Bringing this up again has made me realize that because we've decided to leave ... expect a lot more of this BS all year long. We're not going to be in any venue at any time when we should expect a break from the officiating crew. They're all going to be Big12 crews or some other conference. I hope the Huskers hang a 100 on everyone they play ... especially our soon to be Big 12 ex's. I'd like to see them leave the Big 12 10 2 and little 8 a black smoking crater. Glad that Dr. Tom and Perlman had the foresight to get us out ASAP rather than dragging it on for an extra year.
Big 12 officials head still answering questions on title game call
- Thread starter HuskerElse
- Start date
Listen to the audio from the TV feed.
The ball is incomplete, a whistle sounds and a human referee had to stop the clock, by time he stopped the clock the time went to zero.
They don't use fractional seconds, like the NBA. It was not egregious or incorrectly done. If the time was at 4 or 5 seconds and ticked to zero that would be egregious. I still maintain that the referee has to stop the clock by pushing a button, the clock went to zero has he did this. Very simple, 1 second difference is not reverseable, 4 to 5 seconds yes. I remember reading the whole egregious clause was added and was taught to officials to mean 4 or 5 seconds, not 1 second where a game winner was decided.
The officials need to do a better job of explaining this. Reading the article and how they deemed it to be such an egregious error makes me sick to my stomach. If this was at the end of the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Qtr, it wouldn't be a story but since a winner of a CCG was reversed and taken away, this story will go on forever. I just wish would come out and say we are done with this BS conference and that is the main reason we wanted to move on the Big 10.
They all need to be called out for taking a win away from NU on this one. Bottom line, the game was over and they took the game away from NU. Maybe there is extra motivation for NU to never give up and always play every second. We committed way too may mental errors.
I still say Bo and staff went way too conservative on that last drive. One extra 1st down and the game is pretty much over. So with 3rd and five you concede the play and just run up the middle to kick a FG and leave McCoy with 1:45 to get into FG range?.(a heisman QB candidate with 44 wins under his belt) Go for the 1st down and UT never sees the field or does with 10 seconds. Squibb kick or high floater, not a booming kick to the endzone was the better call too. Zac Lee on 2nd and 7 snaps the ball with 15 seconds on the clock. (NU's last series) What kind of time management is that? Keeping UT off the field was crucial on that last drive. Even with all those errors we still won the game until they reversed it. dedhoarse dedhoarse dedhoarse
The stats showed 18 rushing yards for UT for 4 qtrs. That is a an amazing stat. 4.5 yards rushing per qtr with a very mobile QB. Our stats were really bad too but this was the no. 2 team in the nation and we held our own.
edit:taken from the comments section on the article linked below.
Since the game clock is kept in 1 second increments how can one say a 1 second "error" is "egregious"? It appears that the big 12 officials need to consult a dictionary.
Posted by: Terry Savage | December 07, 2009 at 06:44 PM
Read more: http://startelegramsports.typepad.com/colleges/2009/12/big-12-explains-rule-that-allowed-texas-gamewinning-fg.html#ixzz0vGub7bhr
Walt Anderson comment on how this is now used in training sessions.
Time has not changed his opinion. Anderson remains sure the officials got the call right. He said that call is even now shown to officials at training sessions.
“I think everybody is using that play as an example,” Anderson said. “At the national replay meeting, that’s been used as a training tool.”
The ball is incomplete, a whistle sounds and a human referee had to stop the clock, by time he stopped the clock the time went to zero.
They don't use fractional seconds, like the NBA. It was not egregious or incorrectly done. If the time was at 4 or 5 seconds and ticked to zero that would be egregious. I still maintain that the referee has to stop the clock by pushing a button, the clock went to zero has he did this. Very simple, 1 second difference is not reverseable, 4 to 5 seconds yes. I remember reading the whole egregious clause was added and was taught to officials to mean 4 or 5 seconds, not 1 second where a game winner was decided.
The officials need to do a better job of explaining this. Reading the article and how they deemed it to be such an egregious error makes me sick to my stomach. If this was at the end of the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Qtr, it wouldn't be a story but since a winner of a CCG was reversed and taken away, this story will go on forever. I just wish would come out and say we are done with this BS conference and that is the main reason we wanted to move on the Big 10.
They all need to be called out for taking a win away from NU on this one. Bottom line, the game was over and they took the game away from NU. Maybe there is extra motivation for NU to never give up and always play every second. We committed way too may mental errors.
I still say Bo and staff went way too conservative on that last drive. One extra 1st down and the game is pretty much over. So with 3rd and five you concede the play and just run up the middle to kick a FG and leave McCoy with 1:45 to get into FG range?.(a heisman QB candidate with 44 wins under his belt) Go for the 1st down and UT never sees the field or does with 10 seconds. Squibb kick or high floater, not a booming kick to the endzone was the better call too. Zac Lee on 2nd and 7 snaps the ball with 15 seconds on the clock. (NU's last series) What kind of time management is that? Keeping UT off the field was crucial on that last drive. Even with all those errors we still won the game until they reversed it. dedhoarse dedhoarse dedhoarse
The stats showed 18 rushing yards for UT for 4 qtrs. That is a an amazing stat. 4.5 yards rushing per qtr with a very mobile QB. Our stats were really bad too but this was the no. 2 team in the nation and we held our own.
edit:taken from the comments section on the article linked below.
Since the game clock is kept in 1 second increments how can one say a 1 second "error" is "egregious"? It appears that the big 12 officials need to consult a dictionary.
Posted by: Terry Savage | December 07, 2009 at 06:44 PM
Read more: http://startelegramsports.typepad.com/colleges/2009/12/big-12-explains-rule-that-allowed-texas-gamewinning-fg.html#ixzz0vGub7bhr
Walt Anderson comment on how this is now used in training sessions.
Time has not changed his opinion. Anderson remains sure the officials got the call right. He said that call is even now shown to officials at training sessions.
“I think everybody is using that play as an example,” Anderson said. “At the national replay meeting, that’s been used as a training tool.”
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs
Assistant Coach
Regardless of you opinions on the outcome of the review, I don't see why having the review is controversial. How is it not 'egregious'? This is a single call at the end of the game that can potentially change the entire game. That is a BIG call. As the official explained, the difference between 3 seconds and 1 second is nothing. The difference between 1 second and 'end of regulation' is huuuuge.
I don't know what all the rules say, or how the superimposed clock works, but IMO, if the ball hit out of bounds with time on the clock, and that is something the officials are able to determine, then absolutely, in every case, they need to give the game another play. I don't want to win a game because 'the guy who stopped the clock didn't react fast enough to the whistle.' IMO, the play is dead when the play is dead, and under MOST circumstances a couple extra ticks off the clock is irrelevant. So we let it slide because games last long enough as is. But under a game-ending, game-changing circumstance, if you have the power to correctly identify if there's time on the clock or not when the ball becomes dead, then you absolutely have to do it.
I can understand there's some gray area here, but in cases like this, as a personal preference, I'd rather get the short end of the stick. Not cause I like complaining, but because it's no fun at all to win the other way. It does hurt like heck though - because the kicker from Texas didn't miss.
I don't know what all the rules say, or how the superimposed clock works, but IMO, if the ball hit out of bounds with time on the clock, and that is something the officials are able to determine, then absolutely, in every case, they need to give the game another play. I don't want to win a game because 'the guy who stopped the clock didn't react fast enough to the whistle.' IMO, the play is dead when the play is dead, and under MOST circumstances a couple extra ticks off the clock is irrelevant. So we let it slide because games last long enough as is. But under a game-ending, game-changing circumstance, if you have the power to correctly identify if there's time on the clock or not when the ball becomes dead, then you absolutely have to do it.
I can understand there's some gray area here, but in cases like this, as a personal preference, I'd rather get the short end of the stick. Not cause I like complaining, but because it's no fun at all to win the other way. It does hurt like heck though - because the kicker from Texas didn't miss.
Last edited by a moderator:
captain obvious
Starter
See my comment above about clock precision. With the type of clock that they use to time a football game (1 second resolution), a 1 second error in clock management is within measurement error. Thus, a 1 second error is not egregious.
With Walt Anderson going on and on about that egregious error clause, I'm now starting to wonder if they even made a ruling to begin with. It sounds like they didn't know whether to sh#t or go blind in the aftermath of that last play, and didn't have a clue what to do until consulting their all-powerful, yet mysterious "Superimposed Clock."
Egregious: extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake;
1 second of one minute of a sixty minute contest or 3 hours sports game is not egregious. 3600 hundred seconds in this contest and they are saying that 1 extra tick off the clock by humans working a clock is egregious. Inconceivable!!!
I don't have the link but look at the youtube video of the espn highlights. The audio isn't there, you have to watch a replay of the live feed to hear the audio. When you hear the audio with Brent Mushburger, you hear the whistle and clock goes to zero. The official at the 20 is waiving his hands to signal to stop the clock as a referee official is by hand stopping the clock. Since everyone agrees that 1 second is what was put back after the game ended. 1 second cannot be considered egregious.
Basically what Walt Anderson did as a UT grad was to allow for the human element of stopping the clock to be altered and in effect changed the winner of a game. UT should've never put them in that spot but that is on them. When you hear the audio on the live feed it is really just normal clock stoppage and the game goes to zero. I don't think anyone can convince a large portion of the NU fan base that 1 second is egregious.
River-runner
Four-Star Recruit
Payback comes October 16...............Wouldn't it piss off Texas if we brought in Big 10 officials for the Game!!!!
GBR
RiverRunner
zoogs
Assistant Coach
You and I both know not all '1 second's of the game are the same. You tell me then. If that second was not flagrant or glaring, why did it make the difference between a W and an L? The Fiesta Bowl and the Holiday Bowl? Whether or not that second should have ticked off to end the game was a call that had incredibly far-reaching consequences. You and I can disagree about whether they got the call right in the end, but how is that not something to review? It's the same reason you'd review even a clear-cut lost fumble in the last minute of the fourth quarter of a close game. Because it matters.
It's not that it was one second, it's that it was the last second of the game.
I honestly don't know much about the superimposed clocks, etc, etc. But that's not what we are arguing about here; we're talking about whether the review should have happened. I'm still not sure how, given what hung in the balance, you can argue that that 0:01 is too insignificant to be reviewed.
BigWillie
All-Conference
:thumbs
I admit, I laughed.
Link?
This may be a good opportunity to have a chat with some fellow B12'ers.
If you don't want to link it here, due to the vulgarity, you can PM it to me.
huKSer
All-American
shaggy bevo:thumbs
I admit, I laughed.
Link?
This may be a good opportunity to have a chat with some fellow B12'ers.
If you don't want to link it here, due to the vulgarity, you can PM it to me.
I read it a while ago so from memory I erroneously combined posts #345 (video) with #360 and #388 (profanity)
irafreak
All-American
That last bold is what I have the most issue with. How can you determine that the final second of the game is more important than any other second of the game? I don't get it. Sure the last second can be less significant than the other seconds (blowout) but if the last second is still important than every second prior to that was as well. This is why I can't understand how you are allowed to replay a clock official to add time back when you aren't adding time all throughout the game. You add one second at the end and the game changes. You add every single second run off after the whistle is blown and you have time for Nebraska to respond or maybe Nebraska tries to go for a first down on their final third down before kicking the field goal. You have to be consistent in order to be fair. That was not consistent.
Look I'm all for winning out right and blah blah but I don't care which end Nebraska would've been on...it wasn't consistent.
And for comparison...go back and look at the 97 missour/Nebraska flea kicker....Matt Davison catches the ball and the referees run onto the field...there is clearly a second (maybe two) on the clock...it's in columbia...the fans rush the field thinking the game was over....add that second back and missouri has a chance to try something with the kickoff. Consistency.
We got hosed....whether it was intentional or not it was not the right call. I thought it was at first but then realized the refs never made a call and an exception was made that I've never seen before. It was probably just human error by the officials wanting to get it right but they failed to take consistency into the equation. :corndance
zoogs
Assistant Coach
Well, I think the official explained his reasoning for that, and I agree with it for the most part. You can stop time and review every unnecessary runoff second over the course of the game, but that would literally extend the game by hours. And there's usually nothing on the line. There was something on the line at the end of the game. I don't think it's about us or Texas. Not even about the letter of the rules which I'm not well versed in. Just objectively, in a game football, a call that IMO should be made.
whateveritis1224
All-Conference
I think I'd accept the Texas/NU call more if it happened in other big games that ended in similar situations. Michigan/ND and FSU/Miami ended with the clock running off after Tate ran out of bounds and an incomplete pass by FSU. The refs didn't put the extra second back on in either of those games, so Texas was beneficial to an exception and not the rule.
Danimal
All-Conference
I want to go Clockwork Orange on Andrews-make him watch all that holding with toothpicks jamming his eyelids open. Then have him try to explain how those were correct no-calls.
That is one more reason to be happy we will be out of the 12, not having to watch our d-line get absolutely mugged against the south teams.
As far as the one-second goes the refs are within their rights, they can call anything potentially egregious and review if they want to, but if the situation was reversed the game would've just been over. We wouldn't get that call.
zoogs
Assistant Coach
I think this is an excellent point and I was not considering it in comparison to other games, just on its own merit. On those games though, I'd say there should be a second put back either. At the least I feel it's review-worthy.
I really do not think it's a conspiracy. You get the feeling everything is when it happens to your team, but it's no more of a conspiracy than when calls did go our way. I think it's a little unfair to say that if the shoe were on the other foot we wouldn't get the same call. Maybe I'm naive but I'm betting we would. Besides, just for sake of argument, two BCS teams is better for the conference than 1, isn't it?