My take on the four calls - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

All-American · 11-26-2007, 11:34 PM

I watched the replay of the game on the Mtn on Sunday, paying especially close attention to the four more controversial calls which the refs made. Here is my view on the calls:

1. Offensive Pass Interference on Austin Collie. There was hand-slapping and jersey grabbing throughout the play and throughout the game. Utah had clearly made tough, physical play by the defensive backs a part of their game plan, and this play is no different. It comes as little surprise that Hall, Pitta, Collie, and Allen all complained about the contact coming from Utah defenders through the course of the game. On this particular play, the contact was there just as it was most of the others, but the very last thing that happened just before the ball landed in Collie's hands was a very clear push by Collie of McCain. No way the ref can let that go: good call by the refs.

2. No Personal Foul on Brian Kehl. To me, the distinction between unnecessary roughness and a no-call is the ability for the defender to recognize and react to the dropped ball, the step out of bounds, etc. In order for this to have been a legitimate penalty, Kehl would have needed to see that the ball was not caught and had sufficient time to adjust course. The receiver had not even hit the ground before Kehl made contact. That doesn't seem to be time enough for Kehl to make a course correction, and I'd believe him if he said that he didn't know the receiver had not caught the ball. It did look like Kehl's helmet hit the back of the Utah receiver's helmet at the bottom, but I didn't think it was enough to justify a penalty, either. Good no call by the refs.

3. Personal Foul committed against Pitta. Again, the distinction is the ability for the defender to recognize and react. The Utah defender had a better chance to recognize and react than did Kehl-- both receiver and defender had an extra step or so after the play was over. Nevertheless, though there is a degree of difference between this hit and the hit by Kehl, I am personally unable to say with absolute certainty that the call was good. I think the ref would have been justified in withholding the penalty, by reasoning either that there wasn't enough time to recognize and react, or by the Jordan-Russell rule that dictates that the referee's first tendency late in a close game ought to be to not call the penalty. I think he was justified in throwing the flag on this play and not the other, but the difference between the two is admittedly small enough that it fits within the margin of error produced by my own lack of objectivity.

4. Pass Interference committed against Reed. The least controversial of the four penalties. The defender was facing the ball and clearly pushing Reed out of the way with his back hand. It looked as though he were a basketball player boxing out the other player for a rebound. Good call.

HuskyFreeNorthwest · 11-26-2007, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

I watched the replay of the game on the Mtn on Sunday, paying especially close attention to the four more controversial calls which the refs made. Here is my view on the calls:

1. Offensive Pass Interference on Austin Collie. There was hand-slapping and jersey grabbing throughout the play and throughout the game. Utah had clearly made tough, physical play by the defensive backs a part of their game plan, and this play is no different. It comes as little surprise that Hall, Pitta, Collie, and Allen all complained about the contact coming from Utah defenders through the course of the game. On this particular play, the contact was there just as it was most of the others, but the very last thing that happened just before the ball landed in Collie's hands was a very clear push by Collie of McCain. No way the ref can let that go: good call by the refs.

2. No Personal Foul on Brian Kehl. To me, the distinction between unnecessary roughness and a no-call is the ability for the defender to recognize and react to the dropped ball, the step out of bounds, etc. In order for this to have been a legitimate penalty, Kehl would have needed to see that the ball was not caught and had sufficient time to adjust course. The receiver had not even hit the ground before Kehl made contact. That doesn't seem to be time enough for Kehl to make a course correction, and I'd believe him if he said that he didn't know the receiver had not caught the ball. It did look like Kehl's helmet hit the back of the Utah receiver's helmet at the bottom, but I didn't think it was enough to justify a penalty, either. Good no call by the refs.

3. Personal Foul committed against Pitta. Again, the distinction is the ability for the defender to recognize and react. The Utah defender had a better chance to recognize and react than did Kehl-- both receiver and defender had an extra step or so after the play was over. Nevertheless, though there is a degree of difference between this hit and the hit by Kehl, I am personally unable to say with absolute certainty that the call was good. I think the ref would have been justified in withholding the penalty, by reasoning either that there wasn't enough time to recognize and react, or by the Jordan-Russell rule that dictates that the referee's first tendency late in a close game ought to be to not call the penalty. I think he was justified in throwing the flag on this play and not the other, but the difference between the two is admittedly small enough that it fits within the margin of error produced by my own lack of objectivity.

4. Pass Interference committed against Collie. The least controversial of the four penalties. The defender was facing the ball and clearly pushing Collie out of the way with his back hand. It looked as though he were a basketball player boxing out the other player for a rebound. Good call.

I thought #4 was on Reed.

Jeff Lebowski · 11-26-2007, 11:47 PM

Bottom line on all four calls: Not one of those was clearly an error. Each play came down to a judgment call by the refs that could have gone either way.

Ultimate bottom line: The game is over. No amount of argument and debate will change anything.

This game is yet another example of how football can be a game of inches. You can point to about a dozen plays (missed interception just prior to fourth and 18, missed catch by Unga, stumble by BYU DB after INT, etc.) where any one of those plays could have changed the outcome of the game substantially.

All-American · 11-27-2007, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest

I thought #4 was on Reed.

Correct. Thanks.

All-American · 11-27-2007, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Bottom line on all four calls: Not one of those was clearly an error. Each play came down to a judgment call by the refs that could have gone either way.

Ultimate bottom line: The game is over. No amount of argument and debate will change anything.

This game is yet another example of how football can be a game of inches. You can point to about a dozen plays (missed interception just prior to fourth and 18, missed catch by Unga, stumble by BYU DB after INT, etc.) where any one of those plays could have changed the outcome of the game substantially.

Game of inches indeed. It is somewhat unfortunate that the judgment call of a referee needs to be a part of the discussion, but sic fiat.

Archaea · 11-27-2007, 12:21 AM

However, perhaps it's the homer in me, I thought the better team won. Until their final drive, Utah never really moved the ball. They had the goal line interception but that ball was handed to them near the goal line.

BYU was on the verge of breaking out on several occasions. So in the end, the game vindicated the better team, even though it was by a matter of inches. Now, I'm not stating BYU is loads better, but better.

woot · 11-27-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

Game of inches indeed. It is somewhat unfortunate that the judgment call of a referee needs to be a part of the discussion, but sic fiat.

The judgment call of a referee could be a part of the discussion in every game. It was the judgment call of a referee on Collie's TD that even made any of the subsequent calls matter. If you want to dispute the calls that went against one team, you have to dispute the calls that went against the other. The better option would probably be to not blame the refs.

Jeff Lebowski · 11-27-2007, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

It is somewhat unfortunate that the judgment call of a referee needs to be a part of the discussion, but sic fiat.

As long as you have referees, that will be the case. Every game includes judgment calls. Lots of them.

livecoug · 11-27-2007, 02:29 AM

From my seat in the south end zone, I thought the PI on Stanford was a lucky break for us. It didn't look bad at all. After further review later that night on TV, it was clearly a PI on Stanford. Like you said, he was boxing out and that is illegal. I have no idea why Ute fans are questioning that one.

Jeff Lebowski · 11-27-2007, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livecoug

I have no idea why Ute fans are questioning that one.

Simple. It's therapeutic to pin the loss on the refs. Basic human nature.

11-26-2007, 11:34 PM	#1
All-American Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,420	My take on the four calls I watched the replay of the game on the Mtn on Sunday, paying especially close attention to the four more controversial calls which the refs made. Here is my view on the calls: 1. Offensive Pass Interference on Austin Collie. There was hand-slapping and jersey grabbing throughout the play and throughout the game. Utah had clearly made tough, physical play by the defensive backs a part of their game plan, and this play is no different. It comes as little surprise that Hall, Pitta, Collie, and Allen all complained about the contact coming from Utah defenders through the course of the game. On this particular play, the contact was there just as it was most of the others, but the very last thing that happened just before the ball landed in Collie's hands was a very clear push by Collie of McCain. No way the ref can let that go: good call by the refs. 2. No Personal Foul on Brian Kehl. To me, the distinction between unnecessary roughness and a no-call is the ability for the defender to recognize and react to the dropped ball, the step out of bounds, etc. In order for this to have been a legitimate penalty, Kehl would have needed to see that the ball was not caught and had sufficient time to adjust course. The receiver had not even hit the ground before Kehl made contact. That doesn't seem to be time enough for Kehl to make a course correction, and I'd believe him if he said that he didn't know the receiver had not caught the ball. It did look like Kehl's helmet hit the back of the Utah receiver's helmet at the bottom, but I didn't think it was enough to justify a penalty, either. Good no call by the refs. 3. Personal Foul committed against Pitta. Again, the distinction is the ability for the defender to recognize and react. The Utah defender had a better chance to recognize and react than did Kehl-- both receiver and defender had an extra step or so after the play was over. Nevertheless, though there is a degree of difference between this hit and the hit by Kehl, I am personally unable to say with absolute certainty that the call was good. I think the ref would have been justified in withholding the penalty, by reasoning either that there wasn't enough time to recognize and react, or by the Jordan-Russell rule that dictates that the referee's first tendency late in a close game ought to be to not call the penalty. I think he was justified in throwing the flag on this play and not the other, but the difference between the two is admittedly small enough that it fits within the margin of error produced by my own lack of objectivity. 4. Pass Interference committed against Reed. The least controversial of the four penalties. The defender was facing the ball and clearly pushing Reed out of the way with his back hand. It looked as though he were a basketball player boxing out the other player for a rebound. Good call. __________________ εν αρχη ην ο λογος Last edited by All-American; 11-27-2007 at 12:13 AM.

11-26-2007, 11:47 PM	#3
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	Bottom line on all four calls: Not one of those was clearly an error. Each play came down to a judgment call by the refs that could have gone either way. Ultimate bottom line: The game is over. No amount of argument and debate will change anything. This game is yet another example of how football can be a game of inches. You can point to about a dozen plays (missed interception just prior to fourth and 18, missed catch by Unga, stumble by BYU DB after INT, etc.) where any one of those plays could have changed the outcome of the game substantially. __________________ "... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.

11-27-2007, 12:21 AM	#6
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	However, perhaps it's the homer in me, I thought the better team won. Until their final drive, Utah never really moved the ball. They had the goal line interception but that ball was handed to them near the goal line. BYU was on the verge of breaking out on several occasions. So in the end, the game vindicated the better team, even though it was by a matter of inches. Now, I'm not stating BYU is loads better, but better. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

11-27-2007, 02:29 AM	#9
livecoug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,176	From my seat in the south end zone, I thought the PI on Stanford was a lucky break for us. It didn't look bad at all. After further review later that night on TV, it was clearly a PI on Stanford. Like you said, he was boxing out and that is illegal. I have no idea why Ute fans are questioning that one.