The Official Utah vs. USC thread

[Top Ute]

In some instances, certainly. But from what I can tell, other times the route is being run correctly and within the design of the play, but he's the only player open (or the checkdown option), or the throw doesn't give the WR a chance to turn upfield.

Well, the one instance that's burned in my memory was Luke Matthews on the 4th-and-1 play in the second quarter. Yeah, he gets bumped off the line somewhat, but he's gotta adjust his route accordingly.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Well, the one instance that's burned in my memory was Luke Matthews on the 4th-and-1 play in the second quarter. Yeah, he gets bumped off the line somewhat, but he's gotta adjust his route accordingly.

The tough thing on that play was that Moeai was running the drag route 10 yards downfield. He was wide open, and one of wynn's floaters would have sufficed, as the safety was nowhere to be seen.

[Top Ute]

The tough thing on that play was that Moeai was running the drag route 10 yards downfield. He was wide open, and one of wynn's floaters would have sufficed, as the safety was nowhere to be seen.

Rolling left, I'm not sure if Wynn can plant and throw and make that completion to Moeai right now. I'm almost reserved to accepting Wynn's physical limitations right now. We might not ever see him at 100 percent this year, and am hopeful we can keep him at 80 percent -- if he's even that strong to begin with.

[TripletDaddy]

I haven't heard much talk about the decision to reverse the call and award the points ex post facto, but the more I think about it, isn't this a strange precedent?

My FIL hates SC, so he was "disgusted" and convinced that the PAC did it to "help" SC (). His insecure paranoia aside, why do you think the conference made this decision?

It did not affect the outcome of the game.

It doesn't help SC because margin of victory isn't part of the calculation anymore. Also, SC can't play in a bowl game.

There are blown calls on both sides in every single game across all sports. What was special about this one?

I am sure Vegas paid out winners that bet against SC to cover....so what happens in this case? I suppose if you cashed in quickly enough, you received free money?

Why would the conference overturn the call and not the NCAA? If it is a non conference game, do future overturned calls get handled by the home team conference?

The more I think about it, the more bizarre it seems to me, but I'm surprised it isn't getting more run in the media.

[Coach McGuirk]

I haven't heard much talk about the decision to reverse the call and award the points ex post facto, but the more I think about it, isn't this a strange precedent?

My FIL hates SC, so he was "disgusted" and convinced that the PAC did it to "help" SC (). His insecure paranoia aside, why do you think the conference made this decision?

It did not affect the outcome of the game.

It doesn't help SC because margin of victory isn't part of the calculation anymore. Also, SC can't play in a bowl game.

There are blown calls on both sides in every single game across all sports. What was special about this one?

I am sure Vegas paid out winners that bet against SC to cover....so what happens in this case? I suppose if you cashed in quickly enough, you received free money?

Why would the conference overturn the call and not the NCAA? If it is a non conference game, do future overturned calls get handled by the home team conference?

The more I think about it, the more bizarre it seems to me, but I'm surprised it isn't getting more run in the media.

Vegas does not recognize overturned calls after the game, so for Vegas the score remained 17-14 and they continue to pay Utah bettors. The offshore online gaming companies however took this chance to screw the bettors by swiping their credits once the score changed. This was hugely in their favor as the money was heavy on Utah (line opened at 10.5 and closed at 8).

[BlueHair]

I haven't heard much talk about the decision to reverse the call and award the points ex post facto, but the more I think about it, isn't this a strange precedent?

My FIL hates SC, so he was "disgusted" and convinced that the PAC did it to "help" SC (). His insecure paranoia aside, why do you think the conference made this decision?

It did not affect the outcome of the game.

It doesn't help SC because margin of victory isn't part of the calculation anymore. Also, SC can't play in a bowl game.

There are blown calls on both sides in every single game across all sports. What was special about this one?

I am sure Vegas paid out winners that bet against SC to cover....so what happens in this case? I suppose if you cashed in quickly enough, you received free money?

Why would the conference overturn the call and not the NCAA? If it is a non conference game, do future overturned calls get handled by the home team conference?

The more I think about it, the more bizarre it seems to me, but I'm surprised it isn't getting more run in the media.

I looked it up. Even after the score was changed, Vegas continued to pay Utah bets and refused to pay USC bets. The offshore books paid the USC bets.

[Scorcho]

I haven't heard much talk about the decision to reverse the call and award the points ex post facto, but the more I think about it, isn't this a strange precedent?

My FIL hates SC, so he was "disgusted" and convinced that the PAC did it to "help" SC (). His insecure paranoia aside, why do you think the conference made this decision?

It did not affect the outcome of the game.

It doesn't help SC because margin of victory isn't part of the calculation anymore. Also, SC can't play in a bowl game.

There are blown calls on both sides in every single game across all sports. What was special about this one?

I am sure Vegas paid out winners that bet against SC to cover....so what happens in this case? I suppose if you cashed in quickly enough, you received free money?

Why would the conference overturn the call and not the NCAA? If it is a non conference game, do future overturned calls get handled by the home team conference?

The more I think about it, the more bizarre it seems to me, but I'm surprised it isn't getting more run in the media.

meh, not a big deal, should have counted in the first place.

[TripletDaddy]

meh, not a big deal, should have counted in the first place.

Of the three responses, yours was the worst, as it answered nothing that I asked.

[myboynoah]

I haven't heard much talk about the decision to reverse the call and award the points ex post facto, but the more I think about it, isn't this a strange precedent?

My FIL hates SC, so he was "disgusted" and convinced that the PAC did it to "help" SC (). His insecure paranoia aside, why do you think the conference made this decision?

It did not affect the outcome of the game.

It doesn't help SC because margin of victory isn't part of the calculation anymore. Also, SC can't play in a bowl game.

There are blown calls on both sides in every single game across all sports. What was special about this one?

I am sure Vegas paid out winners that bet against SC to cover....so what happens in this case? I suppose if you cashed in quickly enough, you received free money?

Why would the conference overturn the call and not the NCAA? If it is a non conference game, do future overturned calls get handled by the home team conference?

The more I think about it, the more bizarre it seems to me, but I'm surprised it isn't getting more run in the media.

Well, as you said, SC is in a limbo year, so it doesn't matter all that much in the big picture. Kind of a, "hmmmm, that's interesting" moment for college football.

[Jacob]

I read the the officials on the field scored it a TD and there was a communication w the score keeper. If so, no big deal and they did the right thing.

[TripletDaddy]

I read the the officials on the field scored it a TD and there was a communication w the score keeper. If so, no big deal and they did the right thing.

Ah, so technically, it is inaccurate to say that the conference "reversed" the call.

[LA Ute]

Of the three responses, yours was the worst, as it answered nothing that I asked.

There's a little bit about the Vegas reaction here.

I think it was the correct call under the rules, as I understand the explanation. It's evidently irritating to some Utah fans that the guy didn't just fall on the ball instead of running it back, and that USC went to the conference to get the score changed, but I think it's all ultimately meaningless. Everyone knows the game was in doubt until the final play.

[TripletDaddy]

There's a little bit about the Vegas reaction here.

I think it was the correct call under the rules, as I understand the explanation. It's evidently irritating to some Utah fans that the guy didn't just fall on the ball instead of running it back, and that USC went to the conference to get the score changed, but I think it's all ultimately meaningless. Everyone knows the game was in doubt until the final play.

He should have fallen on the ball? Why? Maybe he ran it back for a TD so that SC could go for the onside kick afterward...

[myboynoah]

There's a little bit about the Vegas reaction here.

I think it was the correct call under the rules, as I understand the explanation. It's evidently irritating to some Utah fans that the guy didn't just fall on the ball instead of running it back, and that USC went to the conference to get the score changed, but I think it's all ultimately meaningless. Everyone knows the game was in doubt until the final play.

Why? The guy gets a chance to score a TD and get his name in the box score and some Utah fans are irritated? Bunch of killjoys.

[LA Ute]

He should have fallen on the ball? Why? Maybe he ran it back for a TD so that SC could go for the onside kick afterward...

I guess people are thinking he might have done what Eric Weddle did in that Armed Forces Bowl game a few years ago, when he intercepted a pass with time expired and the game won, and simply took a knee. Again, I think it's meaningless.

Anyway, the PAC-12 explains the decision:

Statement from Pac-12 Officiating Consultant Mike Pereira: “The new Unsportsmanlike Conduct rule is Rule 9, Section 2, Article 1. It states that Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls by players are administered as either live ball or dead ball fouls depending on when they occur. The rule does not apply to substitutes. All Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls by substitutes are enforced as dead ball fouls. Since the game was over, the penalty could not be enforced and the referee stated it was declined by rule. The officials did rule it a touchdown making the final score 23-14.”*

Sorry, don't have the link.