. Nick say??
Jeff says:
posted on November 23, 2004 07:57 PM — link
Pete, get over it. Bama has had bad calls go their way in the past that helped them win games. It happens to every team, no matter what sport or what level you play at. Bama may have lost because of a bad call, but they will get a win in the future because of a bad call, if not this season then next. And then, I am sure that you will be arguing that that call did not effect the outcome of the game. This all comes down to the law of averages, which say that you will get just as many bad calls for you as you will against you. It all comes out in the wash.

Fanbogs - College Football Weblogs

November 15, 2004

Officials from UF/UT game blow 'Bama/LSU Game

Trackback

Comments & Trackbacks

Sam says:

Pete Holiday says:

Rob Knodell says:

Aaron says:

Michael Hickerson says:

Pete Holiday says:

Richard says:

Pete Holiday says:

James Thompson says:

Anthony says:

dave frey says:

Pete Holiday says:

Anthony says:

Jeff says:

Jeff Quinton says:

Richard says:

lawrence says:

lawrence says:

Pete Holiday says:

Bob says:

Richard says:

Amy says:

Pete Holiday says:

Tom Doise says:

Pete Holiday says:

Brandon Bonds says:

Lenny says:

Bob says:

Pete Holiday says:

From Slowplay.com

Bob says:

Pete Holiday says:

Will says:

Pete Holiday says:

tom says:

Pete Holiday says:

tom says:

Pete Holiday says:

tom says:

Pete Holiday says:

tom says:

tom says:

Pete Holiday says:

Pete Holiday says:

tom says:

tom says:

tom says:

tom says:

Robert Lyons says:

Pete Holiday says:

tom says:

Pete Holiday says:

tom says:

dave frey says:

Pete Holiday says:

tom says:

tom says:

dave frey says:

Charlie says:

Richard says:

Richard says:

dave frey says:

Jeff Quinton says:

Au says:

Jeff says:

var site="s19fanblogs" <a href="http://s19.sitemeter.com/stats.asp?site=s19fanblogs" target="_top"> <img src="http://s19.sitemeter.com/meter.asp?site=s19fanblogs" alt="Site Meter1" border="0" height="1" width="1"></a>