Arkansas Sports Writer thoughts on Texas Game

[FullMetalPiglet]

I write a weekly sports column in Arkansas. I thought you might be interested in it. Below is the excerpt from my column about your game:

 

Review, I Still Hate It.

The Texas-Nebraska game was another quick reminder of why I hate reviews. If you did not see the game, the Texas coach lost his mind and decided to run a play with 8 seconds left with the clock still running (shades of LSU) while his team was in easy field goal range for the win. The Texas quarterback ran to the sideline being chased and hurled the ball way out of bounds. The clock read zero. Nebraska celebrated what it thought was a 12-10 victory.

 

The play was reviewed and the ball did hit the ground out of bounds with maybe a second left on the clock (if the clock keeper’s hand can be that accurate watching a ball hit the ground). Texas benefited from a technicality and got one second back on the clock, which is all they needed to get the field-goal team on the field for the game-winning field goal and win 13-12.

 

I then argued over this call that was reversed by review with friends. They were saying the call was correct. My position was that seconds are lost all the time during the game and nobody cares because the clock guys hands are just a second slow. All of a sudden when it matters for Texas we’re going to get technical to the Longhorns’ advantage. I charged that every play during the game should be reviewed to ensure the exact time is kept. They said that was ludicrous and I countered what just happened was bias under equal protection. I said if that play happened at any other point in the game, is it corrected? And they said probably not. They still maintained the refs got the call right. I then countered one more time. If it were the Hogs and the positions were reversed with Texas on defense and the Hogs on offense and the clock ran out, do you think the Hogs would get the second back on the clock? They fell silent.

 

 

My latest book, “The Economics of Sex,” is now available on Amazon.

 

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

[Husker Richard]

basically echoing the same sentiments that most fans on here share.

[Vince from ShamWOW]

basically echoing the same sentiments that knowledgeable football fans share.

 

 

Fixed it for you.

[schuhbdoo]

I write a weekly sports column in Arkansas. I thought you might be interested in it. Below is the excerpt from my column about your game:

 

Review, I Still Hate It.

The Texas-Nebraska game was another quick reminder of why I hate reviews. If you did not see the game, the Texas coach lost his mind and decided to run a play with 8 seconds left with the clock still running (shades of LSU) while his team was in easy field goal range for the win. The Texas quarterback ran to the sideline being chased and hurled the ball way out of bounds. The clock read zero. Nebraska celebrated what it thought was a 12-10 victory.

 

The play was reviewed and the ball did hit the ground out of bounds with maybe a second left on the clock (if the clock keeper’s hand can be that accurate watching a ball hit the ground). Texas benefited from a technicality and got one second back on the clock, which is all they needed to get the field-goal team on the field for the game-winning field goal and win 13-12.

 

I then argued over this call that was reversed by review with friends. They were saying the call was correct. My position was that seconds are lost all the time during the game and nobody cares because the clock guys hands are just a second slow. All of a sudden when it matters for Texas we’re going to get technical to the Longhorns’ advantage. I charged that every play during the game should be reviewed to ensure the exact time is kept. They said that was ludicrous and I countered what just happened was bias under equal protection. I said if that play happened at any other point in the game, is it corrected? And they said probably not. They still maintained the refs got the call right. I then countered one more time. If it were the Hogs and the positions were reversed with Texas on defense and the Hogs on offense and the clock ran out, do you think the Hogs would get the second back on the clock? They fell silent.

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

 

Good take. I was under the impression that since it was a human stopping the clock it shouldn't be reviewable and who is to say when he/she should've stopped it. We heard the official that made the decision is a graduate of the University of Texas. Can you mention that in your column? If the Texas D was on the field it would of been ruled no time, game over. This had a lot to do with the BCS too. Big money at stake. Also, the take I really have on this, Bo Polini didn't try to get a 3rd and 4 with a play action pass and then run if it wasn't there. You get the first down and run the clock to almost zero or less than 30 seconds. You get that first down you can run three sneaks up the middle and milk the clock. They only had two timeouts. One gets used on 1 down. One on second and then 40 seconds gets used on 3rd down. You get a first down again, you get to run the clock to 3 seconds. You can't give McCoy, who has 44 wins a minute 1:43 on the clock. He now has 45 wins.

[FullMetalPiglet]

I write a weekly sports column in Arkansas. I thought you might be interested in it. Below is the excerpt from my column about your game:

 

Review, I Still Hate It.

The Texas-Nebraska game was another quick reminder of why I hate reviews. If you did not see the game, the Texas coach lost his mind and decided to run a play with 8 seconds left with the clock still running (shades of LSU) while his team was in easy field goal range for the win. The Texas quarterback ran to the sideline being chased and hurled the ball way out of bounds. The clock read zero. Nebraska celebrated what it thought was a 12-10 victory.

 

The play was reviewed and the ball did hit the ground out of bounds with maybe a second left on the clock (if the clock keeper’s hand can be that accurate watching a ball hit the ground). Texas benefited from a technicality and got one second back on the clock, which is all they needed to get the field-goal team on the field for the game-winning field goal and win 13-12.

 

I then argued over this call that was reversed by review with friends. They were saying the call was correct. My position was that seconds are lost all the time during the game and nobody cares because the clock guys hands are just a second slow. All of a sudden when it matters for Texas we’re going to get technical to the Longhorns’ advantage. I charged that every play during the game should be reviewed to ensure the exact time is kept. They said that was ludicrous and I countered what just happened was bias under equal protection. I said if that play happened at any other point in the game, is it corrected? And they said probably not. They still maintained the refs got the call right. I then countered one more time. If it were the Hogs and the positions were reversed with Texas on defense and the Hogs on offense and the clock ran out, do you think the Hogs would get the second back on the clock? They fell silent.

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

 

Good take. I was under the impression that since it was a human stopping the clock it shouldn't be reviewable and who is to say when he/she should've stopped it. We heard the official that made the decision is a graduate of the University of Texas. Can you mention that in your column? If the Texas D was on the field it would of been ruled no time, game over. This had a lot to do with the BCS too. Big money at stake. Also, the take I really have on this, Bo Polini didn't try to get a 3rd and 4 with a play action pass and then run if it wasn't there. You get the first down and run the clock to almost zero or less than 30 seconds. You get that first down you can run three sneaks up the middle and milk the clock. They only had two timeouts. One gets used on 1 down. One on second and then 40 seconds gets used on 3rd down. You get a first down again, you get to run the clock to 3 seconds. You can't give McCoy, who has 44 wins a minute 1:43 on the clock. He now has 45 wins.

 

The kick out of bounds was fatal putting Texas at the 40.

[NCHorn]

I write a weekly sports column in Arkansas. I thought you might be interested in it. Below is the excerpt from my column about your game:

 

Review, I Still Hate It.

The Texas-Nebraska game was another quick reminder of why I hate reviews. If you did not see the game, the Texas coach lost his mind and decided to run a play with 8 seconds left with the clock still running (shades of LSU) while his team was in easy field goal range for the win. The Texas quarterback ran to the sideline being chased and hurled the ball way out of bounds. The clock read zero. Nebraska celebrated what it thought was a 12-10 victory.

 

The play was reviewed and the ball did hit the ground out of bounds with maybe a second left on the clock (if the clock keeper’s hand can be that accurate watching a ball hit the ground). Texas benefited from a technicality and got one second back on the clock, which is all they needed to get the field-goal team on the field for the game-winning field goal and win 13-12.

 

I then argued over this call that was reversed by review with friends. They were saying the call was correct. My position was that seconds are lost all the time during the game and nobody cares because the clock guys hands are just a second slow. All of a sudden when it matters for Texas we’re going to get technical to the Longhorns’ advantage. I charged that every play during the game should be reviewed to ensure the exact time is kept. They said that was ludicrous and I countered what just happened was bias under equal protection. I said if that play happened at any other point in the game, is it corrected? And they said probably not. They still maintained the refs got the call right. I then countered one more time. If it were the Hogs and the positions were reversed with Texas on defense and the Hogs on offense and the clock ran out, do you think the Hogs would get the second back on the clock? They fell silent.

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

Your reasoning is flawed; the basic question to be asked is "what are the rules" and the rules were in fact followed as they should have been. Your questioning whether the replay is used to check the accuracy of the clock stoppageon every play is like asking if referees use replay to spot the ball ON EVERY DOWN...of course they don't, because in the flow of the game that would be ridiculous and everyone understands this. Conversely, on the LAST PLAY OF THE GAME, when a decision on when to stop the clock very likely decides the outcome of a game, you can and in fact should review . Apart from this, referees have the authority to add and subtract seconds at any point during the game, irrespective of replay.

[FullMetalPiglet]

I write a weekly sports column in Arkansas. I thought you might be interested in it. Below is the excerpt from my column about your game:

 

Review, I Still Hate It.

The Texas-Nebraska game was another quick reminder of why I hate reviews. If you did not see the game, the Texas coach lost his mind and decided to run a play with 8 seconds left with the clock still running (shades of LSU) while his team was in easy field goal range for the win. The Texas quarterback ran to the sideline being chased and hurled the ball way out of bounds. The clock read zero. Nebraska celebrated what it thought was a 12-10 victory.

 

The play was reviewed and the ball did hit the ground out of bounds with maybe a second left on the clock (if the clock keeper’s hand can be that accurate watching a ball hit the ground). Texas benefited from a technicality and got one second back on the clock, which is all they needed to get the field-goal team on the field for the game-winning field goal and win 13-12.

 

I then argued over this call that was reversed by review with friends. They were saying the call was correct. My position was that seconds are lost all the time during the game and nobody cares because the clock guys hands are just a second slow. All of a sudden when it matters for Texas we’re going to get technical to the Longhorns’ advantage. I charged that every play during the game should be reviewed to ensure the exact time is kept. They said that was ludicrous and I countered what just happened was bias under equal protection. I said if that play happened at any other point in the game, is it corrected? And they said probably not. They still maintained the refs got the call right. I then countered one more time. If it were the Hogs and the positions were reversed with Texas on defense and the Hogs on offense and the clock ran out, do you think the Hogs would get the second back on the clock? They fell silent.

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

Your reasoning is flawed; the basic question to be asked is "what are the rules" and the rules were in fact followed as they should have been. Your questioning whether the replay is used to check the accuracy of the clock stoppageon every play is like asking if referees use replay to spot the ball ON EVERY DOWN...of course they don't, because in the flow of the game that would be ridiculous and everyone understands this. Conversely, on the LAST PLAY OF THE GAME, when a decision on when to stop the clock very likely decides the outcome of a game, you can and in fact should review . Apart from this, referees have the authority to add and subtract seconds at any point during the game, irrespective of replay.

 

In my column, I never argued if the call was correct. The problem arises when you use rules only sometimes when it advantages or disadvantageous another. Rules not uniformly applied will always get you in trouble in a court of law because it screams discrimination.

 

My latest book, “The Economics of Sex,” is now available on Amazon.

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

[MUTigerFan]

I write a weekly sports column in Arkansas. I thought you might be interested in it. Below is the excerpt from my column about your game:

 

Review, I Still Hate It.

The Texas-Nebraska game was another quick reminder of why I hate reviews. If you did not see the game, the Texas coach lost his mind and decided to run a play with 8 seconds left with the clock still running (shades of LSU) while his team was in easy field goal range for the win. The Texas quarterback ran to the sideline being chased and hurled the ball way out of bounds. The clock read zero. Nebraska celebrated what it thought was a 12-10 victory.

 

The play was reviewed and the ball did hit the ground out of bounds with maybe a second left on the clock (if the clock keeper’s hand can be that accurate watching a ball hit the ground). Texas benefited from a technicality and got one second back on the clock, which is all they needed to get the field-goal team on the field for the game-winning field goal and win 13-12.

 

I then argued over this call that was reversed by review with friends. They were saying the call was correct. My position was that seconds are lost all the time during the game and nobody cares because the clock guys hands are just a second slow. All of a sudden when it matters for Texas we’re going to get technical to the Longhorns’ advantage. I charged that every play during the game should be reviewed to ensure the exact time is kept. They said that was ludicrous and I countered what just happened was bias under equal protection. I said if that play happened at any other point in the game, is it corrected? And they said probably not. They still maintained the refs got the call right. I then countered one more time. If it were the Hogs and the positions were reversed with Texas on defense and the Hogs on offense and the clock ran out, do you think the Hogs would get the second back on the clock? They fell silent.

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

Your reasoning is flawed; the basic question to be asked is "what are the rules" and the rules were in fact followed as they should have been. Your questioning whether the replay is used to check the accuracy of the clock stoppageon every play is like asking if referees use replay to spot the ball ON EVERY DOWN...of course they don't, because in the flow of the game that would be ridiculous and everyone understands this. Conversely, on the LAST PLAY OF THE GAME, when a decision on when to stop the clock very likely decides the outcome of a game, you can and in fact should review . Apart from this, referees have the authority to add and subtract seconds at any point during the game, irrespective of replay.

 

In my column, I never argued if the call was correct. The problem arises when you use rules only sometimes when it advantages or disadvantageous another. Rules not uniformly applied will always get you in trouble in a court of law because it screams discrimination.

 

My latest book, “The Economics of Sex,” is now available on Amazon.

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

 

 

This has probably already been posted, but it's a good article about how the rules are NOT uniformly enforced.

http://omaha.com/article/20091208/BIGRED/712089842/0/bigred

 

when you get down to the final play or final few seconds, then that microscope really gets tight or tough, and it's imperative that you elevate to perfection on those type of things.''

 

Same way you they don't drag out the chains to measure 2nd and 7 but they do if a first down is at stake.

[FullMetalPiglet]

I write a weekly sports column in Arkansas. I thought you might be interested in it. Below is the excerpt from my column about your game:

 

Review, I Still Hate It.

The Texas-Nebraska game was another quick reminder of why I hate reviews. If you did not see the game, the Texas coach lost his mind and decided to run a play with 8 seconds left with the clock still running (shades of LSU) while his team was in easy field goal range for the win. The Texas quarterback ran to the sideline being chased and hurled the ball way out of bounds. The clock read zero. Nebraska celebrated what it thought was a 12-10 victory.

 

The play was reviewed and the ball did hit the ground out of bounds with maybe a second left on the clock (if the clock keeper’s hand can be that accurate watching a ball hit the ground). Texas benefited from a technicality and got one second back on the clock, which is all they needed to get the field-goal team on the field for the game-winning field goal and win 13-12.

 

I then argued over this call that was reversed by review with friends. They were saying the call was correct. My position was that seconds are lost all the time during the game and nobody cares because the clock guys hands are just a second slow. All of a sudden when it matters for Texas we’re going to get technical to the Longhorns’ advantage. I charged that every play during the game should be reviewed to ensure the exact time is kept. They said that was ludicrous and I countered what just happened was bias under equal protection. I said if that play happened at any other point in the game, is it corrected? And they said probably not. They still maintained the refs got the call right. I then countered one more time. If it were the Hogs and the positions were reversed with Texas on defense and the Hogs on offense and the clock ran out, do you think the Hogs would get the second back on the clock? They fell silent.

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

Your reasoning is flawed; the basic question to be asked is "what are the rules" and the rules were in fact followed as they should have been. Your questioning whether the replay is used to check the accuracy of the clock stoppageon every play is like asking if referees use replay to spot the ball ON EVERY DOWN...of course they don't, because in the flow of the game that would be ridiculous and everyone understands this. Conversely, on the LAST PLAY OF THE GAME, when a decision on when to stop the clock very likely decides the outcome of a game, you can and in fact should review . Apart from this, referees have the authority to add and subtract seconds at any point during the game, irrespective of replay.

 

In my column, I never argued if the call was correct. The problem arises when you use rules only sometimes when it advantages or disadvantageous another. Rules not uniformly applied will always get you in trouble in a court of law because it screams discrimination.

 

My latest book, “The Economics of Sex,” is now available on Amazon.

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

 

 

This has probably already been posted, but it's a good article about how the rules are NOT uniformly enforced.

http://omaha.com/article/20091208/BIGRED/712089842/0/bigred

 

when you get down to the final play or final few seconds, then that microscope really gets tight or tough, and it's imperative that you elevate to perfection on those type of things.''

 

Same way you they don't drag out the chains to measure 2nd and 7 but they do if a first down is at stake.

 

I find your example lacking. On second and 7 its empirical that its not a first down. The proper comparison would be if its fourth and an inch and the entire game on close measurements the officials brought out the sticks but on the last time at the end of the game they did not bring out the sticks and guessed thus not applying the rule uniformly. That's what happend.

 

My latest book, “The Economics of Sex,” is now available on Amazon.

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

[Husker Richard]

interesting comment at the end of that OWH article.

 

Why didn't they review the beginning of the play? Did the scorekeeper start the clock immediately upon the referee whistling the ball in play or was there a fraction of a second delay? If you can review the timing of the clock being STOPPED to within a fraction of a second, shouldn't you also review to make sure the clock was STARTED within a fraction of a second? If you're going to review and split hairs, you have to look at both ends of the clock operator's actions.

[FullMetalPiglet]

interesting comment at the end of that OWH article.

 

Why didn't they review the beginning of the play? Did the scorekeeper start the clock immediately upon the referee whistling the ball in play or was there a fraction of a second delay? If you can review the timing of the clock being STOPPED to within a fraction of a second, shouldn't you also review to make sure the clock was STARTED within a fraction of a second? If you're going to review and split hairs, you have to look at both ends of the clock operator's actions.

 

Agreed and that is why the call was discriminating because it was not uniformly applied, but only when it advantaged one team.

 

 

My latest book, “The Economics of Sex,” is now available on Amazon.

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

[Joe_5700]

I write a weekly sports column in Arkansas. I thought you might be interested in it. Below is the excerpt from my column about your game:

 

Review, I Still Hate It.

The Texas-Nebraska game was another quick reminder of why I hate reviews. If you did not see the game, the Texas coach lost his mind and decided to run a play with 8 seconds left with the clock still running (shades of LSU) while his team was in easy field goal range for the win. The Texas quarterback ran to the sideline being chased and hurled the ball way out of bounds. The clock read zero. Nebraska celebrated what it thought was a 12-10 victory.

 

The play was reviewed and the ball did hit the ground out of bounds with maybe a second left on the clock (if the clock keeper’s hand can be that accurate watching a ball hit the ground). Texas benefited from a technicality and got one second back on the clock, which is all they needed to get the field-goal team on the field for the game-winning field goal and win 13-12.

 

I then argued over this call that was reversed by review with friends. They were saying the call was correct. My position was that seconds are lost all the time during the game and nobody cares because the clock guys hands are just a second slow. All of a sudden when it matters for Texas we’re going to get technical to the Longhorns’ advantage. I charged that every play during the game should be reviewed to ensure the exact time is kept. They said that was ludicrous and I countered what just happened was bias under equal protection. I said if that play happened at any other point in the game, is it corrected? And they said probably not. They still maintained the refs got the call right. I then countered one more time. If it were the Hogs and the positions were reversed with Texas on defense and the Hogs on offense and the clock ran out, do you think the Hogs would get the second back on the clock? They fell silent.

 

My latest book, “The Economics of Sex,” is now available on Amazon.

 

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

 

 

There is no way that second would get put back on ther clock for Nebraska. No F-ing way it would have happened. The Big12 wanted to field a NC team and that is that.

[wojo9457]

how bout when texas shows up next year, that when the first pass sails out of bounds for texas, bo throws the challenge flag out on the field to challenge the time on the clock. bet that would get a roar out of the fans!

[FullMetalPiglet]

I write a weekly sports column in Arkansas. I thought you might be interested in it. Below is the excerpt from my column about your game:

 

Review, I Still Hate It.

The Texas-Nebraska game was another quick reminder of why I hate reviews. If you did not see the game, the Texas coach lost his mind and decided to run a play with 8 seconds left with the clock still running (shades of LSU) while his team was in easy field goal range for the win. The Texas quarterback ran to the sideline being chased and hurled the ball way out of bounds. The clock read zero. Nebraska celebrated what it thought was a 12-10 victory.

 

The play was reviewed and the ball did hit the ground out of bounds with maybe a second left on the clock (if the clock keeper’s hand can be that accurate watching a ball hit the ground). Texas benefited from a technicality and got one second back on the clock, which is all they needed to get the field-goal team on the field for the game-winning field goal and win 13-12.

 

I then argued over this call that was reversed by review with friends. They were saying the call was correct. My position was that seconds are lost all the time during the game and nobody cares because the clock guys hands are just a second slow. All of a sudden when it matters for Texas we’re going to get technical to the Longhorns’ advantage. I charged that every play during the game should be reviewed to ensure the exact time is kept. They said that was ludicrous and I countered what just happened was bias under equal protection. I said if that play happened at any other point in the game, is it corrected? And they said probably not. They still maintained the refs got the call right. I then countered one more time. If it were the Hogs and the positions were reversed with Texas on defense and the Hogs on offense and the clock ran out, do you think the Hogs would get the second back on the clock? They fell silent.

 

My latest book, “The Economics of Sex,” is now available on Amazon.

 

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

 

 

There is no way that second would get put back on ther clock for Nebraska. No F-ing way it would have happened. The Big12 wanted to field a NC team and that is that.

 

I wonder if Bo stays up at night thinking about what if I would have just pulled my team off the field and headed to the locker room like it was over.

 

My latest book, “The Economics of Sex,” is now available on Amazon.

 

 

www.fruitbatbooks.com

[cscott2win]

Nobody ever stated what the official time on the field was. The refs keep the official time. Why would they review the scoreclock or ABC's tv time if they had a second left according to their OFFICIAL time? Just doesn't add up. If they are in charge of the official time they should have just stated to put another second on the clock. All other means of keping track of time are not official.