Forfeit

[wfschrec]

Sigh. There's no denying the refs missed the call on the extra point. All we know for sure is Toledo marched down the field and kicked a field goal. That's it. All I'm saying is that it's a terrible way to lose.

Once again ... it didn't decide the game ... why is this not sinking in? After SU's last TD ... had the XP been called correctly SU's defensive philosophy changes ... you can't run a bend don't break D and allow them to move the ball like they did. Its like saying the K-State game was won because of the excessive celebration call ... an idiotic argument. You are essentially saying at that point the 2 pt is a given for KSU .. which stats say it isn't ... what are the odds that Toledo could even march up the field again with less than 2 mins left and kick a field goal in a different situation? If it were that easy every team would score at least a FG each possession ... the fact that you are even continuing to argue this point is lunacy.

 

[orange03]

I never said it did. All I'm saying is the only thing we can argue about is what really did happen. Toledo went down the field and kicked a field goal that should've made the score 30-29. That's it! Who knows what would've happened after? Nobody- so how can you argue it?

Missed calls are part of the game, but botching a call on an extra point shouldn't be. Absolutely a travesty that it happened. Glad that we benefited, but still terrible nonetheless.

 

[orlandoorange]

Toledo should have gone for 6 instead of kicking to go to overtime. Life isn't fair, but that doesn't stop them from playing to win.

 

[rrlbees]

Spin it however you'd like. Fact is you can't compare a missed call on the field to a botched call on an extra point that actually results in points.

It isn't spin and there is only one fact, we won. Even the officials that made 3 horrendous calls agree.

 

[orange03]

Not arguing with you there.

 

[orange03]

It isn't spin and there is only one fact, we won. Even the officials that made 3 horrendous calls agree.

I'm glad we won. But my original point is a missed call on the field isn't comparable to a missed call on an extra point that actually results in points.

 

[chakka3421]

So what happens - is the game nullified? I can't see UT getting the win. Do we count the win but UT doesn't count the loss?

 

[Dick_in_MI]

I'm glad we won. But my original point is a missed call on the field isn't comparable to a missed call on an extra point that actually results in points.

No, but a missed call in the endzone that would have given us a first down at the Toledo 2 yardline is pretty close

 

[bevosu]

My understanding is on a play review the refs and the upstairs booth have to have indisputable evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. Hell we had disputes right here on this board voiced by Syracuse fans as to whether the kick was good or not. Most said no..some said yes.

The refs and the booth probably thought there was enough gray in the replay videos to not reverse the call on the field.

Not the first time that has happened on a refs call...I'm sure we can recall quite a few where we disagreed that a call wasn't reversed when we thought the call was incorrect...it happens..and the technology isn't foolproof.

Let it be. The game outcome will not be reversed.

 

[SUOrange44]

Calls on the field are open to interpretation, a missed xp call shouldn't be.

Why not ? The funny thing is that people are more than willing to allow replay to address a missed extra point. Wasn't it a "judgment call" by an official on the field that the kick was good ?

Pass interference (or no pass interference) is no less than a judgment call than whether the extra point went through the uprights or not. Yes..I realize the rules allow for the review of one but not the other.

IMO, what it boils down to is this...sure Toledo should be upset that the referee missed the call on the field and then apparently blew a replay review. Should they feel robbed because that call was missed and blatantly ignored field level calls that were also blatantly blow (ie Lemon getting interfered with??) Uh...no.

If the extra point were the final play of the game that would have allowed for a win or tie and it was missed, that is one thing. However, the game continued. To think that SU does not make different defensive calls if they are up two as opposed to three is just plain wrong. Oh, and by the way, the Rockets still had plenty of time to play for the TD and they opted not to...

We are all dumber for having read the letter sent by the Toledo AD asking the win/loss be vacated.

SUOrange44

 

[BleedsOrange44]

I never said it did. All I'm saying is the only thing we can argue about is what really did happen. Toledo went down the field and kicked a field goal that should've made the score 30-29. That's it! Who knows what would've happened after? Nobody- so how can you argue it?

Missed calls are part of the game, but botching a call on an extra point shouldn't be. Absolutely a travesty that it happened. Glad that we benefited, but still terrible nonetheless.

But what you and others don't realize is, if it's 29-27 assuming everything happens as is to get Toledo first and goal, SU uses their timeouts to make sure they have time left to try to score a fg on their own. And given how well we were returning kick offs, who's to say we don't return it all the way, or to midfield, etc. No one can play out how things would have been handled if it had been called no good. Therefore you can't overrule the victory and award it to Toledo. Too many what ifs and things WOULD HAVE been played differently had it been 29-27 instead of 30-27.

That said, that call cost them 1 point, the PI non-call cost us 4.

 

[rrlbees]

My understanding is on a play review the refs and the upstairs booth have to have indisputable evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. Hell we had disputes right here on this board voiced by Syracuse fans as to whether the kick was good or not. Most said no..some said yes.

The refs and the booth probably thought their was enough gray in the replay videos to not reverse the call on the field.

Not the first time that has happened on a refs call...I'm sure we can recall quite a few where we disagrreed that a call wasn't reversed when we thought the call was incorrect...it happens..and the technology isn't foolproof.

Let it be. The game outcome will not be reversed.

I watched the replay off the live feed about 20 times. From in front I can see the ball go to the left of the goal post. But from the side angle it really looks like it goes behind the post, but that angle isn't as "clear". I'm 99% sure it missed, but that one angle which I am sure they also looked at, may have given them enough doubt as you say.

 

[BleedsOrange44]

My understanding is on a play review the refs and the upstairs booth have to have indisputable evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. Hell we had disputes right here on this board voiced by Syracuse fans as to whether the kick was good or not. Most said no..some said yes.

The refs and the booth probably thought their was enough gray in the replay videos to not reverse the call on the field.

Not the first time that has happened on a refs call...I'm sure we can recall quite a few where we disagrreed that a call wasn't reversed when we thought the call was incorrect...it happens..and the technology isn't foolproof.

Let it be. The game outcome will not be reversed.

Problem is the review official said the play on the field was confirmed. He didn't say stands. That means according to the review official there was conclusive evidence that the in the field call was good. If they thought there wasn't indisputable evidence they would have said stands.

 

[orange03]

No, but a missed call in the endzone that would have given us a first down at the Toledo 2 yardline is pretty close

Close, but can't guarantee points. I'm not saying the game would've absolutely ended at 30-29, but that's the score it should've been. Regardless, as the saying goes, "a win is a win"

 

[orange03]

But what you and others don't realize is, if it's 29-27 assuming everything happens as is to get Toledo first and goal, SU uses their timeouts to make sure they have time left to try to score a fg on their own. And given how well we were returning kick offs, who's to say we don't return it all the way, or to midfield, etc. No one can play out how things would have been handled if it had been called no good. Therefore you can't overrule the victory and award it to Toledo. Too many what ifs and things WOULD HAVE been played differently had it been 29-27 instead of 30-27.

That said, that call cost them 1 point, the PI non-call cost us 4.

Now your assuming that we automatically move down the field. Can't play the what if game. A million different things COULD'VE happened, I'm just arguing what really did happen.

 

[orange03]

Now your assuming that we automatically move down the field. Can't play the what if game. A million different things COULD'VE happened, I'm just arguing what really did happen.

Never did I said the game should be overruled, that would be asinine. I'll take the win, but if I'm Toledo I'm furious.

 

[bevosu]

Problem is the review official said the play on the field was confirmed. He didn't say stands. That means according to the review official there was conclusive evidence that the in the field call was good. If they thought there wasn't indisputable evidence they would have said stands.

I think in a court of law you have a good point. I'm not sure the use of confirmed, or the play stands, really was meant to convey anything other than the booth didn't see anything to overrule the refs? Semantics...but it may have just been a lazy choice of words?

 

[chakka3421]

The only thing they can do is nullify the game cause you don't know how it would play out - I am so glad we are leaving the Big East - this whole thing confirms it in my mind.

 

[Orangeyes]

Link

That link gave me various headlines but I didn't see the story

Dave Rahme in this story,
Toledo AD makes "unprecedented" request that Rockets be awarded victory based on incorrect call
gives a direct link to the offcial Toledo site with this headline UT Requests that Big East Vacate Syracuse's 33-30 Victory Due to Replay Error

 

[Dick_in_MI]

Close, but can't guarantee points. I'm not saying the game would've absolutely ended at 30-29, but that's the score it should've been. Regardless, as the saying goes, "a win is a win"

No, that's not "the score it should have been"

You seem to take the position that our pass interference couldn't guarantee points but on the other hand you are guaranteeing that Toledo would have scored against a different defensive strategy.

 

[BleedsOrange44]

I think in a court of law you have a good point. I'm not sure the use of confirmed, or the play stands, really was meant to convey anything other than the booth didn't see anything to overrule the refs? Semantics...but it may have just been a lazy choice of words?

I guess it could have been a lazy choice of words, but what I outlined confirmed vs stands is what officials have been instructed to say in those two situations. It's been that way for a few years now. So I tend to believe that's what happened and why confirmed was used.

 

[bevosu]

I guess it could have been a lazy choice of words, but what I outlined confirmed vs stands is what officials have been instructed to say in those two situations. It's been that way for a few years now. So I tend to believe that's what happened and why confirmed was used.

You very possibly are correct.

 

[orange03]

A pass interference call or any call on the field is almost always debatable. That's part of the game. Missing a call on an extra point should never happen. While I agree that a pi call should've been made, I've seen worse than that not called as well. Your assuming too much with the defensive strategy. Who's to say Toledo doesn't throw an 80 yd TD? Is our defense so stout and dependable that we can assume anything? The fact is we missed the xp and the score should've been 29-27. All we know for sure is Toledo went down the field and kicked a fg. Unless you can prove all these variables don't use them in your argument.

 

[BleedsOrange44]

A pass interference call or any call on the field is almost always debatable. That's part of the game. Missing a call on an extra point should never happen. While I agree that a pi call should've been made, I've seen worse than that not called as well. Your assuming too much with the defensive strategy. Who's to say Toledo doesn't throw an 80 yd TD? Is our defense so stout and dependable that we can assume anything? The fact is we missed the xp and the score should've been 29-27. All we know for sure is Toledo went down the field and kicked a fg. Unless you can prove all these variables don't use them in your argument.

Here's the other point no one is making. We had 2 timeouts during that last drive. We used one to freeze the kicker. If a fg beats us, when they got first and goal with 1:30 left, we use two timeouts and there is probably 40 seconds or so left when we get the ball back. The fg wouldn't have been the last play. And there'd be no way to know if we would've scored a fg to winless we could return the kickoff for a TD. We could've had a return to midfield a couple completions get us in range. No one will know. So the last possession would've been played differently, if from a clock stand point at the very least.

Also, there's no excuse for missing that pass-interference. It was as blatant as blatant can be. There's also no excuse for not calling the penalty when the Toledo guy rips Bailey's helmet off by the facemask.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

If this was a basketball game and not a football game, would anyone argue that you use a different defense when up by 1 or 2 points as opposed to having a 3 point lead?

But some of you can't tell the difference between protecting a 3 point lead where a FG doesn't hurt you and a TD is fatal, and trying to protect a 1 or 2 point lead where you can only afford to surrender 1 or 2 first downs.