I was thinking this exact thing while I typed it. I know we have benefited from bad calls, and that is one of them, but as you mention, we still lost.Mark Blazek’s 75 yard interception was a terrible call for a TD, but I can’t say it benefited us because we were down 28-0 against UCLA when it happened.
Worst Calls in NCAA History
- Thread starter hedonistimpulse
- Start date
Blazek at UCLA was the first one I thought of. I don't know if Brandon Reilly's "detour" against Michigan State was legal or not. But if I was a Spartan fan, I surely wouldn't have thought so.
You are quite the stickler for complete non sequitors, aren't you. For purposes of the game, Phelps caught the ball out of bounds. An indisputable fact. Should I have said that the officials said he caught the ball out of bounds, rather than Phelps caught the ball out of bounds? Maybe. but I thought Husker fans would understand. But I certainly could have been clearer. And nobody I have seen on this site has said the call was correct, so my statement to that effect was completely accurate. My personal opinion is that the call was most likely the wrong call. Do you want a percentage? Do you want a mathematical equation? I still say that it was most likely the wrong call, but I have seen no smoking gun evidence one way or the other. All I have seen is a video shot by the school's sideline cam, that the team apparently uses for training purposes. You see an official waving his hands to signal dead ball no more than a second or two after Phelps touches the ball. You can't make a definitive call on where Phelps' foot is, since the video is shot from only a few inches above the ground. Without smoking gun evidence, I'm not about to say it was definitively a bad call.
As for the 19 yard line, that makes no sense whatsoever. But again, it is a non sequitur when it comes to whether the play was blown dead.
I hate to keep bringing up the inconvenient game video, but if you go to slow motion replay at 2:02:20, just as Frank Broyles is saying "As bad a call as you'll ever see," the side judge comes running into the picture, arms above his head, marking the ball down at the spot of the non-fumble. If an unseen official had blown the play dead several seconds earlier and the side judge was aware of that, he would have been nowhere near the 19-yard line - he would have been near the pile of players scrambling for the ball, blowing his whistle and trying to tell them the play was blown dead.
If, on the other hand, another official blew the play dead and the side judge was not aware of it, the only reason for him to mark the ball at the 19 is if he thought Phelps was down by contact and OU should be awarded the ball at the 19 - and I believe that's exactly the call that was made. I'm not saying this official intentionally butchered the call as part of a conspiracy, only that he completely butchered the call, and that's how OU ended up getting the ball at the 19-yard line. I come to this conclusion based on every single action the officials took as this play unfolded and immediately after it ended. Whether you come to the same conclusion or not, I really don't care. You bought the other explanation right from "Phelps caught the ball out of bounds."
If, on the other hand, another official blew the play dead and the side judge was not aware of it, the only reason for him to mark the ball at the 19 is if he thought Phelps was down by contact and OU should be awarded the ball at the 19 - and I believe that's exactly the call that was made. I'm not saying this official intentionally butchered the call as part of a conspiracy, only that he completely butchered the call, and that's how OU ended up getting the ball at the 19-yard line. I come to this conclusion based on every single action the officials took as this play unfolded and immediately after it ended. Whether you come to the same conclusion or not, I really don't care. You bought the other explanation right from "Phelps caught the ball out of bounds."
Last edited:
If he did catch it out of bounds I guarantee that nu would have been flagged for unnecessary roughness
I think he stayed in bounds. But I reserve the right to change my mind and say that he went out of bounds, then give a tortured explanation of how others just couldn’t grasp the sophisticated nuance of what I meant by “in bounds.”
Last edited:
While I agree with you, and I would have been pissed if it happened to us, it would have at least made a little sense. If he was forced out of bounds, then he could come back in. So it’s an interpretation of the rule. But I can easily see that he may not have been “forced” out of bounds.
Yeah the force out rule is very subjective. But if I'm a neutral fan I'm probably going to say MSU got the short end of the call.
Watching the replay, you half-expect Reilly to come back in bounds with a Coke and slice of Val's.
Last edited:
As far as the Michigan State game went, I thought the defender bodied him out just enough. And that's all that is required
A different angle
Also, in the very same K State game with the non-facemask call, we got a big break on a fumble return TD that wasn't a fumble.
Also, same game K State's last TD was a joke too, not that it mattered at that point.
A different angle
Also, in the very same K State game with the non-facemask call, we got a big break on a fumble return TD that wasn't a fumble.
Also, same game K State's last TD was a joke too, not that it mattered at that point.
The defender definitely bodied him out of bounds, which means the ref made the right call by not overturning the catch. One of the reasons Michigan State's defense was so good is they were very good at using rules like this to their advantage, and using the sideline as a defender. The defender is clearly bodying him toward the sideline, using the sideline as a defender, luckily the ref saw it for what it was and allowed the catch. There was nothing wrong with that call, and I would have seen it that way regardless of what team benefitted.
Part of the problem in that video, which is something that happens so often anymore that it's a huge annoyance, is the lack of rules knowledge by the commentators. They keep talking about how he didn't "push" him out and he was turned around so he couldn't have "pushed" him out. The rule says nothing about being "pushed" out, the exact statement is this: Exception: This does not apply to an originally eligible offensive player who immediately returns inbounds after going out of bounds due to contact by an opponent. Clearly says nothing about a push, just contact by an opponent. Again, Michigan State's defenders were very good at using the sideline, and while he may not have "pushed' him, he was definitely contacting him and herding him towards out of bounds. Reilly was running a route straight down the sideline and was forced out by the defender, he didn't run out of bounds to try and escape the defender (which is really what the rule is in place for, so a receiver can't run out of bounds to mess a defender up or something). The correct call was made.
