24 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
Doug's avatar

I thought the blown call on the spot of the OSU drive on Oregon's 5 yard line at the end of the half was huge, and turned the momentum of the game at that point. Inexcusable

Expand full comment
John Canzano's avatar

It was a bad call. There were several in the game. I could live with them if I knew the system was airtight and it was just human error. But I suspect about 25 percent of the errors -- and some of the big ones -- could be erased.

Expand full comment
Montanicus's avatar

But that call was REVIEWED. Not just a bad call. That was intentional in my opinion. The league wanted Oregon to win.

Expand full comment
Dale Scott's avatar

Enough of the тАЬthey wanted Oregon (or any team) to win.тАЭ THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN!

Yes, there were calls and situations in Corvallis (I was there) Saturday, and all season long, that at times defy reality. It has been an issue for several years with conference football officiating.

There are many reasons why, from lack of oversight and training, continuity, lack of a тАЬminor leagueтАЭ feeder system, a pre-conceived notion that itтАЩs the PAC 12 so of course theyтАЩre wrong, and yes, human error.

One of the reasons I didnтАЩt list is тАЬconference wanted (blank) to win.тАЭ

Anyone who thinks someone from the PAC 12 front office tells their officials to make sure (blank) wins, obviously doesnтАЩt have a clue how any of this works.

IтАЩm a lifelong Duck fan that watch the officials as much as I do the game. I always defend officials as best I can. Why? Because IтАЩve been there. Not major college football, but believe me, I know the pressure and how challenging officiating can be working 37 years in professional baseball.

I also think there is, like John has said repeatedly, some kind of a systemic problem in how officials are recruited, trained, supervised, and evaluated in the PAC 12.

I hope there are questions and answers tomorrow concerning the officiating program. I hope the commissioner understands how the need to overall the officiating department is vital to not only getting a more accurate and consistent officiated game on the field, but also a more positive perception.

The on field improvement can improve rather quickly if a robust supervision and support system is implemented.

The poor perception of PAC 12 football officials will take more time.

Expand full comment
Montanicus's avatar

That was subject to video review. The on field call was indisputably wrong. Yet they confirmed it. Sorry. Will have to apply OccamтАЩs Razor. The simplest explanation is the likely explanation. Whoever reviewed that video was either blind or biased towards Oregon. Change my mind.

Expand full comment
Dale Scott's avatar

Obviously I canтАЩt, you already have determined the officials are biased.

Yes, it was confirmed by video replay, to the astonishment of most everyone.

But instead of concluding that it was a blind, biased official and calling it a day, I would like to know the thought process and explanation of why that was his conclusion.

Is there something that weтАЩre not privy to, to come to that conclusion? Was there an issue with the equipment while watching the angles they had in replay?

Whatever is said (or not said) about that call, this is way more than a few hurt feelings from fans in one particular game. This is a PAC 12 conference wide problem that needs to be discussed and addressed.

Expand full comment
Ed Hill's avatar

If it walks like a duck and and talks like a duck. ItтАЩs a duck If this was a court of law that video would seal the deal in favor of the BEAVS . Ever had to do a deposition? Video is powerful wvidence.

Someone in the office is corrupt. More than likely working with with one ref.

It is not a Ducks vs Beavers thing

It is all about the offs. And big time gambling. And corrupt officials and bribery. .They got caught and are trying to rationalize it.

Expand full comment
Dale Scott's avatar

Absolutely reject your hypothesis, 100%.

ThatтАЩs the problem with everything these days. Something goes wrong and suddenly itтАЩs a conspiracy theory!

The officiating staff, the PAC 12 conference is now a huge gambling scam! They conspired to favor, in this case Oregon, but anyone the Beavers are playing!

As IтАЩve stated earlier, this is a systemic issue that needs to be dealt with, not a Oregon State issue to screw the Beavers.

A court of law that you mention would investigate, dispose those who were involved, look into the officiating department and how they recruit, train and supervise, and yes, show video examples.

They would show video of mistakes of course. Also presented in court would be video of outstanding calls (or no calls) on really tough plays to get a perspective on an official, or in general, the entire staffs work.

I know from experience that I could have 50 outstanding, nut cutter calls, but the one I miss is the only one people talk about. IтАЩm not complaining, thatтАЩs what I signed up for, thatтАЩs the nature of officiating.

But to take that, and suddenly make it a Conference wide conspiracy and some international betting scandal?

Sometimes, believe it or not, a fтАЩup is a fтАЩup, not a multi faceted conspiracy involving conference executives and multiple on field officials.

Expand full comment
Ed Hill's avatar

Just remember Dale that I do agree with your original post!! And I appreciate your opinion and POV

Expand full comment
Ed Hill's avatar

In fact. I think I made a mistake in replying to your post. It was meant for someone else!!!

Expand full comment
Ed Hill's avatar

I have enough professional

tech to get granular on that call. So does the replay center. They will not release an explanation. I work with law enforcement on a variety of investigative cases for the purpose of developing podcasts. From Federal to local LE to both ex military special OPS and state department officials. The facts of how the world operates has turned my world upside down. Bribery is how the international community executes so many projects. It has been impacting how the United States and we, the citizens of this country operate. The truth is painful and sometimes so egregiously distorted that all of us just refuse to consider that we are all being manipulatively coerced into thinking тАЬthis could not happenтАЭ.

Expand full comment
Ed Hill's avatar

I understand your point and I want to believe it. You make sense and your explanation is 100 percent valid. However if you look at what happened in international soccer and the NBA one can surmise how this can happen. It is not a reach or a conspiracy theory. Read about how a Chinese gambling syndicate paid soccer refs to throw games.

It is a theory based on the infiltration of organized crime

in all aspects of sports betting. Both on an international and national landscape. It takes one official and one conference executive to execute the fraud. And it is not limited to the PAC. ItтАЩs every conference and every sport.

Expand full comment
Lance Martin's avatar

Good suggestions from someone who has been there and not just rattling their keyboard.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

The play was replayed nationally on TV with closeups. That is so convenient for you to say you had to be there. I was there, watching on TV, with closeups from many angles. How is it better to be in the stands watching the play and the spot? It isn't. You need to stop rattling your keyboard and think

Expand full comment
Ed Hill's avatar

So are you saying that all officials are clean? There is no corruption? You would be wrong.

Expand full comment
Chip Hilton's avatar

ok, so I have been talking with some of my college official friends and I think in this play in question the Linesman to that side of the play was in error because he did not follow proper mechanics.

I had thought that the wing officials are taught to move straight to the goal line when ever the ball is at the 5 yard line or in. That is true UNLESS there is a line to gain before the goal line.

during this play you will see the linesman should have held the line of scrimmage or go NO FURTHER than the Line to GAIN and then mirror the runner to the goal line. Because the linesman was at the goal line when the runner was met at the line of scrimmage there was no way to get a good spot.

so they reverted to instant replay but the problem with instant replay is very often the angle and so the it can play tricks with us.

I hope this helps but I think the problem with PAC 12 officials is not one of character or bias but probably training and mechanics.

Expand full comment
Ed Hill's avatar

Plays tricks with us? That is way too ambiguous. They rely on replay for so many other decisions. I worked in a replay center for MLB and the NFLbefore we were allowed to use it as proof. Replay is easy to understand and the tech today is way better than it was when I was in the biz

Expand full comment
Chip Hilton's avatar

I mean the angles can be deceiving . It's not clear cut.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

That is not a cogent argument about the angles. The 5 yard line was the reference point. Forward progress was to the vicinity of the 4 yard line give or take a few inches. YET, the ball was spotted back on the side of the 5 yard line AWAY from the goal line. The spot was off by a yard even with clear and indisputable proof that forward progress from the sideline camera, was at the 4. There is zero excuse for this. I get how refs might have been out of position during the play. But that is the purpose of replay. It is very suspicious that replay did not cause a re-spotting of the ball as it was conclusive

Expand full comment
Ed Hill's avatar

And that is true of every replay. If it was closer and passed more of the eye test I would agree. I work in replay now at high school I run

3 cameras and 5?IPADS in live game situations. This was not. I also run replay drone 4 days a week for 3 seasons now and run the drone crew.

So I have a deep understanding of angles and replay

Someone had an agenda

Expand full comment
Ed Hill's avatar

I understand that but when it is that clear cut one has to go with replay. There is data to support that or negate that.

They have that data.

Expand full comment
UnclePhil's avatar

yeah, that one was flat out inexcusable being CONFIRMED. Anyone with eyes could tell it was flat out wrong. You want to argue it stands, fine, then its just another bad call but with all the focus on evidence when confirming things, to confirm that just makes the whole review thing an absolute joke. Why even review at that point, which JS basically confirmed they didnt really bother and it was decided before they even got to the monitor.

Expand full comment
Ed Hill's avatar

That is a perfect example of control from an outside source. Follow the money. Organized crime has become embedded in our sports culture.

It happened in Europe. It happens in every pro sport around the world.it is not all Mafioso influence. The deals around the world are rife with bribery. Corruption keeps us safe. It also

kills institutional morality and integrity.

Expand full comment
Ed Hill's avatar

That is corruption

Expand full comment