Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, September 20, 2006 08:40 PM

  To juneausmog

  I think you missed one of my main points.

  You cannot legitimately compare alleged errors related to snap judgments on the field that are not reviewable under the rules with the on-side kick play because the on-side kick play was reviewed.

  Indeed, if there were no video review, OU would have little to squabble about since the issue as to who touched the ball first and where was a close one, and the on-the-field call was within the range of reason on such a bang-bang play. For example, Oregon fans complain about an offensive pass interference call that was not made on one of OU's touchdown. Likewise, there was a defensive pass interference call that was not made against Oregon when one of its DB held OU's receiver who was streaking up the field for the ball on another play Both calls were incorrect, but there is nothing to complain about because they are not reviewable.

  However, the video evidence, which was supposed to be reviewed is crystal clear on the disputed issue, the PAC 10 has admitted that and even the re-play official now says he blew the call.

  Assume that you are an Oregon fan, and OU's Malcom Kelly streaks down the sideline with a 50 yard or so pass completion for a TD (much like in the game) but with about 1 minute left, but the video replay shows he clearly stepped out of bounds (as happened in the game). The video is reviewed, and shows him stepping out bounds, but the annoucement is made that there is conclusive evidence that he did not step out of bounds. As an Oregon fan, would you simply chalk that up to the breaks of the game, or justify the bad review call with thoughts that Oregon should have simply played better. I doubt you would and most fans would not either.

  The question is why the on the field call was allowed to stand, particularly with the strange announcement that there was conclusive evidence that Oklahoma had touched the ball first

  1. If all of the video really was not available to him, then OU is just SOL.

  2. If all of the video really was available to him, but for some reason he could not or did not review it, then OU is also just SOL.

  3. However, if all of the video was available and was reviewed by him, but he chose to ignore it, OU has a legitimate gripe.

  The PAC 10 should simply hold a press conference, play the tape from the re-play booth, and have the re-play official and the 3 other people in the re-play booth with him explain exactedly what happened.

  That is not too much to ask for.

  Of course, none of this will change the outcome of the game, but something must be done to keep this from happening in the future.

  —Rocket Read Rocket's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel