Syracuse vs. Toledo - Sorry Rockets, But We're Going to Keep This One
by Dan Lyons on Sep 26, 2011 12:12 PM EDT
Email
PrintDo I feel bad for Toledo? Of course I do. It sucks when the referees have a direct impact on the outcome on the game, and Saturday was no different. However, there is absolutely no way that anyone can consider taking SU's win away. Toledo didn't lose the game because of the botched call. Did it hurt their chances? Absolutely. But let us not forget that Toledo had a drive at the end of the game, where they could have easily tried for the touchdown. Instead, their offense got super-conservative in the red zone and they played for the tie. Pat Dye was a Rockets fan on Saturday.
The argument that Toledo "would have won" is so flawed it's unbelievable. After we went up by 3, we played very soft defense, as we did for much of the game outside of the red zone. If they were only down two points, there is no way that we would not run more blitzes and take more chances to try to keep them out of field goal range. Toledo may have very well had similar success and won the game, but the drive would not have been a play-for-play repeat of what we saw on Saturday, at least on the defensive side.
People also forget that SU had two timeouts left. If Toledo moved the ball and scored, it wouldn't have been with 2 seconds left. We could have definitely had a good chance for a drive up the field, and Ryan Nassib is dangerous in the fourth quarter.
Toledo ALSO had a chance to win the game in overtime. Instead, they threw the interception to Kevyn Scott, but it's not as if the referees forced them off the field after blowing the call. There was a lot of football left to be played.
As for the actual call/review, I'm not quite sure how you mess it up on the field. Either the ball went through the uprights or it didn't, just look up. I can understand, however, how that review process may have shown inconclusive evidence. While the behind-the-kicker view looks pretty straightforward, the side shot which the Big East says the ref saw was definitely inconclusive. The ball disappears somewhere, and if the evidence is inconclusive, a call cannot be overturned. That's the way the rule is written, and I think the replay judge held to that pretty tightly. That's not to say that the right call was made, but I get why it was. The refs who were under the goalposts should be the ones getting the most heat.
And if we're going to overturn that one bad call, how about Alec Lemon getting hip-checked in the endzone on a very catchable ball by a defensive back who was not making a play on it, directly in front of a ref? That play was right in front of me, and I was just shocked that the ref didn't throw a flag. It was about as blatant as pass interference can be. Also, how about Antwon Bailey getting his helmet violently ripped off of his head after a play was dead, and tossed five yards into the backfield? Can we get that penalty?
There is no way that this game result gets overturned though. That is just the single most dangerous precedent we can set in sports. If they give Toledo this game, we're going to see teams filing for wins every week, and we're going to see teams taking games to court. If that happens, we might as well just stop playing sports.
Human error is part of every game. That's just something that we're going to have to live with.
The thing that is most striking it me, is the fact that we've come out as the 'bad guy' in all of this. Did Doug Marrone become to replay official? Where did SU do anything wrong in this entire event? We played the game within the parameters of the situation that was laid out for us, nothing more and nothing less. Anyone who is vilifying Syracuse in this, whether it is Toledo fans or self-hating SU fans or other Big East fans who are butthurt about the ACC thing, is being absolutely ridiculous. This blown call may be unfortunate, but nothing that happened is Syracuse's fault at all.
31 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rec'd
For the last paragraph, if nothing else.
We will not rest until we see these capitalist octopuses annihilated.
-Che Marrone
Amen, brother
"(BARF)" - Donovan McNabb, during his game winning drive against Virginia Tech in 1998
by kotite4ever on Sep 26, 2011 12:33 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
They didnt call anything
all game. Several pass interference calls were missed. The helmet thing is a safety issue. And it was getting very chippy out there. Usually when there are no calls and that physical type of play, fights break out. Credit to both teams for keeping themselves under control when the refs obviously had not intention of doing so.
May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.
MAC angle
Deep down Toledo knows they’re not going to get satisfaction out of this ruling, but they wanted to show how serious this needs to be corrected going forward. That was atrocious but Syracuse didn’t deserve to have 30 points.
Maybe that’s a compromise. Just correct it on the stat sheet as a missed PAT for Krautman.
Benevolent despot, Hustle Belt — SBN's MAC blog
It was a horrible call
But the insistance that Toledo got jobbed out of a win is just absurd, for two reasons.
First, they had ample opportunity to score a touch down to win the game in regulation in didn’t. I don’t see ANYONE asking Beckman about his uber conservative play calling with a first and goal and one minute left on the clock
Second, had the PAT call been correct, the final 2:07 of the game is completely different from what we saw. It cannot be considered fait accompli that Toledo will still kick a field goal, or that if they do, that there might not be enough time left on the clock after they do for Syracuse to have a chance to take the lead back.
Beckman and the AD (O’Brian, or is that MAC commissioner?) are doing the Rockets no favors, IMO, by whinging about and admitting that their behavior may well be considered sore loser-ish. Don’t make the situation worse with your team. Take some responsibility for the fact that the coaching in the final 2:07 plus overtime for Toledo was questionable at best, cop to the fact that you failed to overcome a shitty hand, lodge a protest and move on. Let the fans be livid and indignant on your behalf, it’s what they do. As the coach and AD of the University of Toledo, you’re a professional representative of an institution of higher learning. Act like one.
We will not rest until we see these capitalist octopuses annihilated.
-Che Marrone
by jpb531 on Sep 26, 2011 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Jurisdiction
Can the Big East even vacate member team wins? Seems to me this falls within NCAA jurisdiction and not the conference… thoughts?
Orange you glad it's not football season?
There should be no excuses made for the replay official
The replay official had access to any angle he wanted. He is supposed to use the best angle available to him when making a call. The sideline angle is a terrible angle to use when evaluating the call. He should not have used it unless he couldn’t figure out what happened from the behind the kicker angle. And the behind the kicker angle was conclusive. Frankly, the replay official should be suspended, if not outright fired, for screwing up so badly.
That said, Toledo’s insistance that the game should be overturned is also absurd. Even though determining whether an XP is good or not is the easiest call to make, it is still a judgment call. There is no major league in the country that allows games to be overturned based on a blown judgment call (most professional leagues allow rules-interpretation protests, but that’s another matter). Toledo has every right to be mad, but they should know better. Actually, they probably do and are just trying to register how completely unacceptable blowing that call was.
What?
Who says “best angle”? The standard is “conclusive.” If there are two angles and they show two different things, that’s not conclusive.
The refs on the field are the only ones that should be criticized. All they had to do was look up.
Dictated, but not read.
That's not how it works
If one angle leaves absolutely no doubt that the call was wrong, that is grounds for reversal. The behind the kicker angle clearly shows that the kick was no good. The Big East looked at the replay after the game and stated that the replay official was in error. Yes, the refs on the field screwed up massively, but the idea that the replay official did not have conclusive evidence is idiotic when anyone who watches that replay can plainly see that the kick was no good.
Why is that the "better" angle?
Just because you like it better? Did you even see it? If it was the only angle, then yeah. But when you have two angles… and each show something different… it’s a toss-up and not conclusive. You see this all the time in sports.
The Big East’s comments were worthless. They do not even address the side angle at all. I am not sure they even know its exists.
The very best angle would be from above the goal post (or below). Bu we don’t have that. So, either way, you are relying on the ball “disappearing” rather than an actual view of the ball’s trajectory relative to the side post.
Until someone explains why the closer side angle should be deemed superior to the farther away endzone angle, I’ll stick to my idiotic opinion.
Thanks in advance.
Dictated, but not read.
Often times...
There are multiple angles of a play. For example, if a play is being reviewed to determine whether a WR kept a foot in-bounds before catching the ball, they’ll look at several angles. Many of those angles will be inconclusive, but if just one of them conclusively shows that his foot was in, then that’s the call. Period. You can and should look at the other angles, but all you’re doing is looking for one conclusive angle. Because logically, you can have ambiguity in several angles, but you can’t have one that definitively shows foot in and one that definitively shows foot out.
Having watched the side angle maybe 10 times, I have trouble tracking the ball, if that were the only angle I saw, I could not overturn the call. But having watched the replay of that PAT from behind the kicker some 25 times, I think it’s conclusive he missed. And if that angle is conclusive, that’s all you need.
My theory: the replay official looked at the side angle, was confused (because it appears to be blurry – for technical reasons?), and thought that the ambiguity produced by it created some bit of doubt, enough to decide it was inconclusive. And perhaps he was very strictly following the letter of the law, but common sense says that the behind the kicker angle is conclusive and if that was all he saw, he would’ve overturned the call.
The side angle is less good angle because it’s blurrier (technical reasons?) and because (at 45 degrees) the goal uprights appear thinner than do from the behind the kicker angle making it more difficult to see them disappear behind the ball.
For real-time 'Cuse banter, check me out at: http://twitter.com/#!/TeabagDunk
by I miss DIAP! on Sep 26, 2011 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
OK
But the one conclusive angle on a left/right issue would be from directly above or directly below the goalpost. Whatever angle was available to the replay ref was not that. So there was no easy-call angle that eliminates all doubt. So that’s out.
With a sideline issue, there is one camera that will have an angle that can show you whether the foot was in. Now if you were to go to the farthest away angle, you might not be able to tell one way or the other. That shouldn’t lead to inconclusive. It is “in bounds” versus “can’t tell.” In contrast, if two camera angles show the exact opposite—i.e. foot in bounds v foot out of bounds—that has to be resolved in favor of what happened on the field. Otherwise, you would be disregarding a camera angle.
Here, the two angles we were shown were equal in terms of ability to determine whether it is good or bad. The side angle is a better angle to me because it gives you a bit more depth perception. But either way—you are looking for the ball to disappear…rather than simply following its trajectory (as you would from a camera mounted on the goal post or above/below). And on the two angles we were given, the ball disappears on one and not on the other. That is impossible. But that’s what it showed.
All I have ever said is that the guys on the field were the ones with the best perspective to get it right or wrong. They said “good.” They might have been wrong. But the replay official could not overturn with one video showing one thing and the other showing the opposite. All criticism must lie with the guys on the field (if the kick was no good). They are the ones who missed it. So… Point 1 = criticize the guys on the field more than the ref in the box. Point 2 = someone explain somewhere and somehow the concept of two videos showing different things. Is an illusion possible in this circumstance. If so, how? And why aren’t replay refs trained regarding same.
Dictated, but not read.
Also
I agree.. conclusive angle defeats inconclusive angle every time.
But how can conclusive angle 1 defeat conclusive angle 2. The side angle was not blurry on my TV. As soon as I saw that angle, I was comfortable that the XP would stand. It just had to at that point.
So I think the replay guy got it right.
Dictated, but not read.
If we are going to change the result of games....
based on blown call by officials on field goals, can we go back to the 1965 NFL Western Conference Championship Game between the Colts vs Packers? Packers won the game 13-10 in OT but it is obvious that Don Chandler of the Packers missed this field goal that tied the game at 10 with about 2 minutes left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEqRPQBO7Vk&feature=player_embedded#at=310
Go to about the 4 1/2 minute mark to see the FG in question. It’s obvious he missed it but they called it good.
The possibilities are endless
My favorite (or as a Sabres fan least favorite as the case may be) is the NHL disregarding it’s own rule about no goal shall count if there is a skate in the crease yet failing to waive off Brett Hull’s goal to win the 1999 Stanley Cup over the Sabres because the it would have been a mad house to try and do so. Instead they made up some bull shit about a memo circulated in March that no one had ever heard about. I’d like that one fixed, if we’re righting wrongs.
We will not rest until we see these capitalist octopuses annihilated.
-Che Marrone
"When the referee declares that the game has ended, the score is final."
-Big East spokesman John Paquette.
“I stick by the comments of the Big East.” -Doug Marrone
It’s over. I’m ready to move on. I suggest Toledo accept their loss and move on with their lives too. If not for their own sanity, then just for the sake of the rest of their season.
Rec'd
This is exactly the correct set of thoughts about the PAT…
1. Yes, we feel bad for Toledo.
2. The game was heavily influenced but not decided on that call.
3. There were other big calls that did not go in our favor (and probably some that did).
4. The game can not be over-turned. That’s crazy.
5. Syracuse is not the villain here.
And I would add…
6. Even though some have unjustly vilified Syracuse, Syracuse must fans MUST NOT act like the victims here. I’ve seen too many comments where people have the audacity to talk about the raw deal we’re getting post-game. If some crazy new precedent were set and the game was overturned, then you complain. But as it stands, take the W and let’s focus on Rutgers.
For real-time 'Cuse banter, check me out at: http://twitter.com/#!/TeabagDunk
Here is a legit question
Is there any chance that the side angle they showed on TV was actually the earlier XP? The one before it was shanked also. Suppose the feed was wrong? Isn’t that really the most logical explanation for the two videos?
Which is why I want someone to post the videos somewhere.
Dictated, but not read.
If you open the images in tab you can see a little better (still really inconclusive), but in the first screen the ball is heading towards the post, and the second screen the ball is nowhere to be found.
Not just you.
It’s not there.
Born in '87, Orange fan since '86
by StealthTurkey on Sep 26, 2011 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
http://syracusefan.com/attachments/fg-good-jpg.57/
http://syracusefan.com/attachments/xp-good-jpg.58/
are the links, try that
Interesting
watching sports center (something I hardly ever do) and they talked about the Toledo thing. Showed the head on clip at full speed, it’s clear the ball never goes behind the goal post. Showed the 45 degree angle, it really does look like the ball goes behind the goal post at full speed. They did something funny with the angle of the picture when they showed the the 45 degree shot again in slow mo, but it did look like the ball passed IN FRONT when that view was slowed down. Golic was spot on in saying that Toledo gets the apology letter and has to suck it up and move on because there were two minutes left in the game and too much could be different in terms of how the game would play out if the PAT call was correctly made, so you can’t retroactively change the result.
We will not rest until we see these capitalist octopuses annihilated.
-Che Marrone
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Troy Nunes Is An Absolute Magician
Related FanShots on Troy Nunes Is An Absolute Magician
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
