Replay Official Only Saw ONE Frame of Video

[OKC Sooner]

Link:

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf?/base/sports/1158639907304430.xml&coll=7

[Jewstin]

I'm guessing this is the story being referenced in the other threads? Time to sit back and read ...

:pop:

[Jewstin]

For the cutthroats who don't care about the first two pages of pointless personal history:

It's Riese's spleen the country wants.

So let's give it to them. But first you should know that Riese didn't see the ABC television feed that viewers watched at home, which you, your spouse and your children know showed an Oregon player touching the ball before it traveled the required 10 yards. And you should know that Riese will not talk about specifics on the call, but said: "My supervisor knows what happened up there and that's all that matters."

A source in the replay booth on Saturday said that Riese found himself crunched for time, pressured by television and the on-field referee for a rapid decision, and there was such a delay in getting the video feed to Riese that he never even got to properly review the play.

The Pac-10's coordinator of football officiating confirmed that Riese didn't get all of the replays that ABC was providing.

With all the cameras working the game that one half of the country was watching, Riese saw only a single frame of video, the source said. The angle was bad. But it appeared to show an Oklahoma player touching the ball with his helmet before it hit the Oregon player. (From other angles, clearly, it hits the Ducks player first.) With no other video immediately available, and television waiting, Riese did what he's told to do when he's out of time and has no conclusive evidence.

He upheld the call on the field.

[Duckwriter]

I can buy that.

In any case, things need to change. Video should be immediately available every time, otherwise they need to scrap the whole review process and go back to the way it was.

[Readyfor8]

Wow, you know I feel sorry for the official. But in the end, it's his responsibility to call a fair game, he was the safety net for the officials on the ground and he let the teams on the field, the fans at home, and the other offcials he was working with down.

Death threats are too much, but his diastolic above 100 doesn't mean he gets a pass for taking his 400 dollars for that game and then not doing his job.

[soonerkaufmanII]

I can buy that.

In any case, things need to change. Video should be immediately available every time, otherwise they need to scrap the whole review process and go back to the way it was.

I agree, it seems to me that referees on the field are relying to much on instant replay, and aren't calling the games the way they should. If there had been no instant replay the refs would've had more pressure to make a correct call, instead of guessing and then asking someone in a press box to decide the outcome.

[leavingthezoo]

i feel bad for the guy too, but why would the PAC-10 conclude there was ample evidence to make the correct call if there wasn't? nothing adds up with any of this. except any idiot who threatens a guy over a freakin' ball game is a jackhole. now that adds up.

[Duckwriter]

Wow, you know I feel sorry for the official. But in the end, it's his responsibility to call a fair game, he was the safety net for the officials on the ground and he let the teams on the field, the fans at home, and the other offcials he was working with down.

Death threats are too much, but his diastolic above 100 doesn't mean he gets a pass for taking his 400 dollars for that game and then not doing his job.


Actually, it sounds like the guy who should get canned should be the one who is responsible for getting the video to the reviewer. You can't expect a guy getting paid $400 to tell a major network to **** off and wait until he sees the video ... not when there is millions of dollars in advertising revenue at stake every time the game gets delayed.

[rhombic21]

In the final 1:12 of the game, on a play like that, yes you do. Or his supervisor should do it on his behalf.

[leavingthezoo]

Actually, it sounds like the guy who should get canned should be the one who is responsible for getting the video to the reviewer. You can't expect a guy getting paid $400 to tell a major network to **** off and wait until he sees the video ... not when there is millions of dollars in advertising revenue at stake every time the game gets delayed.


why not? he can tell a college football team to do much of the same and there's potential lost revenue... i mean, since football is about revenue and not... football?

[Jewstin]

If this guy has been officiating for thirty some odd years, or whatever, don't you think he'd have the wisdom to hold off on making a call to ensure it is right?

Furthermore, why are they instructed to uphold calls in the event of apparent technical difficulties or delays? What the hell is the point of having replay if we're only going to use it when it suits live television?

Why does this disagree with the technical layout of the Pac-10's replay capabilities? If nothing else, they said they have a television with the broadcast, and that thing was showing ten different angles the entire time. What happened to "instantaneous bookmarks" so the entire team of officials can review the play immediately? Or the TiVo based XOM technology!?

This doesn't freaking add up in the LEAST, and I am angry YET again. I don't buy any of this garbage.

And even if he didn't have a good angle, I'm not going to pity this guy because "time was of the essence" or he had some supervisor breathing down his neck. A 64 year old man doesn't have the foresight to see the implications of what he's about to do, then he deserves to be suspended/fired and deserves all the guilt in the world. Accountability.

[leavingthezoo]

also, if he had a "gut feel" immediately after he'd made the call, then why didn't he make the correct call on the tipped ball? i mean... when my gut tells me i'm wrong, i make doubly sure i'm right the next time.

i know... i'm rehashing. but that article brought up a lot more questions for me than it answered.

[Duckwriter]

why not? he can tell a college football team to do much of the same and there's potential lost revenue... i mean, since football is about revenue and not... football?

The difference is that the football team isn't cutting his checks. If the guy ever wants to get hired to call another game, he can't afford to tick off the single largest network that covers those games, can he?

Instant replay is problematic. I'm surprised they haven't already done away with it, but maybe this catastrophe will put the issue back under review. I'd rather get jobbed by officials on the field like the way it used to be than to live in this make-believe fantasy where we all pretend instant replay is a viable option when games are being televised on networks that can't count seconds without seeing six digits and dollar signs.

[Duckwriter]

also, if he had a "gut feel" immediately after he'd made the call, then why didn't he make the correct call on the tipped ball? i mean... when my gut tells me i'm wrong, i make doubly sure i'm right the next time.

i know... i'm rehashing. but that article brought up a lot more questions for me than it answered.

He has the same problem if he goes with his gut and not his eyes. Let's say for moment that the call on the field was a good one, and his gut was wrong ... is he going to tell Canzano he "went with his gut" even though the single frame of video clearly showed an OU player touching the ball?

[leavingthezoo]

The difference is that the football team isn't cutting his checks. If the guy ever wants to get hired to call another game, he can't afford to tick off the single largest network that covers those games, can he?


i understood where you were coming from... i was being facetious.

i'm not sure which risk outweighs the other however. showing you shouldn't be called for another game because you aren't willing to do your job correctly, or your theory. but whatever. :D

[leavingthezoo]

He has the same problem if he goes with his gut and not his eyes. Let's say for moment that the call on the field was a good one, and his gut was wrong ... is he going to tell Canzano he "went with his gut" even though the single frame of video clearly showed an OU player touching the ball?

no... if you'll reread what i wrote, i'm talking about the ball that was tipped before pass interference was called. and technically, to me that's a moot point because... it shouldn't have gone that far. i'm just saying if he was "gut sure" he'd been wrong with the previous review, then you would have thought just the mere "caution levels" would have gone up and he would have noticed the tip.

[Duckwriter]

i understood where you were coming from... i was being facetious.

i'm not sure which risk outweighs the other however. showing you shouldn't be called for another game because you aren't willing to do your job correctly, or your theory. but whatever. :D

True. He could have said to "hell with this job, I'm gonna go with my gut," or he could have said "to hell with the network, I'm getting this right even if everyone west of the Mississippi has to wait an extra 30 minutes for their Dynasty re-runs." He would certainly have gained the respect of OU fans by doing that, right? Actually, he wouldn't, because nobody would ever know. All we would hear is that there was a long delay of the OU/UO game caused by technical difficulties ... meanwhile, the guy quietly gets blacklisted and never works a televised game for the rest of his life.

[Duckwriter]

no... if you'll reread what i wrote, i'm talking about the ball that was tipped before pass interference was called. and technically, to me that's a moot point because... it shouldn't have gone that far. i'm just saying if he was "gut sure" he'd been wrong with the previous review, then you would have thought just the mere "caution levels" would have gone up and he would have noticed the tip.

Good point. I haven't even bothered to watch the PI call, since like you, it seemed pretty pointless to dwell on it if they onside kick call was wrong.

[Jewstin]

Assuming it would take thirty minutes to gain access to view other angles is pretty silly considering all the equipment they claim to and are supposed to have in the booth.

I'd say 5 to 10 minutes, at the absolute most ... ample time for a commercial break. I've seen them take longer to get a player with a sprained ankle off the field then they took to review this crucial call.

They didn't acknowledge the magnitude of the situation ... throw that in with the dozen other blunders these guys are claiming occurred.

I'd hate to be these people. They must have a difficult time making it out of their house and to work every day with the fundamental lack of reasoning and analytical ability they displayed in this situation. Read: these guys can't tell their *** from a hole in the ground.

** Edit ... I might note that this is a classic example of blame shifting. It wasn't the official's fault because the game is played at a high speed and they had a bad angle. It wasn't the replay official's fault because he didn't have a good camera angle. It wasn't the supervisor's fault because he had a time constraint with a live television audience. It wasn't the technical staff's fault because they didn't realize the replay officials didn't have the right angles. And it's not Oregon's fault, because they didn't have anything to do with it. It's not the Pac-10's fault, because these guys are the best they could find ... it's also not their fault the replay officials didn't have the right technology -- it's the stadium public relations and media supervisor's fault! Well, it's not his fault, because he didn't have the funding! And on and and on and on...

Meaning? Oklahoma still gets screwed, while Oregon, the Pac-10, and the officiating crew get off scot-free.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

How hard is it for them to pump in dish network and just have the sound disabled :P I mean seriously..if they call for a review, the network is going to show every angle available to them.

[Jewstin]

Something I thought about as I was hittin' the sack ...

Who chose this single frame for the replay official to review? Out of every single angle I've seen, from ABC footage to the videos of local media outlets, I have yet to see any footage or shots that indicate an OU player hit the ball first.

This article makes it sound like the frame was a random coincidence ... I argue a person would be hard-pressed to randomly do so ... so much that it makes me even more convinced the fix was in and that this single frame was handpicked in order to sway the decision.

Perhaps it's just the insomnia kickin' in ...

Also, be sure to vote in the poll on the ESPN main page concerning whether our game should be dismissed by the BCS (not that it matters).

[DUCKHUNTDAVE]

Hey guys...first post...heard this on sports radio last nite... Scenario: what happens if OU wins out and gets to #6 or #7 in the nation? And let's say Ohio State is the only undefeated team. Shouldn't OU play for the National Championship, since actually, they're undefeated too? (in this scenario they should go above and beyond all one loss teams) It would be great to see the possibility and the controversy this could cause. (would have started this on a new thread, but it wouldn't allow me for some reason). Thanks. :eek:

[Vaevictis]

There is still more to this story.

The official on the field said that "After review, there is conclusive video evidence that the ball was touched by a receiving team player, which makes the ball live."

One frame, by definition, is inconclusive. This article explains nothing, except for a total lapse in judgment on the part of the ref in the box by collapsing under pressure.

It does lead to the following question though: Who is responsible for providing video feeds to the box for review? Who has access to it during a game?

(My guess: Oregon employees, among others. I'm not saying anything improper happened, because we don't know, but if I'm right, we certainly have the appearance of impropriety here, and that in and of itself is bad.)

[OU_Sooners75]

I dont buy that at all.

The NCAA rules says the broadcast team (ESPN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc, etc) is suppose to provide all available feeds. So question is, are the PAC-10 officials covering up for the ineptness of their own officials, or are they telling the truth.

I think ABC would comply to the rules for them to broadcast that game.

[Sooner-N-KS]

Riese, who is paid $400 a game to work the replay booth, said he knew almost immediately that the call was blown. He called it "instinct."


When Riese arrived home, he discovered his wife had videotaped the game, but he couldn't bring himself to watch it. He already knew what would be on the tape.


"My supervisor knows what happened up there and that's all that matters."

A source in the replay booth on Saturday said that Riese found himself crunched for time, pressured by television and the on-field referee for a rapid decision, and there was such a delay in getting the video feed to Riese that he never even got to properly review the play.



The writer of the article wants us to feel sorry for the guy and give him an apology even though he immediately knew the call he made was wrong.

[OUinFLA]

I guess the uo stadium must be really huge, and I assume they have press boxes all around the top.

Otherwise, how long would it have taken the review official to realize he didnt have the feeds he needed, and to just take a walk over to the ABC booth to see what they were showing?

couple minutes?

[Blues1]

From another earlier Post...


Edit ... " I might note that this is a classic example of blame shifting. It wasn't the official's fault because the game is played at a high speed and they had a bad angle. It wasn't the replay official's fault because he didn't have a good camera angle. It wasn't the supervisor's fault because he had a time constraint with a live television audience. It wasn't the technical staff's fault because they didn't realize the replay officials didn't have the right angles. And it's not Oregon's fault, because they didn't have anything to do with it. It's not the Pac-10's fault, because these guys are the best they could find ... it's also not their fault the replay officials didn't have the right technology -- it's the stadium public relations and media supervisor's fault! Well, it's not his fault, because he didn't have the funding! And on and and on and on...

Meaning? Oklahoma still gets screwed, while Oregon, the Pac-10, and the officiating crew get off scot-free."

AMEN AND AMEN -- on the Above.....

Anyone who believes this Joker Gordon I got some fine swamp Land in Florida - This is the Lamest excuse I ever heard...This is called flat out
BullSH!T -- Don't Drop the pressure we got these guys on the Run....

THe Feel sorry for him "angle" on this story is about as lame as it gets.....

The Guy Lied & Cheated.....as is Still lying......No Wonder he has high Blood Pressure.....Tell the truth Gordon and watch your blood pressure go down...!!!


JMHO....

[mikeb]

From another earlier Post...


Edit ... " I might note that this is a classic example of blame shifting. It wasn't the official's fault because the game is played at a high speed and they had a bad angle. It wasn't the replay official's fault because he didn't have a good camera angle. It wasn't the supervisor's fault because he had a time constraint with a live television audience. It wasn't the technical staff's fault because they didn't realize the replay officials didn't have the right angles. And it's not Oregon's fault, because they didn't have anything to do with it. It's not the Pac-10's fault, because these guys are the best they could find ... it's also not their fault the replay officials didn't have the right technology -- it's the stadium public relations and media supervisor's fault! Well, it's not his fault, because he didn't have the funding! And on and and on and on...

Meaning? Oklahoma still gets screwed, while Oregon, the Pac-10, and the officiating crew get off scot-free."

AMEN AND AMEN -- on the Above.....

Anyone who believes this Joker Gordon I got some fine swamp Land in Florida - This is the Lamest excuse I ever heard...This is called flat out
BullSH!T -- Don't Drop the pressure we got these guys on the Run....

THe Feel sorry for him "angle" on this story is about as lame as it gets.....

The Guy Lied & Cheated.....as is Still lying......No Wonder he has high Blood Pressure.....Tell the truth Gordon and watch your blood pressure go down...!!!


JMHO....
I agree, and if it is true then show us that video....:pop:

[mikeb]

HELLO !!!

Why are we discussing this one frame of the video crap?!? :mad:
It's a lie to divert attention from the person who CHEATED.
This is exactly right people do not buy this crap. Have you seen this video?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

One frame of video, huh?

Which frame was that, anyway?

I never saw a single solitary frame from the whole damn debacle that showed any semblance of the football touching a Sooner helmet. Maybe I just don't have good replay feeds.

Either way, this is goin' right down chicken **** road, man. One game? The Big XII commish and his whorny self cuttin' Boren's legs? All the apologetic articles, blame articles, and from the looks of that asshattery on the CFN site, downright blatant attack articles?

I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more!

Bastiches are lucky all the spinach is e. coli'ed up, or else I'd slam some and go postal.

[The Maestro]

Well, for starters, I like how the second post on this thread is an Oregon fan telling us that "I'll buy that". Gee, really? You'd buy any story at this point to make you feel better about being given a win you didn't rightly earn! Thanks for your 15 replies...just wish all Oregon fans would leave. Do like McCartney after the 5th down and just quietly disappear into the night.

As for the story, well, it just makes your wannabe state and stadium look even more foolish. I mean, like I said...Bob Freaking Barry Freaking Senior is 800 years old and his monitor set up for radio people was enough to be convinced of the obvious!

Get better, Oregon! At lying...at accepting the truth...and, if this is remotely true, at basic technology!

[TrophyCollector]

BULL****! BULL****! BULL****! BULL****! BULL****!

From the PAC-10

All reviewable video will come direct from the televised production of the game. In the event the game is not being televised on a live or delayed basis, the video will come from the in-house video board production.


Replay Personnel: Four people will make up the instant replay team - the Replay Official, who will make all decisions regarding replay; the Communicator, who will assist the Replay Official in obtaining the video replays and with communication; the Replay Technician, who will be responsible for operating and maintaining the replay equipment and a Sideline Assistant, who will assist the referee with communicating with the Replay Official. All four individuals will be trained and paid by the Pac-10. The Replay Officials and Communicators will be two-man teams of former officials who will work together throughout the season and will be assigned by Pac-10 Coordinator of Football Officiating, Verle Sorgen. The Replay Technicians and Sideline Assistants will be assigned by each member institution and approved by the Conference office.


Equipment: The Pac-10 will utilize a TiVo-based system developed by XOS Technology, one of the leading video technology companies in the nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From XOS Technology website:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Process:



Here is how the system works:



• Two officials sit in the booth and view both the broadcast and their own replay monitors

• If they see a play with a questionable call, or notice the broadcasters commenting on a replay or an angle that appears to show a bad or questionable call, the booth monitor has the decision to stop the play for review

• If the play will be reviewed, they hit a button that automatically sends a signal to pagers worn by the five on-field officials and cues up the bookmarks so the play clips are ready for review

• The two officials in the booth review the play and decide which way the call should go

• They call down to the on-field officials who announce the decision and resume play


Why it is better:

XOS’ solution is better than the other options being used for several reasons:

• Monitors in the booth can review each play and create bookmarks for each play without disrupting the game. This allows them to decide which plays should be reviewed, and already cue up several angles to expedite the process once it begins
• Higher grade technology – our proprietary coding technology allows for smoother viewing in real time, slow motion, and reverse

• This technology is used by over 690 teams and leagues at all levels of pro and college athletics

• Our two-monitor solution allows for one person to view what the fans are seeing, while the other views additional angles. By having access to ALL of these clips, they can make a more informed decision

• Use the same remote control/clicker that our coaches use....very simple and efficient

• Also, we set up a recording device so they can later review the reviewers (watch the clips they watched so they can see how the monitors came to their decision)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The system is used by the NFL, Big XII and the PAC-10.

[TrophyCollector]

Congratulations PAC-10, you've now made college football about as credible as the ****ing WWF.

[Sooner]

From sitting between the network camara and the SOONER Vision camara I can tell you the reply officials get a LOT more than a frame of video NO MATTER WHAT THE TECK DIFFICULTIES! This is a lie and not a very good one. Plain and simple the official knew an OKLAHOMA recovery meant the game was over and the SOONERS win!

[Dio]

This is just an Oregon guy trying to take the heat off another Oregon guy.

Although I will say the death threats are wrong.

[Sooner_Bob]

Wasn't there a freakin' TV tuned to ABC around there somewhere? If we can get all of the angles within minutes why can't the replay official?

He should see them at the same time we do . . . and more of them with better video.

Where's the GAH smilie when you need it.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Congratulations PAC-10, you've now made college football about as credible as the ****ing WWF.

Hey now at least the "WWE" admits they are staged ;)

[OKLA21FAN]

in the 'official apology', didnt the Pac 10 commisioner say that “on the kickoff play, ample views were available.”?

doing the math here, it sure does look like someone is doing the 'cover job' for someone else.

the more the Pac 10 says, and the more this replay official talks, makes the story smell even more.

[poke4christ]

I know I'm going to get neg'ed by I'm going to make this statement anyway...

Let's all take a breather here for just a second. Feeling better? Good.

Take a second to get past the US vs THEM mentality. Refs are constantly the source of harasment and hatred. I don't know why they take the jobs they do, but they do it. From what I've heard, many of them take pride in doing it right too. It sounds like this is one of those guys.

Many of you (just as I might be if I was in your situation), are taking what little information we know and assuming the worst about the infromation we don't. All we know is that the call was wrong and something went wrong somewhere along the line. Even after this information has come out, many of you are calling it lies and refusing to believe it. Do you just want someone to crucify? A Scapegoat? Please try to think calmly. Realize that whatever is happening to this guy is NOT just "all in the game". It is flat out wrong. Whatever he may have done or mistakes he might have made in NO way justify any of the backlash against him. A man's life FAR outweighs what happens in one college football game.

We don't know where the problem was, we don't know where it went wrong. According to this article, where it went wrong wasn't with him, it was with whoever was getting him the feed. That seems all the more likely to me as those might be Oregon staff who have a bias.

Finally, I don't want to seem holyer than thou here. I feel like I can say this because I'm impartial and don't have emotional ties to this game. I'm not against you guys, I'm for the truth and I'm for basic human decency. Please try to focus on what is more important here. They will get it sorted out. Just give them some time.

[sanantoniosooner]

Many of you (just as I might be if I was in your situation), are taking what little information we know and assuming the worst about the infromation we don't.
You didn't know that's the way it works?

Check the FAQ before posting next time.:D

[stonecoldsoonerfan]

Many of you (just as I might be if I was in your situation), are taking what little information we know and assuming the worst about the infromation we don't.

you lost me at "what little information we know". the pac 10 commissioner contradicted what this article and what the person that reviewed it said. this is nothing more than trying to cover your own back with the aiding and abeiting (sp?) of the oregonian media. "what little information we know" is a TON more than what we really need to make a competitent, informed opinion on this one.

sorry, but you're WAY off base on this one.:eddie:

[Getem]

That can't be right. One single still frame of video? WTF!!??? How does that happen? So, the delay was so that the duck homers in charge of the video feed could go through it and pick the one frame that could look like OU touched it??? This guy needs to come out and tell everyone exactly what happened in that replay booth. Who was there, who did what, everything. "One frame of video" is just not plausible. If that did happen, something very dirty went on in that booth.

[TrophyCollector]

Also, let's remember this was not a coach's challenge, it was initiated by Gordo. Gordo saw something on the video that made him page the refs for a review and then Gordo saw only one frame of video. Again B-U-L-L-*******! He saw the same thing you and I did - as per the PAC-10 he was watching the ABC game feed hooked into a multi-million dollar Tivo system - the same one the NFL uses.

[mightysooner]

Sounds like Oregons verion of "a wardrobe malfunction" to me. Still doesn't explain that we recovered the ball! Sorry.....not buying it Oregon. nice story though.......sorry about your little blood pressure.

[TopDawg]

There is still more to this story.

The official on the field said that "After review, there is conclusive video evidence that the ball was touched by a receiving team player, which makes the ball live."

One frame, by definition, is inconclusive.

One frame, by definition, is not video! He should've said "There is conclusive photographic evidence..."

He still would've been wrong about the conclusive part, but...ya know...

;)

[sanantoniosooner]

One frame, by definition, is not video! He should've said "There is conclusive photographic evidence..."

He still would've been wrong about the conclusive part, but...ya know...

;)
by "one frame" they mean one camera angle. Not a still shot.

Hope that helps.

[Sooner-N-KS]

This stuff is weird. As posted earlier, the Riese says he only had one clip available to him, but here's the last paragraph of the PAC 10 apology.


"Further, the instant replay official is limited to the views of any play which is made available and must make a timely decision, although on the kickoff play ample views were available," he concluded.


If the equipment the PAC 10 says it is supposed to have was on sight, and there was supposed to be another official watching the television feed, what was going on? Is there a PAC 10 cover-up?

[TrophyCollector]

Why it is better:

XOS’ solution is better than the other options being used for several reasons:

• Monitors in the booth can review each play and create bookmarks for each play without disrupting the game. This allows them to decide which plays should be reviewed, and already cue up several angles to expedite the process once it begins
• Higher grade technology – our proprietary coding technology allows for smoother viewing in real time, slow motion, and reverse

• This technology is used by over 690 teams and leagues at all levels of pro and college athletics

• Our two-monitor solution allows for one person to view what the fans are seeing, while the other views additional angles. By having access to ALL of these clips, they can make a more informed decision

• Use the same remote control/clicker that our coaches use....very simple and efficient

• Also, we set up a recording device so they can later review the reviewers (watch the clips they watched so they can see how the monitors came to their decision)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If it's all on the up and up then the PAC-10 will release the "review the reviewers" video captured by the XOS system. So I expect we will see that video, never.

[Blues1]

"If the equipment the PAC 10 says it is supposed to have was on sight, and there was supposed to be another official watching the television feed, what was going on? Is there a PAC 10 cover-up? "

BINGO....!!!!

[tulsaOUfan]

Actually, it sounds like the guy who should get canned should be the one who is responsible for getting the video to the reviewer. You can't expect a guy getting paid $400 to tell a major network to **** off and wait until he sees the video ... not when there is millions of dollars in advertising revenue at stake every time the game gets delayed.

since when should the outcome of a game be dependent upon advertising revenue?? He had control and he should have kept it until he was certain of his decision. And since when is $400 for 4 hours of work not a lot of money??

[tulsaOUfan]

in the 'official apology', didnt the Pac 10 commisioner say that “on the kickoff play, ample views were available.”?

doing the math here, it sure does look like someone is doing the 'cover job' for someone else.

the more the Pac 10 says, and the more this replay official talks, makes the story smell even more.
I coulodn't agree more. To put this to the level of "one frame" flies in the face of even what the pac 10 says. cover job is right!

[tulsaOUfan]

you lost me at "what little information we know". the pac 10 commissioner contradicted what this article and what the person that reviewed it said. this is nothing more than trying to cover your own back with the aiding and abeiting (sp?) of the oregonian media. "what little information we know" is a TON more than what we really need to make a competitent, informed opinion on this one.

sorry, but you're WAY off base on this one.:eddie:
agreed. this guy saw way more than just one frame. he had the tv feed. this is a cover job by the media in oregon, no doubt.

[tulsaOUfan]

That can't be right. One single still frame of video? WTF!!??? How does that happen? So, the delay was so that the duck homers in charge of the video feed could go through it and pick the one frame that could look like OU touched it??? This guy needs to come out and tell everyone exactly what happened in that replay booth. Who was there, who did what, everything. "One frame of video" is just not plausible. If that did happen, something very dirty went on in that booth.
maybe there should be a video and audio recording of what goes on in the replay booth as well. <that was a joke, kind of>

[jwlynn64]

I know I'm going to get neg'ed by I'm going to make this statement anyway...

Let's all take a breather here for just a second. Feeling better? Good.

Take a second to get past the US vs THEM mentality. Refs are constantly the source of harasment and hatred. I don't know why they take the jobs they do, but they do it. From what I've heard, many of them take pride in doing it right too. It sounds like this is one of those guys.

Many of you (just as I might be if I was in your situation), are taking what little information we know and assuming the worst about the infromation we don't. All we know is that the call was wrong and something went wrong somewhere along the line. Even after this information has come out, many of you are calling it lies and refusing to believe it. Do you just want someone to crucify? A Scapegoat? Please try to think calmly. Realize that whatever is happening to this guy is NOT just "all in the game". It is flat out wrong. Whatever he may have done or mistakes he might have made in NO way justify any of the backlash against him. A man's life FAR outweighs what happens in one college football game.

We don't know where the problem was, we don't know where it went wrong. According to this article, where it went wrong wasn't with him, it was with whoever was getting him the feed. That seems all the more likely to me as those might be Oregon staff who have a bias.

Finally, I don't want to seem holyer than thou here. I feel like I can say this because I'm impartial and don't have emotional ties to this game. I'm not against you guys, I'm for the truth and I'm for basic human decency. Please try to focus on what is more important here. They will get it sorted out. Just give them some time.

No matter what the actual sequence of events was, we do know that the replay official is not a man of integrity. He bowed to pressure in giving any decision. Even in my profession (mechanical engineer) I know that if I am not sure of a decision, I will not sign any drawing or specification. My manager might overrule me, but I will not sign anything that I am not 100% sure of.

A man in his position must have exactly that same set of rules to work under. If he only had one view, he should have said that he wasn't making a decision unless he gets more angles and stand his ground.

No sympathy for this guy just trying to make an extra $400 for basically doing nothing.

[bri]

$400? Hell, I'm fairly convinced that he made WAY more than that for this game. So he can just take the extra cash and buy some f*ckin' blood pressure pills and STFU.

Disregard my thread from Sunday. I'm p*ssed again, and I WANT BLOOD.

[TopDawg]

by "one frame" they mean one camera angle. Not a still shot.

Hope that helps.

Well why didn't they say so?!

(or did they?)

[picasso]

I can buy that.

In any case, Bellotti and the player who claims to have recovered the ball need to come clean and admit OU got screwed royally in their fine football stadium. Also, video should be immediately available every time, otherwise they need to scrap the whole review process and go back to the way it was.

fixed

[picasso]

I know I'm going to get neg'ed by I'm going to make this statement anyway...

Let's all take a breather here for just a second. Feeling better? Good.

Take a second to get past the US vs THEM mentality. Refs are constantly the source of harasment and hatred. I don't know why they take the jobs they do, but they do it. From what I've heard, many of them take pride in doing it right too. It sounds like this is one of those guys.

Many of you (just as I might be if I was in your situation), are taking what little information we know and assuming the worst about the infromation we don't. All we know is that the call was wrong and something went wrong somewhere along the line. Even after this information has come out, many of you are calling it lies and refusing to believe it. Do you just want someone to crucify? A Scapegoat? Please try to think calmly. Realize that whatever is happening to this guy is NOT just "all in the game". It is flat out wrong. Whatever he may have done or mistakes he might have made in NO way justify any of the backlash against him. A man's life FAR outweighs what happens in one college football game.

We don't know where the problem was, we don't know where it went wrong. According to this article, where it went wrong wasn't with him, it was with whoever was getting him the feed. That seems all the more likely to me as those might be Oregon staff who have a bias.

Finally, I don't want to seem holyer than thou here. I feel like I can say this because I'm impartial and don't have emotional ties to this game. I'm not against you guys, I'm for the truth and I'm for basic human decency. Please try to focus on what is more important here. They will get it sorted out. Just give them some time.

dude, we're a football school. you'll never understand.

and, if you're truly an anything 4 Christ, learn to spell holier.

[picasso]

still still doens't excuse the idiots on the field.

7 refs can't find who has the ball on an onsides kick?

[tulsaOUfan]

by "one frame" they mean one camera angle. Not a still shot.

Hope that helps.
by "one frame" they mean one frame. not two or a whole series of frames. they said "one single frame".

[sanantoniosooner]

by "one frame" they mean one frame. not two or a whole series of frames. they said "one frame".
any you're sure of this? Because I really thought I've read otherwise in all the crap that's come out.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

To be fair the ball did bounce off of Kelly's head in an alternate universe called bizarro world!!

[sanantoniosooner]

To be fair the ball did bounce off of Kelly's head in an alternate universe called bizarro world!!
That's nothing.

In an alternate universe Bob Stoops is posting crap about sanantoniosooner's defensive issues.

[poke4christ]

No matter what the actual sequence of events was, we do know that the replay official is not a man of integrity. He bowed to pressure in giving any decision. Even in my profession (mechanical engineer) I know that if I am not sure of a decision, I will not sign any drawing or specification. My manager might overrule me, but I will not sign anything that I am not 100% sure of.

A man in his position must have exactly that same set of rules to work under. If he only had one view, he should have said that he wasn't making a decision unless he gets more angles and stand his ground.

No sympathy for this guy just trying to make an extra $400 for basically doing nothing.

In a sense he did. He didn't have enough evidence to make a decision so he upheld the decision on the field. No replay man in history has given no response.

However, the response that "a sooner touched it" did make no sense. Don't know if that came from him, or if that was what was infered or what.

Zach

P.S. On the spelling crack, I'm a bad speller and I really don't care. I'm an engineer. English was never a strong suit. If necessary, I'm make sure my spelling is correct. When it comes to a message board, it isn't necessary.

[poke4christ]

still still doens't excuse the idiots on the field.

7 refs can't find who has the ball on an onsides kick?

Very Very true. Couldn't quite understand that one myself.

Zach

[JohnnyMack]

by "one frame" they mean one frame. not two or a whole series of frames. they said "one single frame".

I thought they were using "instant replay" not "instant tintype".

[TopDawg]

Truth be told, there is no video involved at all. They actually restage the play in the replay booth with local pee wee teams.

[OUstudent4life]

However, the response that "a sooner touched it" did make no sense. Don't know if that came from him, or if that was what was infered or what.


It came from him. He thought there was "conclusive video evidence that a player from the receiving team touched the ball first" or whatever the ref said. Conclusive video evidence meaning "I made a decision based on one camera angle when I knew that I would eventually be able to see the whole thing."

This "under pressure" side bugs me, too. It wasn't like the shortest review of all time...it took for-freakin'-ever.

[leavingthezoo]

Finally, I don't want to seem holyer than thou here.

don't worry... that you're a poke makes that profoundly impossible. :D

[birddog]

i have a 25 inch tv that showed all the replays, every time. i pay $60 a month for my digital cable. that's more hi-tech than what those guys had in the booth? i don't see how that's possible. at the very least i'd a called a couple of random people's phones from around the country and just ask them what they saw. better than seeing nothing at all.

[Fugue]

don't worry... that you're a poke makes that profoundly impossible. :D

HEH!
spek limit

[PAW]

Can someone who has this game recorded check on how long the review was to determine if Kelly stepped out of bounds and where to place the ball took compared to the review for the game-deciding onside kick? Supposedly, he was getting pressure to make a call on the onside kick. It doesn't make sense that the other call would take longer to review but it sure seemed that way to me.

None of it adds up. Its reached comical status.

[mfosterftw]

I just remembered, they did screw up the spot when Kelly stepped out of bounds, right? I'll bet the replay booth winged it (no duck pun intended) on that review, too...

Marc

[SoonerMom2]

It came out this morning on The Sports Animal that the replay equipment was provided by ABC so the lies out of Oregon keep on coming! Anyone see the Oregon player lie on Channel 9 last night? Said he recovered the ball when the replay showed he didn't. He would have been better to keep his mouth shut although must admit that silence out of the University of Oregon is deafening.

[gnostic19]

Also, let's remember this was not a coach's challenge, it was initiated by Gordo. Gordo saw something on the video that made him page the refs for a review and then Gordo saw only one frame of video. Again B-U-L-L-*******! He saw the same thing you and I did - as per the PAC-10 he was watching the ABC game feed hooked into a multi-million dollar Tivo system - the same one the NFL uses.

Something smells with his explanation. You're right...he had to initiate the review, so he must have saw something! And how many other reviews did he do during the game...3, at least, right? And it just happens to go haywire on ther most crucial play of the game? Don't buy it.
That being said, we need to leave the poor sap alone. Seriously.

[noobalicious]

This is complete bull****. The NCAA needs to start their own investigtation because clearly something is being hidden as everyone has pointed out. Why would ABC provide the replay equipment? It says the Pac-10 is supposed to do that? And if ABC is supposed to be providing the feed are they just trying to shift the blame to ABC?

The fishiest thing was that the Pac-10 comish said that there were plenty of angles. And now we learn there was just one. So why would the comish lie in the first place? Why are they trying to sweep this under the rug?

And whoever said this still doesn't excuse the 7 refs on the field is absolutely right. You don't blow the whistle until you are 100% certain that the ball is in the pile.

And how could this guy NOT see what we saw?? There isn't a single angle where it touches an OU player first!!

So first thing they need to do is have the NCAA look into this and the second thing they need to do is just wipe the game off the books.

[The Maestro]

Remember, Gordo didn't want to watch the video of the game when he got home and Momma Gordo had a fresh tape ready to roll. Why not Gordo? Reminds me of when my dog poops in the living room and stays curled up in the den...avoiding that living room at all cost!

Gordo, we know you pooped in the living room! It's your fault that the paper is rolled up and your nose has dookie on it!

[mfosterftw]

It came out this morning on The Sports Animal that the replay equipment was provided by ABC...

Has anyone from ABC/ESPN made a statement as to what they provided? The officials in the booth are saying they had nothing. Tom Hansen said that "on the kickoff play ample views were available" (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2593564) when he issued his suspensions - was he just parroting the Pac-10 policy (http://www.pac-10.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/080805aac.html) on replays?

It just doesn't add up. I'm not looking for conspiracies, but like everyone else I want an answer as to what happened. Yesterday I disregarded David Boren's demand #4 (no contest, no result) as the throwaway request among a series of reasonable expectations. Now I'm not so sure it's invalid.

Marc

[SanDiegoSoonerGal]

After having coffee I reread the article and I noticed, it's not Riese who's saying he had only one frame of video, it's Canzano's Pac 10 source.

So I fired off this email to Canzano:

Someone is lying.

On Monday, Tom Hansen's official statement was that "on the kickoff play, ample views were available."

Today, your column quotes a Pac-10 source as saying Riese saw only one frame of video.

So which is it? It can't be both.

Dig deeper. And thanks for staying on this story. Something's rotten somewhere.