Syracuse-Toledo rivals Oregon 2006

[Pricetag]

I'm sure lots of folks have heard about the Syracuse-Toledo screw job this weekend. Syracuse was down four late in the game, and scores a touchdown to take the lead, 29-27. They miss the extra point, but the officials on the field call it good. The point is reviewed, and amazingly, the call is confirmed for a 30-27 Syracuse lead. Toledo kicks a FG as time expires to force overtime. Had the extra point been correctly called, it would have been a game winner. Syracuse wins, 33-30 in the overtime that should not have been.

MsmOr4nkHSw

It wasn't as insidious as the stuff in Eugene in 2006, since these weren't Big East officials and the conference didn't want the win really bad like the Pac 10 did in 2006.

But it was a bigger mistake because at least you could try and say that it was in the realm of possibility that Oregon could have possessed the ball under that pile. This kick didn't go over the goal posts--it was perfectly obvious on the standard replay angle that we always see for kicks that the ball did not go through. I can't believe the review didn't overturn the call.

[jumperstop]

I was wondering about this too. Saw a highlight on SC and they barely even mentioned that Toledo got ****ed. I guess nobody cares because it was Toledo...

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Yeah, that was completely stupid...I have no explanation except maybe changing the way they rule a kick good from just looking at the other guy and signaling good to actually looking up..I can't see it from that replay but I can't tell either of them look up or not.

[Breadburner]

Vegas hosed again...Yes or no....

[colleyvillesooner]

guy on the left, isn't looking up, he;s looking straight. Guy on the right is looking up and at an angle.

either way, on the HD replay you can clearly see it pass in front of the bar, therefore impossible for it to be good.

[cccasooner2]

Ice skating rules. The reviewer saw him make an XP in the past and knew he was fully capable of making one. Therefore, it was good.

[BoulderSooner79]

This will sound homerish, by hey, it's SF.com. The UO debacle was worse because with the proper call the game ends there (after a couple of kneeldowns). And there is no way to award the ball to UO since they would have had to have seen a duck player possess it at some point, which didn't happen. In this game, Toledo has to drive for the tying FG instead of the winning one; but Syracuse would have called a different defense had a FG been able to beat them. They would have taken more risks and may have given up a TD, but they were also more likely to get a sack or a turnover. So the game wasn't over on the XP call, but that was BAD call.

[ouwasp]

How incompetent... that was easy to see it was no good even with my wife trying to talk to me and my son having the tv on too loud!

[badger]

Like Toledo, we had a chance to beat Oregano despite everything that happened. If the Big East is honorable, they'll do what the Pac has since done: More accountability for their conference's reffing, including firing bad refs.

[8timechamps]

This is a perfect example of a replay official with an intention. There is NO WAY you can miss this call. It's not like it was hard to see, or there was some possibility that the call on the field was right, so you have to default to that...this was a blown call.

THIS is the kind of crap that everyone hates. Syracuse gets the win, but even they know (now) that the call was blown.

How do you prevent this kind of stuff? Firing the replay and field officials are a start, but I guess there's no way to keep it out.

[BoulderSooner79]

Maybe this ref is also an umpire in the NL where they have a wide strike-zone?

[Sooner Cal]

I was at the game in Eugene, trust me, there was no way anyone could argue that Oregon ever possessed the ball. How could they as Patrick w standing 3 yards behind the pile holding the ball in the air.

Losing to Toledo would set back Syracuse football to the dark ages ( not that they are far from it now).

Bad refs have been acceptable for too long. We need to make it a lot harder to become a ref and tough to remain one. I also think we could write software to replace the human factor in the review. At least we'd have consistency.

[BigTip]

I thought that the USC-Utah game might have set a precedence. You CAN change the result of the game even after the game is over. They did it once, why can't they do it again?

[8timechamps]

I thought that the USC-Utah game might have set a precedence. You CAN change the result of the game even after the game is over. They did it once, why can't they do it again?

The only thing I can think is that with the USC game, the change in the score didn't result in a change in the outcome. Still wrong in my opinion.

With the Syracuse game, changing the call couldn't happen. With 2:00 left in the game, the coaching philosophy probably would have been very different if the game were tied.