OU coach dejected after seeing replays
By JOHN E. HOOVER World Sports Writer
9/18/2006
View in Print (PDF) Format
A Pac-10 official will review the tapes and then take action.
A day later, Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops still didn't have any definitive answers. But the Pac-10 Conference might.
As version after version and angle after angle of video of the most crucial play in Oregon's 34-33 win Saturday over the Sooners circulated on the Internet and on local broadcasts, it became more and more clear -- painfully so for Stoops and the Sooners -- that crippling errors were made on the part of the officiating crew and the video replay crew.
Trailing by six points with 1:12 to play, Oregon attempted an onside kick. Video shows OU's Allen Patrick recovered the kick, but after the game's replay official looked at ABC's video feeds of the play, referee David Cutaia announced that Oregon would be awarded possession of the football. No Oregon player ever possessed the football, even though two whistles were blown as the ball bounced around on the turf.
"How they could explain that," Stoops said on his Sunday press conference call, "I don't know."
The Ducks took the lead with a touchdown two plays later and then blocked an OU field goal on the final play to escape.
Stoops said the explanation he got from Cutaia was the same that
59,269 fans at Autzen Stadium and the national television audience got, that an Oklahoma player touched the football. But Cutaia never confirmed to Stoops or anyone else that an Oregon player possessed the football. Many argue that video also shows Oregon's Brian Paysinger actually touched the ball before it went the required 10 yards.
The Sooners (2-1) dropped two spots to 17th in this week's Associated Press Top 25. Oregon (3-0) climbed five spots to 13th.
Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione said Sunday in a statement, "There should be no mistaking our very serious concerns about the events that transpired and the energy we will exert in voicing those concerns."
Jim Muldoon, Pac-10 associate commissioner of communications and football administration, said Sunday, "We are reviewing it right now and we may have a statement tomorrow.
"Our coordinator of officials (Verle Sorgen) will review the tapes and, if he deems necessary -- which I suspect he will -- he will then talk to the parties involved, the replay officials," Muldoon said. "He reviews the tapes of every game, yes, and gets a report of every game, yes. But we'll be expediting this one just because of the somewhat controversial nature of the finish."
Muldoon said the Pac-10 has taken action for officiating mistakes previously. It may be nothing more than a public reprimand or, more unlikely, a formal apology to Oklahoma or the Big 12 Conference.
"I know different leagues do this differently," Muldoon said. "But we are not reticent about admitting if we make a mistake."
Big 12 associate commissioner of communications Bob Burda said Sunday "the result will stand. I don't believe there's any protocol in place to overturn the result of a game, regardless of what the review process may uncover."
A prime example was the 1990 "Fifth Down Game" between Colorado and Missouri, when Colorado was inadvertently awarded an extra down after failing on a fourth-and-goal situation.
The Buffaloes scored on the next play, then went on to win a share of the national championship.
Each conference has different methods for handling replay. Neither the Pac-10 nor the Big 12 identify the person responsible for overseeing the television replay process, and Burda said he didn't know exactly why the Big 12 didn't. The rest of the officiating crew is identified by name in each official game summary submitted to the NCAA and given to the press.
"As replay continues to evolve," Burda said, "the personnel involved will be looked on more and more as part of the on-field officiating crew."
The Big 12 last year budgeted between $650,000 and $700,000 for expenses related to replay, and Sooner fans are still bitter that two questionable calls in the closing moments of last year's game at Big 12 Conference game at Texas Tech were reviewed and not overturned. After Saturday, some may question whether the investment has been worth it.
Stoops, for one, said he hoped Saturday's meltdown didn't signal the beginning of the end of the instant replay process in college football.
"I would hope not," he said. "Because even though they acted as they did, at least the whole country and everybody sees what was, and what really happened."
Stoops was visibly dejected as he left Autzen Stadium on Saturday, believing that Patrick had recovered the ball from a pileup of players. But when Stoops saw conclusive video evidence Saturday night that Patrick had instead fallen on a loose football away from the pile, he felt even worse.
"I had not known what I know now," he said. And how did he feel now? "Well, incredibly disappointed in that the instant replay was brought up to eliminate issues like this," Stoops said. "Here, there are a number of issues that are clearly, looking at video, wrong."
Said Burda, "All along, replay was not intended as a cure-all. It was an enhancement to the onfield officiating. As long as you have humans involved, there's going to be a human element."
Castiglione said he has "taken immediate steps . . . in officially requesting a comprehensive review of specific officiating decisions and use of instant replay," but said, "we fully understand the outcome of the game is irreversible, regardless of the decisions made in regards to the grievance."
Said Stoops, "In the end, it isn't going to change anything. In the end, I've got to look at a bunch of kids that fought hard and have a loss right now."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John E. Hoover 581-8384
[email protected].