Boise State
 

I'm not usually a fanboy, but wasn't that the best finish of a college football game ever? From the lateral on the tying TD to the 4th down OT TD to the 2 point conversion......Boise State deserved the win. What a great finish.

It's scary to think of what else may have been in their playbook. Very well done. It's going to be next to impossible to top this game with any of the remaining bowl games.

I have NEVER seen a better finish to ANY football game...UNREAL!!!!

Number 8 squeaked by number 10.

I was more entertained by number 5 decisively defeating number 3.

I'm a Sooner fan through and through, but I gotta give it up for Boise St. They did everything necessary to win this game. I'm heartbroken by the loss, but I think this game will go a long way towards helping the "small schools" get a chance at some big time games.....

NCAA Div I needs a playoff system.....Boise St deserves a shot at Ohio State, Florida, USC or anyone else who thinks they can stop them. No matter who it would be, don't ever underestimate them. They are an incredible team.

Now I'm going to go kill myself.

A high point of the game was when the announcers at a BCS game advocated the elimination of BCS. What a hoot. Do you suppose they might hear about that?

Did you hear how Barry Alvarez quickly diverted the conversation back to the field? He wanted no parts of that "play-offs" conversation.

Both plays were a thing of beauty. That was a gutsy call on 4th and 18, a hook and ladder reverse essentially. On the try, #41 looked like a fan standing on the field, watching the game. Good times.

I still hate their blue football field.

I'm with saskbucks!

I wish I recorded that game. I want to see it again! :D

I was over at refstripes.com, and in the CHAT function. It's a flash program with live chat. Anyways, we had 20+ guys in there all 'watching the game together'. It made it that much more enjoyable seeing everyone type in "WOW!" etc.... during pretty much every play. It seemed that everyone was cheering for Boise State.

This is a bread and butter game that we all wish that we have the opportunity to officiate. The game was meticulously officiated. A huge high-five to the crew. I could only find these 4 names, all AFL officials.

Bill LeMonnier (R)
Rick Nelson
Brent Durbin
Dana McKenzie

I stayed up an watched as well. What a fabulous finish. I thought two huge calls were the first two 2-point attempts by Oklahoma. The first play was a pass-interference call when OK missed the conversion. The live play looked questionable but the replay showed it was probably the right call. That's a pretty ballsey call at that point of the game. The next conversion was good but OK had an illegal shift. It was obvious but the announcers didn't mention it right away. The officials did get it though and another huge call at that point of the game.

What a great finish and a great job by the officiating crew!

I am pretty sure this was a split Big Ten crew. Great job guys.

Boise State's punt muff
 

I have a question on the play where the punt hit a Boise State player and OU recovered. I thought that the Boise State player was knocked backward by an OU player and then contacted the ball. The was no replay or review. Anyone else see this?

It does appear that while engaged in blocking, the ball did touch him. I also questioned that play based on how I remember the written rule.
What I questioned was this, was the team-A player blocked into the ball or was he just plain engaged in a block when the ball hit him.:confused:

During discussion in the chatroom I think we "experts" agreed the player had inititated the contact and was blocking, not be ing blocked, hence the touch counted.

It even appeared that there was some quick discussion by the officials after the play was dead. I assume they may have been discussing that as well.

One thing I saw about the try for Oklahoma where they had the illegal shift is that the "tight end" who went in motion and then caught the ball appeared to be lined up on the LOS and went in motion along the LOS. When I first saw it I thought he was just shifting and I was convinced of that because he started before the wing had stopped and then they snapped the ball before the "tight end" stopped. I would like to see that formation again to see because I thought that the replay confirmed what I thought I saw. I could be wrong but maybe one of you out there has a copy of the game and can look at that again.

When I saw what a terrific finish it was going to be, I backed up the DVR to the point of BSU's final punt and recorded until the end.

The illegal shift was the correct call. As soon as the ball was snapped I said "illegal shift." After the catch, the announcers said, "There's a flag on the play," I knew what it was.

The TE that caught the ball went in motion/shifted before the other TE completed his shift. I honestly don't know if there was suppoed to be motion or if they were both supposed to shift and reset but he did not reset for 1 second before the ball was snapped. A call went each way, the crew got it right and they made both teams play a third try until they got it right.

Well Tony, since you have the game on DVR please check to see if the tight end in motion was on the LOS or was a back. I knew as soon as the ball was snapped that there was a foul but it surprised me to see them snap the ball with the tight end still moving.

I, too, saw the TE in motion along the LOS. The penalty is the same and both rules (motion,shift) rules were violated so take your pick.

I thought the DPI in the EZ on the try was classic arm bar.

I also thought on Boise's touchdown play in overtime, that when the QB went in motion, he definitely turned upfield before the snap.

Myself and another official were both watching the highlights on Youtube this morning, and we both sort of caught that at the same time.

What bearing did his act have on the subsequent action which resulted in the score? Did it give his team an advantage?

So we're supposed to start judging advantage/disadvantage on illegal shift/motion/formation?

When did we start that? Didn't get that memo.

The advanced official knows when a flag is warranted and when it is not. In that specific situation it was not. As has been pretty accurately described by a fellow poster on another site:

"You don't need to pre-determine. It only takes an extra second or two. While that is an eternity for uneducated fans and sportswriters it shouldn't be for us. Simply hold your flag and then determine whether it affected it or not. Which I'm sure is what the wing official did here. The play went away so he held it. If it would have come his way at all I'm sure you would have seen a flag."

So when let's say a fullback misses the snap count and practically falls on his face trying to catch himself, then the snap occurs, we let that go because he really put himself at a disadvantage?

Or we have a wideout who's clearly lined up off the line, when he's supposed to be on, and we have only six on the LOS, but the offense runs a sweep to the opposite side, we don't flag for illegal formation?

I just think that's a slippery slope when we're talking about letting formation/motion/shift fouls go.

Obviously, I agree that there are other fouls that require great judgment on our part, i.e. holds away from the play, etc. But I don't think judment should come into play on pre-snap and at-the-snap type fouls.

The FB's foul is presnap so everything is shut down and penalty administred. No brainer. For fouls at the snap, i.e. illegal formation, if you can tell relatively right away the "foul" will have no bearing then you should pass on it.

When you have illegal formations or illegal shifts then those must be called because those are a disadvantage to the defense. The defense is reading the formation to determine who they need to cover. The motion call was not a quick jump or an obvious head start. The defense wasn't at a real disadvantage because they read the play and covered him as they were supposed to. If the pass would have came that direction then I'd throw my flag for his "slight" head start. If I recall correctly he was going almost diagonally.

For some, it's a dead ball, and for others, it's a live ball. Don't want to go off on a tangent, but alot of officials treat this as illegal motion and not false start. I personally agree that it's a false start.

Either way, I respect all of your opinions, but still respectfully disagree. I think illegal shifts/motion/formations all need to be called.

I noticed that when I saw the play live but forgot about it with all the other excitement that followed. When I saw a replay later I watched him and agree it was diagonal. I assumed the official let it go because from his angle it wasn't quite as obvious. I've never heard that you make a judgement call for formation/motion/shift based on where the play goes or if it had an impact on the play. The only time I do that is if the movement is so slight that the movement itself did not have an impact on the play or if it's a 30-point game late in the 4th quarter and a 40-degree rain.

I'm not saying the wing official missed the call but I disagree with TXMike that you make a judgement call based on the rest of the play for motion/shift/formation penalties.

I never said anything about "the rest of the play". In some rare cases, like this one, the covering official was able to process everything at the snap and IMMEDIATELY afterwards and apparently realized his flag would not be appropriate so he held it. The ability to do that may be one of the factors the differentiates between officials who are otherwise at the top of their game. You may choose to blindly throw your flag without thinking why you are doing what you are doing. I would submit that makes you a robot and not what we would hope for from officials at the top.

I don't see how you can possibly make this comparison.

On the 2 point conversion by OU, the TE was called for an illegal shift because he did not reset fora full 1 second. You say that the defense is reading the formation to know who they need to cover. Are you telling me they didn't know he was an eligible receiver?

But then you turn around and say that OU was not placed at a disadvantage by the BSU QB moving toward the LOS at the snap. I saw it when the play was ran and was surprised there was no flag. How is it BSU was placed at a disadvantage but OU wasn't?

May I say that the same official had both calls?

Sorry but you can't have it both ways.

When two players are moving the defense does not think the snap is about to happen because they know the ball cannot be snapped while there is a shift. For the motion, they know the ball can be snapped if a player is in motion are are prepared for it. Here's a link to the final plays of the Boise game. Once it gets to the motion play look at the snap and the direction of the motion. It is a bang bang play with his motion and the snap. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...sta+bowl&hl=en

Another side of this type of motion is I have seen this as being under the philosophy of a "talk to first" before flagging it when the play goes the other way. If that is the case then I believe you'd have to adhere to that philosphy in this play as well.

I ask all of you who are saying the flag should have been tossed on the BSU play to just tell me what advantage BSU got or what disadvantage OU was put at due to the QB's motion.

In the case of an illegal shift, defenses have to be given time to adjust after a shift. That was put in the rule book years ago when coaches were using shifts to put defenses at big disadvantages. After the change requiring all be motionless for a second, defense had time to react during and after the shift to get better positioned to deal with what was coming. We do not know what adjustments the defense might have made during and following the illegal shift had then been given sufficient time, hence the flag.

Mike, I hate to keep coming back to this, but we do not judge advantage/ disadvantage on these types of fouls. The technical rules of football regarding shifts/motions/formations etc., must be adhered to in order to protect the integrity and legitimicy of the game. I can think of a thousand instances where a miniscule false start happens, and we call it every time. But most of those occasions, the offense doesn't gain an advantage. Heck, more than not, they are disadvantaged, because the offense guard or tackle gets out of position, etc.

Judgment of advantage/disadvantage on holds, block in the back, pass interference = yes absolutely. Judgment of illegal shift/motion/false start/formation = absolutely not.

The black and white philosophy some of you want to adopt may work at the HS level and below. It does not work at higher levels. You can choose to disagree but once you get to that level, you will either adjust your thinking or move on.

I don' t buy it. How about the OU defender who sees the QB moving toward the LOS and is waiting for him to reset because he knows he can't be moving forward at the snap?

What has bang bang got to do with whether you flag an infraction or not?

It's 4th down in overtime and you're still warning players?

You can't tell me that if the OU TE had reset one half second earlier, it would have made any difference whasoever. That's far fetched, Mike.

So when you choose to apply a black and white philosophy, as in the illegal shift, it's okay.

But when someone else offers a black and white philosophy in another situation, then suddenly they have a lot to learn and may not be capable of working at the next level?

Pot meet kettle, kettle, pot.

I'm not saying there was or wasn't a foul on the BSU OT TD. I wasn't standing on the field, and didn't even get a real good look on TV. What I am saying is that you can selectively say that one foul at the snap should always be called while a similiar foul at the snap can be ignored.

If such BS is true, could someone please write a book and explain all these calls that have to be called versus those that might be called and finally those that shouldn't be called? Then, all officials can get on the same page and perhaps we can stop a lot of the criticism officials get for being inconsistent!

Unfortumately there is no book that gives you what you seek. It only comes from experience and contemplation. That "no call" was huge in that it let the players decide the game. You do not and pretty clearly, never will, get it. It is disingenious to throw out the word "consistency" in this discussion because when we ralk about consistency, this is not what we are talking about. Consistency means if he passes on that call in that EXACT situation for team 1 , then he passes on it in the SAME EXACT situation for Team 2. That is what consistency is about.

Ok I'm going to start a new thread on this, to see if we can spark some discussion from others.

So if someone disagrees with you, then they clearly don't get it and never will? You have no room for discussion or other people's ideas, eh? They're just automatically wrong? That's real mature, Mike.

This is officiating philosophy. There is no right or wrong, no black or white, only a variety of opinions and different ways of doing things. I'd bet there are college supervisors who would agree with you, and I also would be there are those that wouldn't. I guess those supervisoers who disagree just don't get it. And they never will.

I did some further study of the motion by the QB and from that angle of the video at full speed it does "appear" that he's moving forward. The problem is the camera is behind the play so it's diffult to tell exactly how much he really was moving forward. You would only be able to tell that if you were on the same yardline as the QB or if you look at the yardlines. I looked at each frame to determine the distance if any that he was moving forward. During my study I froze each frame starting at the hash mark (inbound lines) and if you notice his right foot is at the 8 1/2 yard line. As he continues his motion out to the 9 yard mark and when the snapper first starts his snap I froze the frame again and his right foot was still at the 8 1/2 yard line. His left foot is slightly forward by maybe a 1/2 yard. What makes this look bigger than what it really is was because he turned his body parallel to the LOS and put his left foot forward. Maybe if he would have taken a full step forward this would be called but I just don't see flagging him when he is still at the 8 1/2 yard line. It's going to have to be much more drastic than that. I suggest everyone to do the same as I did.

Like I said Jason, I don't KNOW if he was moving forward or not. It appears he was but there wasn't a very good TV angle. It's could be like a lot of passes behind the LOS. It's difficult to know whether it's backwards/forwards without looking at a replay on the same yard line.

But whether there was a foul on that play or not is not my concern. I'm moreso discussing the philosophy of ignoring such an infraction (and then being critical of those who don't believe in your philosophy, which is not directed at you). If it was a foul, then I see no reason not to call illegal motion when you just made an illegal shift call against the opponent in a very similiar situation. I don't buy into that philosophy and I don't believe coaches would either. I'm probably not going to change anyone's mind but I believe I'm entitled to my opinion without being criticized for it.

Thanks for taking the time to break the video down.

My thinking as well.

to whomever stated "It's 4th down in overtime and you're still warning players?" that should be irrelevant. You call the game the same way in the first quarter, as you do through the final whistle. If you would warn them in the beginning of the game, you need to continue that in overtime, pending that they have not already been warned for this infraction. If they had already been warned then nail them, but you nor anyone else on this thread knows what was said between player and official.