The CardBoard
About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... (/thread-8339.html)

Pages: 1 2

About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - Embo - 11-23-2014

I just had to post this.  It looks like multiple posters here watched the game on TV or online.  They had the advantage of seeing those three reviewed TDs replayed multiple times from multiple angles.  So, what was it like in Memorial?

We had seats on an aisle.  Across from us was a C.al section.  For some reason, a C.al fan who was seated right across the aisle started to get chippy late in the third quarter.  He was either a student or a very recent grad.  He began shouting insults at our section - the usual, along with a strange comment:  "I bet you all work for Google!"  (I'm unclear as to how this is bad).  Our section delivered some easy salvos back - your players don't graduate; we've been to Rose Bowls; your stadium is not paid off.  When C.al scored the first (alleged) running TD, he gave a h.uge scream while looking directly at us.  When the ref announced that the play was under review, and then reversed, we erupted back in return.  Undaunted, he screamed again when C.al scored the second (alleged) running TD.  When the dead ball penalty flag was thrown, and the ref announced that the play was under review, we realized this was just too good to be true.  We yelled back at c.alfan, "You're getting the ball back on the 16!"  He screamed again with the third (alleged) TD pass, but when the announcement came (again) that the "previous play is under review", he had a sense of foreboding.  After the reversal, the failed third down attempt, and the arrival of the FG team, c.alfan was seated, looking away from us, and mute.  We gave a mocking cheer for him when the ball went through the uprights - "Yes!!!!  It's GOOD!!" because there was not a peep out of him.  The only question remaining was when he would leave, which was, of course, early, quickly, and quietly.

Seeing that all in person - Priceless.

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - French Rage - 11-23-2014

Yeah I heard the Google quip walking back to the BART.  Is that even supposed to be an insult?  That's a nice job to have.  Plus I'm pretty sure Berkeley grads are well represented at Google.  I guess they dislike it because our guys founded it?

Were you near the top of PP or Q in a black shirt?  I definitely saw some animated back and forth going on during the replays.  I don't think people watching on TV truly got how fun and comical the whole sequence of events were in the stadium.  Even when they announced each review, before the result was revealed, we were celebrating like we won the whole game.  By the final review it was just ridiculous.  I may see some amazing individual plays in my life, but it will be hard to beat that whole sequence.  Please tell me someone will Youtube that piece of the game.

The best part was the limpdick with the microphone in the Cal student section who started all of the cheers whining about the ref during garbage time during the fourth quarter.

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - CTcard - 11-23-2014

(11-23-2014, 09:12 PM)French Rage link Wrote:I don't think people watching on TV truly got how fun and comical the whole sequence of events were in the stadium. 

Apparently it was pretty funny on the field as well.

From Blake Martinez via the Merc,
Quote:"I knew we'd made the plays," Martinez said, "but Goff was walking around out there and saying to us: 'What do we have to do to score?' And I was like telling him, 'You can't cheat.' It was pretty funny."
http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_26995767/purdy

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - Farm93 - 11-23-2014

The game was pretty slow and boring. Not really well played. That sequence though will likely make that one of the most memorable Big Game contests for me.  Really a lot of fun.

If that score was 21 - 7 or worse 21-17 that whole sequence could have produced an ugly environment in the stands.  If that happened late in the fourth quarter with that type of close score....Wow!

Poor Dykes was beyond angry most of the game.  I have to believe that hurt his team.  He doesn't seem to have any role when his D is on the field, so I guess he likes to use that time to complain.  I would think that focus on prior calls is not the best message for a coach to give his team.

In the end the worst call was the late hit out of bounds call on Hogan.  Hogan initiated contact with a stiff arm.  His contact and the shove tackle attempt were both started in the field of play.  Hogan is far from a fragile QB that was just trying to escape a tackle.  To have that call was awesome.  And since it couldn't be reviewed it was just perfect.  Even I felt for poor Dykes at that point.  '

BTW- The whole Google hatred is odd for a program that sold its soul, and its field, to KABAM.

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - GoodGrief - 11-23-2014

Quote:from http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_26995767/purdy

At one point, Cal backup quarterback Luke Rubenzer did a complete midair flip and landed on his feet after a submarine tackle.

What??? Unfortunately, I only got to see the 4th quarter. Can anybody please elaborate on this? Is there a replay anywhere? (I couldn't find one). Did he stick the landing?

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - French Rage - 11-23-2014

(11-23-2014, 10:54 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:In the end the worst call was the late hit out of bounds call on Hogan.  Hogan initiated contact with a stiff arm.  His contact and the shove tackle attempt were both started in the field of play.  Hogan is far from a fragile QB that was just trying to escape a tackle.  To have that call was awesome.  And since it couldn't be reviewed it was just perfect.  Even I felt for poor Yikes at that point.  '

Yeah Hogan definitely embellished that one.  But there was the hands to the face call on the same play, so they were shooting themselves in the foot regardless.

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - cctop - 11-23-2014

(11-23-2014, 11:03 PM)GoodGrief link Wrote:
Quote:from http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_26995767/purdy

At one point, Low APR U backup quarterback Luke Rubenzer did a complete midair flip and landed on his feet after a submarine tackle.

What??? Unfortunately, I only got to see the 4th quarter. Can anybody please elaborate on this? Is there a replay anywhere? (I couldn't find one). Did he stick the landing?

I was in the stands and haven't seen a replay, but I recall Rubenzer landed on his knees.  The play was over when he landed...if he had landed on his feet he could have kept running.  But the flip still elicited an "Oooh!" from the crowd.

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - Leftcoast - 11-24-2014

He did NOT stick the landing but impressive nonetheless.  You can see part of the flip at the 39 second mark of the highlight video StuPac linked in the thread below.

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - dabigv13 - 11-24-2014

I actually recall his knees not hitting the ground, but his forearm and possibly his elbow did so thats what ended the play. I think he mightve placed the ball down on the ground and I was yelling for our guys to pick up the fumble before I saw the replay.

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - stupac2 - 11-24-2014

In my part of the stands the reaction to the plays was mostly bemusement. I think after TD #3 went under reviews there was more laughing than cheering. And I definitely had to explain what was happening to some of the people around me a few times after all those penalties...

It's hard to imagine a more ridiculous sequence of downs, that's for sure.

Didn't find last year's 50 pt. thumping of Kal boring, either - Redrum - 11-24-2014

When it comes to beating Kal,  I think we have lots of upside 'margin' well worth exploring in search of the boredom point.

On the reviews, I thought for sure the zebras would not review Lawler's catch for the putative TD.  I thought they were justified on the first two, which were pure products of technology.  The replays provided on the televised pass play did not show me convincingly that it was incomplete.  But it is also true that TV producers do not always show the viewers all the angles provided for the review booth. 

I DID get a head-shaking moment and a chuckle out of Bare comments about how they got robbed of 3 TDs. 

Re: Didn't find last year's 50 pt. thumping of Kal boring, either - CTcard - 11-24-2014

(11-24-2014, 10:21 AM)Redrum link Wrote:The replays provided on the televised pass play did not show me convincingly that it was incomplete.  But it is also true that TV producers do not always show the viewers all the angles provided for the review booth. 

I think that the TV replays showed enough to know what the replay officials were thinking. Lawler got the ball, then fell/lunged to the end zone, and the ball came out as he hit the ground. The nexus of the decision was fell/lunged. If he just fell, then he had to "complete the reception through the contact with the ground" in today's lexicon. If he lunged towards the end zone, then he made a "football move" and the reception was complete at that time. Clearly Mike Pereira (the TV replay analyst) thought he lunged. Clearly the replay officials thought he fell.

Personally, I think that sort of play should be called a reception ... unless of course the weenies are making it.

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - SamAtoms1980 - 11-24-2014

(11-23-2014, 10:54 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:BTW- The whole Google hatred is odd for a program that sold its soul, and its field, to KABAM.

Since the whole Snowden thing first blew up, I suppose the main thing Google can be docked for is personal data collection and intrusion of privacy.  That's the sort of practice that can rub a lot of people the wrong way, particularly at an individualistic place like Berkeley.  In my opinion, the service Google provides is well worth the price.

If they had been mocking and hating on Facebook, on the other hand, I would be right there shoulder-to-shoulder with them...

Replays and slow motion - BostonCard - 11-24-2014

I've found that slow motion on replays helps in some aspects (such as seeing whether someone's foot fell inbounds or not, or whether a football was fumbled before or after a knee touched the ground), but in other aspects it can confuse the issue, and I think the question of "establishing possession" on a reception is such a case.  To me, it looked like a reception until I looked at it in slow motion, but the slow motion really did make possession seem a lot more tentative.

BC

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - stupac2 - 11-24-2014

I remember hearing that the replay officials only look at game-speed replays during reviews, but that may be in the NFL. Does anyone know if that's the case? It would certainly make the job harder in some respects, but it's also understandable since, as BC noted, slo-mo can clutter the issue sometimes.

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - indiancardinal - 11-24-2014

http://youtu.be/h15o1-S8CtI

Only link that I could find for those who want to see the sequence again

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - yvonne - 11-24-2014

The first two were definitely good calls. I'm not so sure about that third one.

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - BostonCard - 11-24-2014

My thought was that the first on-field call clearly was mistaken and rightfully should have been overturned.  The second on-field call certainly looked like it was mistaken, but I would have understood if the replay thought the ruling should stand (as in, the evidence was not clear to overturn).  On the third call, I definitely thought the call should have stood (though on moral grounds, I was happy to see if it was overturned).  In fact, I wouldn't have even been surprised had the decision been confirmed.

I'm glad that the refs (or, in this case the replay booth) blew some calls that benefited us but clearly didn't affect the outcome of the game.  Because this shows that we can criticize the refereeing decisions without our views being colored by our natural biases for Stanford.  Yes I was happy that the calls were overturned from my perspective as a Stanford fan, and especially glad that we made it not matter in the end (could you imagine the fury if we had only won by 3 points?).  But from the perspective of wanting good, clean, fair football, I thought the refereeing was crap, not just based on those three calls.  Cal fans have a legitimate gripe... but of course, it wouldn't have made a difference.

BC

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - GoodGrief - 11-24-2014

(11-24-2014, 02:47 PM)indiancardinal link Wrote:Only link that I could find for those who want to see the sequence again

Oh my, how watching that sequence fills me with joy. The only thing that could have been better would have been sitting in Memorial Stadium across the aisle from a bunch of weenies and exclaiming loudly, "Wow, sure must be demoralizing to settle for a field goal after all that!"

Re: About those three consecutive replay reversals yesterday... - Farm93 - 11-24-2014

(11-24-2014, 03:28 PM)GoodGrief link Wrote:[quote author=indiancardinal link=topic=11204.msg106390#msg106390 date=1416865674]
Only link that I could find for those who want to see the sequence again

Oh my, how watching that sequence fills me with joy. The only thing that could have been better would have been sitting in Memorial Stadium across the aisle from a bunch of weenies and exclaiming loudly, "Wow, sure must be demoralizing to settle for a field goal after all that!"
[/quote]
Trust me, you wouldn't want to have been THAT close to the angry bearbackers.  The hatred (oddly directed at Stanford fans) was palpable.  It reminded me a lot of the early 90s UCB anger.

Stanford fans all thought the sequence was funny and entertaining.  We all knew there was NO way UCB would get 14 points, let alone 24 points in the remaining 19 game minutes.  So it was all a big joke to most of us.

In UCB land you could see that they were upset.  Upset at the refs.  Upset at the Stanford team.  Upset about Stanford fans getting a chuckle at their expense.  Thankfully, the game was not close so that by the time most Stanford fans left those angry bitter bearbackers were gone.