Toledo was robbed?

• sportswizuhrd

  Jughead;912311 wrote:False. See Southern California/Utah game from just a few weeks ago.
  
  The reason the score/outcome is not being altered in this game and was in the other example is because USC has money and power, while Toledo has much less of both. :thumbdown:

  Yes, because USC would have lost the game had the score not been changed. SMH...The only people who won or lost the SC/Utah game had money on it. Do you really think that if the same scenario happened in a USC/???(chose the team) game, the score and result of the game would have been changed because of USC's money and power??
• Sonofanump

  slcoach;913035 wrote:Boise may end up screwed here....Could you imagine if one of the computer drops them a tick for Toledo losing this game? This could actually effect the BCS Standings later in the year.

  Boise is in (Champ Game) only if an AQ school is not undefeated.
• vball10set

  enigmaax;913032 wrote:What would be different or what do you consider "major"? Suspensions or something else?

  IMO, there would have existed a realistic chance that the win could be vacated...with it being Toledo and Syracuse, there was no chance in hell.
• enigmaax

  vball10set;913083 wrote:IMO, there would have existed a realistic chance that the win could be vacated...with it being Toledo and Syracuse, there was no chance in hell.

  Oh. I don't think there is a chance of reversing an outcome after the game either way. Don't recall that ever happening and doubt it ever will, regardless of the teams involved.
  
  As someone else pointed out, there are other types of calls where replay can clearly show a ball crossed the goal line or a foot was in/out of bounds on a TD. I believe someone brought up the famous 5th down (Colorado-Missouri). All of those things are left in the hands of the game officials and this is no different.
• vball10set

  enigmaax;913092 wrote:Oh. I don't think there is a chance of reversing an outcome after the game either way. Don't recall that ever happening and doubt it ever will, regardless of the teams involved.
  
  As someone else pointed out, there are other types of calls where replay can clearly show a ball crossed the goal line or a foot was in/out of bounds on a TD. I believe someone brought up the famous 5th down (Colorado-Missouri). All of those things are left in the hands of the game officials and this is no different.

  you're prolly right, but if this were, say, LSU/Oklahoma? just sayin'
• thavoice

  Sonofanump;913055 wrote:Boise is in (Champ Game) only if an AQ school is not undefeated.

  I could actually see an SEC team getting into the NC game with a loss even if BSU goes undefeated.
  
  The scenario would have to be one of the top SEC teams lose in the first half of the conference season, then win out and win the SEC champ game. I could see a team like LSU losing early and ended up in the NC game over BSU.
• vball10set

  ^^^^good lord I hope not, but it definitely could happen
• HitsRus

  

  Really the bigger story is how the replay official could have messed up that badly. The Big East statement said that he looked at the side angle instead of the direct angle. Why he would look at that one at all is baffling. I'll be honest I don't think I've ever seen a replay of a field goal from the side. Why he didn't look at the standard replay for field goals (behind the play, straight on) is a bit fishy.

  I agree. He has time to look at multiple angles. Something smells. How do you miss that.
  
  

  Replay official should be fired. Your ONLY job is to get calls like that right, and you blew it. Time to find a different career.

  That's a minimum. When you consider the money that bet on these games I'm not sure an investigation is not in order.
• dwccrew

  

  sportswizuhrd;913044 wrote:Yes, because USC would have lost the game had the score not been changed. SMH...The only people who won or lost the SC/Utah game had money on it. Do you really think that if the same scenario happened in a USC/???(chose the team) game, the score and result of the game would have been changed because of USC's money and power??

  The point isn't whether they would have lost or not, the point is that after the game was over a call was changed. Not a good thing.
• enigmaax

  dwccrew;913950 wrote:The point isn't whether they would have lost or not, the point is that after the game was over a call was changed. Not a good thing.

  A call wasn't changed. The official ruled it correctly on the field and the mistake was by the press box. The score was updated to align with the call that the official actually made.
  

  After consultation, referee Jack Folliard said on the field that the penalty was "by rule" declined and the game was over.

• Sonofanump

  enigmaax;913988 wrote:A call wasn't changed. The official ruled it correctly on the field and the mistake was by the press box. The score was updated to align with the call that the official actually made.

  This is correct, despite what ya'll read on the internetz.
• thavoice

  vball10set;913259 wrote:^^^^good lord I hope not, but it definitely could happen

  As a matter of fact, I believe it is more likely a one loss team makes it into the NC game over an undefeated BSU team.
  
  To be honest I could see why. BSU's conference and schedule isnt that great. They cannot do anything about their conference schedule. They have tried to beef up, and have, their NC games.
  
  I can see many voters saying a one loss SEC is more deserving.
  
  
  ..and I am a proponant of having a BSU play in the NC game, and having a playoff.
• sportswizuhrd

  enigmaax;913988 wrote:A call wasn't changed. The official ruled it correctly on the field and the mistake was by the press box. The score was updated to align with the call that the official actually made.

  This.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  I don't follow Toledo, but I really respect their team this year. They gave Ohio State all it could handle, hung with Boise for a bit and BEAT Syracuse. I understand the game won't be overturned. I really respect the Toledo coach. He got out in front of this right away and made it very clear that his team is pressing on and that they're no excuses. The young men on his team will remember that lesson probably more than anything they would have taken away from a win at Syracuse.
• vball10set

  good article, different perspective
  
  http://www.toledoblade.com/DaveHackenberg/2011/09/28/Missed-call-has-silver-lining-for-UT.html
  

  The Great Extra Point Debate is over. Syracuse wins. Toledo loses. The NCAA football rule book says so.
  UT athletic director Mike O'Brien admits he knew the rule existed on Sunday when he publicly petitioned for a change of heart, not to mention a change in Saturday's final score. Considering it is Rule 1, Section 1, Article 3, Paragraph B, he didn't have to go very deep into the book to find it.
  Anyway, it says when the referee declares the game is over, the game is over and the score is immortal. I'm not sure this particular Big East Conference officiating crew merits having such power, but so be it.
  "After review, the call on the field is confirmed."
  Oh, really? The call where Syracuse's wide-left extra point, a dying, hooking quail that might have come off the toe of Gumby, who I'm not sure actually had feet, is ruled to have split the uprights? That call?
  So Syracuse 33, Toledo 30, in overtime stands.
  Toledo's AD, who would have preferred UT 30-29 in regulation, accomplished nothing.
  Ah, wrong kemosabe.
  The Rockets got more attention for losing than they would have for winning. Millions of Americans who couldn't find Toledo on a map and may not have realized Syracuse plays fall sports now know the Rockets were jobbed. After all, the Big East admitted it. Folks from Bar Harbor, Maine to Coos Bay, Ore., could not care less about Rule 1, Section 1, Article 3, Paragraph B. They know what they know.
  (By the way, while O'Brien concedes he was aware of the rule, he said he also knew the Pac 12 changed the score of the Sept. 10 game between Utah and Southern Cal several hours after it ended. The circumstance was different, for sure. But it happened. You can look it up. The Las Vegas bookies did.)
  Toledo was all over the crawl on ESPN network screens, in three parts over 48 hours -- the Big East admitting the error, Toledo demanding a recount, and the Mid-American Conference commissioner regretfully announcing the rule precluded any change in the outcome.
  The national writers chimed in too. Andrea Adelson, who blogs on the Big East for espn.com, said this about Syracuse in her weekly league power rankings: "The Orange are a pretty weak 3-1 team. They should be a 2-2 team after officials blew a call against Toledo, awarding [Syracuse] an extra point that clearly went wide."
  And we cherry-pick these highlights from Stewart Mandel on SI.com: "In the long history of controversial officiating errors, I can't remember a crew botching a crucial extra point call. Either it went in or it didn't. How do you mess that up? Well, the officials at Saturday's Toledo-Syracuse game did … both the refs on the field and in the replay booth missed what anyone watching at home could have seen … Make no mistake, Toledo. You got robbed."
  O'Brien agrees. But his real motive was to support coach Tim Beckman and, especially, UT's players through a tough stretch capped by an injustice. If he didn't, who would? Still, he acknowledges the national attention is a bonus.
  "The story definitely received more traction as the week went on," O'Brien said yesterday. "But we're not any happier than we were late Saturday. We clearly would have preferred to win the game. However, Toledo being in the national spotlight is not all bad."
  And there's the moral to the story.
  When the news stinks, use the news cycle to whatever advantage you can.
  When you're dealt lemons, squeeze some lemonade.
  Sunday's UT press conference, with mostly frustration boiling over, may have seemed silly at the time. Wrong, kemosabe.
  

• Footwedge

  grodt;911737 wrote:Actually if they did have money on 'Cuse, then making the XP was the only way they could win. Final line was Syracuse -2.

  The line I had was minus 3. But regardless of that....I follow the half time lines as well. The score was tied at halftime, and Toledo was getting 2.5 points for the second half line. I'm sure there were a few Toledo backers at plus 2.5 that weren't too happy.
• Footwedge

  On the call itself....how can the replay official get it wrong? The announcers were commenting on the replay....and in slo-mo, the ball never disappeared behind the goal post. Whoever this "official" was....there actually should be an investigation. My guess....he was just a big time Syracuse fan....and gambling money had nothing to do with it.
  
  Toledo did have a great chance to win it anyway...but they didn't get it done. They had first and goal at the 5, with about 50 seconds left...couldn't punch it in.
• Sonofanump

  Footwedge;916364 wrote:My guess....he was just a big time Syracuse fan....and gambling money had nothing to do with it.

  They found him on a grassy knoll.
• enigmaax

  Footwedge;916364 wrote:On the call itself....how can the replay official get it wrong?

  I think they said that the replay official looked at a side view, which I assume meant a side view from the opposite side. Really, really lame. What would even be the point of looking at it from that view then?
• Sonofanump

  enigmaax;916372 wrote:I think they said that the replay official looked at a side view, which I assume meant a side view from the opposite side. Really, really lame. What would even be the point of looking at it from that view then?

  I was informed that was the view given to him by the television crew. Not sure why.
• vball10set

  Sonofanump;916439 wrote:I was informed that was the view given to him by the television crew. Not sure why.

  Sorry, don't buy it...they'll try and spin it every which way, but the bottom line is, he has to be held accountable. There is no excuse to miss this with the technology available and the time with which to view it. This is his one and only job during the game, and he blew it. IMO, he should be relieved of his duties, or at the very least, suspended without pay for a few games. This is NOT "simply human error", and is plain inexcusable.
• HitsRus

  

  "Human error" was the guy on the field who had only a split second to view it and make the call...the guy in the booth was negligent, and should be fired.
• vball10set

  HitsRus;916748 wrote:"Human error" was the guy on the field who had only a split second to view it and make the call...the guy in the booth was negligent, and should be fired.

  exactly