Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"Cyclists may use drugs, but at least you know who won at the end of the day".
Huh? I still don't know who really won this year's TDF.
This whole blown-call thing makes me think of the reactions of two of the current class-acts in college football: Pete Carroll and Charlie Weis.
In reference to the following plays:
1) Vince Young throwing from his knee for a Texas touchdown against USC in the 2006 Rose Bowl, and
2) The "Bush Push" in the 2005 USC-ND game,
The response of both coaches says it all - that those plays weren't the reasons behind each team's loss (even though if both plays were called for what they were, the outcome of each game would have been different). If you are such an elite program, don't put yourself in the position to be effected by bad calls or non-calls.
Boren is a moderate democrat, and was a very popular governor and senator in the 1980s and 1990s. He was widely discussed as a possible presidential and vice presidential candiate before he left the senate. Over the years he has been dogged by rumors of homesexuality, which I do not believe. He's married and has adult children.
I personally wish Boren would not have gotten involved, but it is not like this controversy really distracts him much from the educational mission of the school. If Boren personally feels that his institution, fans and team were deliberately shafted, I have no problem with his letter.
Also, does it matter to people whether the blown on-side kick by the re-play booth was simply a mistake, or was deliberate? It should.
Mistakes by referees and umpires happen during games. You deal with them and move on.
This MAY be different.
It does not seem to be a valid comparison to equate a blown call on the field of play, with a blown call following video review, especially when, as King noted, the proper ruling was so clear.
I am not aware of any video replay ruling being so wrong and so effectively altering the outcome of the game.
The PAC 10 says ample video shots were available to make the correct ruling.
The re-play official claims he got only one view, and his supervisor refers to some type of mysterious mis-communication in the re-play booth.
However, there are some reports that all of the ABC video shots were actually available. Perhaps more information will be available.
There are also tapes and recordings that show what the re-play booth personnel were looking at and talking about, but they have yet to be released.
In the end, OU played well enough to win if the video review system had worked like it should have, regardless of how badly OU played before or after the on-sides kick.
The game is over for all practical purposes if the video review is properly handled.
It's illogical to excuse the video replay debacle by claiming that OU should have never let the game get that close, that OU should have played better or that OU still had a chance to score following Oregon's kick-off with about 45 seconds left.
You need video re-play to work its best in close games. The ruling would have been irrelvant if this would have been a blow-out game.
The video replay ruling gave Oregon the opportunity to when the game.
Finally, football and this game are not that important in the grand scheme of things. However, there is nothing wrong with spending a few days griping about this issue, "Fan" is, after all, short for "fanatic."
As King plainly pointed out, the refs did not carry QB Dixon to the endzone. As another LW pointed out, Oregon commentators largely felt the refs were ruling against them during the game. But the ones against OK were the only aggregious ones because....why again? OK still had a chance to win it with a 44-yard field goal at the end of the game, and blew it. Oregon has won games with 57-yard field goal.
The Intant-Replay reviewer reports what he had to go by, but that remains in doubt because there are "reports" that add'l video was made available but not used? Who made these reports? How is it the reviewer is judged guilty and lying until proven innocent?
Every football team gets screwed by bad calls not going their way at least once a season. To make this an exception and use threats against the Pac-10 and whine, whine, whine, makes OK look ridiculous.
I think the only fair solution is for both Oregon and Oklahoma to immediately discontinue their football programs, lay off all the coaches and staff, and let the "students" who play for them go home to their real jobs as broom pushers, carjackers, rapists, and meth fiends. Then the universities can get back to THEIR real jobs: educating students.
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.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
