I thought that too for a while, but in this video you can hear the whistle blow right before #23 even goes into the pile (pretty much at the 10 second mark of the video). After they blow the whistle it doesn't matter who has the ball, does it? If they've already given Oregon possession at that point...then it's just some guy randomly taking the ball after the play is dead.

Pollsters overruling officials? They didn't do it for Colorado's 5th down all those years back. It would set all kinds of precedent, such as actually paying attention to the teams upon whom they vote.

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world ...

If I had a vote in the AP poll, I wouldn’t hesitate to vote Oklahoma ahead of Oregon this week.

Hey, that was my opinion (post #185) in the Seventh Day Adventure thread! :)

Seriously, though, that crew (Referee: David Cutaia; Umpire: Dennis Angel; Linesman: Dan Antonietti; Line judge: Manuel Alonzo; Back judge: Steve Hudson; Field judge: D Spriesterbach; Side judge: David Curschman; plus whoever the replay official was) should be suspended or at least made to learn what "conclusive evidence" means. I'm still shaking my head how the refs saw "conclusive evidence the ball was touched by a receiving team player," which only makes sense IF they didn't understand the rule (the ball was touched by a receiving team player, but only after Oregon touched it first illegally).

Bob Stoops's response. Seems like the Pac-10 will evaluate the calls on Tuesday.

While I didn't get to see the start of the game (or the end, as I went out running with 3 minutes left, what a stupid idea to not TiVo the rest), friends that watched the whole thing said Oklahoma had two calls go their way early in the game that led to touchdowns as well, even after review. Now I have no way of seeing those as I had to watch Louisville crush Miami over the start of the Oregon game, but a bad call early that leads to a TD is as bad as a bad call late that leads to one.

I'm something of a Sooner fan (used to live in Norman OK) and this is two years in a row now where ridiculously horrible (not just bad, but "Polamalu didn't intercept"-awful) officiating has cost them a game. Last year it was the Texas Tech game where the one-yard hash was mistakenly confused for the goal line, and that call was one of those commonly cited for the necessity of replay review. But I guess if you're legally blind, you can't see a television replay either.

With that said, same as last season, Oklahoma is not that good so it's not like this is going to cost them a national title or anything. And I've long since accepted the fact that college officiating is just pretty damned bad in general.

It is absolutely true that the officials got the call wrong in the game. However, that is, in essence, irrelevent in the grand scheme of things, because the scoreboard said 34-33 at the end of the game.

It's much like when the Giants lost in the playoffs a few years back and the NFL said after the game the officials screwed up bigtime in not calling a penalty. Regardless of the mistake, the Giants were out of the playoffs.

The real travesty isn't that the mistake happened, but that the replay official reviewed it and upheld the call. College replay is really messed up. You have some minor issues like the knee in last year's title game, and then you have things like this. There have been numerous borderling overturns and bad calls by review officials this year, almost as if the replay officials think "If I don't overturn enough calls, I'm not justifying my job!"

Unfortunately, this happens quite a bit. The officiating was just as horrible in the Iowa-Florida Outback Bowl last year. Iowa recovered an onsides kick down a score late and the refs mistakenly called the play offsides (see link for a photo). On a couple of occasions, the Florida defense played with 12 men (something the refs never noticed). It is frustrating as a fan but I think you ultimately have to accept that humans make mistakes and that Oklahoma (just like Iowa) still could have won the game. If Stoops doesn't call a bizarre Adrian Peterson run on the last drive, the Sooners might have made that field goal.

Did anyone else feel like they were stoping the game to review every play the past couple of weeks? maybe it's just the games I was watching, but I felt as though some of the plays that were getting reviewed, were silly.

But I thought college officiating was perfect now that every single play was reviewed? (I mean, that's what all the announcers have been telling me since the start of the season.) I think they're worse off now than if they'd never introduced replay.

#1: I fail to see how blowing the play dead prematurely is any better than simply missing who recoverd the ball. It's lousy officiating either way.

I agree that replay seems to be particularly ineffective this year. As a Big Ten fan, it seemed to work much better when it was first introduced by the conference. Now, some plays that should be reviewed are ignored and some plays that don't need to be reviewed cause two-minute delays. Even when a play is reviewed, there is no guarantee the call will actually be correct. I have no idea why implementing a workable and logical replay system is impossible but it seems to be.

#9: it's not. But it's not the OMG crisis that a lot of people have pointed it out to be, and the more important fact is that that aspect of it couldn't have been reviewed.

Still, it sucks; I didn't want the Ducks to win with such stupid refereeing either. Oklahoma definitely got screwed by two calls, though the reffing was bad all game (there were two obvious PI noncalls and a couple of horrible calls early against the Ducks that gave Oklahoma a few legs up too).

Just hope this crew doesn't work again.

I thought a better story was the link on the side about "Barnett feels some vindication". It's about Classy Gary Banett feeling smug and happy because Colorado sucks this year for another coach. He feels kinda bad for his guys, of course, but Dan Hawkins? Screw him.

But the best note is at the end, when they bring up the possibility of him succeeding Fisher DeBerry at Air Force. He says he isn't sure, and adds something about having a ton of respect for the program. Reading between the lines, I take that to mean "Gary Barnett respects Air Force so much, he knows they deserve better than Gary Barnett."

Winning on a crappy call (on non-call) does suck, but it's easier than losing on a crappy call. I feel sorry for the Sooner fans, but the fact that Oregon was even in the game with less than 2 minutes to go was something of a miracle. In the first half Oregon dominated, but only led by a TD. And in the second half there were 3 killer turnovers that led to the (almost) Oklahoma rout. Bad call on the onside kick. (I felt the PI call was bad, but not game-changing, just the sort of run-of-the-mill bad officiating one gets used to in college.) But what was Oklahoma doing playing bump-and-run man coverage with less than a minute to go up by 6? Where else is the pass going to go?

I'm curious. If I remember correctly, one the changes implemented lately in college ball was the timing rules in order to make a faster game. However, it sounds like that purpose is defeated if there are all these reviews going on. Thoughts?

I agree on the pass interference call-- bad officiating happens. I just have a real problem when the refs can't get an obvious call correct on replay review. And given that this was a Pac-10 crew working in front of a frothing Pac-10 home crowd, you really have to wonder if bias comes into play here ("if we overturn this, we're going to get lynched"). But I'm willing to consider any other possible explanation up to and including that the replay official is physically unable to see his hand in front of his own face. OU is undoubtedly going to get an apology and the crew will be suspended, but that doesn't change anything, except maybe make for a better-officiated upcoming Pac-10 game, which does nothing for OU.

The officiating in this game was terrible all the way through, and Oregon at times was also the recipient of ill luck. Oklahoma scored a touchdown by virture of an uncalled offensive PI, and the replay officials spent quite some time trying to spot a ball after an Oklahoma receiver had gone out of bounds and somehow ended up giving him five extra yards. That latter call didn't have a huge impact on the game (the offensive PI touchdown did to a larger degree), but the officiating on the field and in the booth was inept all-around.

Were there any foreign dignitaries in the crowd? Are we sure that David Cutaia wasn't knocked out in the locker room and replaced by Lieutenant Frank Drebin in the fourth quarter?

The onside kick review call was terrible. Didn't have as much of a problem with the PI, it was borderline and I thought was inconclusive as to whether it was tipped, and at least in the NFL, it would have been illegal contact past the 5 yards, if the pass had been thrown elsewhere. IIRC, OU also got away with a 2-arm extended push off on a long TD catch earlier in the game, so it's not like it all went against them.

And before we go sainting the Sooners, how about some of the things in their control that they failed to do, which a good team would have done, to win the game at the end:

1) By my recollection, Adrian Peterson ran out of bounds, when he could have turned it back inside or simply gone down voluntarily to keep the clock running, at least 3, maybe more, times on the drive where they were already winning by 10 with less than 5 minutes left. How much time was left when Oregon scored the second touchdown? There shouldn't have even been any onside kick to begin with had Peterson had any kind of game awareness.

2) They gave up a fairly easy scoring drive to Oregon to cut it to 6;

3) They played stupid pass coverage for the situation, just needing to prevent a TD and keep the plays in front of them and in bounds in the final 30 seconds, how you have singled up coverage with 1 deep middle safety in that situation I have no idea;

4) After the long kick return with 30 seconds left, Stoops had Schottenheimer-itis, apparently believing a 40+ yard field goal was a gimme, and making no effort to get closer, running exactly one play before the field goal attempt.

One possible change that this will cause is the Pac-10 allowing visiting non-conf teams to bring their own officiating crews. The Pac-10 was already a standout before this; this issue might make it easier to get that changed.

If they _don't_ do that, I worry about the Pac-10 actually being able to schedule teams to come to Pac-10 games. They'll just look at Oklahoma and say 'no way - I'm not playing both a hostile crowd AND a hostile reffing group'.

The thing about the Pac-10 using their own officials surprised me. I know that in the USC/Notre Dame series, played each year, they use the opposition referees (Notre Dame brings Big 10 referees to USC, USC brings Pac 10 referees to Notre Dame). I figured it was that way for all nonconference games (as it is in other conferences).

I guess for the Pac 10, the USC/ND annual series is an outlier.

#12: Gary Barnett at Air Force!? That would ruin my enjoyment of academy games. I live in Colorado Springs and DeBerry is simply a wonderful guy without a smug bone in his body. And, he's dedicated most his life to the school. Based on his track record, I can't imagine Barnett being happy at Air Force for long; most likely he'd try to pull a quick turnaround so he could bolt for a better-paying, higher-profile job.

As an aside to that rumor, I don't know of Barnett having any history with the option and it's hard to imagine anyone having a great deal of success at a service academy without employing it. They don't get pro-prospect QBs, world-class speed, or 300-lb linemen, so conventional offenses tend not to work really well.

They take their football seriously in Oklahoma... the governor may be the next to get involved:

OU president wants game voided, officials suspended (linked)

Associated Press

NORMAN, Okla. -- University of Oklahoma president David Boren sent a letter to Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg on Monday, asking him to push for the Sooners' game against Oregon to be eliminated from the record books and have the Pac-10 officials involved in the game suspended for the remainder of the season.

Smeghead, are you quoting Yeats at us?

Man, is this a cool site or what! Santayana's "condemned to repeat it" quote gets mangled a bit (usually as "those who don't learn from their mistakes..."), but you know, it's mainly math folks here anyway.

asking him to push for the Sooners’ game against Oregon to be eliminated from the record books

That's a sickening display of poor sportsmanship.

Earth to David Boren: in sports, sometimes the calls don't go your way, but the game counts anyway.

I'm an Oregon alumnus and must say that we were pretty astonished to come out of that one with a win. But again, Oklahoma got a long TD after the offensive PI non-call, Jonathan Stewart's fumble was very questionable, and they mysteriously got several yards after stepping out of bounds on that pass play. It's just that the most visible cause-and-effect bad call went Oregon's way (i.e. it gets called correctly and they unquestionably lose). Who knows what chain of events happens if any of those earlier miscues (the first two anyhow) are done right by the refs?

Oklahoma had many chances to close the game out and botched them every time. I'm not saying they deserved to get hosed on the onsides kick, but the prez's request to have the game voided is ridiculous.

If it gets voided, I can almost guarantee the Rose Bowl goes away from the BCS and back to the Pac-10/Big-10 system. The Pac-10 already was pretty pissed off about the rest of the NCAA, and Oklahoma whining about this would do some pretty big damage.

The refs were crap. But they didn't make Oregon gain 500 yards of offense, or drive twice within 3 minutes of time to get two scores. Nor did they call the Peterson run that burnt off a ton of time.

25- It's not going to happen. It's never happened before, and it won't this time.

I don't see what's so unreasonable about the NCAA agreeing to void the game.

Everyone wants to say "blah, blah, blah" they didn't stop Oregon when it counted, they didn't execute the FG. Well they did recover the on-side kick, and EVERYONE knows the ball also was touched illegally. Again... they recovered the onside kick.

I know it won't happen, but I think us fans should demand it. The bottom line is ONE OFFICIATING MISTAKE CAN COST THE GAME!

Agreed, voiding the game will never happen. But the other two suggestions should be followed; the officials who worked the game should be suspended (because they got the rule wrong), and interconference games at Pac-10 schools should be worked by the other conference's refs.

You say games don't get voided or reversed by the NCAA and that's utterly false. Usually it happens the following year or years after due to violations (see Michigan Fab 5 and possibly the Reggie Bush Era). The only way I see this game getting voided or reversed is if someone can prove the refs took money. I don't see that happening because I am fairly sure you can attribute this one to incompetence rather than malice and greed.

You say games don’t get voided or reversed by the NCAA and that’s utterly false. Usually it happens the following year or years after due to violations (see Michigan Fab 5 and possibly the Reggie Bush Era).

Sir, when I say "it's never happened", I was referring to a game being strivken from the records over an officiating error.

General levels of referee incompetence:

1. Misperceiving an on-field judgment call.
2. Blowing the whistle early.
3. Calling too few/too many penalties.
4. Overturning a replay based on something that may or may not have been there.
5. Getting an obscure rule wrong.
6. Misperceiving a clear replay.
7. Calling a makeup penalty
.
8. Getting a well-known rule wrong.
9. Getting a well-known rule wrong that directly impacts the result of the game.
10. Being complicit in the fixing of a game.

As post #29 said, only Level 10 would be grounds for voiding the result of a game, though 6-9 might be grounds for firing or suspension.

#31
Not really...

Just look at the NFL, when's the last time an official got fired?

Not even the official who took out Orlando Brown for a couple of seasons was fired, although I think he was demoted.

Re: 32

The NFL referees are unionized; if their union is anything like the MLB umpires' union (before the ill-conceived walkout), mere incompetence isn't grounds for firing. I doubt college officials have the same protection.

> That’s a sickening display of poor sportsmanship.

At the very least you'd think that Boren (who is a former governor of Oklahoma) might have more important things to worry about. Brings to mind the 1950s OU president's legendary comment: "We want to build a university the football team can be proud of."

However, I would support some kind of cursory NCAA investigation into why the replay system failed as badly as it did, with appropriate action taken. It's not "game-fixing", but I think institutional bias is a real possibility, and one which the NCAA should seek to remove if we're to take these inter-conference games seriously. I'd much rather see that kind of action, towards actually fixing the problem, than a "suspension" which practically amounts to taking one for the team, wink wink.

"If it gets voided, I can almost guarantee the Rose Bowl goes away from the BCS and back to the Pac-10/Big-10 system."

The Rose Bowl may do that in the next few years anyway. The Rose Bowl folks were pretty pissed a few years ago when a little-known BCS rule was invoked by the Orange Bowl to allow it to "steal" #3 Iowa from the Rose Bowl for a Pac-10/Big 10 matchup with #5 USC (with Heisman winner Carson Palmer), while the Rose Bowl was stuck with #8 (and non-Big 10 affiliated) Oklahoma to play Pac-10 champion Washington State.

This year, it is possible that the national championship game (which will be in Arizona) could be a Pac-10/Big 10 matchup (between USC and Ohio State or Michigan). The Rose Bowl would not be happy about losing that game. Of course, I didn't hear the Rose Bowl folks complaining last year, when they had a national championship game for the ages between USC and Texas.

I don't think the Pac-10 and Big 10 teams are ready to walk away from a shot at the national championship, or their share of the money that game generates.

#36: The Pac-10 would still be part of the BCS race; it'd be just the Rose Bowl that left, and presumably they'd miss out on a Big-10 or Pac-10 champion every so often.

Or they'd pull out entirely. Dunno.

#27: it's unreasonable because it penalizes another team for officiating mistakes that were beyond their power. Let's just say we wipe that game from the books. Okay, instead of Oregon having beaten a ranked opponent from a conference, we now have Oregon's strength of schedule drastically reduced, their BCS ranking goes down, etc. Could this matter? Considering they're ranked #13 now, they've got a decent shot at a BCS bowl this season. Remove Oklahoma, and you've likely removed a good shot for either school to make it in.

Mostly, it's just a lame thing. Unless there's indicators that the game was actively fixed, it shouldn't be removed. Ref incompetence has never been grounds for a voided game, and there have been far worse ref issues than this (last year's Michigan/Nebraska dumbass-fest, for instance). What message does voiding the game send to anyone? Oregon gets pissed, Oklahoma gets pissed, both teams get screwed...does it manage to change anything?

Why be punitive to Oregon because of the referees?

> Why be punitive to Oregon because of the referees?

Well, I'm not advocating striking the game, which is a terrible idea and which would create an even worse precedent (postgame challenge system!), but for the sake of argument Oregon would be "punished" because they really shouldn't have won the game anyway, and in a perfect world (or even in a highly imperfect world inhabited by marginally competent replay officials) they wouldn't have. Under that assumption even a draw doesn't look nearly so bad as a loss.

The refs have been suspended for one game. Link

"Errors clearly were made and not corrected, and for that we apologize to the University of Oklahoma, coach Bob Stoops and his players," Pac-10 Commissioner Tom Hansen said in a statement. "They played an outstanding college football game, as did Oregon, and it is regrettable that the outcome of the contest was affected by the officiating."
...
Hansen said the onside kick was touched by an Oregon player before it had traveled the required 10 yards, and, therefore, the ball should have been awarded to Oklahoma. The video also shows an Oklahoma player actually recovered the ball, although that aspect of the play was not reviewable under the instant replay rule.

"The fact that the errors on the onside kick altered the outcome of the game is most unfortunate and unsettling," Hansen said. "We had a solid veteran crew assigned, and the instant replay official had a fine career as a referee in the Pac-10.

"We believe in the ability and integrity of each individual involved. It should be noted that not all of the seven officials were directly involved in the play in question, but the entire crew bears responsibility for every play. Game officials and replay officials have positions of great responsibility and must be accountable for their actions."
...
Hansen said that the future work of the officials who were suspended will be closely monitored.

"The training and experience of officials at this level enable them to work at a high degree of accuracy," he said. "Unfortunately, at the critical moment of this game, errors were made."

One game doesn't seem like much of a punishment, given the nature of the errors. It's replay, for crying out loud! It's all right in front of you on the screen and can be slowed down, watched 10 times, etc. I'm all for "mistakes happen, blah, blah, blah", but if you blow it even after watching the video it suggests you're either partisan or so inept you shouldn't have been doing the job in the first place.

OK had a chance to win the game in the final 2 seconds had they been able to kick a field goal. They had a good kicker, they were close enough, but a better team blocked their kick.

Their only solution? The president of the university goes a'crying, trying to void the game. Sooners have become the wimps of college football.

So you all think Oregon deserves to win that game? That's not really honest. I like the idea of calling it a tie, but that's still pretty lame.

Why was the aspect of the recovery not reviewable?

So you all think Oregon deserves to win that game?

Deserves? Hell no. The game should have been over at the 1:06 mark, with Oklahoma downing the ball twice and leaving with a 33-27 lead. As I said before, if I had a poll vote, I would treat it like an Oklahoma win (or at least a tie). But there's no provision to overturn a result once it happens, no matter how bad the call was.

Why was the aspect of the recovery not reviewable?

Probably because the refs blew the whistle way too early.

Guess which state the replay official lives in?

Did Oklahoma deserve to win that game, #42? Given that they gave up well over 100 yards of offense in 3 minutes, two scores, and failed to kick a field goal? Is that the mark of a 'deserving' victor?

Football isn't about who deserves to win. It's about what happens on the field and taking advantage of what breaks you get. Oklahoma didn't get the breaks and got downright screwed, but they still had many many chances to win the game outright.

Deserving of the win or no, the Ducks won. Going back and changing things because the refs sucked just is the ultimate in poor sportsmanship. The Sooners took 2 out of 3, and chances are they'll meet again in the Holiday bowl this year.

Don't go all death threats on the ref.

I dunno, I think sportsmanship requires that you play a fair game. You're right that Oklahoma had multiple chances to win the game... they took one, when they recovered the onside kick. Do they have to win several times for it to be justified? Football is absolutely about who "deserves" to win; it's a game of rules, and when those rules are broken in a severe enough way, it's a travesty that invalidates the game. Exactly how bad does it have to be before it's too much? Would 12 men on the field be alright? How about a player reaching out and tripping a man rushing for the end zone? It's one thing to be opposed to nullifying the game, there are obviously a lot of concerns in doing so, but calling them 'wimps' or 'poor sports' because they're unhappy another team cheated to win is crazy.

Death threats to the referee are obviously crazy... that article is pretty sickening. It's a cliche, but it's possible for sports to mean too much.

Another team didn't cheat. Was Oregon supposed to somehow convince the refs to not call it the way it was called? The refs made an error in judgment. IT was a bad error, but it's not as if Oregon purposely made that happen or somehow violated the rules.

That's absolutely absurd.

Oklahoma being upset that the refereeing calls were bad is absolutely reasonable. Them declaring that the game should be a tie or be awarded to Oklahoma is absolutely unreasonable. I would totally call the OU president a poor sportsman, and so would the Big-12 head honcho, who basically said that he cannot imagine doing what the OU pres asked.

I didn't call them poor sports because they were unhappy Oregon won, or that they were very unhappy about the refs. But to ask for the game to be changed around? Sorry, that's not right. Oregon didn't cheat. Oregon played by the rules, same as Oklahoma did. When Oklahoma got breaks on some questionable calls, Oregon didn't ask that Oklahoma convince the refs to call it in their favor.

I have a silly question. Why was the entire crew suspended? The big calls that were missed were entirely reasonable - it's not hard to see how the officials could have thought the ball could've gone ten yards or been touched first by the Sooner, nor is it uncommon for officials to not notice a ball being tipped (they pretty much always conference on those calls, at least). I can see either of those being honest mistakes, the kind that should be corrected by replay.

So that brings me back to the question, why were all the officials suspended? They didn't all have access to the replay! The replay official(s) should definitely be suspended or fired - they had as long as they wanted to look at numerous replays frame by frame if needed, and somehow managed to screw up two calls that were indisputably obvious. But the game officials? Two close calls at game speed, and not all of them were even necessarily involved in the calls!

I understand it raised a national stink, but do we need such obvious scapegoating to keep us happy? Come on. This is just the Pac-10 sending them away for a week, hoping things will blow over. Ultimately it won't help anything.

#45,
Would 12 men on the field be too much?

From the 2006 Outback Bowl (Florida vs. Iowa)...some comments by Chris Spielman.

Spielman: “The game’s too fast for them (the Conference USA crew working the Outback Bowl).�

With 1:42 left and Iowa in a hurry-up offense, the Gators get caught with too many men on the field — and Spielman interrupts Mark Jones’ play call to shout it out, even as Tate is dropping back to pass.

Spielman: “Florida had 12 men on the field — and the officials missed it.�

“… Again, another missed call by the officials. … The player did not get off the field. There were 12 men on the field. Unbelievable.�

Just one of many blown calls in the game, including the aforementioned phantom offsides on an onside kick.

I should add that I'm not suggesting the Hawkeyes deserved to win the game...just that bad officiating plays a key role in who wins many college football games. It is a frustrating part of the game that will remain so, at least until the infallible ROBO-PUNTER hangs up his kicking boots and puts on the referee's uniform.

> Football isn’t about who deserves to win. It’s about what happens on the field and taking advantage of what breaks you get. Oklahoma didn’t get the breaks and got downright screwed, but they still had many many chances to win the game outright.

As soon as something like this happens to your Ducks (say, in the USC game) on an obvious replay review foul-up, this logic around "getting the breaks" and "having many chances to win" goes right out the window. Be honest, admit it.

47. they had as long as they wanted to look at numerous replays frame by frame if needed

Apparently they don't, because in the article about the death threats to the replay official and his family (I know football is a religion in OK, but come on), he said that the replay technology in college does not let them to pause the video. That's pretty ridiculous if true, and makes me wonder what the NCAA is spending all its billions of dollars on.

43. Guess which state the replay official lives in?

Unless he lives in Eugene or is a Ducks alum I don't see the relevance. There are other universities in the area you know, maybe he's a Portland Pilots fan. And if he's a Pac-10 official it stands to reason he would live in a Pac-10 state, and there's only four of those.

What disturbs me is that the only thing in that article about death threats that you seized on is where he lives.

#50: In a similar situation last year (the Hawks loss) I got pissed at the refs. My opinion then was that the Hawks probably would have lost the game anyway, but the ref calls were so bad that the enjoyment of the game was marred.

I can't obviously convince you that I'll feel the same way if the Ducks get hosed on calls. What I can tell you is that the Ducks have famously been hosed on calls many, many times. I've never thought that the game should be voided.

But whatever. Oklahoma fans and players have a huge and legitimate beef with the officiating, and it sucks that they got so screwed, but they also had ample chances to win the game in spite of it.

I always take these things with a grain of salt, but I heard on the radio this morning that the replay official didn't have all of the views available to him when he made the call on the onside kick. A couple of the camera angles that have been shown since the game weren't available to the guy in the booth when it mattered.

Or so the story goes. Could just be damage control, or trying to shift the blame to ABC since it's their cameras that were slow to provide footage. Who knows, it doesn't change anything. Oklahoma had their chances, they didn't make the most of them. Yeah, it stinks, but life isn't fair.

Oklahoma will still rake in $$$ for playing in a bowl at the end of the season, possibly even a BCS bowl if they beat Texas in a couple weeks.

> What disturbs me is that the only thing in that article about death threats that you seized on is where he lives.

Phoning in a death threat is terrible but is strictly dog-bites-man with such an incident; a handful of lunatics will pull something like this in any part of the country (except maybe New England, where college football is almost an afterthought). Hell, last winter Steelers fans called in threats to that California-based referee on the Polamalu INT overturn, even though the Steelers won the game. It'd probably be best if news services didn't even report these sympathy stories because they're so predictable and if anything only encourage further abuse (from people who wouldn't otherwise know the person's name and address).

The point regarding the residence of the replay official is the same one I made earlier regarding inherent bias. The guy doesn't have to be an Oregon alum to know that he's amongst them. If he blows the same call in the other direction, it's his neighbors phoning in the death threats and trashing his property. The Pac-10 and the NCAA needs to change their officiating policy, at least for home games.

Oklahoma will still rake in $$$ for playing in a bowl at the end of the season, possibly even a BCS bowl if they beat Texas in a couple weeks.

The counter to that argument is that if OU does beat Texas and finishes 12 - 1...this game could have cost them a shot at the national championship.

If they lose one more game and finish 10 - 2, this game cost them a berth in a BCS game.

I don't blame OU for being upset with the officiating, but calling for the game to be stricken from the record book goes way too far.

My HS coach would tell us that the refs screwing up was an inevitability- it WILL happen at some point- and that we simply had to play well enough to overcome that circumstance when it arises. I truly took those words to heart.

Unless he lives in Eugene or is a Ducks alum I don’t see the relevance. There are other universities in the area you know, maybe he’s a Portland Pilots fan. And if he’s a Pac-10 official it stands to reason he would live in a Pac-10 state, and there’s only four of those.

What disturbs me is that the only thing in that article about death threats that you seized on is where he lives.

The death threats are clearly unreasonable. There's no reason to debate the workings of a sick mind.

I know there are other universities in the area (the replay official is a Portland State graduate), but there are only two I-A teams in the state, and Portland State isn't one of them. I imagine he grew up following Oregon or Oregon State games.

It's bad procedure to have the official with ultimate authority be local. Would Oregon fans be happy with a Tulsa native/Oral Roberts graduate serve as the replay official at Oklahoma?

> My HS coach would tell us that the refs screwing up was an inevitability- it WILL happen at some point- and that we simply had to play well enough to overcome that circumstance when it arises. I truly took those words to heart.

True, but at minimum we're making a distinction here with a REPLAY official only. Even then, there are plays in which replays are not conclusive, but the onside-kick call was not one of those. Your overall point is sound advice combating almost any kind of excuse-- officials, injuries, weather etc.-- but at least in my mind I'm focusing on something (the replay system/deployment) that really should not fail to the extent that it did.

Phoning in a death threat is terrible but is strictly dog-bites-man with such an incident; a handful of lunatics will pull something like this in any part of the country (except maybe New England, where college football is almost an afterthought).

I'll back Glenn up on this one. You barely hear a peep about Boston College around here. I'll bet the state of MAssachussetts has more hardcore Notre Dame fans than hardcore BC fans.

53: And if at the end of the year this is their only loss, keeping them out of the title game? Life isn't fair, football should be.

54: You're right about that, not very surprising nutjobs called him. I also agree that it was incompetence, not bias.

52: Again with the "ample chances." That gets said every time a bad call happens, and it never makes any sense. I didn't realize that a team has to win a game several times, or re-confirm their victory multiple times in order to get credit. If you win, you win, and the Sooners did, until the officials took the call away.

48 - Funny... Do you know if the 12th man did anything? If he actually played defense or something, that would be kind of insane, and if it impacted the outcome that would be one of the worst things I've ever heard of. The first thing I think though is that it's just a player headed to the sideline, who didn't change anything and the other team could clearly see was running off the field. That would make it less serious a problem.

46 - Yes, cheating. Is that not what it's called when you break a rule of the game in order to benefit and win? Obviously things were moving fast, and the Oregon player didn't know for sure he hadn't crossed 10 yards, so it's not exactly nefarious. He was in a situation where he had no choice but to possibly cheat. These situations occur multiple times a game, and because making those decisions is difficult, and because no one can ever be rational or honest about sports, we hire officials to make the decisions impartially.

When they screw up, a team gets away with cheating. We almost never think of it that way, because it's ingrained in us that you take what the referees give you and your only goal is to win, win, win. If/when Oklahoma was the beneficiary of bad calls earlier, they also got away with cheating; I don't know who got the worst of it, but since we can literally point to one single play that would have definitely won the game for Oklahoma, it gets the attention. (As a side note, the very next play was a factually incorrect (not questionable) call on Oklahoma for PI after the ball was tipped. That's actually the referees accusing Oklahoma of cheating, and penalizing them for doing nothing wrong.)

Of course we don't expect Oregon to go complain about the bad call, they were the beneficiaries, and sportsmanship and fairness has long since stopped being a part of athletics. Y'know what would have been the right thing to do? Make a big stink that it was a bad call, at the time or soon after. Maybe they couldn't take it back, because the referees hold all the power and are expected to be right, but it would make me feel good about my team if they did try to get the right call. It would be basically unprecedented, and would make the Oregon football team/coach nationally recognized for its integrity. Think about playing pickup basketball... everybody always appreciates the guy on the other team who agrees it was a foul, or fesses up to his own fouls. It's honest, and helps the game stay fair.

I'm not saying Oregon is any more dishonest than anybody else (every team would do the same things), but when a game was flagrantly decided by a blown call(s), I think the outcome is a joke, and nullifying the game would be a fair result in most leagues. Unfortunately, college football is insane, voters don't really think about what they do, and thus nullifying the game just penalizes both teams. I can see why OU wants to do it, and I don't think they're being poor sports or unreasonable. Unreasonable would be demanding a WIN, or a win plus 20,000 dollars in cash.

#59,
It is my recollection that Florida had 12 men on the field several times during the game (including the onside kick) and the officials missed the call each time. However, unlike the Oregon-Oklahoma game, Iowa was attempting to come back from a deficit and not closing out a win.

Re: 59

"Cheating" implies an intent to break the rules and get away with it. Skirting the salary cap through hidden deals (Denver and San Francisco in the mid-1990's) is cheating. Intentionally fumbling forward and batting it into the end zone (the Holy Roller) is cheating. An ordinary penalty (batting the ball after 9-1/2 yards) or non-call that occurs in the normal course of game action is not.

The Sooners didn't win. The officials didn't take the game away. Last I checked, there was about 72 seconds left in that game to be played. Who knows what happens in that 72 seconds? Were they far more likely to win? Oh, absolutely. They're also far more likely to win if they kick a field goal, or don't run it on first down and try and pick up some more yards after their long return. The Sooners didn't need to win it multiple times; they just needed to win it based on what was happening on the field, and just the once. And whatever else happened, they did not do that.

As to the questionable calls on Oklahoma's side: well, we got a TD because an Oklahoma WR pushed off. The Ducks missed a big drive in the 3rd quarter on a questionable fumble, which led to another Oklahoma TD. Take those two away, and who knows what the situation is?

As to Oregon 'fessing up' to doing things - Oregon _did_ do this. Dennis Dixon, on the bad PI call, when asked if the ball was tipped by Bellotti "Yes, sir, it was". What is he supposed to do? What are the Ducks supposed to do? Sportsmanship is fine and all, but how is Oregon going to make that play 'right'? They can't ask the refs to overturn it and expect anything. The refs would refuse. They shouldn't request a do-over. Are you suggesting that they run back about 12 yards and down the ball or something?

As to cheating or no: cheating, to me, implies intent. I very seriously doubt the intent of the Duck player was to not be doing something within the rules. It is the difference between lieing and being factually incorrect. To me, calling a team cheaters is a fairly heavy accusation that implies character flaws and hugely bad sportsmanship, and that is certainly not what Oregon did.

Really, I can't believe that each conference still has their own officials calling intraconference games. Is there a good reason why all officials don't work for the NCAA?

Just to cite another exampe, the Tee Martin National Title year for the Vols was tainted when they were handed the first game of the season over Syracuse. To refresh, down by one or two points, Martin threw up a long pass that was knocked down for the final play of the game. There were two officials on top of the play. Roughly six seconds after the play was over, the furthest referee (a Tennessee alum) from the action, standing behind Martin, throws a PI flag, putting Tennessee in field goal range, which they made for the win with no time left on the clock. Nobody ever remembers this, probably because Tennessee ran the table in the SEC and beat a very good Seminole team to win the NC.

Kal,
I find your response dishonest.
The officials took the win away from Oklahoma.

Everything written after your 2nd sentance is irrelevant.

I don't see why they can't call it a tie...

A description of "cheating" is indeed overboard. Let's not overcomplicate this. All I'm asking for is a replay official (at minimum, if it's impractical to do so with entire crews) who is unaffiliated, unbiased, and able to see two feet in front of his face.

#64: I'm saying that until the game is over, it's still a game with all the weirdness associated with that. Oklahoma would have gotten the onside kick. They would have been extraordinarily likely to win the game. They did not win the game on that play, nor would they have.

I can almost 100% say that the Ducks would have lost had the onside kick been recovered by Oklahoma and ruled properly. But I can't say that it's absolutely true. Furthermore, I can't say that Oklahoma wins (or doesn't) that game even after that blown call or set of blown calls. Again, take away the onsides kick and the PI. Also make the right call on the Offensive PI on Oklahoma and the Stewart fumble. Who wins for sure? I don't know. It would've been a different game.

Bad calls are part of sports. It sucks when those bad calls go against your team, and it sucks even worse when they're so egregiously bad that they have an obvious effect on the result of the game, but they do happen. Yet not once in the history of the NCAA has a game been overturned or the result changed after the game, due to bad officiating, and I think it's ludicrous to request that. Part of sportsmanship is stating when you messed up and owning up to your mistakes. Part of it is also accepting the final ruling and moving on.

Re: 63

Not exactly, though your outline is correct. It was an SEC crew, the back judge, Lee Dyer, was a Tennessee-Chattanooga graduate, and the PI came at the Tennessee 35 with 1:13 to go.

Amazingly, Dyer is now a field judge in the NFL.

Article from the day after:

The Volunteers were faced with fourth-and-seven with 1:48 left.

Wilson said he told Martin he could break free again. The Orangemen, he said, were doubling Peerless Price, leaving Wilson in man-to-man coverage.

The identical play was called. This time, Martin floated back in the pocket and fired. David Byrd, SU's nickel back, said he stretched toward the ball and tried to knock it down.

Wilson made sure to get past the first-down marker. He felt Allen on his back.

The ball was delivered, again low. Wilson, who is listed at 5-foot-10 but stands no taller than 5-8, said he would have had to go to his knees to catch it. What happened next depends on whom you ask.

"He hit me," Wilson said, "even before the ball got in my area."

But the side judge, stationed about 5 yards from the play, made no call.

"I got up and turned around," Byrd said, "and saw the ball on the ground. I'm thinking, `Great play, Will Allen.' I looked at the side judge and saw no flag. I'm still thinking, `Great play Will Allen."'

Wilson popped to his feet to protest. He wanted an interference call and beseeched the officials to award him one.

"I was very worried," Wilson said. "That's why I got up and questioned them."

Within moments, a flag fluttered in Wilson's direction. It came from the back judge, who was stationed 15 to 20 yards behind the play. Pass interference. Automatic first down.

Yet not once in the history of the NCAA has a game been overturned or the result changed after the game, due to bad officiating, and I think it’s ludicrous to request that.

Nope. In 1940, Cornell forfeited a game in which the winning TD came on a mistakenly-awarded fifth down. FO even wrote about it last year.

#68: Note that the NCAA did not overturn the verdict of the game, the players did. I chose my words carefully.

If you'd consider the Ducks bad sportsmen for not forfeiting that game, I guess that's your call. It certainly isn't mine.

#69: That's not what you wrote. You used the passive tense ("Yet not once in the history of the NCAA has a game been overturned or the result changed after the game"), which doesn't imply any action on the NCAA's part.

#68: Sorry, I reread the statement I made and I can see how it could be read that way. I didn't mean to be a dick.

The NCAA hasn't overturned any games solely due to poor officiating. There have been games that have been overturned, but it wasn't because of the NCAA choosing to do so. If Oregon chose to have the game overturned that'd be something else. I doubt that'll happen though, and I can't honestly blame them for not doing it.

Re: 71

I don't blame Oregon for not forfeiting either, and they won't.

Here's what I don't get, and this is probably why I'm only a casual Saturday football watcher: everyone knows Oregon was given the game. Clearly, Oklahoma should have won but for an officiating f**k-up, and yet Oregon is about 5 slots higher than Oklahoma in each poll.

Ugh I knew I shouldn't have brought up the "cheating" thing... everyone responds so poorly to that word, but only because we're so dependent on the officials to maintain order (and catch everything) that we expect players to break the rules on a regular basis and hope to get away with it. Again, there was nothing unusual about the way Oregon played the game, I wasn't claiming there was. But Oklahoma was right to get upset that the rules were broken so they could lose.

66: I wonder if someone can actually find me an instance where kneeling has been botched and thus resulted in the kneeling team not winning. Has there been a single game, ever, where this occurred? I'm not interested in someone who had the win if they chose to kneel, but decided to pass or something. If a coach has the time to kneel out the clock, has it EVER happened? I would say it has to be damn near 100%, or at least 99.5%. If it's more likely that the stadium collapses or a natural disaster occurs than the team losing, I think we can fairly say that the officials took away the game.

63: An excellent point, I don't really understand why there are conference officiating crews either... even though I think there's probably no difference in bias.

To go back to Oregon, while they are obviously not required to do anything, I think it would be nice to acknowledge that they should have lost the game. Obviously the officials would not change the call during the game, and I would not expect Oregon to run backwards and give up. I also don't think they need to forfeit, but it would be nice if they suggested a tie or a nullification of the game, even though it hurts them. Again, not required, but it would be a nice gesture which I don't think any other programs would do either. Since everybody wants to keep their job at Oregon football, I don't blame them one bit for clinging to the win.

The fact that the NCAA has never done something doesn't make the request wrong. As far as I'm concerned the NCAA's purpose in existing is to attempt to be as unfair as possible.

#74: Check out the Miracle at the meadowlands for an example of when kneeling actually fumbled the ball and the other team won. I'm kind of surprised you don't know about it.

66: I wonder if someone can actually find me an instance where kneeling has been botched and thus resulted in the kneeling team not winning. Has there been a single game, ever, where this occurred? I’m not interested in someone who had the win if they chose to kneel, but decided to pass or something. If a coach has the time to kneel out the clock, has it EVER happened? I would say it has to be damn near 100%, or at least 99.5%.

I remember about reading about a Kansas high school football game where the QB failed to kneel, the team began to celebrate, and a defensive player took the ball out of the QB's hand and ran for the winning score. Unfortunately, I don't have access to that book or the SI archives right now, and this is the only confirmation I could find in a quick search (Article)

On page 60 of Football Clock Management, I warned readers to beware the congratulatory-handshake touchdown play. I said I had heard that it actually happened somewhere. Rick Burgess of American Football Quarterly says it happened at Shawnee Mission South High School in Kansas in 1982 and was written up in Sports Illustrated at the time. Maybe that was where I heard the story. I'll research it when I do the second edition. In the meantime, if any readers know the details of that incident or any other interesting clock-management stories, I hope they will contact me.

I was contacted by Phil Barnett who says he was a junior tight end on the losing team. Here's the email he sent me:

"I was a Junior on that Shawnee Mission South Team, I played Tight End in two Tight End
sets which we used quite a bit. Anyway, it was the last play of the game, there were about 6 seconds left. Our QB Butch Ross took the snap and just ran around with it, he did not drop to a knee. When the clock hit :00 he held the ball up in the air and started jumping around. John Richert the Shawnee Mission West QB/Free Safety came up, and Ross stuck his hand out to shake his hand. Richert stole the ball out of his hands, and ran it about 30 yards into the endzone for a TD. Well our coach John Davis jumped up and down, and it was chaos for awhile, but it was a good call.

West won the game with :00 on the clock, it was a regional playoff game in front of about 6
or 7,000 people at Shawnee Mission South stadium. Even SI had a little article about it,
and they had a reunion of Ross and Richert a few years later. It was kind of funny...later,
but it wasn't at the time."

> Ugh I knew I shouldn’t have brought up the “cheating� thing… everyone responds so poorly to that word, but only because we’re so dependent on the officials to maintain order (and catch everything) that we expect players to break the rules on a regular basis and hope to get away with it.

No, I still think you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with being cynically conditioned to expect players to break the rules to their advantage. This isn't an Oregon player punching or kicking someone under the pile. The Oregon player was three feet in the air and touched the onside-kick about a half-yard to a yard from the legal point. In all likelihood the player sincerely believed he'd executed a clean play. Yes, the officials are required to enforce the rules, but there's still no "cheating" there even given the strictest definition of the word.

> #74: Check out the Miracle at the meadowlands for an example of when kneeling actually fumbled the ball and the other team won. I’m kind of surprised you don’t know about it.

The Giants didn't kneel-- they attempted to advance the ball on a handoff and fumbled, which yeah, most of us do know about. Even the Wiki article you linked to made that distinction:

"Everyone watching expected quarterback Joe Pisarcik to take one more snap and kneel with the ball, thus running out the clock and preserving a 17-12 Giant upset. Instead, he attempted to hand it off to fullback Larry Csonka and botched it, allowing Edwards to pick up the ball and run 29 yards for the winning score."

Re: 75

The "Miracle at the Meadowlands" wasn't a kneel, it was an ill-advised off-tackle play when a kneel would have ended the game.

Baylor did something similar in their 1999 game against UNLV. Up 24-21 with 8 seconds to go, and near the UNLV end zone, Baylor tried to run for a meaningless TD, but the ball was fumbled and returned 99 yards for the winning score.

Proper link for #79: Link.

Huh. Which is funny, cause the Miracle happened because they didn't want to kneel, because the center couldn't protect against the nose tackle and their QB was a bit scared. But yeah, I had thought for a long time that the Miracle was actually a kneel, and it wasn't. Oops. Stupid wikipedia...

But yeah, I suspect there are other examples out there. My main point was that this wasn't the final play of the game, and it wasn't like the Ducks won on that play. They just had the opportunity to win.

Which is funny, cause the Miracle happened because they didn’t want to kneel, because the center couldn’t protect against the nose tackle and their QB was a bit scared.

Where do you get this from? The run was ordered by the offensive coordinator - Pisarcik wanted to kneel.

My main point was that this wasn’t the final play of the game, and it wasn’t like the Ducks won on that play.

But Oklahoma would have simply kneeled out the clock, something they've done successful in the past.

Oklahoma-Nebraska, 2005
Oklahoma-Oregon, 2005

Ugh, "successfully."

It was from another article, #82. I'll dig it up. It was a big article on the miracle play.

Another bit, maybe more relevant, was the year Tee Martin and the Vols won. Apparently in the game vs. Arkansas they fumbled while running out the clock and kneeling. I'm not 100% sure about this one either, since I can't find a proper recap, but I actually got it from a FO comment (Trogdor) so it's probably accurate.

The Miracle article I was talking about:

What happened on second down is directly responsible for what happened on third.

After a running play on first down, Pisarcik kneeled on second. Eagles middle linebacker Bill Bergey had charged into Giants' center Jim Clack, knocking him backward into Pisarcik, in a desperate attempt to force a fumble. Since defensive players usually are not blocked in this situation, they usually in turn don't rush. Any breach of this tacit agreement is considered a provocation by offensive players, particularly linemen whose job it is to protect the quarterback, and is invariably met with fists or other attempts to start a fight.

While this reflected badly on the Eagles, Gibson didn't want to expose his quarterback to further risk of injury (he had already taken some hits earlier in the season), his players to fines for violating the league's rules against fighting or, most importantly, his team to a penalty which could stop the clock and require that they actually have to earn another first down to secure the win. He also shared a dislike of the kneeling play common among older coaches of the era, who considered it unsporting and somewhat dishonorable. So he called "65 Power-Up," a standard running play which called for Csonka to take it up the middle.

I don't think we're arguing; I'm saying that attempting to stop the kneeldown was the reason they called the run.

Re: 84

Arkansas was trying to run out the clock, but they weren't kneeling. AP article, 11/15/1998:

Arkansas (8-1, 5-1 Southeastern Conference) outplayed the Volunteers (9-0, 6-0) and appeared to have the game in hand when it held on fourth down at midfield to take possession at the Tennessee 49 with 1:54 left.

All the Razorbacks needed was a first down, or a punt to force the Volunteers to go a long way -- something Tennessee had found difficult to do all game.

But on second down Stoerner, who passed for 274 yards and three touchdowns, tripped as he pulled away from the line. He put his right hand -- with the ball in it -- on the ground to try to regain his balance and left the ball there.

"It was a sprintout pass and I was going to keep it, and I dropped it," Stoerner said. "I don't know what happened."

It's still a very, very weak point. Oklahoma wins the game if they recover the onsides kick or is granted possession on the penalty. I'm in full agreement that the game result shouldn't be overturned and that OU's president sounds like a complete idiot, but I don't think one needs to go to these lengths (a fumbled kneeldown is theoretically possible) to make this point.

Re: 85

Pisarcik was "a bit scared" of the wrath of his coaches, not of the Philly DT.

FWIW, Answers.com = Wikipedia = source that shouldn't be trusted fully.

Hmm. Okay, how about this one?

While attempting to run out the clock, an Aggie defender appeared to jump offsides and disrupt the snap of the ball, which A&T recovered at the 38-yard line.

And #87, I do agree, it's largely a weak point. It would almost never, ever happen. It'd take a miracle to win.

However, miracles do happen in sports. The improbable does happen. That was my only point.

Has everyone here thought about what an incredible can of worms would be opened if the NCAA in any way, shape, or form altered the official outcome of this game?

Pete Fiutak hit the nail on the head: the pOUting must stop, and you can’t spell pOUt without OU.

> Pete Fiutak hit the nail on the head: the pOUting must stop, and you can’t spell pOUt without OU.

That's cute, but unfortunately when it comes to college football, almost everyone's got something to complain about, which is one of the reasons I can no longer take the NCAA championship competition all that seriously. Just last year it was Oregon griping about getting screwed by the BCS before laying an egg in their second-tier bowl game, same as Cal did the year before. It really is all about these BCS bowls and the money behind them, which is at least part of the cause of the "sportsmanship" issue here.

Re: #94- when I say "pOUting", I'm referring to OU President David Boren, not OU's coaches, players...or most of their fans.

Oregon's president should make Boren an offer: they'll discard the result if all 118 other D-1A teams agree to do the same if a questionable call ever costs the Ducks a game.

And while we're at it, if OU is so big "doing what's right", they should give back all of the national titles, Big 8 titles, and bowl games it won during the years when Brian Bosworth and Jamelle Holieway were playing, as both have admitted to recieving extra benefits while playing at OU.

FWIW, I'm not a big fan of either team. I'd say the same thing if Oregon's president was behaving in such a manner.

Before today, I can't think of a single case at any level of competition where a team that was clearly robbed by incompetent officiating demanded that the result of the game be reversed, or that the game be stricken from the record.

And it's easy to come up with errors as egregious the ones that happened in Eugene last Saturday. Off the top of my head I can come up with a phantom Vinny Testaverde touchdown against Seattle that put the Jets in the playoffs and kept the Seahawks out, and the 5 downs the University of Colorado benefitted from during its national championship season back in the early 90's.

The point is, we can all agree that Oklahoma got jobbed. It happens to somebody every season at every level of competition. It stings now, but as they say, time wounds all heels.

I see now that Oklahoma is talking about withdrawing from its upcoming home and home series with the University of Washington. For the sake of their dignity, somebody should lock the President and the AD at OU in a remote cabin until they exhibit some ability to think and speak rationally.

#92, complaining is one thing. Demanding that the situation be fixed? That's something else. Of course Oregon lobbied to be in the BCS game. Why wouldn't they? Of course, as soon as the actual bowls were announced, Oregon got ready to play Oklahoma. They didn't ask the BCS to reconsider, they didn't consider withdrawing from BCS play. They did ask it would be revisited.

I don't think a huge amount of griping is a bad thing here. The officials flat out messed up, and changed the outcome of the game to a great degree. But asking to alter the result of the game afterwards? Or thinking of withdrawing from a home-and-home because the officiating was bad in one game?

That's just sad.

Off the top of my head I can come up with a phantom Vinny Testaverde touchdown against Seattle that put the Jets in the playoffs and kept the Seahawks out.

It was a horrible call, but even if it had never happened, the Jets still would have won the AFC East and been the #2 seed in the playoffs, and the Seahawks wouldn't have made it, losing a tiebreaker to New England for the 3rd wild card spot.

The officials flat out messed up, and changed the outcome of the game to a great degree. But asking to alter the result of the game afterwards? Or thinking of withdrawing from a home-and-home because the officiating was bad in one game?

Asking for the result to be changed is a futile act, and might justly be seen as whining. But threatening withdrawal from the Washington game has a worthy objective - changing the Pac-10's unique policy of using its own referees for interconference home games.

Asking for the result to be changed is a futile act, and might justly be seen as whining. But threatening withdrawal from the Washington game has a worthy objective - changing the Pac-10’s unique policy of using its own referees for interconference home games.

While I don't see why the Pac-10 has this policy - perhaps to save on travel costs? - I don't see it as being all that horrible. Instead of the visiting team having the refs from their conference, you have the home team have their refs from their conference. Oklahoma had Big-12 refs when they played against Washington and Oregon in Norman. It's not like it's an unfair policy or anything like that.

But I'm fine with the change, if only to get a Big-12 crew in. Because (as Texas Tech fans know) the Big-12 has great ref crews, and that would have made all the difference.

But threatening withdrawal from the Washington game has a worthy objective - changing the Pac-10’s unique policy of using its own referees for interconference home games.

I agree, but to do it right now- and in public- is a poor strategy.

Are Boren and Castiglione starting to come acrross like Johnny Sack and Phil Leotardo during Season 5 of The Sopranos with the whole "we're always angry and irrational" thing?

Before I say anything, let it be known that I'm a student at Oklahoma.

The onside kick call was horrible, and unless CJ Ah You can alter the flight path of a ball by waving his hand past it, so was the pass interference. However, I remember wincing when Malcolm Kelly scored the TD referenced above, immediately saying that it was offensive pass interference and should come back. The refs weren't horrible all game, and they blew calls both ways (although I thought the replay showed that the ball was coming out of Stewart's grasp before his knee was down on his fumble). Yes, OU could have won anyway; no, they shouldn't have had to, and all that.

Boren's letter gives off the scent of something done to get his name in the paper. He's a former politician, and I've encountered him two or three times while on campus; he loves the sound of his own voice. I wouldn't take his letter especially seriously, and it sounds like that's the general opinion anyway.

Of course, the other thing that bugs me here is that OU will get hit in the polls for this, despite playing a ranked opponent even in a famously loud stadium. Note that ND and Texas are both ranked much higher than OU despite getting trounced on their home fields in similar games. And of course, Peterson has little to no Heisman shot now. Stuff like this is the real joke in college football, not the officiating.

Bad call? Maybe. Hard to tell. I've watched alot of replays from different angles, including replays that were only shown on local television, not ABC. I've seen alot of high speed photos. Tough call? Oh yeah, one of the toughest. The closer you look at it...the more you zoom in (which the replay official couldn't really do) the more you realize how hard of a call it was. Even though #19's arms are coming up for the ball, his chest is what makes contact with the ball first. The reciever has his hands so close that sometimes it's hard to see. Bad Call? Maybe, but it was made.

Game changing call? This is the ultimate question. Since every single play and everything done in every single play can be concidered game changing, this question is very subjective. If there had been an offensive pass interference call earlier in the game would it have changed the game? Maybe, we'll never find out. If Stewart was ruled down before he fumbled would the game have been changed? Maybe, we'll never know. He might have fumbled on the next play, who knows. If a holding call on either team or a delay of game call on either team had been made would it change the course of the game? Maybe, again we wont ever know. So we must decide perameters before we can define a game changing call. A definative example of a game changing call would be a replay official ruling that the ball did or did not cross the plane of the endzone with no time left on the clock and the game is tied. Since there can be no other plays after that play, the result of that game would rest on the official. Since we know that every play in football is important, and everything in every single play is important, if another play can be made after the call, then the officials call hasn't changed the final result of the call. Now this is a difficult concept because one action effects all other actions after it. This is known in science as the butterfly effect. If you give a bum money and he goes and buys a gun with it and takes hostages and kills people, is it your fault? You did provide the bum with the financial resources to commit his crime.

Since OU would need to snap the ball several times before the clock ran out, it is safe to assume that the game wasn't over. The phrase, anything can happen in football applies here. Because anything could have happened.

Several things that are game changing: A huge return to keep a team alive with 30 seconds on the clock, bringing them within field goal distance. Playing inside the reciever in hopes of getting an interception when the game is on the line. Blocking a fieldgoal with no time on the clock.

I don't think the officials were ontop of their game saturday, but then again who ever sits down and says, man thsoe officials called every play correct. Does anyone say those officials really called that game perfect, I'm going to write them a letter? Nope, instead we are all here talking about what we did or didn't get. Is this what the land of opportunity has become? Instead of "make your own way" it's become "cry and whine untill you get satisfaction."

Nothing will give Sooners fans satisfaction! Nothing. You can kill all the refs, throw out all the records of the game, get an appology from every official, NCAA board member, and PAC 10 member, and the oregon coach for not forfieting the game. You can have the game forfieted to you and still get no satisfaction.

So where do we go from here? Forward. It was a great game. Both teams played very well, and showed that they were very close comepetion for each other. Both teams found exactly where they were weakest, and can use this game as a stepping stone to improve the quality of their game. Both teams will play again, and when they do, it's going to be a huge game, with fierce competition to show who the better team is.

#100 is the first person I've seen who suggests the onside kick call might have been correct. Bravo for having a unique opinion.

People GET over it. There were bad calls on both sides. Who is to say that even if the call went Oklahoma's way that Oklahoma wouldn\'t have screwed that up and still lost. If Oklahoma hadn't been a top 25 team, none of this would be such a big deal. BOTH sides had bad calls. The timing of this one just happened to be more critical.

You know who should really be complaining? Eagles fans. It's really a close call - did Plaxico actually catch that ball? I don't think so. Nor do I think he actually made it into the end zone. The Eagles got screwed.

This opinion is unique. It's also demonstrably wrong. Bravo for me!

Trogdor, Exactly!

Where do Oregon fans get off on calling Oklahoma fans cry-babies? Your team won on a BS call, and you won't even admit it.

I wish the NCAA had the balls to correct something, since the Pac-10 admitted "Mistakes were Made". If they had balls they would call the game a tie. Would the Oregon fans feel like they were screwed out of a win? If they are, they are being quite dishonest.

#104, I don't know of any Oregon fan who called Oklahoma fans crybabies.

I do think that Oklahoma University president David Boren, in asking for the game to be stricken from the record book, is acting both not in the best interests of his school and showing a distinct lack of sportsmanlike conduct; and heck, he's a crybaby. But I don't know about all OK fans. They've got every right to complain about this call, and I'd not fault 'em for complaining about it for a long, long time.

As to whether I'd (as an Oregon fan) feel screwed out of a win if the game was decided a tie? Yeah, probably. Oregon didn't get handed the game, after all. A lot of things had to go right - including some atrocious calls at the end - for the game to end up the way it did, but the bad calls weren't the only thing that happened in those last 72 seconds. I don't think that I'd bitch about it all that much, however.

Put it this way: if the NCAA decided it, I would hate that decision but eventually abide by it. If the Oregon players and the school decided to do it? I'd be behind it 100%.

So Furtek, by your logic I guess the Super Bowl was a tie last year?

I've seen the 5th down CU game mentioned a few times here as being on the same scale as this and somebody needs to point out that this is a myth. The only reason CU got a 5th down was because a mistake was made on 2nd down, not changing the down marker. CU then called a running play on what SHOULD have been 3rd down, but was marked as 2nd on the scoreboard, when they didn't get the touchdown the spiked the ball to stop the clock. No team would EVER spike the ball on 4th down on the 1 yard line. Had the down marker been set properly CU would have called a passing play during their timeout, and still had the 2 shots at the endzone that they wound up getting. The coaches made calls during the timeout as if it was 2nd down, had the mistake not been made the outcome would likely been the same. Might not have too, but the reality is that the 5th down mistake really didn't have that much of an impact on the final outcome (nothing on the scale of say the tuck rule or the OU game last wknd).

Yes, I was a freshman at CU at the time, and when Hagan spiked the ball on 4th down I said "they lost", then everyone pointed out that they had one more down...

Re: #104

To my knowledge no sports league has ever voided the result of a game because officials made an incorrect call.

Look at last year's baseball playoffs - bad calls galore, some practically game-changing. Nope. That Maier "home run" from years ago. Nope. In fact, most of the time baseball steadfastly refuses to admit a call was even made improperly even given video evidence. They just trot out platitudes like "Umpires get it right 95% of the time, it's tough."

How about the NFL in admitting the Seahawks were screwed that year? Nope. Still a loss. Or when the NFL admitted the Giants were hosed, in the playoffs no less, on an incorrect (non-)call at the end of the game? Nope. Checked the record book. Still a loss. What if Vanderjagt had made that kick in the playoffs last year and the Colts won in overtime? Would the Steelers have been given the win after the fact by the NFL? Nope. The NFL would have said "Sorry, that was wrong, but too bad."

Dwayne Wade's blatant push-off in the playoffs last year resulting in a foul on Nowitzki? Nope, that's still listed in the book as a foul on Nowitzki and a win for Miami.

Did the NCAA do anything about the Bush Push? Nope. Notre Dame still lost, and USC played for the national title. Oh but wait, Vince Young's knee was down in the title game, on a play that scored a touchdown no less, and the replay official didn't call for a review! Nope. Texas still won, I think, even though the game was decided by three points.

All I'm saying is that it sucks that it happened, and the officials got it wrong, but officials get it wrong sometimes, and teams shouldn't be ashamed for winning or start forfeiting things as a result, nor does the league in question ever get involved save for trying to fix it for the future.

As an aside, I do see any argument of "Oregon is evil because the bad call(s) in their favor came at the end of the game, but Oklahoma is OK because the bad (non-)call in their favor (offensive PI) that resulted in a TD came earlier" as poor sportsmanship. If someone is going to complain about bad calls that hurt Team A, they shouldn't neglect or disregard bad calls that obviously worked in their team's favor, despite the timing of each. Sure, the onside kick call would have ended the game, but no one can say that that offensive PI call didn't change the game either.

To my knowledge no sports league has ever voided the result of a game because officials made an incorrect call.

A list of upheld protests in Major League Baseball. The most famous of those is the Royals-Yankees Pine Tar Game of 1983, which "ended" as a 4-3 Yankee victory, but was resumed 25 days later with the Royals ahead 5-4.

Also, soccer has a long tradition of ordering games to be replayed after referee errors. The latest major match to be replayed was Uzbekistan's apparent 1-0 victory over Bahrain in a World Cup qualifier, in which the referee incorrectly disallowed a Uzbekistan penalty.

... how many times have sports leagues admitted referee mistakes?

I know its never been done before, but as a fan I'd like to see them do the right thing.

During the world cup there was also a player who was awarded three yellow cards... thankfully the other team won anyway, but it was written at the time that they would have had to replay the game if it hadn't ended like that.

Travis @ #67

Thanks for jogging my memory. I see it even more clearly now.

The NFL has admitted refereeing mistakes on many occaions, but they don't change game outcomes becasue of them. I am fairly certain the Pittsburgh Steelers received two apology letters in a span of 4 or 5 weeks during one season in the late 90s.

As for baseball protests, they only apply to a misinterpretation of the rules. Something like the blown call(s) at the end of the Oklahoma/Oregon game wouldn't apply.

Yep, The Giants got an apology from the league after the refs blew the call on the last play of a playoff game against SF a few years back. The Giants should have been given a 2nd field goal attempt, which they would have missed. The league did a disservice to Giants fans by not letting them see their team blow TWO field goal attempts to win.

"No team would EVER spike the ball on 4th down on the 1 yard line."

Evidently you hold teams coached by Chan Gailey in higher regard than I do.

Was I the only one who thought the camera angle was really steep on the onside kick and that it might have gone 10 yards? The refs were certainly wrong for saying an Oklahoma player touched it first, but the ball still went to the right team. It seemed like the announcers, general public, and media have seen something I haven't.

Kal, you are in serious denial. You have repeatedly engaged in obfuscation and it is middle school silly. The other calls were normal close calls or judgement calls that happen in every college football games, yet you keep blowing smoke about those calls. The PI you are so sure about was not a PI and the fumble by Oregon was a fumble, look at the replay. Get real.The onside kick call was extremely obvious (not even arguable) and ABSOLUTELY GAVE OKLAHOMA A LOSS instead of the win they deserved AND ARTIFICIALLY PREVENTED A LOSS FOR OREGON, when they deserved the loss. THE GAME WAS OVER (except for the magic you propose, the game was OVER, OREGON LOST, live with it, the refs absolutely prevented a SURE OREGON LOSS). So stop your obfuscation and live with the fact that Oklahoma won the game and had it stolen from them. I hate Oklahoma but they won the game and you know it. So please stop talking nonsense. My Trojans got screwed out of a national title last year but it was nothing like this travesty. If USC got screwed this bad, I would want it reversed, you better believe it.

I believe the way the Trojans got screwed last year can be summed up like this:

1. Couldn't stop Vince Young at all
2. Didn't convert on a big 4th down
3. Couldn't stop Vince Young
4. Silly mistakes, like Bush's crazy Randle-El inspired fumble
5. Still trying to figure out a way to stop Vince Young
6. Scored fewer points than they allowed
7. Nothing they could do against Vince Young, except watch helplessly as he repeatedly led scoring drives and completely dominated their defense

Man, look at all those ways they got screwed! Darn refs!