Bought off refs = Texas win.

[speedtoburn]

Limitations on Reviewable Plays

ARTICLE 6. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable.

However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those

involving the game clock Texas losing, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes

fouls that are not specifically reviewable (Reviewable fouls: Rules 12-3-2-c

and d, 12-3-4-b and 12-3-5-a).

 

 

I gotta say I love that graphic...but as to replays, as a Texas fan, I have no idea how they figured where to spot the ball on the first series (after you guys intercepted our pass) on the 4th down play. I mean it might have been right as it did appear that the runner was on top of a longhorn but how the heck did they determine where he really was? As I saw that I wondered if there has to be conclusive evidence of the need for the respot AND where the actual spot is. I have a real problem with this type of replay reversal as well as those when they are trying to determine if the ball broke the goal line. Most of the time they do not have an angle that I would say provides conclusive evidence to change the ruling but it almost seems like more and more they are making these judgements on review.......as I said in a thread I started, good hard game and you guys have an awesome defense. I am not sure we deserved to win but thats how it goes sometimes....you can get some payback next October 16...

 

Go away, nobody wants your sympathy.

 

Your pathetic team was given the game, we'll see you f'ers next year.

[Twodocs]

You may want to watch Fox,s cable sports news Big 12 program you can set the ddr to record it Joel Klatt and Corby Jones said they watched the clock go to zero and then the ball hit the ground at thier feet on the sideline

[dutch91701]

EDIT: Deleted post.

[dutch91701]

Big 12 Rules

Section 3. Reviewable Plays

Side Line, Goal Line, End Line

Article 1. Reviewable plays governed by a sideline, goal line or an end line include:

a. Scoring plays, including a runner in possession of a live ball breaking the plane of a goal line.

b. A pass ruled complete, incomplete or intercepted at a side line, goal line or an end line.

c. A runner or pass receiver ruled in or out of bounds.

d. Recovery of a loose ball in or out of bounds in the field of play or an end zone.

Passes

Article 2. Reviewable plays involving passes include:

a. A pass ruled complete, incomplete or intercepted anywhere in the field of play or an end zone.

b. A legal forward pass touched by an ineligible receiver.

c. A legal forward pass touched by a defensive player.

d. A fumble ruled on the part of a potential passer. (Note: If the on-field ruling is forward pass and the pass is incomplete, the play is not reviewable).

e. A forward pass or forward handing ruled when a runner is beyond the line of scrimmage.

f. A forward pass or forward handing ruled after a change of possession.

g. A pass ruled forward or backward when thrown from behind the line of scrimmage. (Exception: If the pass is ruled forward and is incomplete, the play is not reviewable).

Miscellaneous

Article 3. Miscellaneous reviewable plays include:

a. A runner judged to have been not down by rule. (Note: If a runner is ruled down, the play is not reviewable).

b. A runner’s forward progress with respect to a first down.

c. Touching of any type kick by any player.

d. The number of players participating by either team during a live ball.

e. A scrimmage kicker beyond the line of scrimmage when the ball is kicked.

f. Clock adjustment when a ruling on the field is reversed.

g. A fumble recovery by a Team A player during fourth down or a try and before any change of possession.

[zoogs]

Limitations on Reviewable Plays

ARTICLE 6. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable.

However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those

involving the game clock Texas losing, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes

fouls that are not specifically reviewable (Reviewable fouls: Rules 12-3-2-c

and d, 12-3-4-b and 12-3-5-a).

 

 

I gotta say I love that graphic...but as to replays, as a Texas fan, I have no idea how they figured where to spot the ball on the first series (after you guys intercepted our pass) on the 4th down play. I mean it might have been right as it did appear that the runner was on top of a longhorn but how the heck did they determine where he really was? As I saw that I wondered if there has to be conclusive evidence of the need for the respot AND where the actual spot is. I have a real problem with this type of replay reversal as well as those when they are trying to determine if the ball broke the goal line. Most of the time they do not have an angle that I would say provides conclusive evidence to change the ruling but it almost seems like more and more they are making these judgements on review.......as I said in a thread I started, good hard game and you guys have an awesome defense. I am not sure we deserved to win but thats how it goes sometimes....you can get some payback next October 16...

 

Go away, nobody wants your sympathy.

 

Your pathetic team was given the game, we'll see you f'ers next year.

 

classy husker fans...at our best.

[nemajordude]

Limitations on Reviewable Plays

ARTICLE 6. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable.

However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those

involving the game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes

fouls that are not specifically reviewable (Reviewable fouls: Rules 12-3-2-c

and d, 12-3-4-b and 12-3-5-a).

 

 

Mind saying where that comes from?

 

Cause its not in anything I posted...

 

 

Ok... I see that you have edited your post to include a source...

 

Now this brings up another problem, because IIRC Conference rules overrule NCAA rules, so then:

 

Plays Not Reviewable

Article 4. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable.

 

Comes into play because nowhere in the Big 12 rules does it say something to the effect of "Any rules not discussed herein will be covered by the NCAA rulebook"

 

So... that means that the play clock is NOT reviewable in Big 12 games

 

But it really should be. (reviewable)

 

Would you really want to win on that technicality?

 

 

But the pass interference call when Colt tried to throw it away..Why was that not reviewable?

 

And what is that..a 30 yd penalty for kicking the ball out of bounds?

 

 

 

 

 

The better (overall) team won.

 

Whether it should be reviewable is irrelevant. It's not. And it was not a technicality, it was a bonehead play by their QB followed by a possible mistake by the time keeping official. As I posted before in this (merged) thread, either UT gets screwed or NU gets screwed. The play should not have been reviewed.

[dutch91701]

Did anyone else notice the suspiciously long last second as well?

[Stu]

Limitations on Reviewable Plays

ARTICLE 6. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable.

However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those

involving the game clock Texas losing, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes

fouls that are not specifically reviewable (Reviewable fouls: Rules 12-3-2-c

and d, 12-3-4-b and 12-3-5-a).

 

 

I gotta say I love that graphic...but as to replays, as a Texas fan, I have no idea how they figured where to spot the ball on the first series (after you guys intercepted our pass) on the 4th down play. I mean it might have been right as it did appear that the runner was on top of a longhorn but how the heck did they determine where he really was? As I saw that I wondered if there has to be conclusive evidence of the need for the respot AND where the actual spot is. I have a real problem with this type of replay reversal as well as those when they are trying to determine if the ball broke the goal line. Most of the time they do not have an angle that I would say provides conclusive evidence to change the ruling but it almost seems like more and more they are making these judgements on review.......as I said in a thread I started, good hard game and you guys have an awesome defense. I am not sure we deserved to win but thats how it goes sometimes....you can get some payback next October 16...

 

Go away, nobody wants your sympathy.

 

Your pathetic team was given the game, we'll see you f'ers next year.

 

classy husker fans...at our best.

 

From what I've noticed, all the self proclaimed classy fans are the judgmental ones.

 

tell it like it is brothers, the better team lost because TX was given a freebie chance at a win. I now officially hate Texas.

 

I also hate the TX fans patting NU's back right now.

 

Anyone hear if their bus crashed yet? I know I was hoping it did last night...

[kansas husker]

This is what Walt anderson said of the matter

"The play is reviewable because it involves a clock error at a crucial time of the game," Anderson said Anderson said replay officials were looking at the flight of the ball with the clock superimposed on a replay. They ruled the ball hit the ground with one second left"Once we saw it hit something, that was the point at which we stopped the clock," Anderson said

cbs sports

[Nebraska Alum]

let me just remind you guys of 2005 and KU playing TX. There were many phantom calls and a very big BS offensive pass interference call against KU that cost us the game. It was the game where Mangino accused the B12 of cheating to allow TX a chance at going undefeated. I don't remember now how much he got fined for it, but it was all I could think about last night while watching the game. Those last two PI calls down the sideline was utter BS.

Thanks for posting this. There was also a BS call in their "championship" game that year too, which resulted in them getting a touchdown that made the difference in their "win" against USC. They're just cheaters.

[Count 'Bility]

That texas/Kansas game issue was actually in 04, as mangino accused Big 12 of cheating to get Texas the At large bid, due to Oklahoma going to Championship game, which they did, giveing the Conference how many more dollars.

[shyndy]

forget the fiasco at the end of the game, the refs still handed the game to UT via the pass interference calls. they were on 3rd down in spots where UT would have had to punt (i think in one case it would have meant FG try instead of TD), instead keeping scoring drives alive.

[HSKRNOKC]

There is alot of venom in this thread... It can stay here but lets not attack others please.

[HUSKER 37]

They do suck and Bo should be able to submit a complaint, but in the end the offense is TERRIBLE and they lost the game for the Huskers.

 

 

I blame our Defense.

 

Our Defense didn't score once in that game!

[HUSKER 37]

Limitations on Reviewable Plays

ARTICLE 6. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable.

However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those

involving the game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes

fouls that are not specifically reviewable (Reviewable fouls: Rules 12-3-2-c

and d, 12-3-4-b and 12-3-5-a).

 

 

Mind saying where that comes from?

 

Cause its not in anything I posted...

 

 

Ok... I see that you have edited your post to include a source...

 

Now this brings up another problem, because IIRC Conference rules overrule NCAA rules, so then:

 

Plays Not Reviewable

Article 4. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable.

 

Comes into play because nowhere in the Big 12 rules does it say something to the effect of "Any rules not discussed herein will be covered by the NCAA rulebook"

 

So... that means that the play clock is NOT reviewable in Big 12 games

 

But it really should be. (reviewable)

 

Would you really want to win on that technicality?

 

 

But the pass interference call when Colt tried to throw it away..Why was that not reviewable?

 

And what is that..a 30 yd penalty for kicking the ball out of bounds?

 

 

 

 

 

The better (overall) team won.

 

Whether it should be reviewable is irrelevant. It's not. And it was not a technicality, it was a bonehead play by their QB followed by a possible mistake by the time keeping official. As I posted before in this (merged) thread, either UT gets screwed or NU gets screwed. The play should not have been reviewed.

 

The intent of replay is (or should be) to help insure that the call is correct.

The only reason I can see for limiting what you can review is to help keep up the flow of the game.