Sunday Sermon: The Evil of Temptation

Welcome once again to the Irreverent Church of the Gridiron.

Whether you are a Missouri fan looking for solace and answers, or an Alabama fan giving thanks for the Blessings of Saban, all are welcome here at our little church in cyberspace.

Our bible study for this week includes these verses:

Miami 24:21 - And a hurricane shall blow through the Forest, leaving behind a Wake.

Duke 13:10 - And lo, the Hokie falls before the Blue Devils.  If there be a more overrated team in the land, only the Lord knows it.

Minnesota 34:23 - Make ye an ark of Gopher Wood.  Beat the husker of corn with gopher wood.  Gopher wood is good.

But today's sermon will focus on the age old sin of temptation.

Let's be honest.  We are all dogs humans.  We are all sinners.  So it be with the referee.  Anyone who thinks there is a totally unbiased referee out there probably also believes in fair trials, honest politicians and tooth fairies.

I am not suggesting that there is some heinous conspiracy here.  I'm not suggesting that O$U actually pays referees to "throw" games or flags.  I'm not even suggesting that the Big Ten does that either.

But if you don't think that each referee knows where his paycheck is coming, and that said employer benefits from a team like O$U winning each week, then I suggest you put your tooth under the pillow tonight and expect to pay your rent tomorrow with the results.

It's simple mathematics and money.  If O$U wins out, there is a chance they could be in the title game, which opens a spot in the BCS money pot for a SECOND conference team to get a SECOND payout.  If O$U goes down, so does the chance of TWO teams cashing out big paychecks in the BCS payday.  Again, if you don't think the referees "know this" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), then you are either still in diapers or have been living under a rock.  By the way, you could save 15% on car insurance by switching to Geico.

Why are the referees employed by the conference they are policing?  Isn't there a conflict of interest there?

If the NCAA survives into the future as a viable organization, and that truth is open to a lot of debate, then it should take charge and eliminate, as much as possible given that we are dealing with humans, the temptation to throw a flag or not throw a flag.  After all, some of God's greatest gifts are unthrown flags.

The NCAA should "charge" member institutions for providing referees.   This charge would be approximately equivalent to what conferences as a whole are now paying, distributing across their membership. 

From this pool, the NCAA will provide referees to games.

If a referee is an alum of a given school, they should be excluded from games that involve that school, or games whose outcomes could impact that schools ranking.  Geographic considerations would be important.  A ref living in State College should never be calling games involving Big Ten teams.  It's that simple.

Moreover, a system of checks and balances should be implemented.  After each game, each coach gets a chance to rate each refs performance.  This rating will actually impact the refs paycheck--bad ratings earn less money than good ratings.  Refs can challenge a bad rating by a coach which could be reviewed by an independent board of former coaches and referees.  That way, there would be actual consequences for bad calls, encouraging refs to not only be impartial, but also to strive harder to actually be correct.  Coaches could also base their ratings on flags not thrown--ie complaining about holds that were not called, and these could be reviewed later for confirmation or not.  Referees who continually get low ratings would be replaced.  And to be fair, if a ref challenges a low rating and is exonerated by a review board, the coach/school that gave the low rating could be penalized, so as to prevent coaches from arbitrarily giving bad ratings to refs they "may not like," or as a knee jerk reflex to a bad loss.

Again, no system would be perfect.  Mistakes are made that have nothing to do with bias.  The ref has two eyes and can't see everything.  But the impact this has on the outcomes of important games, and the amounts of money riding on those games, begs for a better, more impartial system.

That's our view from the pulpit.

Go Forth and Spread the Word.  If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter!

Amen!

Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged

It's Sunday, and time to cleanse our football sins at the Altar of the Irreverent Church of the Gridiron.

Look at this place!

Packed with Irish fans who skipped Mass last night to watch Notre Dame beat Arizona State. 

The Baptismal font overflows with tears of Iowa State, Penn State and Northwestern fans.

The Hoosiers virginal win, sanctified by the Big Ten Network, will be christened with their tears.

Listen now, as we read from Referees 12:1-2, for the Word of the Ref:

The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.

Thanks be to the Ref!

The fundamental assumption is the infallibility of the Ref.  The call on the field, in real time and without the benefit of slow motion, high definition, and multiple angles, must be better than the eyes of the beholder in the booth.  Does this make sense?




What is indisputable?  Indisputable to whom?

How can a panel of sports announcers and perhaps hundreds of thousands of fans see a replay one way, while the Ref can see it another?  No one is unbiased.  We are all sinners!

The referee on the field must be right.  Yet, he is a sinner like all of us.  Replay is his chance to repent--to turn from sin and make the correct call.

From SBNation:

You be the judge. ESPN's cameras turned up about three different angles, none of which showed with 100 percent certainty that the ball came out, but it appeared most impartial observers agreed there was enough evidence to overturn the ruling. Looks out [sic] to me. It's very close, though.

Judge not refs!  Lest Ye Be Judged!

Amen.

Penn State Fans Report Theft

Good Defense

As the shit-head Buckeye fan behind me said last night . . . that's not a penalty.  It's good defense!

Image from Scout.com

Are choke holds now allowed in the Big Ten?  Is this part of the NCAA sanctions . . . they limit our scholarships AND the number of flags that can be thrown against our opponents?

Upon Further Review

Did you watch the end of the Nebraska-Wisconsin game on Saturday night?

Nebraska took the lead 30-27 in the fourth quarter.  On their last possession, the Badgers were driving and came up with a 3rd and 11.  O'Brien (the QB, not the coach) completed a pass to Frederick but on camera he appeared to be short of the first down by a good yard.  The refs--those near and dear and lovable Big Ten zebras of honor--spotted the ball a yard further.  The spot was so clearly botched I was having flashbacks to Ann Arbor in 2005.

Now this may seem innocuous, but the circumstances were really more bizarre and nefarious than that.  The line judge, who improperly spotted the ball, signalled to move the chains without a measurement and without the head referee signalling for a first down.  No one else even looked at the spot as the chain gang moved on.  Remember, they can't see the unofficial yellow line on the field that we see.

It was only after a review, that it was confirmed that the ball had not been spotted properly, and this brought up a fourth and one situation.  Late in the game with time running out, the Badgers elected to go for it, fumbled, and the rest, shall we say, is history.

But I ask you?  How is that these competent referees mis-spot a ball by a yard?

And why, in a crucial situation, even with the added yardage, when the spot was still close enough to demand a measurement, would you move the flags before such a measurement?  Obviously, the Badgers wanted to save time because the clock was running down (1:11 when Nebraska took over after the fumble). . . so why not stop the clock and check the measurement?

It truly appeared as if the refs, or at least the one spotting the ball and moving the chains in a damned big hurry, was intent on helping Wisconsin.  Why else would you not measure if your real desire is to get the correct call?

Even more astonishing to me, though, is that the ref in the video replay booth chose to stop play and review it.  (He probably had to at that point since the spot was so ridiculously wrong.)  Had he not done that, the Badgers would have had a first down, and the next play likely wouldn't have been a handoff, botched or otherwise, to Montee Ball.  The outcome of that game could have been different without replay.  If the fix was on to help the Badgers, the replay booth botched the opportunity, so that argues against a conspiracy.  But how many refs does it take to conspire???  If I were in charge of officiating, I think punitive action against the ref on the field moving the chains prematurely would be in order.

I bring this up because of that 2005 debacle in Ann Arbor.  I'm sure I still have the tape around here somewhere collecting dust.  While everyone remembers the heel-toe controversy and the infamous two seconds, most people don't recall the multiple favorable spots the wolverines got all game long.  And for the record, the heel-toe should have been reviewed, but perhaps not over turned.  You might wonder why that is important, but it would have stopped play and allowed our defense to rest and regroup while a legitimately close play was re-evaluated.  Lord, we added four extra minutes to Saturday's game to review QB sneaks where you couldn't even see the ball on the replay!

Reviewing a play, even if it stands, can have unforeseen effects on the outcome of a game.  In this game in Lincoln, one blogger felt that reviewing a potential scoring play for the Badgers, gave Bielema time to rethink his strategy:

Bad break: On third-and-goal in the first quarter, Nebraska’s defense stopped Montee Ball one foot shy of the end zone. Bret Bielema sent his kicking team on to the field. But officials interrupted action to review the third-down play. That allowed Bielema to re-think his fourth-down strategy. Officials confirmed the call and Ball scored on fourth down. If officials don’t review the call, Wisconsin settles for three points.

And, if Ficken were kicken, there might be no points!  But I digress.

Getting back to spotting the ball in 2005, there were at least two times I recall watching the line judge come running in from the sideline to mark the ball, and drifting forward like a drunken sailor as he did so, adding almost two yards onto the final spot of the ball and assuring that the wolverines made a first down.

And as Wisconsin proved on Saturday night, spotting the ball properly is important.  The game just might hinge on those precious inches of turf.

And what if they hadn't stopped play to review it? 

We will never know.  But at least the correct call was made in 2012, if not in 2005.

Fake Referine Precipitates Brawl

Monday Morning Funnies

From Dave Coverly of Speed Bump:

Monday Musings

Did you have a chance to see the hose job put on Indiana this past Saturday?

Bob Kravitz of the Indiana Star calls it a Brinks Robbery.

I'm not absolving IU of guilt in this mess. They twice blew coverages, resulting in 92- and 66-yard TD passes that turned a lead into a sudden and shocking deficit.

That said, I can guarantee you the Big Ten office will make a statement later this week acknowledging several mistakes, the most notable being the overturned call on the apparent touchdown pass to Terrance Turner. I watched the replay a half-dozen times, and not once did I see the kind of indisputable evidence required to overturn a call.

If IU fans thought they got pick-pocketed at Michigan, this felt more like the Brinks robbery.

What we will never know is how well Indiana would have played out that game if they weren't fighting two foes. Do you think maybe the kids started giving up when they kept getting beat down by an opponent they are powerless against? Even replay failed them. Twice.

The flippant response is that great teams overcome bad calls. But why should that be so? Why should a team have to be good enough to overcome their opponent AND the referees? Why should bad calls continue to be a problem--even with replay? Why should lesser teams be penalized because they can't overcome the bad calls?

Chris Dufresne of the Los Angeles Times thinks it's part of a greater conspiracy.

What the BCS can't survive is the overhanging cloud of scandal or conspiracy.

We're starting to hear whispers: I can verify the source of one of these rumors because I started it.

Pssssst: The top schools appear to be getting BCS protection from officials because it's in the best interest of the conferences for the best teams to win.

A second team in the BCS means an additional $4.5 million to conference coffers.

A conference advancing a team to the national-title game brings huge exposure and revenue to the school and the league.

In college football, one bad call can cost you everything.

He cites problems with officials in the SEC and PAC 10 as well as the Iowa-Indiana debacle.
There's no easy answer to this problem. Replay is better than no replay, but the system is still flawed. Every play is supposed to be reviewed, but not every controversial play IS reviewed. Sometimes coaches are forced to take time outs to force a replay review, and even then it might not occur. And no one seems to really know what indisputable evidence is. No one wants a four hour football game, or to continually have the flow stopped for reviews, but no fan wants their team jobbed, especially when losses can be so devastating. I know what everyone wants--they want a fairly called game. The question is, is it possible?

And in other news, Joe Battista is calling out the best student section in the country this week.

Yo, Penn State students...wake up!

I am calling out the student body at Dear Old State. In Facebook terms, I am poking you. Heck, I'm shoving you to get your attention. Yeah, that's right, “I'm mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore!”

I figure I have enough experience -- 31 years in Happy Valley as a former student-athlete, Lion Ambassador, coach, staff member and local volunteer -- to speak for the silent majority of alumni and PSU friends and fans out there.

What is going on with your attendance at our athletic events?

Most glaringly, what's with the empty seats at football games?

Are we the "Greatest Show in College Football” with the “Best Student Section" only for 8 p.m. games in good weather?

As one of those Alumin who didn't go--not because the weather fouled up the plans but because Mr. Battista and Penn State fouled up my plans by stealing my parking space--I guess I shouldn't throw snowballs stones. I guess I'll let JoeBa do that for me, especially since the NLC didn't even have the decency to answer my email.

Welcome to Our World

Charlie Weis is not happy with Big Ten officiating.

Who is, besides THEM and the Buckeyes?

According to Brian Hamilton of Around the Bend,

But, you know, about those refs...

"I have to be careful when I say this -- I have Big Ten officials coming in this week again," Weis said Sunday. "But that game left a lot to be desired."

The ruling of Armando Allen out of bounds on a screen pass that went for a score? "I still haven't heard anyone tell me there's any evidence of Armando stepping out of bounds. The way I thought the rule is supposed to be, it's supposed to be conclusive evidence. I'm perturbed at that call."

The two seconds off the clock on the last kickoff return of the game?"First it was one second. First it went from 11 (seconds) to 10. Then I complained it went to 9. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything... Their answer to me was they thought that Theo (Riddick) tipped the ball in the field of play on the kick which would then start the clock. I couldn't really tell whether he did or he didn't, so I'm going to take their word for it that that happened."

The universe is now back in sync--the extra seconds THEM added in 2005 have finally been repaid in 2009.