November 8, 2009 · 8:38 AM

Now you know how we feel.

Sorry, LSU fans, but I have no sympathy for you about this.  None.

How does that shoe on the other foot fit?

30 Comments

Filed under SEC Football

30 responses to “Now you know how we feel.”

  1. rbubp
    November 8, 2009 at 8:50 AM

    Senator, is it time yet for me to make my assertions about how this relates to the “C” in BCS (“Conference” or “Corrupt”)?

    Like

  2. Joe B.
    November 8, 2009 at 9:22 AM

    It has become criminal at this point.

    I really cannot believe there has not been more outcry from around the country on this play.

    I mean, if the call is missed on the field, that is one thing; but, when it goes to the replay booth, and the guy makes a call that is clearly not what is on the screen, it makes you scratch your head and believe that there must be a conspiracy going on.

    How can a guy, who is being paid to watch replays, miss a call that is obvious to anyone else on earth who is watching it? How can that logically happen?

    Like

  3. Turd Ferguson
    November 8, 2009 at 9:32 AM

    The SEC wants at least one team to go undefeated and play in the national championship game. When LSU came to Athens, there was still a chance it could be them (and not a chance it could be us). So the refs gave the Tigers the game, just in case they went on to beat the Gators. But now it could only be Florida or Alabama, so they had no choice but to call that an incomplete pass yesterday.

    It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.

    Like

  4. Prov
    November 8, 2009 at 10:00 AM

    I don’t know. I didn’t think the interception was as obvious as some here believe. I never saw a clear shot showing his foot not on the line. Maybe I missed it.

    Like

    • rbubp
      November 8, 2009 at 10:32 AM

      http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=293110333

      Watch the video and the still the show at 3:07.
      Also, earlier I had forgotten earlier about the TD UF kept on the INT return at Mississippi State, so my “homer” theory does not always hold. (On that one ESPN created a two-side split screen that showed the ball before he crossed the goal line–a capability the replay officials apparently have.)

      I am not typically a conspiracy nut (I swear), but there’s an awful lot of evidence here and even more money at stake if the SEC has one of the finalists–for ESPN, the BCS, and the SEC. I don’t like the BCS, what it stands for, how it was created, how it operates, or whom it serves (itself)–so there’s my agenda. What bugs me is that so many college football fans and media ignore or often question, even pull a Rece Davis and publicly blast, the only people left who have the authority to put these people under the microscope (Congress, coaches, univ presidents– since the BCS already hammered the NCAA in court). This is a group of conference commissioners whose jobs rely on their ability to gather and keep prestige for THEIR conferences–to DENY competition. Now Boise State can’t get a game with a BCS team.

      Why is anyone surprised this could happen, and why does everyone get upset when outsiders question it??

      Like

  5. Macallanlover
    November 8, 2009 at 10:24 AM

    Big difference here, this was a missed call on a bang-bang play with the video evidence somewhat fuzzy. (I agree, it looked 90% certain to be an interception. Had it been ruled an interception on the field, I believe that would have been upheld too.) And I still think Bama would have won the game given LSu’s offense, although it definitely did allow Bama to cover my bet for me!

    In the UGA game, it wasn’t a missed call, it was an INVENTED call, and it DID change the outcome of the game. Much more significant missed call. I understand the LSU fans being upset because IK hate officials missing calls. but I am with the Senator on this one, no UGA fan can feeel too much empathy for you after what happened to us.

    Like

    • AP
      November 8, 2009 at 11:26 AM

      What UGA blown/missed call are you talking about?

      Like

    • JasonC
      November 8, 2009 at 5:27 PM

      Agreed. There is a difference between missing a call and inventing a call over nothing.
      Also, like you said, the evidence needed to overturn a call has to be stronger. If it was an INT on the field, it would have stayed an INT.

      Like

      • Rbubp
        November 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM

        You’re all assuming that they have the same technology and replays that we get. That’s not the case–do you think they can’t slow the screen down and freeze-frame like they did on that ESPN link? Did anyone see the MSU-UF game, where the interception/fumble was replayed…impossible to tell…until after the commercial they came back with a split-screen still view that clearly showed the UF player fumbling before crossing the goal line–and then they said that the replay officials can see that too?

        Like

  6. Brandon
    November 8, 2009 at 10:41 AM

    The shots CBS had of this play which is what I presume the re-play officials had were not that conclusive to show it was an interception, ESPN had some better ones that did make it appear to be an interception but if all the re-play guys had was the CBS shots it wasn’t that bad of a call, unless your tigah fan

    Like

  7. Bryant Denny
    November 8, 2009 at 11:31 AM

    As noted above, had the call been an interception it would likely been confirmed in the booth. Either way, it was most likely a blown call (I was at the game and haven’t seen the replay).

    From my viewpoint, the overall game was horribly officiated. It seemed that the officials were intent on NOT making any sort of call and so the hankies stayed stuffed in their pockets. There were a bunch of no-calls that should have been made.

    LSU’s punter (who played a great game) also angle-kicked to Arenas who was waiting on his own 10 yard line. The ball landed out of bounds on the sideline part of the end zone. Now unless the punter is some sort of kicking genius, the ball went out of bounds way before the goal line, however the refs didn’t even acknowlege this and called the punt a touchback. I know this is a small thing, but the freaking refs didn’t even try to mark the ball where it actually crossed out of bounds.
    It seems to me now that the refs are shellshocked and afraid.

    Have a great day,

    BD

    Like

    • Mayor of Dawgtown
      November 9, 2009 at 9:18 PM

      Regarding the punt, what you said is one way of looking at it. Then again, there is another way of looking at it. See Turd Ferguson’s post above.

      Like

  8. Hogbody Spradlin
    November 8, 2009 at 12:07 PM

    I’ve got a picture in my mind that the replay booth guys are there because they’re Caspar Milquetoasts who don’t have the guts to get on the field. Result: wimps who’ll do anything to avoid sticking their necks out. You can always find a reason that something is not irrefutable.

    Like

    • 69Dawg
      November 8, 2009 at 12:43 PM

      Wrong the replay guys are retired refs from the SEC that sucked when they were field refs but need the sweet money that they pull in for sleeping through college games. Al Ford for Dawgs sake is a replay official and he couldn’t call the Jasper Shanks nonfumble right. These guys are the laughing stock of college football and Slive just covers Reddings a$$.

      Robert Smith on College Football Live said it best that the SEC has it’s priorities wrong when they put the protection of the refs above the protection of the players. He was referring to the 1/2 game suspension on Spikes versus a $30,000 fine for Myers hinting that the refs blew it.

      Like

      • rbubp
        November 8, 2009 at 1:09 PM

        Yes, that’s true, but calling out the referees in an official fashion leads to more complaints and more suspicion that the integrity of the game is being undermined by ineptitude, special interests, or whatever.

        The only way for them to go forward in the middle of the year like this is to announce that they’re aware of the problem, will handle it internally, and will seek assistance on oversight from non-partisan sources at an appropriate time, and in the meantime there is a process in place for coaches to seek inquiry and clarification.

        Like

        • Coastal Dawg
          November 8, 2009 at 1:40 PM

          A rhetorical question: Since Mark Richt agreed with Corch Meyers, why didn’t he get fined, too.

          I can’t stand Meyers, but he got shafted and the SEC adminsitrators are out of hand. In the Times-Union today ( the Jacksonville paper) Rogers Redding has an interview defending the officials.

          “This is not broke,” Rogers Redding said Saturday night while attending Florida’s home game against Vanderbilt. “it doesn’t need fixing. I think we have had a really good season so far.”

          Yeah, and there’s nothing wrong with Georgia’s defense either.

          Like

          • Dog in Fla
            November 8, 2009 at 2:12 PM

            “Since Mark Richt agreed with Corch Meyers, why didn’t he get fined, too.”

            Because they’re not anywhere near finished punishing Mark for his 2007 so you think you can dance episode of violence. They don’t want to seem to be piling on Mark since he’s having such a sorry season already thanks in part to them, of course. What they’re really waiting for the in The SEC underground bunker is for Lane to screw up again so they can deliver direct from the Home Office a sledge hammer unto Lane’s head.

            Like

          • Mayor of Dawgtown
            November 8, 2009 at 7:03 PM

            What was Rogers Redding doing in Gainesville at the Vandy-Fla game? And if he thinks the SEC has been having “a really good season so far” the guy is dropping acid.

            Like

            • rbubp
              November 9, 2009 at 1:26 AM

              http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4626266

              “WAC football replay official Michael Goshim was suspended for one game beginning this weekend, conference commissioner Karl Benson announced.

              Goshim was in the replay booth for last weekend’s game between San Jose State and Boise State. The suspension was based on a play in which a runner was ruled short of a first down and was confirmed by the replay booth after a review. However, after further review, the runner clearly made the first down and the call should have been reversed.

              ‘The WAC expects the same type of performance from our instant-replays officials as we do from the on-field officials,’ said Benson. ‘And while errors are going to occur — both on the field and in the replay booth — when they do, there must be accountability. Instant replay is used to get it right on the field and in this case the official had a chance to reverse a call at a very critical time in the game and did not. Thus, he will be suspended for his next assignment.’

              In 2003, the WAC suspended an entire crew for a series of mistakes at the end of a game between San Jose State and Hawaii.”

              Like

  9. Mayor of Dawgtown
    November 8, 2009 at 3:55 PM

    I am not as quick to dismiss the conspiracy theories as some are, although I do not endorse them, either. That said, there is clearly enough smoke to infer that fire is present. That is why there needs to be a real (not make-believe) investigation by some sort of governmental entity (not the SEC investigating itself or even the NCAA). Last year the NBA discovered that one of its refs was accepting money from gambling interests to shave points in NBA games. The ref was also betting on games he reffed himself. That guy just got out of jail last week after serving 15 months in a Federal prison. Is SEC refs fixing games any more far-fetched than that? Why is it that some assume that everything is on the up and up without any evidence having been generated for making an intelligent decision either way? This issue will not go away.We must have a serious investigation from an entity that has subpoena power and the power to instill the fear of criminal prosecution into the minds of people who have knowledge of any wrongdoing. Put these guys in front of a grand jury, under oath, and if they lie they face the prospect of being prosecuted for perjury. That is the only way to get at the truth. The public is entitled to that.

    Like

  10. Billy
    November 8, 2009 at 5:10 PM

    At least Georgia got a makeup call that gave them the same opportunity.

    Bama was basically allowed to do what they wanted. The only thing disputable about that interception is whether or not Peterson got his SECOND foot down.

    Like

    • Turd Ferguson
      November 8, 2009 at 5:35 PM

      What do you mean “the same opportunity”? We had significantly less time … and had to cover significantly more ground. That’s not the same.

      Like

    • Macallanlover
      November 8, 2009 at 6:38 PM

      If you think that call was even close to being as impactful, or game changing, you really know nothing about football. The ability to kick a touchback rather than have to kick to Trinton Holliday was huge. LSU had been very inconsistent passing the ball and would have had no other option, there would have been no runn ing the ball with Scott. UGA would have known there was no option and could have defended differently with a one dimensional defense. The call on Scott was a BS call, and it did nothing but draw attention to the fact the ref knew he had changed the balance of the game.

      Like