Sat, Nov 21, 2009
|
Text Size:
  
 |
Arizona-Washington "interception" photos; smoking gun or blowing smoke?10/11/2009 09:08 PM
Ryan Finley As I wrote in today’s newspaper , UA fan Neil Gustafson believes he has photo proof that the Nick Foles’ pass hit the ground BEFORE it glanced off UA receiver Delashaun Dean’s shoe and directly into the hands of Washington linebacker Mason Foster. Foster, as you know, returned the ball 37 yards for the go-ahead touchdown, paving the way for a 36-33 Washington win Saturday night. I talked to Gustafson Sunday afternoon — he’s an intelligent, articulate fan who repeatedly said he isn’t typically the kind to “blame the refs.” Neil’s photos, taken off a paused version of the TV broadcast, are pretty convincing. Still, I’ve talked to people who disagree. Remember: Referees require “indisputable evidence” to the contrary in order to overturn a call. So what do you think? Did the ball hit the ground?
: My Week 6 AP poll |
We have been getting these calls all year, It started with OSU and that touchdown, The players was down on a knee and still got up and was allowed to score it was reviewed and it was not overturned. I am sick to my stomach with the officiating this year in the Pac-10, The refs are are showing no impartiality and are deciding the outcomes of games! It is a sa day but the time has come now when the best does not win but who the officials feel should win. There needs to be an investigation and something done the Pac-10 is going to lose credibility. I for one will stop watching games knowing the best team will not win if the referee’s are being partial. So Sad.
— BigAZ 10/11/2009 09:50 PM #
“Did the ball hit the ground?”
Is that a rhetorical question?
— Superspud 10/11/2009 10:03 PM #
“Indisputable evidence” being required to overturn a decision is a bunch of bull. What about the early Washington fumble where the WR caught the ball, took 2 steps, and switched the ball from one arm to the other? There was less evidence to overturn the refs call on the field that it was a fumble. Remember, Locker’s TD run came two plays after. I don’t blame the on-field refs — it’s the replay refs who are ridiculously bad. I’m not a conspiracy guy…but stuff like this makes me wonder.
— DU 10/11/2009 10:04 PM #
We all knew it right away that the ball hit the ground. Your tellin me the refs screwed up this bad on two calls in this game at Washington and wow they both go their way. I am sick of the PAC-10 officiating and it comes after Stoops is calling them out after the bad calls at OSU.
— Jason 10/11/2009 10:11 PM #
To see video of the interception instead of a blurry camera shot off a paused tv recording, try http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Who-knew-Huskies-best-foot-forward-belonged-t?urn=ncaaf,195253
and it sure looks like the ball did not hit the turf. Hey, the UW got jobbed at Notre Dame last week, so we know how you feel, Pac-10 refs do need to improve.
— Nickybobo 10/11/2009 10:25 PM #
Looks like a shadow below the ball – very close though. If I were you, I’d be complaining about the reviewed fumble in the first quarter, not the foot deflection
— tammster 10/11/2009 10:38 PM #
“Looks like a shadow below the ball”
Tammster must be an ASU alum to think that “casting a shadow” and “touching the ground” are mutually exclusive concepts. Too funny!
— Jefe 10/11/2009 11:01 PM #
I see a shadow under the ball. Although the entire picture is ridiculously blurry. You can’t be certain either way really.
— Aaron 10/11/2009 11:11 PM #
Do the phrases “looks like a shadow below the ball” and “casting a shadow” mean the same thing? Really? Do you have a shadow BELOW you when you are standing on a football field? No, but you do CAST a shadow, therefore they mean two different things. Think about it, if there is a shadow BELOW the ball then it is not touching the turf!
— Nickybobo 10/11/2009 11:13 PM #
I don’t think it hit the ground. I think it was very close. But the ball would not have jumped up like it did if it hit the ground. Also, those pictures aren’t conclusive. In my opinion, from looking at various replays in slow motion, the ball hit the recievers toe. My opinion. Also, you guys want to complain about the refs. What about the mysterious fumble into the endzone UA had near the end of the first half and then the refs somehow gave UA the ball at the “3 inch yard line?”
— Luke 10/11/2009 11:20 PM #
I kept waiting for them to review the call… but they moved on. Strange. They reviewed that “fumble” earlier and over-turned that.
— SY 10/11/2009 11:47 PM #
Four times inside the red zone with a first down and the results were a total of 9 points. The team looked solid, Foles looked better than any Wildcat QB has in 30 years, but they left the door open just enough for the game to be stolen.
Stoops’ sideline histrionics are just plain embarrassing. Is it any wonder why the refs are against him?
— Rick 10/12/2009 12:33 AM #
Well, if the feed from FSN-NW wasn’t so terrible, we might have a better look. Remember folks, replay officials have the same camera angles that the viewers have. As much as I love to see the Fuskies fail and lose, you can’t turn this call over—there isn’t indisputable evidence the ball made contact with the ground. If they ruled it incomplete in the first place, (like they should have, IMO), they couldn’t overturn it the other way either.
That fumble call in the 1st quarter was a bit perplexing.
Oh well, just beat Stanfurd and screw the Fuskies.
— oskibear 10/12/2009 02:44 AM #
if u watch the video that the guy above us posted you’ll see right after the ball hit the ground it threw up a little bit of dust just like Deans shoes.. WATCH!!!
— matt 10/12/2009 03:08 AM #
This proves the ball DID NOT hit the ground. Do you see the shadow and the sliver of space between the ball and the ground? Good call by the refs. Stop whining.
— James 10/12/2009 04:18 AM #
It was the right call. I certainly think the ball hit the ground, but it’s not indisputable. The problem is that the replay officials were not consistent. Had the applied the same logic to the fumble call, that would have remained a fumble. Approaching the same rule two different ways, both working out miraculously for one team, is— to say the least— suspicious.
— Frank 10/12/2009 05:12 AM #
U OF A COACHES MUST NOT LIKE TO SCORE TOUCHDOWNS.
IT SEEMS THEY HAVE VERY POOR PLAY SELECTION IN THE RED ZONE….PREPPING FOR A FIELD GOAL FROM THE START, INSTEAD OF GOING FOR THE TOUCHDOWN.
— DON AHEE 10/12/2009 05:35 AM #
#14 Matt nailed it. Unquestionably it hit the ground.
— Billy Bob 10/12/2009 06:08 AM #
I’m w/ 14. this still shot (with or without shadow) was not what convinced me when I watched in slow mo on my tivo.. it was the black turf sand kicking up when it hit the ground.
— Kyle 10/12/2009 06:23 AM #
Face it, the PAC-10 officials are the worst in the country. They’ve blown the biggest calls in the biggest games. ORE-OU a few years ago, MIA-OSU natl champ. game. The list could go on and on. They are indecisive and seem to not even be able to watch a video replay correctly.
That being said, they did not lose this game for the Cats. Two sequences lost this game: the personal foul on the WASH TD drive, and having a 1st and goal at the 3 in. line and not scoring. I love Stoops, but we lose a game like this every year where it looks like we’re undiciplined and totally unprepared to handle the moment. Can’t blame that on the players…
— Nick 10/12/2009 06:34 AM #
“if u watch the video that the guy above us posted you’ll see right after the ball hit the ground it threw up a little bit of dust just like Deans shoes.. WATCH!!!”
I’m pretty sure the ball didn’t actually hit the ground, but I wanted to add a bit of factual information to the discussion with regard to #14’s comments.
Having been on Husky Stadium’s field a few times, I can tell you that there is no “dust” on the turf – it’s artificial field turf – not grass.
There was NO DUST to be thrown up.
— RL 10/12/2009 06:44 AM #
It happens so often in the Pac-10 that it is no mistake. The Refs are taking bribes.
— Vernon 10/12/2009 06:51 AM #
It doesn’t matter if the ball hit/didn’t hit the ground….UA didn’t close out the game due to poor red zone offense.
— Dave 10/12/2009 07:21 AM #
It’s not dust that came up after the ball hit the ground, it’s little pieces of rubber that make the turf softer…it hit the ground no doubt. Anyone who says it doesn’t is a bias UW Fan!
— TBone 10/12/2009 08:00 AM #
FYI, a football sitting on the ground would cast a shadow and Dean’s foot isn’t under the ball. The ball hit the ground, the reversed call was a fumble, OSU running back’s knee was down on the 2-point conversion, OSU didn’t get a first down, and UW scored against Notre Dame. These are 5 blown replay calls in 3 games with 4 going against the cats.
— Neil 10/12/2009 08:12 AM #
The ball hit the ground and was then kicked – causing it to “jump” like that. It is pretty clear when seeing the re-play on the video posted above.
— SFman 10/12/2009 08:12 AM #
Bottom line UA left a possible 21 points off the board by not being able to score TOUCH DOWNS. Intead settling for FIELD GOALS. I dont care what level of football or conference you are in. You cant do they and expect to win.
— Shawn 10/12/2009 08:31 AM #
No one here can say that any of the video footage that we’ve all seen is conclusive. However, physics tells us that it HAD to hit the foot in order to bounce back like that. For those of you who claim short hop, a video review would have shown that. The “dust” could just as well have come from the force of the ball hitting his foot and his heel kicking up the infill. In any case, all speculation. We know it had to hit his foot to bounce this way. This was a crazy event, no doubt, but a lesson learned to the Wildcats that UW learned at Notre Dame: let a team hang around close enough and it will hurt you in the end.
— LAHusky 10/12/2009 08:35 AM #
Jason (#1) needs to go back to school. Two misspellings in one sentence. Incredible.
— Greg 10/12/2009 08:40 AM #
Honestly, even in your pictures I see FULL shadow below the ball. That is impossible if the ball is on the ground. Your photos support the theory that the ball NEVER hit the ground.
Now, either way, the referees made the right ‘on the field call’ which is to allow the play to complete and then review. Hence there is absolutely without a doubt NO conclusive evidence that shows the ball hitting the ground, they made the right call.
The same should have been done on the replay overturned a week prior against UW versus ND. There was NO conclusive evidence showing Chris Polk short of the goal line, and therefore should have not been overturned. As for NOT reviewing the 2 pt conversion, well that was a mistake made by all the officials. It should have been reviewed, but wasn’t.
— jsbrando 10/12/2009 08:41 AM #
Good thing it wasn’t overturned, it made for a much more dramatic ending!
— CatsRock 10/12/2009 08:45 AM #
Of course there’s a shadow…the lights are above. A football is oblong. So light from above can’t get to the bottom (the curvature of the ball prevents it – light doesn’t go through solid objects). Hmm…it would take a scientific impossibility for there not to be a shadow under the ball (take a football outside at midday put it on its point and see if there’s a shadow at the bottom).
C’mon use common sense. Although, I’m really not that upset about this call — I can see how this would be tough for a ref.
I don’t understand the “indisputable evidence” which overturned the first fumble where the WR caught the ball, took 2 steps, and switched arms with the ball (look at the video). The refs get this one right — no TD run by Locker; Cats up by 2 scores early on with all the momentum.
— DU 10/12/2009 08:45 AM #
Isn’t it awesome to see a college football team rebound in the final five minutes to score twice when there was really no hope at all? Yeah, what a great game – isn’t that what college football is all about? What a comeback! Wow! Screaming! Cheering Wildly!
Sorry Husky fans. The ball hit the ground. UW does not deserve the W.
— Skip 10/12/2009 08:47 AM #
You UA fans are a bunch of whining babies. If UA would have scored TDs instead of FGs then perhaps the W would be on your side. Whine Whine Whine… seriously, get over it, it’s a college football game… your team lost, their team won… get over it…
— JJx4 10/12/2009 08:53 AM #
To make it easier for UW fans to understand…take your coffee mug (a rounded one — not the paper Seattle’s Best one) and place under overhead lighting. Does the bottom of the cofee cup cast a shadow? Depending on the light, it may not cast a shadow on one side…but if you look on the opposite side…
— DU 10/12/2009 08:54 AM #
#30 add on…put the coffee mug on the table. The coffee mug in front of me right now is on the table and casting a shadow at the bottom of the cup
— DU 10/12/2009 08:57 AM #
Two things, this was the new turf with small rubber balls, not dirt, so it leaves strange patterns in the turf everywhere. That’s not entirely a shadow, that that it matters…people are focused on the wrong thing. Yes, if you freeze the video down in slow motion, you see it is actually the nose of the ball that finally hits the turf and the side of the ball that hits the shoe, so both are correct, except that makes it an incomplete pass. Question: How can one inconclusive review in 1st half be conclusively overturned but last quarter conclusively be inconclusively. Because they are making judgement calls with no better judgement than the on field official. Either get them correct on review or stop reviewing plays in the booth. This is not what instant reply was designed to do…overtuning that fumble in the 1st half was criminal and nobody can tell me otherwise.
— Dave 10/12/2009 09:00 AM #
Husky fan here – Just wanted to say I think the off the foot call was all right – the official review can’t spend a long time looking frame by frame at replays.
The one you got screwed on was the fumble by Jordan Polk – he caught the ball and had time to switch hands – you’re telling me that doesn’t show control? These refs suck. UW should have beaten Notre Dame and lost to UA but the officials are saying differently.
— ILiveInHoth 10/12/2009 09:02 AM #
“19.It’s not dust that came up after the ball hit the ground, it’s little pieces of rubber that make the turf softer…it hit the ground no doubt”
Precisely. Those are on all artificial turf fields. The whole “physics” expertise that Husky fans have suddenly developed is amazing. All must have been great students. Besides, hitting the end of the ball like it did (the pointed in, guys), the ball is not going to bounce in a typical fashion. And, by the way, there is a completely “unblurry” picture on the free boards at goazcats.com that shows the ball on the ground, up against the shoe of Dean. Hit the shoe. Also hit the ground. Incomplete pass.
That said, I’m not as upset about the loss as I am about the way the Husky fans have behaved on various sites. It’s not that they don’t admit Arizona got screwed. It’s that they think it is “fair” and “deserved” because of what happened at Notre Dame. How, exactly, is that “fair?” How does it affect ND? It doesn’t. It affects an innocent 3rd party who has been screwed over in two straight games. If Arizona had won that way, I wouldn’t say they “deserved” it. I’d say they got lucky and the other team has reason to be angry. The same way I did when Arizona beat Cal a couple years ago on a phantom call.
Oh, #29. Go back and worry about your own losing team. You should be more worried about your horrible QB and OL than what Arizona fans are saying about their game with Washington.
— Kim 10/12/2009 09:03 AM #
@ #29 JJx4:
Yes, UA should outscore all of their opponents by 18, so the refs can then give the other team 8-15 points, but UA will still win. That’s an entirely fair expectation and it’s what sports are all about.
— DKH 10/12/2009 09:07 AM #
This game was not lost (or won) on one play or one perceived bad call.
— LAHusky 10/12/2009 09:12 AM #
I’ve watched everything out there on this one. There is no way in my mind that the ball pops up like it did unless the ball only hits dean’s foot. This call was the right one.
— Matthew 10/12/2009 09:14 AM #
“26.Good thing it wasn’t overturned, it made for a much more dramatic ending!”
Then let’s just start watching WWE. No need for fairness. Juts drama.
“36.This game was not lost (or won) on one play or one perceived bad call.”
No, it was won/lost on TWO bad calls.
Of course, the Huskies should be lecturing about perceived bad calls and fan reactions after their week of whining about Notre Dame, shouldn’t they?
— Kim 10/12/2009 09:17 AM #
How many times were we in the Red Zone, which should now be called the “Field Goal Zone”; just one conversion from FG to TD changes everything… By the end of the season U Of A will be in the Top 20 and will launch them to a National Championship 2010… That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!
— U of A NCAA Football Nat't Champs 10/12/2009 09:20 AM #
The ball hit the ground. Have you ever thrown a tennis ball at a wall? If you throw it directly at the wall(lets say deans foot) it goes down to the ground next. Now, if you throw it at the floor right before the wall(in this case, the turf) it then pops up and hits the wall, then continuing up after it hits the wall as well.
It HIT the GROUND!!
— Patrick 10/12/2009 09:24 AM #
#39, I’ll go with that. As I’ve said in many posts, there is enough blame to go around. However, I have a MAJOR problem with Husky fans saying anything other than, “You got robbed. We got lucky.” It’s what happened. It’s consistent, given what happened in Notre Dame and how much they whined. Of course, Husky fans have been some of the most annoying for years, so I don’t expect them to be realistic or consistent. If they’re going to be self-important, condescending jerks, they should just stay away from Arizona sites. I know, I know. That’s asking them not to be who they are, though.
— Kim 10/12/2009 09:26 AM #
Any Stoop’s that goes to the northwest is going to get bad calls. How can anyone forget about the Sooners Oregon game a few years back? What about last week? How many reviews have gone against Arizona at OSU and Washington? From that angle the ball would have to hit the turf to shot back up otherwise it would have kept going down. It’s time to get the physics lab on verify the call.
— Joe 10/12/2009 09:28 AM #
Hey morons, you lost. Get over it.
— Bobby Peru 10/12/2009 09:35 AM #
The only thing these photos prove that there was no conclusive evidence to overturn the play. Of course biased Arizona fans will say it conclusively hit the ground while Washington fans will say it only hit the foot. Sounds pretty inconclusive. The cats should be a little upset over the fumble in the first quarter. That call get’s overturned there would be no Locker TD run. Of course if the AZ defender had tackled Locker on 3rd & 7 instead of sliding over the top of him it wouldn’t have been a TD either. Once a bad call is made on the field you have to keep playing, which the Huskies did until time ran out.
— cdub 10/12/2009 09:37 AM #
Go to the link #2 posted… It 100% hit the ground.
What tape is the ref watching? The pebbles absolutely, clearly make a visible mark once hit by the nose of the ball.
Im more sick than I was sat night
— Patrick 10/12/2009 09:38 AM #
The clearest shot of the play is the very first one in this thread: http://forum.goazcats.com/showthread.php?t=94918
It clearly shows the ball hitting at an angle, pointed end down, going off the ground and the side of Dean’s shoe. It’s in no way fuzzy or blurry. It’s clear-as-day. I haven’t seen another one that’s this clear.
— Kim 10/12/2009 09:43 AM #
What does Stoops think he’s doing throwing the ball that late in the game anyway? Keep the ball on the ground, control the clock and UA wins that game.
Couldn’t have happened to a bigger cry baby! Stoops got what he deserved in the end.
Go Dawgs!
— Jeff 10/12/2009 09:43 AM #
“Once a bad call is made on the field you have to keep playing, which the Huskies did until time ran out.”
Which is exactly what Washington fans and their team did last week, right? Hypocrite.
— Kim 10/12/2009 09:45 AM #
I still think the whole debate over play-vs-run is weak. Last game, against OSU, Arizona DID go with the run late in the game. They ended up turning over on downs and giving OSU a chance to win it out. Stoops got criticized for “playing not to lose.” This time, he doesn’t do that, and he still gets criticized because the refs screwed up a call. It’s arm chair QBing all the way. The more I think about it, the more I think discussion of the play calling at the end is a foolish argument. It all depends on results. If it goes well, the coach did the right thing. If it doesn’t, he’s an idiot. That’s a hindsight argument that has no basis in reality.
— Kim 10/12/2009 09:50 AM #
Trying to be as unbiased as possible, since I like fair calls, the photos don’t clearly show the ball touching the ground. The foot is as close to the ball as the ground is, and a still photo does not show the angle the ball is travelling. The ball could have still hit the foot, without hitting the ground, in looking at both photos. Of course, the ball could have also hit the ground just as easily. That makes this inconclusive, and that is probably why the refs could not overturn the ruling. I always want our team to win on their own, not by officiating. It was a tough game. Always something in the UW-UA games!
— Rydawg 10/12/2009 10:03 AM #
Jeff’s #47. Right on. 2:55 on clock, run the ball,UW maybe gets ball back with less than 2 mins and no TOs. One good punt and AZ defense seals the win.
— Charles Fritts 10/12/2009 10:07 AM #
Doesn’t mean a thing. In this day of digital editing who knows the veracity of this picture. Sorry
— Bill 10/12/2009 10:11 AM #
Nick Holt seems like the biggest tool in the Pac-10. I’m no huge Mike Stoops fan, but if UA had Holt on the staff, I would stop watching the games all together.
The pictures and video are too inconclusive to overturn the call on the field, so as much as it sucks, we lost.
Stanford is huge. This is a must win in my opinion for the Cats. UA should be favored in the next 3 home games, and has a very good chance at winning all of them. Stack the box, stuff Gerhart, and make Stanford pass to win the game.
Also, I hate to say it again, but if only Foles had Gronk to throw to (especially in the red zone)…my goodness would the offense be great.
— Darren 10/12/2009 10:19 AM #
This looks like a Zapruder quality film perhaps you should take a minute to get the original copy and not make a judgement from a photo of a tv monitor. then if at all possible make that decision within 2 minutes of seeing the original replay. thats what replay officials are subject to. or do you want to stop the game for a review of each controversial play? Each game will take up to a month to finish.
— joe schmoe 10/12/2009 10:22 AM #
We’ll see if Stoops and UA get the Pac-10 crew to admit they made a mistake – which they (Pac-10 and Big East crews) DID admit to after re-reviewing the UW-ND calls…
— Toby 10/12/2009 10:26 AM #
I was on a grassy knoll and shot the ball as it was approaching the turf. Also: I faked the moon landing.
— 206 Cardinal 10/12/2009 10:35 AM #
For me it was just as bad having to listen to the announcers “jones” for UW as it was to watch UofA crumble, which was not entirely unexpected if you have watched the choke Cats as long as I have. It was excruciatingly painful to have to listen to the announcers glorify UW players. I thought they were supposed to be impartial. If I had to look at that UW defensive coordinator one more time, I would have punched his little sister in the nose. If UW listeners have to listen to that kind of grandstanding when they play down here i feel sorry for them. Never the less, still a Cat fan ‘til I die.
Luke
— Luke 10/12/2009 10:41 AM #
Of course there a shadow under the ball its the law of physics- the stadium lights are above the ball so there is a shadow below the circumference of the ball! The fact is the U of A got homered! Thats not bad if the U of A gets the same kind of call at Arizona Stadium- but it doesnt seem to be that way. Truth is the more esteemed clubs like the SC’s, Washington and Oregon get more than their fair share of calls! Its always been that way and always will be until you beat them so bad its obvious, and no “bad call” will turn the game!
— rube ruiz 10/12/2009 10:42 AM #
I suspect the ball hit the ground, but it wasn’t indisputable evidence to overturn the call.
However, I have seen plenty of calls that weren’t indisputable get overturned, so I was holding my breath.
These kind of plays are the problem with instant replay. Refs are told to let the play go and not call the play dead. Then they need indisputable evidence the play was called wrong.
Sorry, that just isn’t possible in all cases. This was one of those cases.
As a dawgfan, I think the correct call would have been incomplete, but there just wasn’t clear evidence to show it was.
— Dawgfan98075 10/12/2009 10:45 AM #
I agree that the You Tube video shows a telltale divot well short of Delashaun Dean’s shoe. It’s a moot point that the trajectory of the bounce suggests a turf ball. By the way, our spread offense is fine, but not in many of the situations that UA chooses to use it. How many opportunities from inside the 10 fizzled from that meek formation? Didn’t like it for clock-killing either.
— JP 10/12/2009 10:58 AM #
I am a UW alum and fan and there is no doubt the ball hit the ground. the college refs were giving back to UW after they blew the Notre Dame game…too bad for UA but maybe they will help you next week.
— TBone 10/12/2009 10:58 AM #
I call “POPS”. Hit the ground and the shoe at the same time. But definitely hit the ground. Balls.
— Guert 10/12/2009 10:59 AM #
BLOWN UP PICTURE AND STILL CAN’T TELL IF IT HIT THE GROUND =
INCONCLUSIVE!
— Pat 10/12/2009 11:02 AM #
UA NEEDS TDs NOT FGs!
— timaz 10/12/2009 11:03 AM #
In both those pictures it doesn’t appear for sure that the ball touched the ground. There is a shadow underneath it as far as you can see, and the only way you can tell for sure is if you had a camera that was on the same level as the ground.
— sc 10/12/2009 11:09 AM #
******
Throw the ball into a rubberized turf a thousand times—you will not get that bounce!
*****************
— sseattleboy 10/12/2009 11:17 AM #
The bounce off the shoe and artificial turf was to close to call. The Polk fumble however, wasnt even close to being a fumble. Is the Pac 10 replay official the same guy who made the fair ball call in the Twins Yankees game? I’m calling shananigans!
— Chad 10/12/2009 11:20 AM #
The call at least warranted a review, it would’ve been nice for the officials to act like they were willing to look at it. As far as the game, the UA lost it in the Red Zone. One possession leads are never safe. Congrats to Huskie fans, you have redeemed the Ortege Jenkins Flip. We are even now.
— Zonacats 09 10/12/2009 11:35 AM #
That “dust” flying up from the turf was a result of the receiver dragging his cleat across the surface of the field. The ball did not cause this material to come up. The referee could of made a call either way but, video evidence seems to lean toward the ball hitting tip of toe.”
— Joel 10/12/2009 11:41 AM #
In an ideal end, both Huskies and wildcats go to a bowl. I don’t expect either to come close to 9 and 3. As long as they go somewhere for a bowl, that’s positive.
I called the pass incomplete watching the instant replay and I get sick of the busted calls. Sometimes I have a hard time watching these PAC-10 games but it’s still worth it.
— bobo 10/12/2009 12:02 PM #
The game is over. If Arizona had scored touchdowns instead of setteling for field goals when they were in the red zone that last touchdown by Washinton would not have mattered.
I do agree Az had some bad call but we have to live with it when the final gun goes off
— Bob 10/12/2009 12:15 PM #
Husky Fan (Comment #33) is absolutely right!
“Husky fan here – Just wanted to say I think the off the foot call was all right – the official review can’t spend a long time looking frame by frame at replays.
The one you got screwed on was the fumble by Jordan Polk – he caught the ball and had time to switch hands – you’re telling me that doesn’t show control? “
Husky Fan is absolutely right..That was a fumble, Arizona recovered! Should have been a Washington turnover. Instead, the Huskies/Locker scored on a long run one or two plays later.
I’m a Husky fan too and happy for the win, but that was a bad call!
— intek 10/12/2009 12:27 PM #
How does the ball bounce straight up in the air 5 feet off of the turf? Must have bounced up off of his toe. Touchdown Washington.
— All Purple 10/12/2009 12:51 PM #
2nd picture looks as if it didn’t hit the ground, that being said, I would bet that some portion of the ball likely hit the ground, however, it was the right call given the sequence on the field, and you certainly can’t overturn that call based on the video.
— Craig 10/12/2009 12:55 PM #
Shadow theorists “There is a shadow under the ball” Your so called shadow only appears as the ball is extremely close to the ground. Did the lights only come on at that precise moment????
Physics theorists “The ball could only bounce that way if ‘only’ it his foot” Really?? It couldn’t bounce backwards and up if it hit is shoe AND the Ground??
Fact of the matter is the ball hit the ground and kicked up turf, but was too close to overturn. Fair enough.
But if anyone says the Huskies weren’t extremely lucky to come away with a win, then they are insane.
— Aundy 10/12/2009 12:55 PM #
No matter what we think, the ref made the call (right or wrong) and it’s time to move onto the next game.
— Button Salmon 10/12/2009 12:56 PM #
If you tell a freshman QB to pass with <3 mins left in a game up by 1 score then you deserve to lose. Enough said.
— Ryan 10/12/2009 12:58 PM #
It hit the ground!!! We cant change the call or lose but damn it, it hit the ground. The ball stood straight up on its tip on the ground and his toe hit it up from there. Also stop blameing Stoops or coaches, they are doing a great job, every coach will make errors but we need to support Stoops.
— Bighec35 10/12/2009 01:01 PM #
Ive seen HD pics of this on goazcats.com. On this clear pics it clearly hit turf. So this hitting and non hitting arguement doesnt matter. It was already determined it hit the ground. No matter game over. :) we got bad calls and life goes on.
— Bighec35 10/12/2009 01:08 PM #
It hit the ground, but the real tragedies were not scoring on 4 different red zone appearances and the totally obvious blown call on the fumble recovery. The one thing I really don’t get though is that the officials on this call said that the call on the field was “confirmed”. The officials can say three different things: the call stands, the call is overturned, or the call is confirmed. Confirmed means that the video evidence confirms indisputably that the call was correct. At the very least this call stands. There is no way in hell this should have been “confirmed”. If the NCAA is going to insist on having replays then they need to make sure that they actually work and get calls right. So far this year replay officials have looked like complete idiots.
— Seth 10/12/2009 01:11 PM #
I haven’t watched an HD replay, so I haven’t seen for sure whether that ball hit the ground or not. Even so, four simple points about that play:
1. The shadow theory is just ridiculous and makes no sense. Nuff said.
2. Even in the fuzziest video, it’s clear that the ball hit Dean’s hand before it hit his foot. This caused the ball’s path to change and redirect off his cleats. Thus, the theory that the path of the ball proves that it hit the ground is bogus. Face it – an oblong football bouncing off the hard, curved edge of a shoe’s sole (and the conical spikes underneath) will do crazy things. You can’t argue that the bounce of the ball proves anything other than that it the shoe at some point in its path (with or without the ground’s help)
3. The black rubber pellets are kicked up when Dean’s foot drags along the turf. Try this on any FieldTurf field and you will see the exact same thing happen. In fact, a ball won’t kick up nearly that much rubber – seriously, try it for yourself. You’ll see that dragging a foot causes the same pattern of flying rubber as the video clips.
4. In spite of all of this, Arizona still should have won. They outgained and outplayed UW all game long, but couldn’t put it away. In the end, the Pac-10 officials may have made bad calls (just as they have against many teams this year…and last year…and the year before…), but just like UW against ND, Arizona shouldn’t have been in that situation to begin with. You shouldn’t outgain a team by 200 yards and lose; but that’s what happens when you score 9 points on 4 red zone tries. 24 hours is up…time to move on.
— Kevin 10/12/2009 01:26 PM #
That’s rough. UW definitely got the best of Arizona late. Arizona just couldn’t put it together. I think UW must know how it feels after their game against Notre Dame. :) Mark it as a L. Seattle is a tough place to play. Kuddos to the Huskies.
— Clayton 10/12/2009 01:33 PM #
Both the aforementioned calls were bad. This game should be in the win column for UA.
— El Padre 10/12/2009 01:37 PM #
Did the ball hit the ground? Yes. Did the ball hit his foot? Yes. Did we lose the game on this play? No. The way Nick preformed we should have been up an addition fifteen points. Alas, the team couldn’t get it done in the red zone. The UW defense deserves just as much credit as the Arizona offense deserves for it’s questionable play calling on the one yard line.
— Stefan 10/12/2009 01:39 PM #
‘Cats got screwed in Seattle.
— Wall Streeter 10/12/2009 01:43 PM #
The problem is the system itself. The refs are taught to let a play go if it’s close because if they blow it dead and it’s overturned later the entire play couldn’t have happened. But it’s the INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE part that ruins the system in these situations. There should be a “continuation rule” where if the difference is on what would be a dead ball play to where there just has to be enough evidence to overturn the play, not “indisputable evidence”. Just my opinion (even though I know I’m right). Think if they called it incomplete but it had clearly bounced off his foot…All they could legally do was give Washington the INT right where it was intercepted at and no return for a TD. Then our defense makes a stop and Washington is complaining about getting hosed by the refs again.
In contrast to this entire (BS) situation, if the replay booth had gotten the FUMBLE in the first quarter right this situation probably wouldn’t have come up. No Locker scramble for a TD. And most likely an Arizona TD off of the turnover against a deflated Washington defense. If that call had been made correctly this game could’ve (and would have) been over in the first quarter. So BOTH the referees/replay officials AND the Arizona football team let the Huskies stick around, where that sentence SHOULD only be “The Arizona football team and ONLY the Arizona football team let the Huskies stick around” but officiating affected the outcome of this game.
— Devin 10/12/2009 01:47 PM #
@ #91 Devin:
The issue in this case isn’t “indisputable evidence,” it’s poor officials in the review booth. Keep in mind that the play was reviewed (not that the idiot broadcasters made anyone aware of that). In about 30 seconds of review, the officials said the ruling on the field was confirmed. Not that the ruling stands or that there was insufficient evidence to overturn.
That, actually, I find somewhat more galling. If it stands, well, ok, probably the wrong call, but it couldn’t be overturned after a reasonable review. But calling the play confirmed after a very short review? That is insulting to the viewers’ intelligence.
So, in this case, it’s not a matter of a policy to let plays keep going so dead ball whistles don’t unjustly penalize a team. It’s just bad booth reviewers. Without even getting into the fumble call.
— DKH 10/12/2009 02:03 PM #
The FUMBLE bumble was possibly the worst call I have ever seen in my life. This shoe BS is bad, but at least it isn’t obvious. The fumble bumble cost us the game.
— Seth 10/12/2009 02:15 PM #
How about the first fumble that was reversed. Somebody explain to me how it was called an incomplete pass and the next down was 2nd and 7. That would mean the incomplete pass was on 1st down and 10. Or the incomplete pass was on second down and W got an extra down. They scored on that series.
— Celeriter 10/12/2009 02:19 PM #
Ball hit the ground, should have had the fumble, UA outplayed Washington, just too many little mistakes, game over. I’m proud of our guys and looking forward to Stanford. Our team is going to be great with an outstanding QB. What also bothered me was the biased TV coverage by Fox Sports with announcers favoring UW and not a single shot of UA fans or cheerleaders.
— Bob Swaim 10/12/2009 02:27 PM #
Wonder what the call would have been had the ball bounced in the receivers hands? The way the calls were going i bet it would have been an incompleted pass because the ball hit the ground, Either way the U of A would have been screwed.
Go Cats!!!
— Fred 10/12/2009 02:51 PM #
Sorry all but you can’t without question say that the ball hit the ground. From what I can see it appears to have space between the ball and the field. All you need is just a little room and you can kick it into the air. I’m an Oregon Ducks fan and I think that it was just an unlucky play for the Cats and an amazing play for the dawgs. Go ducks!
— Seth 10/12/2009 02:54 PM #
Yeah, UA should have won. And yet, they didn’t. Go Dawgs!
— Sean Boyd 10/12/2009 03:31 PM #
We settled for four field goals. At least two TD’s and this would be a non-issue. Husky fans are calling this a “miracle”. Wildcat fans need to move on, we have three home games upcoming and we need to win every single one of them.
— Michael 10/12/2009 04:42 PM #
Clearly the Refs blew the call… but what’s new they’ve been blowing replay calls all season amongst other college teams also. Somebody needs to educate the refs on what they are looking for and to ignore the cheers of the home crowds.
— Stanley 10/12/2009 05:20 PM #
In response to #21 – “Having been on Husky Stadium’s field a few times, I can tell you that there is no “dust” on the turf – it’s artificial field turf – not grass.
There was NO DUST to be thrown up.”
I was at the game on Saturday, and during warmups before either half, balls hitting the turf most certainly DID throw up pieces of the field. I saw it with my own eyes.
— vickisue 10/12/2009 05:21 PM #
First, #58 Darren, you are a tool. Holt is unbelievable and not a whiner like Stoops. This is all in addition to the fact that Holt has taken the worst defense in the country from last year (0-12) and made them competitive against your Wildcats, ND, LSU and ND. Only a dolt thinks Holt is a tool.
Second, all of you AZ fans need to recognize two points: 1)if you don’t throw it, there is no chance for an interception; and 2) if you do throw it, and you make a good throw and catch, there is no interception. Stop whining about the call and recognize there is more to football than just the referees. We at UW are familiar with bad calls as well (see ND). We lost the ND game not because of one bad call, but because we failed to get in the endzone on several redzone plays (just like AU in this week’s game).
Get over it.
— PeteDawg 10/12/2009 05:28 PM #
Finally the football bloggers come out. To bad it was under these circumstances.
Know one is a bigger Arizona fan than me, B-ball AND football. That said Stoops has defiantly frustrated me over the years. 2nd rate budget 2nd rate couch we’re stuck can’t start over again. However, this is the first time I actually felt sorry for Stoops. Fine they won we lost. I tell you what, going into the Stanford game I’d take U of A’s team over U of W’s team in a heart beat. End of the season we’ll have the better record & bowl that comes with. The tough part is this loss probably cost us an upper tiered bowl. Anyhow, any bowl short of the Rose doesn’t matter if we don’t beat ASU.
— DallasCat 10/12/2009 05:42 PM #
It looks like we have a bunch of Husky fans reading the Tucson paper. The officating was so bad and the officals were Husky fans. The ball did hit the ground. Too bad they (Huskys)had to stoop to winning a game that way.
— Doug 10/12/2009 05:46 PM #
All of you are idiots, you just want something to blame for your loss. If you look at the Arizona receiver’s right foot sliding before he catches the ball, you will see material from the field flying up. Now surprisingly there is no such flying material when the ball hits “the ground.” Now, Wildcats, what is your response to that? At the end of the day, all your crying will not change anything. Booyah!!
— Bow Down PussyCats 10/12/2009 06:05 PM #
Az fans arent mad at Wash. we are just fed up with the officiating at pac 10 games
— Thomas 10/12/2009 06:32 PM #
Obama watched a college football game this weekend. Today, he’s in the lead to win the Heisman.
— Augie M 10/12/2009 06:51 PM #
I think Devin hit the nail on the head. The call was correctly made by the refs because they are told not to blow the whistle in order to not stop a play that can be reviewed.
The refs also made the correct call by not overturning it. Sorry, the shadow theory doesn’t provide conclusive evidence.
I am glad the Pac10 refs finally stepped up and made the “right call.”
Even though the call may be wrong (it could have been an incompletion), they made the correct call.
— Dawgfan98075 10/12/2009 07:32 PM #
Its OK. The cats are legit and sorry a better team than washington. fluke play, bad call on the fumble review and nwoko’s inexperience hurt the cats. i’m convinced arizona can play with anybody in pac-10 and they are only going to get better.
— RB 10/12/2009 08:05 PM #
Any body out there have the replay of the reception/fumble/overrule? If there is any doubt take a look at the receiver/fumbler. There is no doubt in his mind if he fumbled or not. He just gets up and walks off the field. Merry Xmas.
Luke
— Luke 10/12/2009 08:06 PM #
Look at the replay and notice the turf sand pop up after the ball hit the ground. I noticed that every time something hit the ground at Husky Stadium it kicked up a bit of sand. In this order Hand, foot, ground – incomplete pass! While our lack of red zone TDs hurt our chances, the last call killed em. Two blown calls 14 points!
Against OSU, two blown calls, 9 points.
That comes to 23 points that our team did not deserve to have scored against them.
We will probably get Homered at home too! Being a Ref is tough duty, I’m glad someone is willing to try to make the game as fair as possible. Bad calls happen in every sport, no avoiding it, it will happen. Just hurts to see your team kick tail and not get the win!
Hang in there Cats!
I’m behind you and your efforts.
— Jredd 10/12/2009 08:34 PM #
#74 and #105, I don’t know what both of you are looking at, the receivers foot did not cause the rubber granules to kick up, it was the point of the ball, as soon as the ball goes flying up the rubber granules pop up, not because of the foot sliding. As far as everybody else, I am a coach for a youth football team and we practice at PCC east on the same artificial field that washington has, if Dean’s foot scraped against the turf there would be a line of kicked up granules not a spot, besides if it was his foot that caused it the granules would have been in the air when the ball was about to be poped up not just poping up after the ball goes flying up. To me there is not a conclusive video shot of the ball hitting the ground(but it is obvious, I said it as soon as I saw it)but the rubber granules prove it hit the ground(conclusive). The Pac 10 needs to issue an apology at least for one call(1st half fumble and interception). It is Arizona’s fault but it is too much to ask of a quarterback making his 2nd start since high school to win the game in an opponents home stadium, no chance, it was over after the “incomplete interception TD.”
— Jimmy_SS 10/12/2009 08:49 PM #
Oh the refs — what can you do??? … looks to me that it hit his hand, shoe & ground — causing it to pop up into Foster’s hands … just shows how execution & sound risk management are the keys to success … UofA was stupid to try to pass at that point of the game … UW scored 2 times on backwards passes so far this season … why not pick off this bad pass and run it in? … had they played smart UofA would have won, just as UW would have won had we played smart in South Bend … Holt may not be a genius, but Stoops & Carroll sure make him look like one — these kids are the same ones that were the worst defense in history last year! UofA needs to take care of business against the tree & the duck … Go Dawgs!
— Old Dawg 10/12/2009 09:48 PM #
The Cats got screwed..most definitely!
If the replay refs knew what to look for, the call would have been overturned. Unfortunately, the replay refs in the Pac-10 have been missing a lot of calls this year.
The evidence to the bad call is this: there is a ‘puff’ of black rubber as the ball hits the FieldTurf. It is clear that the ball hit the ground….indisputable. The call should have been overturned.
— oduck2112 10/12/2009 10:12 PM #
What makes the turf pop up under the football? As far as I know Harry Potter wasn’t in the building.. Come on a second grader could figure it out..
— The Blister 10/12/2009 10:29 PM #
We all get fu#&ed by refs, grow up get over it!
— Not Nogales 10/12/2009 10:43 PM #
All I can say is Wow! I watched the video and what I saw was a horrible pass that created this unlikely scenario. Too close to call for the naked eye so now we have to view still images to determine whether or not it hit the ground and unfortunately AU fans, that is subjective and not easily determined in a few minutes time. Put yourself in the replay official’s seat and consider that this will be controversial no matter what, with either UW fans crying foul or UA fans acting like complete babies as they are now. In the end, the Wildcats were gonna find a way to lose just as much as the Huskies were gonna find a way to win. As I watched the game I saw a pass that should never have been thrown sooooooooo poorly as to cause this fiasco in the first place and the Wildcats got what they deserved: a road loss! UA fans can feel slighted all they want but their team didn’t lose because of one play or one call by the officials. They lost because they mismanaged the game down the stretch. If anything, UA fans should quietly thank the officials for becoming the scapegoat and allowing the lame, sad, sorry fans (the majority of the UA fans are hopefully not immature whiners) to have someone to blame besides the UA players. Way to act just like your head coach sad sorry AU fans!!!
— Noah 10/12/2009 11:11 PM #
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Who-knew-Huskies-best-foot-forward-belonged-t?urn=ncaaf,195253
Between 3:47 and 3:48 the ball hit the ground. Stupid call.
— Pete 10/13/2009 01:48 AM #
UofA is a bunch of queers.
— G 10/13/2009 09:47 AM #
It didn’t hit the ground. The trajectory the ball takes after hitting the foot is inconsistent with hitting the ground. It took a sharp backward turn toward Foster. If it hit the ground, you’d see a “ba-doink” movement. This one says only “doink.” Good call.
— TPC 10/13/2009 10:03 AM #
Dear Mr. String of #119, if you can’t comment prefessionally please don’t comment at all. We love our Cats and are upset about kicking ass but losing the game. I’m very proud of our team and our coaches. These kids played great and the coaches did a great job on all calls. I’m very excited about the rest of the season. 2 weeks ago, we didn’t think we had a strong QB and now we are very excited about the future. One game at a time but next week maybe the start of a long list of wins. I still say 10-2 or 9-3 by December 6th.
— Joe 10/13/2009 12:42 PM #
Why didn’t Stoops ask for a replay so the call could be over-turned? I blame the coach as we couldn’t even get a touchdown after being in the red zone 3 times and settling for field goals!!!!!!
— carol 10/13/2009 06:54 PM #
you guys are a bunch of little winey biches. (those of you crying about the call). It is not “undisputable,” the ball needs to undoubtably hit the ground. That picture does not show the ball hitting the ground solid. when the referees view the replay, they see the play in motion as they should. the ball did not bounce off the ground and then hit the guys foot. it hit his foot and bounced up and came close to contacting the ground – but never did – at least not undisputably. Listen to all these fags actin like their expert cyber referees with their magnifying glass and rule books. ALSO if you watched the game, you would know that they DID review the call, and no it was not overturned. There is no excuse for losing a game, they objective is to put the most amount of points on the board. If you keep it a close game, and u get a bad call, i dont feel sorry for you. You should have converted on that one IMPORTANT down, or caught the ball during that crucial play, or made that fukin field goal, or held the offense during a drive that eventually gave them a touchdown. SORRY, blame your team…
— Jake Locker 10/14/2009 01:55 AM #
The refs did review the call and took all of about 15 seconds to “confirm” the bad call.
— Luke 10/14/2009 09:35 AM #
Wow. Just wow.
Anyone who thinks this grainy photo PROVES that the ball hit the ground is absofrggnlutely nuts.
The refs thought it bounced off the guys foot. It looked that way live because its hard to figure the ball bouncing the way it did if it hadn’t.
Was it the right call? Who knows. But there certainly isn’t any video proof of it being right or wrong.
— Jon 10/14/2009 11:12 AM #
If the ref’s are deciding the game then who is paying them to influence their call or is it just a coincidence?
— Freeman 75Oline79-84 10/17/2009 08:43 AM #
Are the huskie fan’s calling us cry babies? Just about every biased huskie post spoke of their “misfortune” at ND. BTW, good job against asu!
— True Cat 10/19/2009 04:59 AM #
Aside from the outrage over “the bounce”, U/A fans need to take a look at Bob Stoops and the image he projects. This guy should be an embarrassment to anyone associated with the school. His constant foul mouthed ravings on the sideline (and out on to the field)are not helping his team. Someone needs to put a muzzle and a leash on the guy.
— Bish 10/23/2009 08:37 AM #
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!
— Big Baby 10/24/2009 10:08 AM #
“Aside from the outrage over “the bounce”, U/A fans need to take a look at Bob Stoops and the image he projects. This guy should be an embarrassment to anyone associated with the school. His constant foul mouthed ravings on the sideline (and out on to the field)are not helping his team. Someone needs to put a muzzle and a leash on the guy.
— Bish 10/23/2009 08:37 AM #”
Funny, I didn’t know Bob Stoops had anything to do with Arizona football….
— Beavis 10/25/2009 08:20 AM #