BYU - Washington
 

Did anyone else see it?

Cougars score with 2 seconds remaining. QB #10 flings the ball high into the air, so air it went out of the TV picutre. He correctly draws the USC for excessive celebration. BYU blocks the PAT from the 18 and hangs on to win.

Of course, the ESPN studio idiots are complaining about the call, EVEN AFTER POSTING THE RULE FOR ALL TO SEE.

Mean old officials!

I saw it and it was the wrong call to make at any point in the game.

I understand the rule, but officials need to really hide the flag on something like this especially at that point of that game.

Believe me, this will be a hot topic for pregames in officiating crews in the coming weeks in all conferences across the country.

ESPN says they have Dave Parry on SPortcenter tonight to discuss the call


From ESPN.com:

But as soon as the ball left Locker's hands and went into the air, officials hands were tied, according to a statement from referee Larry Farina.

"After scoring the touchdown, the player threw the ball into the air and we are required, by rule, to assess a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty," Farina said in a statement given to Washington officials. "It is a celebration rule that we are required to call. It was not a judgment call."

Yeah, the ESPN coverage is really annoying. Don't blame the officials, blame the rule (which is a very dumb one, IMO).

God forbid we should rely on the judgement of the officials.

A play like this inevitably happens when rulesmakers try to eliminate judgement.

This isn't the first time call has been made. We've all seen it before. Where was your outrage before when it was called before?

No, evidently you don't understand the rule if you're going to tell us that it's "the wrong call to make at any point in the game." If you don't like the rule, then work to get it changed. But it is the rule and it's not new.

It's unfortunate for Washington that they had the kick blocked but it's bull$hit to lay it on the officials.

As many times as they replayed it, the ball was thrown high enough to be completely out of sight on my TV. One of the BD (Brain Dead) mouths in the booth said that the QB just threw the ball back over his shoulder. These fools are so anti-officials, they can't understand what a foul is.

Bob

Exactly. I heard that as well.

So you suggest completely ignoring the rule at all times? :confused:

Ok, ignore it the whole game but especially ignore it at the end :confused: How about telling the player to not commit dumb fouls?

It should be as it serves as a great example of good officiating.

I have seen the play and I have no problem with the call. How about do not do this and you will not have to worry about it.

Let me take this a step further. I am a Back Judge and I happen to be the covering official on most long and exciting TDs. For some reason you do not see players throw the ball, or not just hand the ball to me or another official. Why is it that high school players can have restraint, but college players (who are older) do not? Also, the NCAA shows extensive tape on plays that are ruled illegal. I will bet a lot of money that there are plays like this that suggest this is a foul. I personally do not care what point of the game this took place. If you do not want a flag, keep your composure and you will have little or nothing to worry about.

Peace

Dave Parry discussed the call and backed the official. But Dave probably shouldn't be allowed to talk on TV. He kept saying "...in the official's judgment" which ESPN took apart after he got off the air.

But he did point out that video has been sent to all coaches across the country showing exactly this type of play, and other plays as well.

There is nothing stupider than the old "you can't flag that at this point of the game" comment.

To be fair to the Dave, he made very clear that the official was in position and saw the entire play. He also said that you cannot split hairs with whether the ball went 10 feet or 15 feet as was suggested by the Reece Davis tried to suggest on the telecast. I think all Dave was trying to make clear that this was a judgment call and that it fits the rule. And ESPN quoted the rule and gave a specific reference to throwing the ball in the air. Now if anyone is stupid that is Lou Holtz which clearly tried to add crap to the issue by saying he does not see players drop the ball or hand the ball to the officials. Then again, he did coach at Notre Dame, so I understand why he is stupid in the first place. :D

Peace

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.

Rules committee
 

I agree with what has been said, and Mark May really showed his ignorance tonight.

The part that really gets me is some of the guys o ESPN Radio have mentioned that it is the rule -- a dumb rule -- but a rule nonetheless. Then they talk about the Rules Committee as if it's a group of officials making up the rules.

I don't know the exact make-up of the rules committee, but I know there are plenty of coaches on the committee, and they have the most say. Rules are written by what the coaches want. I'd be surprised if there are any officials on there.

This would not change anything because these people think like fans. And Mark May even tried to suggest that this was a "Pac-10 crew" as to suggest that they went against the home team. Fans are almost never rational because they have never had to make decisions based on rules and interpretations given by the higher ups.

Peace

At the NCAA level, all Rules Committees are made up of only coaches or people affiliated with the schools unless Roger Redding has an officiating background. Redding’s membership is considered in affiliation of the SEC.

Basically, coaches make decisions on rules every year. Officials do not play a significant role at all on these committees. And that is why you get these rules written without consideration of other factors and the officials get the blame when they are enforced as written. This is not just a problem in football; it is the case in other NCAA sports as well.

Peace

I was at the game and knew instantly that there would be a flag. The ball went 30-40 feet in th air. When Locker threw it he had enough time to high five, chest bump, and attempt another high five before the ball came back down and hit him.

Seriously, the throw was high enough it gets called 100 times out of 100. Locker as a team leader needs to know this stuff and not commit the infraction.

Exactly. That is completely clear on the video.

I mentally counted approximately 3, maybe 4 seconds, between the release and when it hit him in the head. 3 seconds equates to 36 feet. 4 seconds, 64 feet. Even it my count was fast and it was really only 2 seconds, it would have been 16 feet above his head. If that is not high, I don't know what is. Simply put, Locker was guilty of an act that drew the flag. Whether or not you like the fact that the official called it, Locker unnecessarily took that risk by throwing the ball.

And even more interesting was the fact that the PAT was blocked, not missed. It's not like the extra distance is what made the block possible. Kicking from the 35 is a pretty basic FG distance. The PAT would have been blocked even in absence of the penalty. So, the penalty is essentially irrelvant.

Camron,

I see your formula: 4•t², but how did derive that formula? My physics days are more behind me than I thought, or it truly is 7am on Sunday morning...

To the OP: good call. The officials hands were tied! As for the rule, I don't care either way.

Game Management.

Mark May
 

Did you hear him say the official probably cost Ty Willingham his job. How about working on your kicking game and having control of your players so these penalties don't happen. The official didn't throw the ball up in the air. Which Mark May says "HE DIDN"T THROW IT THAT HIGH" The guy is a IDIOT!!!!!

This whole ESPN mess is just a very small example of what's wrong in our country today. Some old bag spills a cup of coffee between her legs and it's McDonald's fault for making hot coffee. This kid commits a foul and it's the officials fault for costing the head coach his job. Someone step up and say the kid screwed up and we'll be on our way to a better world.

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.

There is such little respect for authority anymore.

My calculation is based on the fact that at the peak, the velocity of the ball is 0 and that, for these distances/speeds, it takes essentially half the time to go up and half the time to go do down.

http://image.ajdesigner.com/projecti...t_equation.png

I use the following:

v<SUB>y0</SUB> = 0...velocity at the peak of the throw
g = 32.2 (gravity at sea level)
t = 1, 1.5, and 2 (half of the observed time estimates, T)

So, the equation simplifes to 16.1 * t² (fall time) or 4.025 * T² (total time),

Someone could pull out a stopwatch and time it exactly if they wish and calculate it to the exact inch if they want.

Problem is the PAC-10 referee used opposite langauge, saying that it is not a judgment call, that they have to flag it by rule. They just weren't on the same page.

I believe this was a foul and do not question that Just trying to be straight on the math. Wouldn't the ball go up faster than it comes down, i.e. it would have to be moving faster than gravity in order to continue upwards?
Therefore, shouldn't the equation take that into account?

I do not know what the McDonald's coffee situation has to do with this situation. That situation was about injuries caused by the temperature of the coffee which were determined to be excessive. That had nothing to with just dropping the coffee in a person's lap. The lady that dropped the coffee had 2nd and 3rd degree burns as a result. It had almost nothing to do with simply dropping the coffee. This situation is about violating a clear rule. It is not against the law to drop a cup of coffee.

Peace

Well it clearly is a judgment call. Just because the information was covered and the rules were clear, does not take judgment out of the call. I honestly hate it when I hear people claim certain plays like this are not judgment calls. I would rather take the NCAA Coordinator's point of view on this, then what a conference says. And the ESPN people were too stupid to make that kind of nuance point anyway.

Peace

I recall now - thanks! We were taught that the imperial value for the acceleration due to gravity is 32.2 ft/s². We used 9.80665 m/s².

You obviously haven't read or heard any of the comments that have come from the UW football program. Willingham, Locker, the AD at UW - they've all said it was the correct call and Locker has taken full responsibility for throwing the ball. He said he knows better and is ashamed of himself for hurting his team. So just because the talking heads on ESPN are idiots doesn't mean the whole world is going to hell.

The ball accelerates up with the force it is thrown with. Eventually gravity overcomes that force. It stops when it's speed equals zero. At that point gravity has exerted just enough force to bring the speed from initial velocity to 0. It will exert exactly that much force on the way down and the ball will end up travelling at initial velocity. (Plus a little because locker released the ball about 5 feet off the ground.
________
PRILOSEC LAWSUITES

For the moment my faith has been restored in mankind. ;)

Actually Willingham whined considerably about the call during the post game show. I have a hunch he toned things down when he got to see the video.


BTW JRutledge, this is not a judgement call. The NCAA rule said you can't throw the ball "high" in the air. This call could have been thrown ten to fifteen feet lower and still been high. This one will get called every single time. If the official doesn't he is negligent.

If you're in this game long enough you will absolutely make calls, that after personal review, you wish you could take back. Given the circumstances, although this call may very well stand the test of instant review from a strict compliance viewpoint, I suspect the covering official would like another chance on this play.

I beg to differ. I bet this wasn't the first time he's flagged this type of action. After all the criticism that officials in bowl game took last year there has been a push to not ignore these type of actions. Hand the ball to the official and go to your sideline and celebrate all you want.

You're wrong on two things.

1- The referee made the statement that it wasn't a judgment call, not the conference. He was correct. It's automatic.

2- The ESPN guys did indeed jump on it.

Don't assume you know what someone else thinks when the man hasn't said a word.

And I suspect he knows he got it right the first time, so there is no need for a second chance. This exact action is spelled out in the rule and this play should be used as an example to college officials of what actions are to be penalized.

The big loss to the Ducks last week, as well as what Oklahoma, USC, et al. will do to UW, will be what costs Willingham his job if he is fired.

Well the NCAA Coordinator said it was a judgment call. And considering that the rule does not get specific about how high or what is or is not a foul that is a judgment call. Now it might not be a difficult judgment call, but it is clear that some officials might have passed on this if they were in the situation for all kinds of reasons. If that is your logic, I could say a foot in the air is "high" and justify any throwing of the ball despite how "high" the ball goes. And it will not get called every time and I am sure it has not been called just this year every time.

Peace

What he said was that EVERY call is a judgment call.

Well the NCAA Coordinator is a little bit more involved in these things than a crew that is hired by a particular conference.


I saw the conversation again, and Reece did not jump on it or focus on the contradictions to make a point. The conversation was more about the officials used bad judgment because of what time of the game this took place and the game is supposed to be fun. They hardly mentioned the contradiction in language.

Peace

Well, it really is a judgement call since they have to judge how much is "high". If it had gone 6 inches over his head, I doubt there would be a call or even any discussion about a possible call. At some point it becomes too high and unless they're got a specific height and a way to measure it on the field, it will remain a judgement call.

Gravity is not a speed, it's a force. It is ALWAYS pulling object towards the center of the earth. It pulls on all objects at the same rate regardless of their speed or weight (distance from the earth matters but not in the range we're talking about...it would take a lot of miles to matter). It influences the speed of all objects by 32 feet per second per second....subtracting speed if the object is rising, increasing speed if the object is falling.

The only factor not considered is resistance due to air....the equation assumes a vacuum. Air will make the two times (up vs. down) different and will made the initial up and final down speeds different. The air resistance will be assisting gravity with the ball on the way up and will be opposing gravity with the ball on the way down. However, the magnatude of the effect of air resistance is negligible at the speeds and distances we're talking about. At some falling speed, the resistance due to air is exactly enough to offset gravity and an object will no longer speed up.

At a given height, the speed will be the same both going up and going down...just in opposite directions. When it hit him in the head, it was going the same speed as when it left his hand.

The concept you're thinking about is "escape velocity": in order to continue upwards - in effect, "faster than gravity" as you put it.

To esacpe the effect of earth's gravitational pull, and enter orbit, an escape velocity of 11.2 km/s is required. This is the same as almost 7 mi/s, or 37,000 ft/s, according to Google calculator.

I'm not arguing with the call so much as the rule. these are college kids for gods sake. Let them celebrate a little. He did nothing to show up the other team, so why make the officials throw the flag. Stupid, stupid rule. This is why it's getting harder and harder to watch football, because you're not allowed to celebrate after you score. The NFL is now known as the No Fun League, and the NCAA is getting to the point where it should be called the Not So Fun League

Then why to high school kids use better judgment when they are in those situations? I have been in playoff games where the score took place in the final minutes in a back and forth war of a game and the scoring player just hands the ball to the officials? I understand that this is a fun game, but you cannot take it over the top either. ;)

And when they tell you something is illegal and you do it anyway, then you have no one to blame but yourself. I might have more sympathy if this was not addressed before this season.

Peace

Mark May is a hypocrite.

On the show he stated that at worst the crew should have gotten together and waved off the flag.

You can be assured that if they had done that he would have been ripping them for being homers and being too nutless to stick with their correct call.

Announcers blow, period.

Although the Ref may have announced this as excessive celebration. This was not a celebration/taunting foul. This was more of an act that delays the game. Since all the push from TV networks to not delay the game, it is easy to see why this is a point of emphasis. You can bet that the majority of colleges have seen this and will likely not commit the same act and all the games will not be delayed by this act again. Here is the rule. You can see that this has nothing to do with taunting or celebration.

2. After a score or any other play, the player in possession immediately
must return the ball to an official or leave it near the dead-ball spot.
This prohibits:
(a) Kicking, throwing, spinning or carrying (including off of the
field) the ball any distance that requires an official to retrieve it.
(b) Spiking the ball to the ground [Exception: A forward pass to
conserve time (Rule 7-3-2-d)].
(c) Throwing the ball high into the air.
(d) Any other unsportsmanlike act or actions that delay the game.

This is not new - this parodical acronym has been around for years.

Only if he doesn't want to work for his conference any more.

Is there significant coaches' input to NCAA rules, just as there is in other leagues?

Unless someone can tell me the background of Redding, all NCAA Committee members are coaches or former coaches. Same applies in other sports committees with the NCAA.

Peace

Just as I suspected! Tx.

Regarding "judgment calls": there are at least 2 kinds of judgment.
1. Judging whether a rule applies: this kind of judgment will be required of officials at every moment of every game, since we're always judging whether what we see falls within the rules. This is probably what the PAC-10 supervisor was thinking when he said that every call (and non-call) is a judgment call. This is not judgment in an interesting sense.
2. Judging whether a particular criterion applies to a case: the NCAA USC rule mentions throwing the ball "high" in the air, which it does not define. Without a definition, officials must rely on their judgment regarding what constitutes "high" (or indeed many other forms of USC).

The second kind of judgment is harder to develop and does not apply to every case. We have either explicit or implicit definitions of catch, fumble, muff, etc. Think of it this way: you can overturn a ruling of "catch," but you can't overturn a ruling of "high."

The OP required both kinds of judgment, and IMHO the official was clearly correct to rule that the ball was thrown high in the air, and so correct to throw the flag. Had some guts, too, in addition to good judgment.

I think that there will be a lot of meetings with skill position players this week to make sure they know this rule! I doubt NCAA will abandon the rule...

Regarding gravity: there's no such thing. The earth sucks.

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

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.

That wasn't my point. :rolleyes:

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

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'm not a football official, but it seems to me that the game officials applied a rule correctly and without hesitation.

What really irked me was the ESPN talking heads comments about "not calling something like that at that point in the game"

So, if it was called in the middle of the first quarter, it's OK?

The one thing people don't realize is that officials don't make stuff up, we just observe what the players do and judge accordingly.

If it's a violation two seconds into the game, it's a violaton with two seconds left in the game.

NCAA Rules Committee
 

REPLY: For those interested...

NCAA Football Rules Committee
Mike Bellotti , Chair
Division I (FBS) - University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon 97403
Term expires 9-1-09*
Rogers Redding, Secretary-Rules Editor
Division I (FBS) – Southeastern Conference
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Frank Carr
Division III - Earlham College,
Richmond, Indiana 47374
Term expires 9-1-10*
Gil Cloud
Division II - Upper Iowa University
Fayette, Iowa 52142
Term expires 9-1-10*
Randy Edsall
Division I (FBS) - University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut 06269
Term expires 9-1-11*
Chris Hatcher
Division I (FCS) - Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, Georgia 30460
Term expires 9-1-11*
Todd Knight
Division II - Ouachita Baptist University
Arkadelphia, Arkansas 71998
Term expires 9-1-11*
Tony Samuel
Division I (FCS) - Southeast Missouri State University
Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701
Term expires 9-1-09
Ron Prince
Division I (FBS) - Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66502
Term expires 9-1-09*
Rocky Rees
Division II – Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257
Term expires 9-1-10*
Ky Snyder
Division I (FCS) - University of San Diego
San Diego, California 92110
Term expires 9-1-10*

Note: Two Division III representatives were not named in time for inclusion in the rules book.

REPLY: JRutledge...Dr. Redding was not only an outstanding official with several bowl appearances, but he is also a professor of physics.

http://www.footballofficialscamp.com...ing_rogers.htm

So, he can even help us by explaining the physics of projectile motion and why the time to reach apex is the same as the time to fall back to earth.:) But...his position on the Rules Committee is not as an official but rather as the Secretary-Editor of the NCAA rules.

Because high school players don't get on Sportscenter.

Usually.

Maturity doesn't always come with increased calendar age. There are a whole mess of other things in the head and body of the college athlete that make him act and react differently than someone of lesser calendar age.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

But close is the studio talking heads' saw: "Officials shouldn't decide the game."

Well, we don't decide the game, but thanks for thinking of us.

Players (and former players) are not the best folks to be giving interpretations of rules that they were very likely ignorant of when they played and have given precious little thought to since they got on TV.

That's like saying all officials are homers or blind.

There are good ones and not-so-good ones, just like in any profession.

And I am an announcer, so normally I'd take offense to what you said, but I'm too old to fight about it, so I'll just say you're exaggerating and leave it at that.

They do not have to get on SportsCenter, they could just be on local TV or state wide TV during State Final games. TV is really big around here (as you know) just for certain games. A lot of people see those games and since you have left, now there is a big time show that focuses on high school games around the area. Kids watch those shows and they realize they are on TV. They stay very restrained and I have seen many situations where I would think kids would get out of hand or do what they see on TV from the other levels, and I am surprised how few ever get that excited.

Peace

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.

Even better video:

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

You don't think that Sportscenter is bigger than Friday Night High School Roundup on Channel 15? I'm just sayin'.

I think some college players think of themselves as justthisclose to being pros (at least they're BMOCs in a much bigger C than a high school player) and that may negate some of the supposed maturity you might expect them to attain as they age.

High school kids who don't play the fool after scoring are usually either good kids to begin with or they're well-coached, or both, it seems to me. Good for anyone who practices restraint or minimizes the showboating, in my book. I don't expect them all to be Barry Sanders, but I'm always pleased by athletes who take the high road.

I did not say it was bigger, but when you are on TV you are not as concerned with the type of stage, you just like the stage. Then again not all of us are on TV for a living either. ;)

I see more Barry Sanders' type celebrations then I see "Ocho Cinco" type celebrations. Now I am sure part of this is the fear their coaches can have on those kids. And in college these are for the most part adults, so they are given some leeway. But the NCAA has taken more measures to curtail specific actions than the NF has ever needed to.

Peace

Thank You!!! I had tried multiple times to get people in the ESPN forums to realize just that fine nuance to no avail. Regardless of side, they just don't care about the why, only about the who, what and when. If Locker had just tossed it over his shoulder, I doubt any of us would be discussing it.

Pac-10: Officials got unsportsmanlike conduct call against Locker right
ESPN.com news services
<!-- end story header --><!-- begin left column --><!-- begin page tools -->Updated: September 8, 2008, 7:03 PM EST

<!-- end page tools --><!-- begin story body --><!-- template inline -->The Pac-10 has decided that the officials got the controversial call near the end of Saturday's BYU-Washington game right.

[+] Enlarge

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008...ocker2_200.jpg Mike Tedesco/US Presswire
Jake Locker's celebration after scoring a TD on a 3-yard run with two seconds left drew an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.



"The rule seems pretty cut and dried," Coordinator of football officiating for the Pac-10 Conference Dave Cutaia said, according to the Seattle Times, of Rule 9, Section 2, Article 2c, which states that a player can be penalized for an unsportsmanlike act for "throwing the ball high into the air."
The controversy was the 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on Washington quarterback Jake Locker after he scored on a 3-yard run with two seconds left in regulation. Locker flipped the ball over his head into the air and began celebrating with his teammates. The fling drew a flag for excessive celebration.
As it's written, Locker did violate the rule. But the decision to throw the flag in a moment of jubilation provided a muddled conclusion to an exciting game and brought a storm of criticism from college football pundits. The penalty left Washington's Ryan Perkins attempting an extra point from 35 yards. Perkins' kick was low and blocked by BYU's Jan Jorgensen, leaving Washington 0-2 after the 28-27 loss.
"It is a celebration rule that we are required to call," Pac-10 referee Larry Farina said after the game. "It was not a judgment call."
However, David Parry, national coordinator for college football officiating, said Sunday that all calls are judgment calls, although he was in no way critical of the call or the official who made it, since there's no doubt Locker broke the rule.
"I think what he meant is this was so obviously against the rule and flagrant you have no option but to throw a flag," Parry said.
The rules covering sportsmanship and impermissible celebrations were emphasized before this season to college football officials. A video was sent out "stressing major points," Parry said.
But even Parry conceded, "I think it's safe to say on emotional moments officials might become a little more lenient."
BYU coach Bronco Mendenhall on Monday reiterated his stance on the call, saying the officials called the play by the rules.
"To say that it was just for granted, that the referee's call decided it -- when he called it correctly -- again it's unfortunate," Mendenhall said.
The penalty tarnished the victory for BYU (2-0), which fell three spots in the AP poll on Sunday. But Mendenall said rules exist for a reason.
"They are to teach principles of class and integrity," Mendenhall said. "Sometimes young men in the heat of the moment get over-exuberant and the rules are in place to try to keep the game intact and hold on to what is most important in the game and that's the team element.
"Again, it's unfortunate that a call is being the focus rather than two teams playing their heart out and going down to the last play that did decide the game."

Most people in the ESPN forums would lose a chess match to a shiny object.

How are those folks any different some officials here who agree with them that it's okay to ignore the rules? :p

When I was in HS, I was a physics geek. I wrote something called the dark sucker theory in which there is no such thing as light. Rather, there is dark and light is the absense of dark.

Dark is faster than light. When you open a drawer, you do not see the dark escape, but you do see the light enter the drawer. When you enter a room and turn on the light, do you see the dark leave? No. But you do see the light, "light up" the room. In reality, the light bulb is a dark sucker.

Dark is heavier than light. Proof: all the dark settles to the bottom of the ocean. The light, which is lighter than dark, is on top. Ancient scientist and linguists suspected this fact, which is why they called light, "light". They could have also called dark, "heavy".

There are also naturally occuring dark suckers: they're called stars.

Wow. That's heavy.

Not bad at all! You must like Priestly.