Malfunctioning monitor blocked review on first Texas TD

[guiseppewv]

Malfunctioning monitor blocked review on first Texas TD

By Malcolm Moran and Jack Carey, USA TODAY

PASADENA, Calif. — The first touchdown scored by the Texas Longhorns in Wednesday's Rose Bowl was not reviewed because of a malfunctioning monitor that prevented the replay crew from seeing the necessary angles to stop play.

Dave Parry, the national coordinator for NCAA football officiating, told USA TODAY a problem with one of the monitors temporarily limited the replay officials to the same image shown on the screen beyond one of the end zones.

Texas quarterback Vince Young appeared to have a knee touch the ground before he lateraled to tailback Selvin Young for a 12-yard touchdown run. The play gave Texas a 9-7 lead with 4:57 to go in the second quarter.

"They didn't get the time to see the views ABC provided," Parry said at halftime. "It should have been reviewed."

Parry, the coordinator of football officiating for the Big Ten conference, directed the implementation of the conference's replay system during the 2004 season. The Big Ten system quickly became regarded as a model and was widely copied by other conferences. The Texas-Southern California game marked the first Bowl Championship Series title game to use replay.

Parry said the malfunction compounded an already complex challenge for the replay crew on the touchdown play. He said there were three issues being examined: Whether Vince Young's lateral was forward, and therefore illegal; whether the ball was out of his hand before a knee touched the ground; and whether Selvin Young stepped out of bounds.

Before the replay crew decided to stop the game, Texas was able to snap the ball for the conversion attempt. But although the Longhorns may have benefited from the equipment problem, kicker David Pino missed the attempt, creating a potentially decisive difference in the game.

On the series that led to the first Texas touchdown, the replay officials ruled that Longhorns safety Michael Griffin intercepted a pass from Trojans quarterback Matt Leinart and kept his right foot in bounds. The play, originally ruled incomplete, gave Texas the ball at its 20-yard line after a delay of 1:12.

No regrets: USC went for it twice on fourth downs and failed to convert, and the last one proved to be the most costly. LenDale White, who rushed for 124 yards on 20 carries and three touchdowns, failed on fourth-and-2 near midfield with 2:09 remaining. The Trojans were up 38-33, but Vince Young took over to lead the Longhorns to the winning touchdown.

USC coach Pete Carroll had no regrets about his decision. "If we make a first down, the game's over," he said. "We had just seen them (on offense) and what they did the series before. That was our moment to seal the win. It was a clear decision. Wasn't any question about it."

QB Matt Leinart failed to convert a fourth-and-1 in the first quarter on Texas' 17-yard line with the Trojans up 7-0. He concurred, however, with his coach's decision. "We were moving the ball the whole game and we felt like we could run it," Leinart said. "We were inches short."

BCS update: Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive, new administrator of the BCS, said the commissioners are concerned about the late-night finishes of BCS games, including the Penn State victory against Florida State in the Orange Bowl that ended just before 1 a.m. ET Wednesday on ABC.

He said the commissioners will attempt to influence the Fox network, which will carry all the BCS games except the Rose next season, to start the games earlier but doubted that would happen.

Penn State coach Joe Paterno voiced his feelings about the late starts after beating FSU 26-23 in three overtimes: "You know how angry I was, sitting in that locker room? ... The whole BCS is for television. It's for money. ... I don't like it, to be frank. I'd rather coach and not have all this other junk."

The game produced a 12.5 overnight TV rating, which translates into 12.5% of TV households in 56 major TV markets. That rating represented a 21% increase from the overnight for the bowl game in the comparable time slot last year, which was Auburn-Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl. Through the first three BCS games, ABC's overnight ratings were running 11% over last year's numbers.

Slive also said BCS officials have been assured that repairs to the Louisiana Superdome and the addition of available hotel rooms in the area will take place in time to return the Sugar Bowl to New Orleans at the end of next season.

Growing pains: As the Rose Bowl neared, Selvin Young recalled that it hasn't always been a bed of roses for the Longhorns as they tried to arrive this close to college football's pinnacle. There was disappointment and underachievement to deal with along the way.

"A lot of guys, we basically took it upon ourselves, if we want to do something special, then it's right there to do," Young said.

"(Vince) Young came in, and the Class of 2002 was the No. 1 recruiting class in the country. We had plans of winning two or three national championships. Some of the guys faltered along the way, but it's just been a growing process. It's like brothers. We grew up together and (watched) everybody fall and come back up and stand tall."

On target: Young completed 30 passes, and 10 of them went to tight end David Thomas, who had 10 catches for 88 yards.

Big game: Texas' appearance in the Rose Bowl gave the Big 12 Conference five berths in the national championship game since the BCS started with the 1998 season. That's the most of any league. Oklahoma is 1-2 in BCS title games and Nebraska 0-1.

The Atlantic Coast Conference and Big East are tied for second place with three appearances each.

USC, in the title game for the second consecutive year, is the only Pacific-10 Conference school that has appeared in the BCS championship game.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...d-review_x.htm

[bachviet]

Doesn't really matter anyway since Texas is going to score. It's not like USC could stop Vince Young from doing whatever he wanted yesterday.

[guiseppewv]

I agree with you. They could not stop UT on that drive. They were steamrolling them.

[Thesifer]

And besides hardly anyone talks about the interception made by Texas that wasn't reviewed. That would have changed momentum just the same.

[guiseppewv]

And besides hardly anyone talks about the interception made by Texas that wasn't reviewed. That would have changed momentum just the same.

Which one? The one in the endzone that was ruled incomplete and then after review was credited to UT? Sorry, that is the only one I remember. Which one are you talking about?

[PrObLy]

Sure, just like a malfunctioning alert system caused problems in the Alamo Bowl but mysteriously only on two occasions....and then happening to "forget" to give Michigan a timeout back.

I must say, the officiating this bowl season was horrible for the most part, but the Big Ten officials did a decent job with last night's game. Both teams were allowed to 'play ball' and a few pretty obvious holds were ignored on both teams, but all the questionable plays (except this one) were reviewed.

[guiseppewv]

I think there were a few games that the refs were in over their heads but the Rose and the Sugar were 2 games where I thought the officiating was pretty decent.

[Thesifer]

Which one? The one in the endzone that was ruled incomplete and then after review was credited to UT? Sorry, that is the only one I remember. Which one are you talking about?

I would have to rewatch the game to tell you when it was exactly. But basically Leinart threw an interception and the referees ruled it incomplete which is understandable because it looked like he dropped the ball.

After watching the replays on TV it was obvious that the UT player actually caught the ball and it was dropped after he hit the ground, therefore an interception. If you were watching the game the Announcers made a point of talking about it, and then moved on.

And now the media wont really talk about anything that went USC's way because they lost and the media was going for them anyways.

[ialsohaveadream]

I would have to rewatch the game to tell you when it was exactly. But basically Leinart threw an interception and the referees ruled it incomplete which is understandable because it looked like he dropped the ball.

After watching the replays on TV it was obvious that the UT player actually caught the ball and it was dropped after he hit the ground, therefore an interception. If you were watching the game the Announcers made a point of talking about it, and then moved on.

And now the media wont really talk about anything that went USC's way because they lost and the media was going for them anyways.

I think I know the play you're talking about. Except it WAS reviewed. And they DID give Texas the interception....and the ball at the 20 yard line, since he intercepted it in the end zone.

[bachviet]

I think I know the play you're talking about. Except it WAS reviewed. And they DID give Texas the interception....and the ball at the 20 yard line, since he intercepted it in the end zone.

The one you are talking about is the one in the endzone. This one was a later and the DB falled down and the ground caused the ball to pop out.

[brainsmile]

they may have ended up scoring but the game afterwards would have changed and less time would have been on the clock for the final drive

[bachviet]

they may have ended up scoring but the game afterwards would have changed and less time would have been on the clock for the final drive

That touch down was in the first half not the second half. It means that USC would have less time to score the field goal at the of the second quarter.

[VTGreg]

I think I know the play you're talking about. Except it WAS reviewed. And they DID give Texas the interception....and the ball at the 20 yard line, since he intercepted it in the end zone.

He is referring to the one where the DB caught the ball and fell down on his back. When he fell on his back the ball popped out. The referees got the call right, it shouldn't have been an INT.

I thought the game was well officiated. There were a few missed calls here and there but nothing to the degree or severity of some other missed calls I saw during the bowl season.

[guiseppewv]

I would have to rewatch the game to tell you when it was exactly. But basically Leinart threw an interception and the referees ruled it incomplete which is understandable because it looked like he dropped the ball.

After watching the replays on TV it was obvious that the UT player actually caught the ball and it was dropped after he hit the ground, therefore an interception. If you were watching the game the Announcers made a point of talking about it, and then moved on.

And now the media wont really talk about anything that went USC's way because they lost and the media was going for them anyways.

I remember the one you are talking about now. The UT db caught the ball and landed on his back really hard which jarred the ball loose. I forgot about that one...thank you for refreshing my memory. There were definitely calls that could have been reversed in favor of both teams.

I think I know the play you're talking about. Except it WAS reviewed. And they DID give Texas the interception....and the ball at the 20 yard line, since he intercepted it in the end zone.

Bachviet is right we are talking about 2 different ones. One was reviewed and given to UT at the 20 (the one you are talking about) and one was not reviewed so it remained USC's ball.

[Thesifer]

= When he fell on his back the ball popped out. =

Uhmm Exactly... Interception.

[ialsohaveadream]

Uhmm Exactly... Interception.

I remember the play you're talking about now. And the problem was that he didn't have possession when he hit the ground. The ground can't cause a fumble, but if you hit the ground without having control of the ball, and it pops loose, that's different.

[Thesifer]

I remember the play you're talking about now. And the problem was that he didn't have possession when he hit the ground. The ground can't cause a fumble, but if you hit the ground without having control of the ball, and it pops loose, that's different.

Yeah, it looked like that at first until you see the replay and he pulled it in for possession before he hit the ground. Atleast in mine and the commentators eyes.

[ialsohaveadream]

Yeah, it looked like that at first until you see the replay and he pulled it in for possession before he hit the ground. Atleast in mine and the commentators eyes.

The commentators also missed pretty much every fumble in the game. Keith Jackson, though he's the greatest college football voice ever, is gettin a bit up there in years.

[Grubbie]

I would have to rewatch the game to tell you when it was exactly. But basically Leinart threw an interception and the referees ruled it incomplete which is understandable because it looked like he dropped the ball.

After watching the replays on TV it was obvious that the UT player actually caught the ball and it was dropped after he hit the ground, therefore an interception. If you were watching the game the Announcers made a point of talking about it, and then moved on.

And now the media wont really talk about anything that went USC's way because they lost and the media was going for them anyways.

I think I know what play you are talking about but I disagree with you. He had the ball but when he hit the ground he lost possesion, he never kept possesion. It is like if somebody made a diving catch had the ball and when they hit the ground the ball pops out.

College rules might be different since it is only one foot, but he never I don't think it was a catch. Just cause he had it and then smacked the ground less then a second later and lost it doens't mean it was a catch. It was just like the play where the UT receiver had the ball, got crushed and dropped it. Then when he was on the ground he tried to recover the ball, it was reviewed and determined he never had possession, I feel the the play you are talking about is the same.

[bachviet]

It might or might not be an interception but the play was never reviewed. What we were saying was that both (the interception and the lateral) should have been reviewed.

[ialsohaveadream]

It might or might not be an interception but the play was never reviewed. What we were saying was that both (the interception and the lateral) should have been reviewed.

Agreed. Especially given the magnitude of the game, if it was close enough, they should review it.

[Thesifer]

I think I know what play you are talking about but I disagree with you. He had the ball but when he hit the ground he lost possesion, he never kept possesion. It is like if somebody made a diving catch had the ball and when they hit the ground the ball pops out.

College rules might be different since it is only one foot, but he never I don't think it was a catch. Just cause he had it and then smacked the ground less then a second later and lost it doens't mean it was a catch. It was just like the play where the UT receiver had the ball, got crushed and dropped it. Then when he was on the ground he tried to recover the ball, it was reviewed and determined he never had possession, I feel the the play you are talking about is the same.

Uhmm you ruined your argument with "He had the ball" once you have position, and hit the ground, it's a catch.

[ialsohaveadream]

Uhmm you ruined your argument with "He had the ball" once you have position, and hit the ground, it's a catch.

Um, again...no. You're thinking of a fumble. For a reception, if you hit the ground and the ball pops loose, you didn't have possession, and hence it's not a catch. It even happened today in the Bucs-Skins game.

[Thesifer]

Um, again...no. You're thinking of a fumble. For a reception, if you hit the ground and the ball pops loose, you didn't have possession, and hence it's not a catch. It even happened today in the Bucs-Skins game.

Yeah but you cant argue between NCAA And NFL completely different set of rules. Although somehow I knew that would end up here when I saw it.

Now find the set of college rules that says that and I'll believe.

[PrObLy]

According to the NCAA 2004 football rulebook (available here: http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf)

(page 40-42)

Catch, Interception, Recovery
ARTICLE 7. Acatch is an act of establishing player possession of a live ball
in flight.
a. Acatch of an opponent’s fumble or pass is an interception.
b. Securing player possession of a live ball after it strikes the ground is
“recovering it.’’
c. To catch, intercept or recover a ball, a player who leaves his feet to make
a catch, interception or recovery must have the ball in his possession
when he first returns to the ground inbounds or is so held that the deadball
provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply (A.R. 2-2-7-I-V and A.R. 7-3-6-IV).
1. If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession and
control of the ball, it is a catch or interception even though a subsequent
step or fall takes the receiver out of bounds.
2. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch,
interception or recovery.
RULE 2-2/DEFINITIONS
FR-41
d. A catch by any kneeling or prone inbounds player is a completion or
interception (Rules 7-3-1 and 2 and 7-3-6 and 7).
e. When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed.

There is your answer on why it was not a catch.

[ialsohaveadream]

Thank you, probly....I would've been too lazy to look it up.

[Thesifer]

Actually According to this

e. When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed.

It makes you wonder why they have Instant replay at all.. They must have taken that part out for this season of instant replay.

Also thats saying that AS SOON AS HE HIT THE GROUND the ball was coming out.. But it wasn't. He hit the ground and then Whoops.. Ball popped out afterwards. But that is something a replay official would have had to have decided.

As I don't have the play in front of me, I can't replay it again to see when EXACTLY it was.