So did ISU coach Paul Rhoads

[olevetonahill]

Get in trouble about going off on the Zebras? or will that happen this week?

[yermom]

he was reprimanded, or something

they reviewed it and said it was the right call

[olevetonahill]

he was reprimanded, or something

they reviewed it and said it was the right call

Of course they did.

[SicEmBaylor]

The initial call was wrong, but I think the review call was correct. There wasn't enough there to overturn, but I do believe that was a legitimate fumble.

[rock on sooner]

Get in trouble about going off on the Zebras? or will that happen this week?

He got a letter of reprimand...read tweets from all over...I guess
the only person who thinks it wasn't a fumble was the zebra who
called....One tweet...and I paraphrase..."When tu needs a call,
tu gets it" former college AD is the tweeter (NEB & some other
school tu plays..."tu" is his quote...

[olevetonahill]

The initial call was wrong, but I think the review call was correct. There wasn't enough there to overturn, but I do believe that was a legitimate fumble.

Your reply makes no ****ing sense at all. How can You say the Initial call was wrong? were you there did you see it in real time? If not then you must be basing your opinion on the SAME replays that the Booth saw.
Yer a Moran at times little bro

[olevetonahill]

He got a letter of reprimand...read tweets from all over...I guess
the only person who thinks it wasn't a fumble was the zebra who
called....One tweet...and I paraphrase..."When tu needs a call,
tu gets it" former college AD is the tweeter (NEB & some other
school tu plays..."tu" is his quote...


Got a question Bro
has any team that is NOT tied to Big money ever gotten a favorable call in those types of situations?

[badger]

The initial call was wrong, but I think the review call was correct. There wasn't enough there to overturn, but I do believe that was a legitimate fumble.

Yeah, it's like penalizing Gabe Lynn 15 yards even though a replay confirmed that his hit wasn't ejection-worthy. It's going by the rule book, even if the entire football watching audience can scream "THAT AINT RIGHT!"

[GreenSooner]

He got a letter of reprimand...read tweets from all over...I guess
the only person who thinks it wasn't a fumble was the zebra who
called....One tweet...and I paraphrase..."When tu needs a call,
tu gets it" former college AD is the tweeter (NEB & some other
school tu plays..."tu" is his quote...

A former aTm AD (hence "tu")

[badger]

A former aTm AD (hence "tu")

It was Bill Byrne wasn't it

[rock on sooner]

Got a question Bro
has any team that is NOT tied to Big money ever gotten a favorable call in those types of situations?

Jeepers, Vet, give me five years to research it, I'm sure I can find one...

[rock on sooner]

.

[olevetonahill]

I think yer right....

RU Agreeing with yerself?

[badger]

Got a question Bro
has any team that is NOT tied to Big money ever gotten a favorable call in those types of situations?

I can think of one. Our money has to be bigger than Tech's:
http://www.40acressports.com/images/tech_billboard.jpg

[Jacie]

Gotta go find a brick wall to run through after watching this.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9777907/big-12-reprimands-iowa-state-cyclones-coach-paul-rhoads

[olevetonahill]

I can think of one. Our money has to be bigger than Tech's:
http://www.40acressports.com/images/tech_billboard.jpg

Ok how about with OUT home cookin also?

[rock on sooner]

RU Agreeing with yerself?

Aw, gimme a break, lousy keyboard....:wink:

[olevetonahill]

Aw, gimme a break, lousy keyboard....:wink:

http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[rock on sooner]

The top recruit in Iowa also tweeted after the game that Rhoads
is the reason he is still an ISU commit, because he stands up for
his players...

[badger]

The top recruit in Iowa

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here... he's a huge 300+ pound lineman, isn't he?

[rock on sooner]

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here... he's a huge 300+ pound lineman, isn't he?

Nope, wideout...over six feet, fast, good hands....kid named Lazzard,
now if Rhoads can get a QB that can throw accurately....

[PalmBeachSooner]

The dreaded "public reprimand". It's right up there in severity with the strongly worded email.

[Jacie]

Lt. Weinberg: "I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."

[BoulderSooner79]

The initial call was wrong, but I think the review call was correct. There wasn't enough there to overturn, but I do believe that was a legitimate fumble.

I actually agree with this. From every angle it looked like the defender stole the ball before the runner was down. But that was by inferring from body movements. Unfortunately, there were too many players blocking the view and you couldn't see the ball. So I really believe it was a fumble (theft, actually) and the on-field refs got it wrong. But there was nothing the replay guys could do. Refs are supposed to let the play go if in doubt.

[8timechamps]

I've always liked Paul Rhodes, seems like a good coach that cares about the kids that play for him.

As for any punishment, I'm not sure he said anything that is/was punishable. The way he phrased it was perfect, he kept the focus on himself and his players response. Even if the Big XII wanted to fine him, I'm not sure there was really anything there they could fine him for, and I don't know if Rhodes knew what he was saying, or if it just happened to be what he was thinking, but it was a great way to handle the situation.

[rock on sooner]

I've always liked Paul Rhodes, seems like a good coach that cares about the kids that play for him.

As for any punishment, I'm not sure he said anything that is/was punishable. The way he phrased it was perfect, he kept the focus on himself and his players response. Even if the Big XII wanted to fine him, I'm not sure there was really anything there they could fine him for, and I don't know if Rhodes knew what he was saying, or if it just happened to be what he was thinking, but it was a great way to handle the situation.

8x, if you look at the presser Rhoads had, he carefully picked his words...
in no uncertain terms, he called out the official and, at the same time,
kept the focus on himself....

[8timechamps]

8x, if you look at the presser Rhoads had, he carefully picked his words...
in no uncertain terms, he called out the official and, at the same time,
kept the focus on himself....

That's what I was getting at (just maybe in a more confusing way :) ). He handled it perfectly.

[SicEmBaylor]

Your reply makes no ****ing sense at all. How can You say the Initial call was wrong? were you there did you see it in real time? If not then you must be basing your opinion on the SAME replays that the Booth saw.
Yer a Moran at times little bro
This is nonsensical. The inital call wasn't made based off the replay -- it was based off of one ref's eyesight at that particular moment. I think that ref was wrong and that the ball was fumbled by ISU. However, I don't think the video was definitive enough to overturn the ruling on the field. The video isn't clear enough to overturn; although I personally believe it looked like a fumble.

I'm not sure why that is hard to understand or how it's moronic.

[olevetonahill]

This is nonsensical. The inital call wasn't made based off the replay -- it was based off of one ref's eyesight at that particular moment. I think that ref was wrong and that the ball was fumbled by ISU. However, I don't think the video was definitive enough to overturn the ruling on the field. The video isn't clear enough to overturn; although I personally believe it looked like a fumble.

I'm not sure why that is hard to understand or how it's moronic.

If YOU can see that it was a Fumble then so should the Blind ****ing replay dude. that has a pocket full of Benjimins about now.LOL

[Scott D]

If YOU can see that it was a Fumble then so should the Blind ****ing replay dude. that has a pocket full of Benjimins about now.LOL

Sic said he thought it was a fumble. Nobody can definitely see with 100% certainty that the ball was out before Gray's knee was on the ground. We all certainly believe that it was exactly the case in that matter. That being said, the replay official can't sit there and go "I think the ball is out before the runner was down". The rules state he has to be 100% absolutely certain that it did based upon the call.

The "funny" thing is that if the ref on the field had ruled it a fumble, it still would have gone to review, and the conclusion would have been the same. The ruling on the field would "stand" and not be "confirmed".

[olevetonahill]

Sic said he thought it was a fumble. Nobody can definitely see with 100% certainty that the ball was out before Gray's knee was on the ground. We all certainly believe that it was exactly the case in that matter. That being said, the replay official can't sit there and go "I think the ball is out before the runner was down". The rules state he has to be 100% absolutely certain that it did based upon the call.

The "funny" thing is that if the ref on the field had ruled it a fumble, it still would have gone to review, and the conclusion would have been the same. The ruling on the field would "stand" and not be "confirmed".

SHHHHHHH, Let me mess with Sic. Its fun. :cocksure:

[rock on sooner]

SHHHHHHH, Let me mess with Sic. Its fun. :cocksure:

Now Sicem said in #28 that ISU fumbled, when that weren't the case...so,
mess away....:highly_amused:

[Scott D]

Now Sicem said in #28 that ISU fumbled, when that weren't the case...so,
mess away....:highly_amused:

there is that :)

[8timechamps]

I went back and watched the play (and numerous replays). There is an angle (looking straight ahead...at the endzone), that pretty clearly shows the runner is not down and the ISU player pulling up with the ball.

Granted it doesn't show the actual fumble, it still doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduct that if the runner isn't down, and a defensive player is in possession of the ball, it's a fumble.

The only thing I can think of (in defense of the review official) is that it would have taken time to see the various angles and really look at the one angle I'm talking about. Isn't that their job though?

So, either the refs had it out for ISU/wanted texas to win -or- simply didn't take enough time to properly review the play. I'm going with option 2, as I'm not much of a conspiracy guy.

[olevetonahill]

I went back and watched the play (and numerous replays). There is an angle (looking straight ahead...at the endzone), that pretty clearly shows the runner is not down and the ISU player pulling up with the ball.

Granted it doesn't show the actual fumble, it still doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduct that if the runner isn't down, and a defensive player is in possession of the ball, it's a fumble.

The only thing I can think of (in defense of the review official) is that it would have taken time to see the various angles and really look at the one angle I'm talking about. Isn't that their job though?

So, either the refs had it out for ISU/wanted texas to win -or- simply didn't take enough time to properly review the play. I'm going with option 2, as I'm not much of a conspiracy guy.

Ima say the Former since the replay took forever .

[SicEmBaylor]

If YOU can see that it was a Fumble then so should the Blind ****ing replay dude. that has a pocket full of Benjimins about now.LOL


Sic said he thought it was a fumble. Nobody can definitely see with 100% certainty that the ball was out before Gray's knee was on the ground. We all certainly believe that it was exactly the case in that matter. That being said, the replay official can't sit there and go "I think the ball is out before the runner was down". The rules state he has to be 100% absolutely certain that it did based upon the call.

The "funny" thing is that if the ref on the field had ruled it a fumble, it still would have gone to review, and the conclusion would have been the same. The ruling on the field would "stand" and not be "confirmed".

Right. That was my point.

[OU_Sooners75]

He got a letter of reprimand...read tweets from all over...I guess
the only person who thinks it wasn't a fumble was the zebra who
called....One tweet...and I paraphrase..."When tu needs a call,
tu gets it" former college AD is the tweeter (NEB & some other
school tu plays..."tu" is his quote...


Got a question Bro
has any team that is NOT tied to Big money ever gotten a favorable call in those types of situations?

OU vs Oregon in 2006?

[OU_Sooners75]

The call in the ISU was wrong all the way around!

The only way I can even understand how the replay got it wrong, is because they didn't have sound, which they should have.

Two things here. 1. The whistle. Was it blown before the defender came out with the ball? 2. Did the Line Judge have his arm up and running down the line to mark the ball right before the defender came out with the ball?

In both, the answers are no.

1. If you listen to the replay in real time, the defender is 5-10 yards down the field before the whistle was blown.

2. The Line Judge did not have his arm up nor was he running down the line to mark the LOS before the defender came away with the ball.

IMO, the officials were waiting too long to see if the Whorn scored before marking the LOS and blowing the whistle. It seemed like once the officials saw the defender with the ball is when they decided to call the play dead.

Off topic, it just boggles my mind how often even the replay officials get it wrong.

[BoulderSooner79]

The call in the ISU was wrong all the way around!

The only way I can even understand how the replay got it wrong, is because they didn't have sound, which they should have.

Two things here. 1. The whistle. Was it blown before the defender came out with the ball? 2. Did the Line Judge have his arm up and running down the line to mark the ball right before the defender came out with the ball?

In both, the answers are no.

1. If you listen to the replay in real time, the defender is 5-10 yards down the field before the whistle was blown.

2. The Line Judge did not have his arm up nor was he running down the line to mark the LOS before the defender came away with the ball.

IMO, the officials were waiting too long to see if the Whorn scored before marking the LOS and blowing the whistle. It seemed like once the officials saw the defender with the ball is when they decided to call the play dead.

Off topic, it just boggles my mind how often even the replay officials get it wrong.

I don't see how the whistle or arm waving has anything to do with it. The call announced by the ref was "down by contact". Sometimes refs have slow reactions and their can be a delay in blowing the whistle as well as a delay on the recording depending on how far away the mic is from the ref. But down by contact means they ruled the runner had a knee down before the ball came out. They did not rule forward progress stopped, and thus the play was reviewable. I watched all the reviews and never saw an angle that I thought the booth could use to reverse the call. But the composite of all the angles combined with the movement of the players certainly led me to believe it was a steal and should have been ISU ball. The on field refs blew it, but I can't fault the replay ref.

The terrible call I saw was the PI call near the sideline that bailed UT out. The one in the end zone was clearly PI.

[bluedogok]

Sic said he thought it was a fumble. Nobody can definitely see with 100% certainty that the ball was out before Gray's knee was on the ground. We all certainly believe that it was exactly the case in that matter. That being said, the replay official can't sit there and go "I think the ball is out before the runner was down". The rules state he has to be 100% absolutely certain that it did based upon the call.

The "funny" thing is that if the ref on the field had ruled it a fumble, it still would have gone to review, and the conclusion would have been the same. The ruling on the field would "stand" and not be "confirmed".
...unless you are a Pac 12 replay official.

[olevetonahill]

OU vs Oregon in 2006?

Uh do NIKE ring any bells?

[OU_Sooners75]

The call in the ISU was wrong all the way around!

The only way I can even understand how the replay got it wrong, is because they didn't have sound, which they should have.

Two things here. 1. The whistle. Was it blown before the defender came out with the ball? 2. Did the Line Judge have his arm up and running down the line to mark the ball right before the defender came out with the ball?

In both, the answers are no.

1. If you listen to the replay in real time, the defender is 5-10 yards down the field before the whistle was blown.

2. The Line Judge did not have his arm up nor was he running down the line to mark the LOS before the defender came away with the ball.

IMO, the officials were waiting too long to see if the Whorn scored before marking the LOS and blowing the whistle. It seemed like once the officials saw the defender with the ball is when they decided to call the play dead.

Off topic, it just boggles my mind how often even the replay officials get it wrong.

I don't see how the whistle or arm waving has anything to do with it. The call announced by the ref was "down by contact". Sometimes refs have slow reactions and their can be a delay in blowing the whistle as well as a delay on the recording depending on how far away the mic is from the ref. But down by contact means they ruled the runner had a knee down before the ball came out. They did not rule forward progress stopped, and thus the play was reviewable. I watched all the reviews and never saw an angle that I thought the booth could use to reverse the call. But the composite of all the angles combined with the movement of the players certainly led me to believe it was a steal and should have been ISU ball. The on field refs blew it, but I can't fault the replay ref.

The terrible call I saw was the PI call near the sideline that bailed UT out. The one in the end zone was clearly PI.

That's exactly what it has to do with it.

When the LJ has his arm up, he is declaring he is marking the line of scrimmage. Watch closely next game and you will notice that every time the line judge thinks the ball is dead, or the runner is down, he will raise his hand, even before blowing his whistle, though it's usually occurs simultaneously.

No whistles blew until after the defender had the ball and was away from the pile. Therefore the runner wasn't down by contact. Their whistles suggested otherwise.

And there was ample camera angles showing the runner was not down.

[OU_Sooners75]

OU vs Oregon in 2006?

Uh do NIKE ring any bells?

Before that time Oregon was still a blip on the map that was still trying to make a name for themselves.

Gaylord family donates quit a bit, probably as much as Knight does.

[olevetonahill]

Before that time Oregon was still a blip on the map that was still trying to make a name for themselves.

Gaylord family donates quit a bit, probably as much as Knight does.

Seems yer off by about 10 years Bro. Thot they had been hooked up a Lot longer than just 7 years er so.



In the days following the Ducks’ 38-6 loss to the Colorado Buffaloes in the 1996 Cotton Bowl, five men sat down in Dallas, Texas, to discuss the future of athletics at the University of Oregon.

Coming out of the Ducks’ second-consecutive nine-win season and ranked 18th nationally in the final polls, any questions about the transition from coach Rich Brooks to Mike Bellotti had been answered. But the five men who met in Dallas weren’t worried solely about football. They were looking at the bigger picture.

The meeting consisted of executive athletic director for Nike liaison Jim Bartko, Coach Bellotti, UO donor and businessman Randy Pape, donor and eventual athletic director Pat Kilkenny and Nike chairman and UO alumnus Phil Knight. With open minds and open checkbooks, the five of them agreed that, with enough support, athletics at the UO could reach unseen heights.




http://dailyemerald.com/2012/11/15/swoosh-there-it-is/

[OU_Sooners75]

(null)

Before that OU win 2006, they were good, but still very much trying to get where they are today.

Pretty much kind of like the success of Boise after beating OU.

Yes, before, think 2001, they won the PAC, but then again the PAC was Washington and no one else back then too.

Think OSU now...lol

[OU_Sooners75]

Btw, sounds like that article agrees with my thought that Oregon isn't afraid to pay for their success...lol
Much like what the Cubs of Baylor are doing now. ;)

[8timechamps]

I don't see how the whistle or arm waving has anything to do with it. The call announced by the ref was "down by contact". Sometimes refs have slow reactions and their can be a delay in blowing the whistle as well as a delay on the recording depending on how far away the mic is from the ref. But down by contact means they ruled the runner had a knee down before the ball came out. They did not rule forward progress stopped, and thus the play was reviewable. I watched all the reviews and never saw an angle that I thought the booth could use to reverse the call. But the composite of all the angles combined with the movement of the players certainly led me to believe it was a steal and should have been ISU ball. The on field refs blew it, but I can't fault the replay ref.

The terrible call I saw was the PI call near the sideline that bailed UT out. The one in the end zone was clearly PI.

Ultimately, the replay official should have been able to determine that a fumble had occurred, but there wasn't (that I know of) an actual view of the ball coming out. I am guessing that the replay official doesn't have the ability to make a judgement call (which they should), otherwise, I think the play is reversed and ISU wins the game.

I've always heard that the official in the replay booth was a "real" official (has the same authority as the on-the-field guys), but now I'm wondering if that's really true. Like I said above, based on what they had to view, it was a fumble, there just wasn't an image of the ball coming out.

While we're at it, I think the whole replay thing should be expanded. There are certain "definitive" occurrences that should be reviewable...like offsides and facemask. Facemask is a huge one, in that it comes with a maximum penalty. I'd love to see that penalty become reviewable. That one shouldn't be left as a judgement call.

[BoulderSooner79]

And there was ample camera angles showing the runner was not down.

Apparently not.

[olevetonahill]

Before that OU win 2006, they were good, but still very much trying to get where they are today.

Pretty much kind of like the success of Boise after beating OU.

Yes, before, think 2001, they won the PAC, but then again the PAC was Washington and no one else back then too.

Think OSU now...lol

My ORIGINAL point Bro was Big MONEY is behind them, THEY got the Call in Their Yard Their Officials. Im sayin IMHO A lot of the Officials prolly drive nicer cars than they should.

[OU_Sooners75]

Before that OU win 2006, they were good, but still very much trying to get where they are today.

Pretty much kind of like the success of Boise after beating OU.

Yes, before, think 2001, they won the PAC, but then again the PAC was Washington and no one else back then too.

Think OSU now...lol

My ORIGINAL point Bro was Big MONEY is behind them, THEY got the Call in Their Yard Their Officials. Im sayin IMHO A lot of the Officials prolly drive nicer cars than they should.

Gotcha...and ur prolly right.

[OU_Sooners75]

I don't see how the whistle or arm waving has anything to do with it. The call announced by the ref was "down by contact". Sometimes refs have slow reactions and their can be a delay in blowing the whistle as well as a delay on the recording depending on how far away the mic is from the ref. But down by contact means they ruled the runner had a knee down before the ball came out. They did not rule forward progress stopped, and thus the play was reviewable. I watched all the reviews and never saw an angle that I thought the booth could use to reverse the call. But the composite of all the angles combined with the movement of the players certainly led me to believe it was a steal and should have been ISU ball. The on field refs blew it, but I can't fault the replay ref.

The terrible call I saw was the PI call near the sideline that bailed UT out. The one in the end zone was clearly PI.

Ultimately, the replay official should have been able to determine that a fumble had occurred, but there wasn't (that I know of) an actual view of the ball coming out. I am guessing that the replay official doesn't have the ability to make a judgement call (which they should), otherwise, I think the play is reversed and ISU wins the game.

I've always heard that the official in the replay booth was a "real" official (has the same authority as the on-the-field guys), but now I'm wondering if that's really true. Like I said above, based on what they had to view, it was a fumble, there just wasn't an image of the ball coming out.

While we're at it, I think the whole replay thing should be expanded. There are certain "definitive" occurrences that should be reviewable...like offsides and facemask. Facemask is a huge one, in that it comes with a maximum penalty. I'd love to see that penalty become reviewable. That one shouldn't be left as a judgement call.

The replay officials probably don't want to take away from the on the field officials too much. They have the power to stop play and reverse plays if it is conclusive.

[rock on sooner]

Davis quoted in many Texas media outlets "If we have another
run-pass situation, I'd do the same thing. If a DB's loafing, he
deserves to get cut."

ISU's Broomfield..."I don't know how to loaf after the play is over."

Heh, ISU has two linebackers in the NFL that played last year for
the Clones...Jake Knott, with the Eagles, tweeted "Unbelievable.
Hope he makes it in the NFL so@AJKlein47 and I get a shot at him."

[Jacie]

My ORIGINAL point Bro was Big MONEY is behind them, THEY got the Call in Their Yard Their Officials. Im sayin IMHO A lot of the Officials prolly drive nicer cars than they should.

In the Oregon screw job the replay official was a homer and ultimately resigned over that call, though too late to do the Sooners any good.