Thanks for the interesting article.
CBGive it a rest; the PAC 12 is infamous for poor officiating that
always seems to favor PAC 12 teams - see ASU versus Wisconsin 2013.
This comment must be a joke; right? I've read you tirades against BYU for
years, but really?
It's been known for years that the refs conspire against byu. Sometimes
they make mistakes in games not involving byu, but that's just human error.
"the PAC 12 is infamous for poor officiating that always seems to favor PAC
12 teams - see ASU versus Wisconsin 2013."PAC 12 officials are
terrible. I was at that ASU vs. Wisconsin game. In addition to the botched
ending, the PAC 12 officials also botched the pass by Wisconsin (two or three
plays prior) when the receiver caught the ball and stepped out of bounds. The
Officials didn't call him out of bounds and the receiver ran for more than
20 additional yards. See Utah fans, I can admit that ASU was the
benefactor of these terrible officials. I haven't seen Utah fans admit that
the exact same officiating crew botched several calls in the BYU vs Utah game.
I'm not crying about the outcome, Utah won and BYU lost, but there were
several blown calls in Utah's favor in that game too. Coincidence? I think
not. I just benefited from it on one game, and didn't benefit in another.
Oh well, new season.
"Only in America could you have an obvious infraction ignored..."What is this supposed to mean?? People say stuff like this all the
time.. Only in Utah, only in America, only in this school or this church or
whatever to put something down to get a laugh. At least our major sports
aren't completely governed by drug lords and bookies.
Ken Driggs,How would you have them "fix it"? You want them to call
every infraction that is evident in every review. That in it's self would
be agonizing, and where would it end. Would you have them stop the game after
every play and rerun it in slow motion to check for infractions?There has to be limits on how reviews are used.
@ekuteI agree with your second comment that says there needs to be
limits on how reviews are used but disagree with the first when you state,
"...that's just human error." It isn't human error when the
play is reviewed and the call is still incorrect. That's blatant
dishonesty. In the case of the SDSU vs. BYU game based on current replay rules,
the facemask should not be overturned as it is deemed not
'reviewable.' In this case SDSU should have the ball. However I do
believe they need to tweak the rules to where if there is an infraction evidant
on the reviewed play that should be taken into consideration as well. But it
should only be allowed if a team calls for a review on a play so as not to go
overboard with reviewing every play. Otherwise we might as well go back to no
video reviews at all or just reviewing scoring plays. Sure we'd be back to
'human error' but its better than reviewing a play and still getting
it wrong. Human error has been a part of sports for over 100 years. I think its
time we go back to that.
...follow up to previous post...I believe it should be allowed to
review any obvious infractions on the actual play that is being reviewed. For
example, if there is a fumble and the ball carrier had his face mask held, that
should be reviewable. On the flip side, if there is a review called for and
there was a holding call missed on the other side of the field on the same play,
that should not be reviewable. In the SDSU example, the resulting review should
be a BYU 1st down with a 15 yard penalty on SDSU. No fumble as the facemask
penalty negates it.
The DesNews publishes "Only myopic and small-minded people could go to that
extent" in describing specific people who somehow faulted BYU for the SDSU
officiating debacle, yet they deny as 'personal attack' any comments
pointing out the exact same thing on the exact same game about Ute commenters,
who years later still refer to that officiating gaffe as something BYU was
Tajemnica"blatant dishonesty" is trying to blame BYU for an
officiating gaffe that BYU had absolutely nothing to do with.