BYU - Washington

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by wolfgang70

QFT. In regards to ESPN, when in the hell are they going to hire a retired official as a commentator so they can finally get this stuff right?

Probably never. Even if they did it wouldn't make much of a difference. I remember a NFL Official Review segment from 2 years ago. The NFL has a grasp and control rule which says that if the QB is grasped and controlled by a team B player and another defender is coming towards the QB then the ball is dead (or something like that). That play came up in a game, after the QB was grasped and controlled he fumbled; the ball was dead before the fumble. So Rich Eisen and Pereira argue back and forth about the call after Pereira explained the rule. He even said that it was a perfect example of the rule and Eisen still argued. These announcer guys just don't get it and having someone on TV who knows the rules and officiating wouldn't change that.

[Texas Aggie]

This was a no-brainer USC, and thus, call. Truthfully, anyone suggesting otherwise is being either ignorant or foolish. Besides, if a college kicker can't keep a game tying kick from being blocked, that's their problem. If he makes it, we don't hear about this at all.

[mikesears]

I felt the call was a great call. We can't ignore fouls simply because they happen late in a game and a player is excited. I am guessing that ESPN would have backed the player even if he spiked the ball into the ground and ESPN would have said that he just "dropped the ball".

Besides, this call didn't cause anyone to lose. They still had a chance to tie and it was poor execution by their field goal/extra point team that caused them to lose.

UW take on it is here:

http://gohuskies.cstv.com/sports/m-f...090608aaa.html

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mikesears

Besides, this call didn't cause anyone to lose.

Penalties aren't causes, they're effects.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Penalties aren't causes, they're effects.

The point remains that the PAT was blocked, not missed. The distance added due to the penalty was inconsequential and irrelevant to the loss.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The point remains that the PAT was blocked, not missed. The distance added due to the penalty was inconsequential and irrelevant to the loss.

That wasn't my point.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That wasn't my point.

Absolutely understood.....but my point is still the main issue. The call/penalty/cause/effect didn't change the outcome. The blocked PAT did.

[IceGator8]

Even better video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igjgU...eature=related

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The distance added due to the penalty was inconsequential and irrelevant to the loss.

That's an entirely inaccurate statement. Changing a kick from 20 yards to 35 yards is most certainly consequential and relevant...it changes the angle of the flight of the ball, etc., etc...did it "cause" the Huskies to lose? Of course not - that's on them. But to say the added distance is irrelevant and inconsequential is completely inaccurate.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

That's an entirely inaccurate statement. Changing a kick from 20 yards to 35 yards is most certainly consequential and relevant...it changes the angle of the flight of the ball, etc., etc...did it "cause" the Huskies to lose? Of course not - that's on them. But to say the added distance is irrelevant and inconsequential is completely inaccurate.

I completely disagree. At those specific distances, it doesn't change anything. They still kick it WAY over the bar. If we we're talking about a 55 yard FG, then yes, they kick it lower to get the extra distance....but PATs and 35 yard FG's are both kicked high because the distance is well within the range of most (if not all) D1 place kickers. He may have kicked it low, but not becasue he needed to.