Boise State feels Duke's pain

[Olympic Fan]

Anybody pay attention to the Wednesday night game between Boise State and Colorado State? It's playing out very much like the Duke-Miami football game.

Here's the situation: the game is tied 85-all with 0.8 seconds left in the first overtime. Boise has the ball at sidecourt. They inbound and a guy immediately launches a shot that banks in to give Boise the win ... at least that's the initial ruling. The refs huddle to review the play, but it is obvious on the replay that that shot was in time. The ball is clearly in the air when the clock hits 0.0 and the backboard lights come on.

At least that's what everybody else thought. The officials get a feed from the TV truck with an embedded stopwatch that shows that it took something like 1.2 seconds for the shot to get off, despite what the scoreboard clock showed. The refs rule the shot no good, they play a second overtime and Colorado State wins.

Now here's the rub -- the conference reviewed the review and learns that the replay used to overturn the call was not at full speed -- while the embedded stopwatch was. Hence, the 1.2 seconds was a bogus time. The conference ruled today that the shot should have counted:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/14768638/mountain-west-says-boise-state-beaten-colorado-state

The Boise State coach asked the conference to overturn the result ... but the conference claims that a result can't be changed after a game is completed -- the same Catch 22 rule that prevented the ACC from overturning the Duke-Miami result, even though their review showed the replay ref was in error and the winning Miami score shouldn't have counted. Apparently, you can't change the outcome of a game, no matter how fraudulently it was obtained.

[Indoor66]

Anybody pay attention to the Wednesday night game between Boise State and Colorado State? It's playing out very much like the Duke-Miami football game.

Here's the situation: the game is tied 85-all with 0.8 seconds left in the first overtime. Boise has the ball at sidecourt. They inbound and a guy immediately launches a shot that banks in to give Boise the win ... at least that's the initial ruling. The refs huddle to review the play, but it is obvious on the replay that that shot was in time. The ball is clearly in the air when the clock hits 0.0 and the backboard lights come on.

At least that's what everybody else thought. The officials get a feed from the TV truck with an embedded stopwatch that shows that it took something like 1.2 seconds for the shot to get off, despite what the scoreboard clock showed. The refs rule the shot no good, they play a second overtime and Colorado State wins.

Now here's the rub -- the conference reviewed the review and learns that the replay used to overturn the call was not at full speed -- while the embedded stopwatch was. Hence, the 1.2 seconds was a bogus time. The conference ruled today that the shot should have counted:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/14768638/mountain-west-says-boise-state-beaten-colorado-state

The Boise State coach asked the conference to overturn the result ... but the conference claims that a result can't be changed after a game is completed -- the same Catch 22 rule that prevented the ACC from overturning the Duke-Miami result, even though their review showed the replay ref was in error and the winning Miami score shouldn't have counted. Apparently, you can't change the outcome of a game, no matter how fraudulently it was obtained.

That outcome stinks. CSU should forfeit the game - as Miami should have. Unfortunately, honor is seemingly dead.

If that is the case, unCheat fanboys and fangirls are cheering! :mad:

[dukelifer]

That outcome stinks. CSU should forfeit the game - as Miami should have. Unfortunately, honor is seemingly dead.

If that is the case, unCheat fanboys and fangirls are cheering! :mad:

That is the honorable thing to do but this basically shows that winning is everything. And you wonder why people and programs cheat to win. Apparently that is the game and it gets reinforced over and over in sports and in society. The only likely reason for not overturning is the impact on gambling - which is mostly illegal - but generates the huge interest in sports.

[Pghdukie]

I'll take BOISE got screwed for $1,000 Alex !

[sagegrouse]

That is the honorable thing to do but this basically shows that winning is everything. And you wonder why people and programs cheat to win. Apparently that is the game and it gets reinforced over and over in sports and in society. The only likely reason for not overturning is the impact on gambling - which is mostly illegal - but generates the huge interest in sports.

It is a befuddling situation, Dukelifer, but I think it has more to do with administrative finality than with greed or gambling. The game, warts and all, is decided by the final whistle. The people attending and watching the game, as well as the players and coaches, know the result is final. Furthermore, if there is any possibility of overturning a result, the schools would "lawyer up" and drag it out as long as possible.

Of course, the team benefiting from the error could always forfeit, but that'll be a cold day in hell, I predict.

Kindly,
Sage
'My spellcheck didn't like the word "that'll" -- Buddy Holly is rolling over in his grave'

[devildeac]

Wonder if CSU will make a t-shirt to celebrate the occasion...

:rolleyes:

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

It is a befuddling situation, Dukelifer, but I think it has more to do with administrative finality than with greed or gambling. The game, warts and all, is decided by the final whistle. The people attending and watching the game, as well as the players and coaches, know the result is final. Furthermore, if there is any possibility of overturning a result, the schools would "lawyer up" and drag it out as long as possible.

Of course, the team benefiting from the error could always forfeit, but that'll be a cold day in hell, I predict.

Kindly,
Sage
'My spellcheck didn't like the word "that'll" -- Buddy Holly is rolling over in his grave'
I think the notion of finality would be easier to accept if the final play had not been reviewed. If it was just a gut check call, you'd say they got it wrong but didn't have the benefit of replay. But here, like our game, it's far beyond befuddling given the availability and use of replay. This is more than just getting it wrong, it's an obviously erroneous ruling where the end of the game was clearly at hand. But they let error stand as the outcome. There should be a way to rectify these types of obvious mistakes.

[martydoesntfoul]

In case we all missed it: November 16, 2015 marked the 75th anniversary of the death of chivalry in college sports.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Down_Game_(1940)

[sagegrouse]

I think the notion of finality would be easier to accept if the final play had not been reviewed. If it was just a gut check call, you'd say they got it wrong but didn't have the benefit of replay. But here, like our game, it's far beyond befuddling given the availability and use of replay. This is more than just getting it wrong, it's an obviously erroneous ruling where the end of the game was clearly at hand. But they let error stand as the outcome. There should be a way to rectify these types of obvious mistakes.

I don't disagree, Dr. RR, but I think that the "final whistle" is how the NCAA wants to deal with "final results." When the refs walk off, the score is final.

Kindly, Sage
'If anything, the Boise State case is worse than Duke-Miami. At Duke-Miami, the refs never had it right. With BSU, they had it right and then reversed it'

[DukieInKansas]

Anybody pay attention to the Wednesday night game between Boise State and Colorado State? It's playing out very much like the Duke-Miami football game.

Here's the situation: the game is tied 85-all with 0.8 seconds left in the first overtime. Boise has the ball at sidecourt. They inbound and a guy immediately launches a shot that banks in to give Boise the win ... at least that's the initial ruling. The refs huddle to review the play, but it is obvious on the replay that that shot was in time. The ball is clearly in the air when the clock hits 0.0 and the backboard lights come on.

At least that's what everybody else thought. The officials get a feed from the TV truck with an embedded stopwatch that shows that it took something like 1.2 seconds for the shot to get off, despite what the scoreboard clock showed. The refs rule the shot no good, they play a second overtime and Colorado State wins.

Now here's the rub -- the conference reviewed the review and learns that the replay used to overturn the call was not at full speed -- while the embedded stopwatch was. Hence, the 1.2 seconds was a bogus time. The conference ruled today that the shot should have counted:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/14768638/mountain-west-says-boise-state-beaten-colorado-state

The Boise State coach asked the conference to overturn the result ... but the conference claims that a result can't be changed after a game is completed -- the same Catch 22 rule that prevented the ACC from overturning the Duke-Miami result, even though their review showed the replay ref was in error and the winning Miami score shouldn't have counted. Apparently, you can't change the outcome of a game, no matter how fraudulently it was obtained.

How could they have not questioned the difference between the embedded stopwatch and the lights on the backboard come one as well as the difference between the embedded stopwatch and the game clock. It makes no sense.

Who had money on this game - the person in charge of the embedded stopwatch? ;)

[MarkD83]

Apparently, you can't change the outcome of a game, no matter how fraudulently it was obtained.

Maybe this is why UNC fans believe that their banners won't come down once the NCAA rules.

[semper phi 78]

In case we all missed it: November 16, 2015 marked the 75th anniversary of the death of chivalry in college sports.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Down_Game_(1940)


How about the irony that Carl Snavely (Cornell's coach) went on to coach at UNC?