Jack’s Blog

College kids storming the floor after a huge win (”huge” being relative at different universities) has become as much a part of campus life as homecoming.  Hey, why not?  Coaches and athletics administrators implore students to attend games and be loud!  “We especially need help tonight against our rivals, State U, who’s #1 in our league/in the country.”

So they follow orders, support the players and, often, really make a difference.  Maybe a little one but in a close game, all the squad needs is a point or two.  Maybe the team gets a bucket because of a hustle play by a player not known for going all-out.  Or maybe one of their guys shortarms, better yet, airballs a free throw into a crowd of waving, screaming, stomping students.

The game progresses and as the scoreboard hits 0:00 with the home team - the major underdog - ahead!  For all their hard work and sweat, the players celebrate on the court.  Why would anyone expect the students to act any differently?  Let them loose!  Where the professional game and the college game differ is the players are being mobbed by their classmates.  

Naturally, the problem is for the safety of the group of visitors.  Mike Krzyzewski (whose team has been on the receiving end of more floor rushes than anyone else) has expressed concern for his players’ safety.  One idea is to, in the waning seconds, escort the losing club and have security make sure the remaining players on the floor get off safely.  In the past this hasn’t been an issue.  Like in the past boarding an airplane wasn’t an issue.

Just as a very small number of people seem to have ruined it for the overwhelming majority, we now have issues at basketball games.  These “sore winners” feel it necessary to verbally abuse the visitors at exactly a time that all they want to do is get into their locker room with their own people.  Of course, there’s a chance tempers would flare and the situation escalate.  Or the perpetrator, perhaps fortified with liquid courage and feeling the “strength in numbers” behind him, might just act beyond foolish and cause an incident.  Even if Mike’s proposal to guard the visiting team were put into effect, there would be no accounting for the game in which the outcome was decided by a last second shot - a make by the home squad or a miss by the favored visitors.

I’ve been involved with quite a few such “storming the Bastille” situations - on both sides.  At Fresno State we beat Tulsa in the finals of the WAC tournament (which was held on Fresno State’s home floor) to punch our dance card to the NCAAs.  At that time, Bill Self’s team had lost four games - three of them to us, this one by the largest margin - three.  During the regular season, we’d won at Tulsa by one and in Fresno by two.  Terrence Roberson hit his only three-pointer of the game on our last possession with the score tied, we got a stop and . . . batten down the hatches!  After addressing our guys in the locker room, Jerry Tarkanian went into theirs (the only time he ever entered an opponent’s locker room after a game) and said, “I only wish I could get our guys to play as hard as you guys do.”  He capped off the tribute with his trademark, “You’re the best.”

One year I was an assistant at USC, we had a magical run, finishing in the top 10 in the nation.  In the (then) Pac-10, we’d beaten UCLA both times and entered the final game (this was prior to a Pac-10 conference tournament) 14-3 in league play.  The Bruins were 15-2, meaning we’d gotten no help from anybody.  In order to win the championship, we needed to beat Arizona at home and then watch and hope Arizona State could defeat UCLA later that day.

We were down by one with seconds to play and ran a play for Harold Miner, our All-American.  Of course, the Wildcats weren’t going to let him score.  They doubled him, leaving our point guard open.  He took a 15-footer - and missed.  Our do-it-all combo guard, Rodney Chatman, picked up the rebound on the baseline about eight feet from the basket.  Because there was so little time, he simply flipped the ball at the basket.  Later (no replays for referees back then), ESPN’s cameras showed the ball had left the tips of his fingers with 0:00.1 tick left.  Good basket.  Game over.  Trojans win.

Our head coach, George Raveling, didn’t wait for the students to storm the floor.  He sprinted across the floor and dove into the student section!  UCLA beat ASU a couple hours later to dampen our parade but I’ll never forget George’s - and the students’ - reactions.

About three weeks prior to that thriller, we traveled to Pullman, our (George’s and my) old stompin’ grounds, he being the head coach there for 11 years and me being a graduate assistant and earning my master’s from Washington State.  We were neck-and-neck with UCLA for first place in the league.  WSU shot the lights out and beat us.  And their student body stormed the floor.  As we headed back to the locker room, George turned to me and said:

“I can’t believe it, Jack.  A team storming the court after beating USC in basketball.  We’ve finally arrived.”

Survey after survey claimed fans wanted instant replay.  Now, I’m not so sure it’s such a good idea.  Granted, more incorrect calls are being overturned (yeah, I know, every now and then, a correct call will be overturned), but at what cost?  Flow and momentum are two vital pieces in football and basketball.

With every stoppage of play, the flow of the game is interrupted.  I’ve heard some people say the answer is to put a clock on the referees for their decision, but that’s counterintuitive to the purpose of instant replay.  It appears to the viewer that the referees want to make absolutely certain they get the call right - which, with instant replay, they ought to.  In the past, if an official kicked a call, announcers, coaches (after a brief cooling off period - briefer for the winning coach), fans (and even refs themselves) would say, “Hey, they’re (we’re) only human.”

Therein lies the problem.  Instant replay takes out the human element.  Now the officials are expected to get the call right.  If they miss one, there’s always the complaint - “why didn’t you check the monitor?”  Unlike football with coaches’ challenges, in basketball referees stop the action, on their own, to check, for example, whether a shot was a two or a three.  Unless it’s the last two minutes, can’t the extra ref sitting at the scorer’s table look at the monitor and determine whether the call was correct before the next dead ball?  Coaches would be pleading with the alternate ref rather than one of the three working the game.  Then, if the call was correct, the game continues and no one’s the wiser.  If incorrect, then announce to the crowd (as well as separately inform a representative of each team) that the shot was whatever it was, and that the score is being corrected.  The reason someone from each team must be told is, believe it or not, coaches and players occasionally get so wrapped up in the game, they fail to hear a PA announcement, no matter how loud.

I saw a game a few days ago in which the referee who was supposed to make the call stop the game because he was unsure whether the shot was a two or three.  The delay lasted entirely too long and when they showed the best angle, it could only have been known for sure if the camera zoomed as close to the court as possible.  As it was, play was continued, with the opposite call that I, and the announcers, thought was as it should have been. In that case, the old method of having the referee make the call and, then, commenting on how he missed it!

Now, irrefutable evidence comes into play.  There are so many times, especially in football, where the call that was made on the field was upheld because of lack of irrefutable evidence.  Yet, had the opposite call been made, it also would have been upheld.  How can that be?  Irrefutable evidence has to be irrefutable.  It sounds just like “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  There’s an idea.  Maybe we should have juries determine calls during games.

Interrupting flow is annoying, especially to coaches and basketball purists because the game (at least, a well-played one) has such a beautiful, natural rhythm to it.  But, interrupting momentum is, or ought to be, a sin.  Anyone who has taken in a game in which one team is way ahead and the other team comes storming back, scoring and getting stops, independent of the winning team changing strategies, substituting, calling time out, whatever! understands momentum.  It’s something people in the arena, watching on TV or listening on radio can feel.  Stopping a game at such a point is nothing short of ruining it.  There are many other examples of momentum that are more subtle but, nevertheless, stopping it is a major advantage to one team while being disadvantageous to its opponent.  In football, stopping play in a game played in inclement weather is infuriating to coaches and players (and the fans who are freezing their butts off waiting for action to resume).  In basketball, it’s during the mini-runs that can break a game open.  Too many times this is occurring in today’s games although good referees are aware of these instances and are hesitant to stop the action, unless absolutely necessary.

The bigger problem, though, is the seemingly interminable delay in games.  As awkwardly as it sounds, the problem is:

“The replay may happen at the instant but not for an instant.” 

The halftime show at the Super Bowl was awesome.  Then there was a 34-minute power outage, caused by nothing we know for sure but (eventually) fixed by unknown people.  Near the end of the game, there was a running play in which the ball was incorrectly placed, a missed field goal that was re-kicked because the kicker was run into (really?), a QB who ran out-of-bounds and was hit after he got there (with no call) and a receiver who was held as he tried to run his route (which would have possibly allowed him to make the winning TD catch).  Of those plays, only one was overturned - the wrong spot on the running play.  The correct spot of the ball changed what would have been a Ravens’ first down to a fourth down.  Of course, that play was the only one that was allowed to be reversed.

Years ago, all of the plays would have stood as called.  None would have been reviewed.  New rules, however, let a coach “challenge” a referee’s call in certain situations.  Should the coach lose his challenge, i.e. if he’s wrong, his team is charged with a time out, but if the replay shows he’s right - with conclusive video evidence - then the proper call is made, no TO is charged and the game continues.

In the Super Bowl each of the aforementioned plays could (should) have been reversed just like the incorrect ball spot actually was.  And there were many other controversial calls throughout the game.  It seems as though no matter what changes are made to get the calls right, humans will still be involved in calling them, reviewing them or correcting them.

If the game were called without an error, what would we have to complain about - besides the coaches and players?  If your team loses the Super Bowl - or hasn’t gotten in it for decades, consider the following line as your mantra:

“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.  If you continue to lose, . . . maybe failure’s your thing!”

There was such a clamor for instant replays that when it was incorporated into the game, it was like controversy would be eliminated.  While replays have gotten more calls right than the humans who make them, they often hurt the game more than help it.  One problem deals with the break in the action and how it affects momentum of the game.  An interception or fumble recovery means the ball changes hands - one team is pumped while the other is bummed.  Then, wait!  Let’s go to the booth.  However it turns out, the moods have reversed.  It’s something coaches might have to start adding to their practices, if they haven’t already.  The “turnover/score-call-wait-review-no-it’s-been-changed” part of practice.  Of course, a session for the good reversal as well.

Next is the fact that if the stadium has huge replay screens, the crowd gets to see what the guy in the booth sees,  Then, they are certain they know the correct call.  Invariably, it favors their team.  Should what the referee subsequently announce to the crowd disagree with those fans, the boos and groans that follow make you wonder why we have replays at all.  Plus, there are certain calls that, on a quick second look, are obviously correct or incorrect.  Why do those judgments take so long?

The biggest complaint from fans, however, has been the “irrefutable evidence” part of replay.  The latest was in yesterday’s Orange Bowl when a Northern Illinois ball carrier was hit and fumbled.  Florida State eventually recovered what was ruled a fumble.  The play went under review.  After the cameras showed that the Huskies’ player’s knee had hit the ground prior to the fumble, the TV announcers said the ball would be going back to NIU.  The crowd was then informed the call on the field was confirmed - fumble, FSU ball, first and ten.  The announcers backtracked when they looked again - at the same video they’d just commented on - and told the audience the ball was beginning to come out before the knee hit the ground.  Basically, the announcers used a replay on themselves!  That call would have been confirmed had it originally been called that the runner’s knee was down.  Irrefutable evidence means there are an awful lot of calls that are 50-50.  Just like it was before instant replay.

Although I’ve never had the experience (of which I’m eternally grateful), how bad must it be for the fans who go to games in the snow, freezing cold or pouring rain and have to endure the seeming eternity the replay ref takes reviewing play after play?

Overheard at one game was a comment made by a fan who, upon seeing a referee go under the hood, had it all in perspective:

“At least we don’t have to wait for Congress to decide.”

The headline sounds like a Chicken Little warning but football is at such a crossroads now.  The only way it can be saved is with drastic changes, the kind that would make it unrecognizable to someone who enjoyed it in the 1960s but hadn’t seen a game since.  It’s doubtful there is such a creature so the experiment is moot but when you combine the new player safety rules (without which football would probably spend more time in the courtroom than on the playing field) and the increased strength, speed and overall ability of today’s player, one of them is going to lose out.  Between the two, the latter will be overwhelmingly outvoted by the former - unless the only voters were the people who used to watch the gladiators.  The game will be as popular as ever; it just won’t be the same.

Ed Reed, defensive back for the Baltimore Ravens, was called for his third violation of player safety rules in the past three years, i.e. hits to the neck and head area of a defenseless player.  According to the commissioner’s office, his actions will earn him one game suspension which, at his salary, would be in the range of $420,000.  That’s an expensive lesson although I imagine that’s why the rules are structured the way they are.  It’s easy to understand - unless you’re Ed Reed, in which case you’d be really pissed.

Although Reed has a history of being a, for lack of a better term, “hit man,” in this case the punishment seems quite a bit harsher that the crime after viewing the three infractions.  The first was a roughing the passer (vs. the Saints’ Drew Brees), yet Reed would probably tell you he whacked many a QB harder than he did on that day.  Brees would undoubtedly agree he’d been hut harder.  The second was a hit on a defenseless receiver (vs. the Patriots’ Deion Branch) and is, by far, the worst of the three.  The final one, the one that put him over the top, was also a helmet to helmet collision with Pittsburgh’s Emmanuel Sanders but “hit” would describe the contact better.  He didn’t look to be headhunting as didn’t accelerate through the tackle.

The scientific part of sports, in relation to the human body, has grown exponentially - in both legal and illegal ways.  Players are just bigger, stronger and faster than ever before in the game’s history.  Coaches are smarter.  The game has evolved from men leaving their jobs, driving to the field, changing clothes and “having at it,” into a true profession - especially for the coaches.  In the earlier days of football (from the no facemask days until the ’80s), offensive didn’t have elaborate “schemes” to deal with.  Offensively, the coaches have implemented “packages” for specialists.  It’s genius until the next generation comes along and takes the game a level higher.

But, if a football player is going to be fined nearly a half a million dollars for three hits like the ones delivered by Ed Reed, either football will drastically tone down or Roger Goodell and his minions will pull back on their safety issues.  All but the Neanderthals are on the safety side.  Personally, I’ve suffered through ten back surgeries.  When I went to see the doctor for my first one, a ruptured disk at C5-6, the first question he asked me was if I’d ever been in a car accident.  When I said no, he asked me if I had ever played football.  That was in 1987.  Now, some of the hits in football are like car accidents.

When I saw the kid from UCLA hit Matt Barkley, who had no idea he was coming, my body actually tingled.  Then, they kept showing the replay and when I saw his neck snap, I had to turn away.  Many years ago, I recall a study being done that showed in an average NFL game, there are only nine minutes of actual action.  I mentioned that to a football coach on the staff at our university and he told me:

“There might only be nine minutes of action, but it’s nine minutes of violent collisions.”

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/11/19/ed-reed-suspended.ap/index.html#ixzz2CkNspgfV

hits to the head and neck area of defenseless players.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/11/19/ed-reed-suspended.ap/index.html#ixzz2CkNspgfV

hits to the head and neck area of defenseless players.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/11/19/ed-reed-suspended.ap/index.html#ixzz2CkNspgfV

For the millions of fans who watched the Notre Dame-Stanford football game (on the Fighting Irish channel of course), you saw an example of what people refer to as the the Notre Dame bias - whether for them or anti-ND.  This is a fairly simple conspiracy theory.  Either the referees are always looking to give the Irish the benefit of the doubt or the zebras are constantly screwing them.

The latest entry was in yesterday’s game in South Bend.  By now, most people have seen it - either live and/or by replay close to 100 times.  Such is the way in today’s world of monitoring officials’ calls in order to “get it right.”  And embarrass the officials.  Also, seeing so many replays from so many angles only adds to (or removes) curses.  Or replaces them with other curses - especially if you’re in a sports bar when the event takes place.

In yesterday’s case, the excitement started when the game ended.  The last play of the first overtime (and the game) was a fourth and goal for Stanford.  It followed the Irish’s TD and PAT after the home team (uh huh) won the OT coin toss.  The Cardinal back hit the line and was stuffed for no absolutely no gain.  Since the runner was aware of the gravity of the situation, he kept churning his legs and finally spun.  While he didn’t get free, he was able to reach out and stretch his arm so that the football was clearly touching the goal line.  The ruling is that if a runner crosses the plane of the goal line, a touchdown is the call.  The call in this instant was . . . no touchdown!

Believe me, I am a completely impartial observer of ND.  I’ve known a few people who went to Notre Dame and a great many others who’ve coached there - the same as several other institutions in this country.  And, like those other colleges, I like some of those people and would just as soon have nothing to do with some of the others. so I really am neither pro- or anti-Irish.

After a considerable amount of time, the original ruling on the field stood and the celebration commenced.   There were replays shown from at least four different camera angles, most of which did not provide “indisputable video evidence” but one that, to my eyes, quite obviously did show conclusively that the back had his arm outstretched, the ball in his hand across the goal line. So it seems like the pro-Notre Dame theory is alive and well.

Yet, after watching the original play, I wondered why the officials didn’t blow the play dead when the initial thrust into the line was denied, as was another attempt.  The runner spun but to my eyes, it was well after his forward progress had been denied which means the play is over.

All this means is:

“Whether you think there is a bias toward Notre Dame or not, you’re right.”

The

When everything is on the line, whatever happens gets magnified.  Bud Selig and his mastermind group thought it would be a good idea to add a little more suspense to MLB so he/they added one more wild card team and a one-game playoff.  I have to admit that when I heard the idea I thought it was a good one.  Then, again, when you’re paid eight freakin’ figures a year like these commissioners are raking in, you’d better come up with an idea or two.  Look out for “half-price hot dog and beer night” when the last place team is in town.  The fan is still getting gouged but at least he thinks it’s a deal.

Last night the Atlanta Braves and St. Louis Cardinals played in the first-ever post-season one-game playoff (that wasn’t to break a tie).  During the bottom of the eighth (naturally, this wouldn’t take place in the third inning), there was a fly ball to shallow left field off the bat of the Braves’ Andrelton Simmons.  Cardinals shortstop Pete Kozma ranged out into left, arms spread wide, trying to get under the ball. Meanwhile, Matt Holliday had come in to back up his shortstop and, although it seemed Kozma had a relatively easy play on the ball, he must have harkened back to the adage, “the ball belongs to whichever player has it in front of him.”  Holliday looked as though his teammate had a beat on it and needed no help - until the ball dropped for a hit (or an error).  Until the infield fly rule was invoked by left field umpire Sam Holbrook, an extra official that’s only used in post-season games.  Simmons was declared out.

Those in the Braves group, e.g. players, coaches, manager, front office, announcers and fans (yeah, and those who might have had a wager on Atlanta) had to be restrained.  Especially the fans who, for some reason feel that when a call goes against their team, it’s considered proper behavior to throw bottles, cans and any other item independent of whether or not it could cause serious bodily harm to whomever would be on the receiving end.  It’s of no consequence if that person had anything to do with the “egregious” event.

The operative word the TBS announcer, former MLB pitcher Ron Darling, kept repeating was “camped,” as in the fielder must be CAMPED under the ball for the rule to be called.  What was lost in the fray is that the reason for the infield fly rule is to protect the team at bat, not hurt them, e.g the defensive player allowing the ball to drop, then quickly picking it up and easily doubling up the two base runners who had to stay close to the bases they were occupying for that reason alone.  That’s where “camping” comes in.  If a fielder isn’t close enough to easily trap the ball when it hits the ground, then the runners have a better chance to start their move toward the next base.  After watching the replay (about a hundred times), Kozma is casually moving back, arms swinging wide.   

So could he have easily trapped a ball intentionally and doubled up the two runners on base?  This one incident begs the question:

“Where are the replacement officials when you need them?”

There is little doubt the Seattle Seahawks-Green Bay Packers game forced the return of the NFL officials.  Golden Tate’s (not exactly shared) catch that resulted in a touchdown and a Seahawks victory infuriated an entire football nation.

The replay was shown hundreds (thousands?) of times and there are two things that support the old theory “the film don’t lie.”  One is that the Packers’ M.D. Jennings had initial control of the Hail Mary and maintained it to the play’s completion.  The other is that, just prior to the catch, Golden Tate blatantly shoved the Packers’ DB Sam Shields.  No matter which team you root for, or if you don’t have a voting interest  - or even if you’re a football official - neither of those events are irrefutable.

Directly after the game, Tate was interviewed by ESPN’s Lisa Salters who asked him about pushing off.  He garbled, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” (translated version)  Possibly because she didn’t understand him, possibly because she couldn’t believe him, she repeated the question.  He re-garbled the answer in an identically obnoxious tone.  That couldn’t have assisted in his public perception.  Maybe a cute wink would’ve helped him while he gave the same (illegible) response.  Maybe he could have said the ref didn’t call it.  Who knows?

It’s just that the attitude he displayed led people to have the same opinion of him as the guy whose wife caught him and his mistress both naked in bed.  When the wife asks, “How could you?” his answer is:

“Who are you going to believe - me or your lying eyes?”

People were livid that replacement referees were still working NFL games.  It only took an absurd missed call against the Green Bay Packers to bring the situation to a head.  How absurd?  After instant replay, one referee was signaling touchdown while the other was right next to him, waving his arms above his head, signaling time was out meaning a touchback was the outcome.  This was done after the two guys looked at each other.  It reminded me of “rock, paper, scissors” except they were supposed to agree.

Luckily this blown call didn’t result in a severely injured player, as it could have with the guys on the field not being of sound mind and body - when it came to enforcing the rules .  Now that everyone involved has put aside their greed and come to their senses, maybe the beginning of this season will only be reduced to a punch line instead of a tragedy.  There were good arguments on both sides but they needed to be hashed out during the off season.  As with any disagreement in which the parties involved have more ego than sense, stubbornness usually wins out.

It’s easy for me to say but players should have refused to take the field until the refs’ situation was completed.  No one will ever be able to convince me that players - or for that matter, coaches, agents and executives - didn’t know what the outcome would be, especially since the “next level” of officials, i.e. big-time college officials were not going to be available.

The rule book is too difficult, the game is too fast, the players are too good for replacement referees.  Now, all that said, don’t expect people - fans and those in the NFL, not to complain about calls.  There’s a reason for that:

“That’s why the word ‘complainers’ is in the dictionary.”

By now, there can’t be a football fan who hasn’t heard that the game scheduled for this past Sunday between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Minnesota Vikings has been rescheduled for today due to the blizzard that swept through the East.  Whether or not the move was necessary has been a lively topic of conversation started by none other than the governor of Pennsylvania.

Ed Rendell, a former mayor of Philly and a staunch Eagles fan, came down hard on those who made the decision to postpone the game a couple days - and it seems his remarks have placed interested parties in one of two camps.  The league, citing the obvious weather condition factor, made the decision to put off the game until today.  One point they claimed was that there was a possibility that 70,000 fans and 3,000 stadium workers could have been stranded after the game because of the massive amount of snowfall during the contest, i.e. that the parking lot would be snowed in and it would be virtually impossible to move cars.  A rather compelling argument.

For the opposing viewpoint, we turn to Rendell who bluntly stated, “We’ve become a nation of wusses. The Chinese are kicking our butt in everything. If this was in China do you think the Chinese would have called off the game?”  He then made the claim the Chinese would not only make it to the game, but would be doing calculus on the way.  As is the case with anything un-vanilla, look for complaints from groups ranging from China to mathematicians.  Or maybe they’re in Rendell’s corner.

He certainly has a strong following with the “wusses” remark.  There’s a large number of individuals, mostly of the Baby Boomer and older generations, who think the country is entirely too soft for their liking - and getting softer!  As far as his comment about Vince Lombardi mocking the decision-makers and spinning in his grave, that’s something we’ll never know - although there are no lack of supporters in that camp.

Rendell’s feelings are based on what we used to do in situations like these.  No doubt the gov isn’t a fan of domes and instant replays.  It shouldn’t take someone too long to figure his stance on touchdown celebrations and helmet-to-helmet hits either.

But is he wrong?  Football is a game steeped in tradition, even if many of those traditions seem to be Neanderthal in nature.  To use the now-chiche’d expression, “It is what it is.”

On this topic, I leave you, the reader, to come to your own conclusion (I’m not sure I’ve yet come to mine), by absorbing a quote from British scholar C.S. Lewis:

“We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back the soonest is the most progressive.”