Do I understand this to mean that any foul whatsoever on the last play of the
game is not enforceable and therefor anything goes? That doesn't sound correct
...just adds one more referee call to the list of those that were overturned.But finally An Overruling that was originally called in UTES favor
LOL! I liked the "explanation", but the real story is that Vegas
"encouraged" the PAC-12 to add the points so they did not lose out on
a lot of money, but try explaining that to the Press. At least it would have
not been the patronizing garbage they fed everyone. Somebody could have lost
their mortgage on this...to quote the Simpsons, "Won't somebody please
think of the children!"
3 points or 9 points is irrelevant. Either way it's a loss.
Interesting point: The point spread was 8 1/2 pts and USC wins by 9. What a
coinsidence. The UTES played a very tough team and slugged it out with them.
Re thomas:As long as it's by a substitute yes. So if a Utah player
on the sideline would have ran out and tackled the guy the game would have ended
Live in the past much ??
Either way, that player showed no class in running it back for a touchdown. The
game was over. I remember Eric Weddle's last game as a Ute in the Armed Forces
bowl - he intercepted the last play and had room to run, but just took a kneel.
That is showing respect.
byronbca:Hmmm. Very interesting perspective there. I never thought
of it that way.Oh well, a 3-pt loss looks the same as a 9-pt loss in
the record books, since either way, we're 1-1.GO UTES!!!
re: Ade | 9:34 a.m. Sept. 11, 2011 Ding! We have a winner.@ ute_fan11 | 11:26 a.m. Sept. 11, 2011Exactly. Of course, the
current & previous head coach are not exactly the best role models.
Ute fan11,In the heat of the moment the 'instinct' is to run with
the ball and score. Do you honestly think this young man had a lot of time to
think about this scenario?Ever wonder if any time was ever spent in
practice to discuss this very scenario?Geesh, give the kid a break.
As much as I hate to say it being a Ute fan, the player did nothing wrong in
running it back for a touchdown. If Utah doesn't want him to score, it is their
responsibility to run after him and stop him from scoring not the player's
responsibility to stop on his own. With that being said it would have been
smarter for the player to just take a knee like Weddle did in the Armed Forces
Bowl because once he goes down the game is over. As long as he is running there
is always a chance, however unlikely, that a Utah player would run him down and
strip him of the ball and then return that subsequent fumble for a game-winning
touchdown on the other end. Even if Utah didn't score in that scenario they
would have had another play because of how the rule would have been applied.
They then would at least have a chance at a hail mary or another field goal
attempt. So really it wasn't the smartest play to take it in but you can't
really fault him for doing that either.
@ wildcat, that doesn't make any sense. By beating the spread, USC just
cost Vegas a lot of money. Guessing you haven't bet on too many games
Utefan.11Am I wrong or did a well known team do an onside kick,
leading by 40+ points.
@byronbcaThat is a good point but I think there was a rule passed a
few years back that a TD can be awarded if a player, coach, or someone from the
sidelines interferes with a play in progress and in the ref's judgement a TD
would have been scored without the interference. I can't remember
the exact incident that precipitated that rule change but someone from a
sideline, a coach if I remember correctly, did tackle a guy running for a TD.Anyone on else on here remember that?That said I don't see
how it was poor sportsmanship for the player to return that block for a td. I
know you didn't say it was a different poster did. These kids are in the heat of
a game, they're emotional and of course they want to score a td if the
opportunity arises. Utes, Jazz, and RSL forever made a great point that it may
not have been the wisest decision, but it certainly wasn't poor sportsmanship.
Besides what does it matter? The game was lost when the kick was blocked.
@wwookieIt actually depends on the level of betting on either side
of the spread. If there were more dollars bet that USC would cover then the
added td cost vegas money. If there was more action on the other side of the
line, that meaning that utah would beat the spread, then the added td saved
Vegas money.I'm not sure which side of the line got more action, if
I had to guess I would guess that USC covering got more action, in which case it
did cost Vegas money. Of course the line changed several times during the week
leading up to the game so it would also depend on how much action went to either
side of the line at the times people actually made their bet.I think
the original line was 6 1/2 for USC then moved to like 10 1/2 then wound up at 8
1/2. So there were people that got bets in on all of those seperate spreads. so
the extra td paid for USC betters that got 6 1/2 and 8 1/2 but didn't for anyone
that got their bet in at 10 1/2.
FYIThe line is a reflection of the money bet. The goal is to get 50% of
the money on each team. Meaning, when the line was 10 points people saw value in
betting on Utah. The line changed to 8.5 - 9 points to entice money to be placed
on USC. You can be assured by game time the money was pretty evenly spread
between the two teams. You take the losers money and pay the winners minus
the vig and clear 10%
The collusion would be between the USC betters and Pac 12 officials, not Las
Veagas. I do not perscribe to the conspiracy but I think it is a safe
"bet" to assume that all of the betters affiliated with USC bet on USC
to cover. The post game ruling clearly helped USC betters more than any other
group.Gambling aside, if Pac 12 officials can overide the officials on the
field by adding points to widen the margin of victory after the fact, what would
stop them from adding points that changed the winner and losser? What if USC was
behind when this scenario played out? The pac 12 officials have opened a can of
worms with this ruling.
That loss cost the Utes any hope of a bowl game, well that and the other five
losses they will have this year. U can look forward to the bowl of potato chips
at the new years party.
The only mistake made was by the personnel in the booth who did not record the
score once the official on the field made the call. According to the
explanation the call was made on the field as time expired or shortly
thereafter, but the booth didn't make the change to the scoreboard. Either way,
the score is what it is and wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game. Time
to move on and deal with BYU. Go Utes!
I don't have a problem with him running it back for a touchdown. I do have a
problem with the bench emptying during the play and going out on the field, with
no consequences for it--apparently to appease Vegas odds makers. A three point
or a nine point loss makes no difference for the Utes it a big scheme.
Duckhunter, I think the play you recall is when a Virginia assistant coach
tried to trip a Virginia Tech player running unopposed down the sideline. This
happened several years ago and I recall hearing about a rule change because of