Big 12 officials head still answering questions on title game call

[HuskerElse]

http://huskerextra.com/articles/2010/07/29/football/doc4c4f93cc6ea8b175212554.txt

 

kinda gets under my skin a few things he says

[zoogs]

I actually thought it was a very clear interview he gave...if we were in that situation, clock gets added back, too. It's just the nature of the situation. That's a game changer. It's like England's goal against Germany that was not counted even though it went past the line. If soccer had reply, they would've, could've, should've corrected that - because that's a goal. If the ball goes out of bounds as somebody dribbles it down the field and the official misses it, then of course it slides. I thought that was a very good explanation of why you take a look at this call instead of at all the 2nd quarter extra clock ticks...

 

It was the right way for the game to end. On a distance field goal where everything hung in the balance, rather than a technicality and a second that drifted away because of slow human reaction time.

[mitch7]

I actually thought it was a very clear interview he gave...if we were in that situation, clock gets added back, too. It's just the nature of the situation. That's a game changer. It's like England's goal against Germany that was not counted even though it went past the line. If soccer had reply, they would've, could've, should've corrected that - because that's a goal. If the ball goes out of bounds as somebody dribbles it down the field and the official misses it, then of course it slides. I thought that was a very good explanation of why you take a look at this call instead of at all the 2nd quarter extra clock ticks...

 

It was the right way for the game to end. On a distance field goal where everything hung in the balance, rather than a technicality and a second that drifted away because of slow human reaction time.

As logical as your comment is......it still hurts so bad.

[HuskerElse]

you make a good point... but would it have been a game changer if the roles were reversed and we were the ones who lost a second?

[captain obvious]

He's never explained how they could be certain that the "superimposed clock" was synced up with the actual game action, to within less error than +/- 1 second.

 

This is why I have a problem with this call. I don't think replay allows for precise reviews in this situation. It's great for slowing things down and deciding whether or not a receiver got a foot in bounds on a catch, if a ball carrier crossed the plane of the goal line, etc. But when they bust out their "superimposed clock," I call BS.

 

Edit: I don't recall, was the clock stopped before pony got the snap? If the clock was running all the way up to and through the snap, it would be even harder to sync the game clock to the replay footage. I'd also be curious to find out if they were sure that the game clock was correctly in sync with the stadium clock before that play.

[captain obvious]

Yeah, I just found a clip on Youtube. The clock ran for pretty much the last minute and a half of that game.

[HUSKER 37]

As much as I hate losing a game to a team like Texas..A win due to slopy time keeping would've felt mighty empty.

[captain obvious]

Somebody please explain to me how they take two completely independent sets of footage (game vs. clock) and superimpose them to within millisecond accuracy. Please.

 

Maybe it's obvious and I'm missing it. But as far as I understand, the actual, unimpeachable game clock is not visible in the stadium. Right? That means that there is no way to pinpoint an exact moment of footage relative to the proper game clock. So how do they superimpose this clock over the replay footage? If they're using the stadium clock (which we all know does not correlate to the official game clock very well at most points in the game) as the reference point for syncing up the footage, then I would guess that the error in this footage could be significant.

 

I'm not talking sh#t about conspiracies. Just curious. The whole call was based on this clock. How was the footage put together? Is there a consistent process for creating reviewable footage? What is the accuracy?

 

Furthermore, if you've taken any kind of science lab in your school-going lifetime, you know that the precision of your measurement is limited by the resolution of the readout on your measurement device. The "superimposed clock" that we saw on TV had a resolution of 1 second. Hence, a 1 second discrepancy in clock management is within measurement error. It was scientifically incorrect of them to add that second if they didn't have a readout with greater resolution than 1 second.

[BigWillie]

I've had one simple problem with the call --

 

What was the original call? Did the officials declare the game over, and then go back to overturn it? We were never clued it about this. But since replay was used, one is only to assume that was the call.

 

Now, since we are going to replay, the evidence must show without question that the call should be overturned.

 

In that play, we saw the ball clearly hit the ground with 1 second left. That is not even debatable. However, the clock is not required to stop exactly when the ball hits the ground. In those situations, the clock only stops when ..

 

A.) The referee signals the play is dead, by waving his arms

 

B.) The football hits an object, other than the field (i.e., person, cart, barrier), after it is incomplete

 

If you remember correctly, the officials stated that there was clear video evidence of the football hitting a rail. To this day, I have not seen one single replay that can show beyond a doubt that the football hit a railing, which would have ended the play.

 

In fact, as a I typed this, I went back and pulled a 1080p version of this play from YouTube. After watching this, there was no way in heck the ball hit a railing. A Husker fan was behind the railing, reaching over trying to grab the football as it went by him after it hit the ground. The ONLY thing the ball could have hit was some random guy in a grey suit. But since some camera guy was on his knees in front of him, there was no way you could see the ball hitting him either.

 

In summary, eff you B12. Goodbye.

[HUSKER 37]

I've had one simple problem with the call --

 

What was the original call? Did the officials declare the game over, and then go back to overturn it? We were never clued it about this. But since replay was used, one is only to assume that was the call.

 

...

 

 

That's where I feel the officials may have made a mistake and would be curious how they treat that in their training sessions..I don't think a call was made on the field prior to studying replay footage.

[kansas husker]

I've had one simple problem with the call --

 

What was the original call? Did the officials declare the game over, and then go back to overturn it? We were never clued it about this. But since replay was used, one is only to assume that was the call.

 

...

 

 

That's where I feel the officials may have made a mistake and would be curious how they treat that in their training sessions..I don't think a call was made on the field prior to studying replay footage.

 

correct, well if the call was made it was not announced. The ref simply said "the call on the field is under review". I'm almsot over it, its fun to get texas fans riled up about, but other than that it just makes me angry.

[HuskersGJ]

As I've said before. If the time clock was open to replay review at the end of the 2009 Championship game then why wasn't that option available at halftime of the CU game in 2005?

 

Obviously the game situations were very different. but the specifics were similar. Stadium clock running down. Incomplete pass (spiked ball in '05). was there time left for a FG try?

 

2005 maybe. but its not open for replay.

2009 maybe. Where's the replay booth?

[Captain K]

Somehow I expected to see dates from Dec 2009 on these posts.

[RedDenver]

I'm okay with the added second actually - sure, it hurts, but it seems like the right call to me. My problem is that the play before Colt throws the ball away, Suh gets absolutely tackled in the backfield - no call. It should have been a 10 yard holding call, and then UT is trying a 55 yard FG.

[shyndy]

As much as I hate losing a game to a team like Texas..A win due to slopy time keeping would've felt mighty empty.

Normally I'd agree with you but we got screwed harder than the one second fiasco in that game. Those two terrible DPI we got changed the game more than the call at the end of the game.