Saturday, November 27, 2010

Game Recap: Utah Utes 17, Brigham Young Cougars 16

Please pardon the inconvenience. The content of this web page has been moved to


  1. Considering all the circumstances, Heaps was phenomenal. And the INT shouldn't count, because it came off of a tipped ball.

    BYU was robbed though. There WAS INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE that Bradley WAS DOWN WITH POSSESSION!!! The was the interception we needed, and then the officials took it away!!

    Also, I was frustrated that we got so conservative on the last drive. After Heaps makes several great plays to get us into field goal range, we settled. DON'T settle and you could score a TD and win, or at least get a closer, better field goal try - which could have changed everything.

  2. Yeah yeah yeah.... There are bad calls made in every game. Fans will ALWAYS have something to complain about. Stop whining and accept that Utah won this year. It's a fun rivalry, don't make it into a life changing necessesity to always have one team win. The Utah-BYU game has been close to a 50% win for both sides. It's all fair and even. By the way, there is no "INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE". The cameras were filming at all angles, but no one but the two players actually know what happened. Yes, I have seen the footage and I was at the game. Don't go running around like a sore loser whining that a bad call was made, who knows what really happened.

  3. Anonymous--not sure if you are talking to me or to Neal. There is no complaining or whining on my part. Some frustration, yes. I identified some things I think BYU needs to work on (finishing drives, putting teams away), and that goes for every game. I focused on when it has happened in the BYU-Utah games because it applies better than the 2006 BYU-BC game.

    Not sure what you mean by no "indisputable evidence." If that is the case, then no ruling on the field should ever be overturned. I don't think either of the players really knows what happened. The Utah player was just focused on stripping the ball. He doesn't know if Bradley was down or not. It all happened so fast, I don't think Bradley knows whether he was down or not. Which is exactly why the NCAA has allowed video review. Regardless, if Bradley better secured the ball, the replay is a non-issue.

    Neal--I understand your point about the play calling, but you have to look at the other side. What if Heaps has another pass tipped and intercepted? What if Heaps is sacked for a big loss, like he was the series before, and BYU is taken out of field goal range?

    Payne had already kicked three field goals, and his last was about the same distance. Kicking the field goal was I would have done as the coach. BYU just blew it by letting that guy get in and block it.

  4. Editor - You may want to take a look at the actual rule, which explicitly requires indisputable video evidence.

    The NCAA Football rule on video replay is: "The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him BEYOND ALL DOUBT that the ruling was incorrect. Without such INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand." (Rule 12, Sec. 1, Art. 2, caps for emphasis, mine.) You can see it yourself here:

    I have watched the replay of the fumble/strip incident many times. Although the video clearly shows a knee down, it's at best unclear what is happening with the football and Bradley's hands when his knee is down. When viewed from behind, his right arm appears to be nowhere near the football when it is not obscured.

    On the flip side, there was a situation where this requirement for indisputable video evidence went in favor of BYU and against Utah when BYU's player was out of bounds and appeared to still be bobbling the football, but the decision on the field that he had control was upheld -- evidently the apparent bobbling was not indisputable video evidence that he did not have control.

  5. Dear Editor - Why did you delete my prior comment? Is it because it contradicts your theory on "indisputable evidence?" As I mentioned in that (now-deleted) comment, "indisputable evidence" is the standard explicitly required by the NCAA rules:

    "The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand." (Rule 12, Section 1, Article 2.)

    When in doubt, check the actual rules.

  6. I didn't delete your prior comment. That's the honest truth. As I have stated before, as long as there is no name calling, no foul language, and no spam in a comment, it will not be deleted. If you read all the comments on every post, you would see that I don't delete any of the comments, even when they criticize my point of view.

    I am not sure where the problem is (if it is your server or something with Google's platform), but I will send a message to them inquiring why so many comments have been lost recently.

    As for the NCAA rules on replay reversal, that language is very protective of the replay official. All anyone has to say is the "video evidence did not convince him beyond all doubt." Pretty hard to argue with someone when they say that. The whole reason a play is reviewed is because the ruling on the field was questionable in the first place.

    Did you send this to San Diego State, and the MWC? Sure would have been nice for someone to come to BYU's defense and taken this position when BYU was under scrutiny.