What the hell happened at the end of UW-USC?

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:34 pm

Nah.... but it was still confusing.

11 seconds left, UW completes a pass to the 20 or so yardline. Clock stops for the first down, albeit a little slow to stop if you ask me. Of course, once spotted, the clock is supposed to start again. But rather than doing so, the officials decided to have a li'l cup of tea and some donuts and shoot the shit w/each other. Actually, I think they were discussing whether or not the clock stopped too late and a few seconds should be put back on the clock.

Petey, and rightfully so, was going ballistic on teh sideline. During tea time, UW was able to have their own li'l cup of tea together and discuss their best option as far as play selection goes. Petey was PISSED. In plenty of time, the UW QB gets bak from his discussion w/Willingham and joins his offense already in formation. The official, takes his hand off the ball and backs away. The clock starts. Apparently, the center or QB did not notice and they ended up snapping about a 1/2 second too late.

My question is this (Lefty/blindref, chime in please): Should the official who took his hand off the ball and backed away blew the whistle and signaled for the clock to start with his arm? That's what I thought should have happened. It did not, and I think that's where UW missed the boat.

GreginPG · Post by **GreginPG** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:35 pm

Nope. They rolled the clock and Washington wasn't over the ball ready to go.

Game over.

P.S. I still don't like the rule even though it benefited USC in this case. They need to change it back next year.

GreginPG · Post by **GreginPG** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:36 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:I thought UW called a timeout-were they out of TOs? I coulda sworn I saw them signalling for one.

UW was out of timeouts.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:37 pm

There are still some questions to be answered here. Greg, you are incorrect, UW was over the ball and ready. I don't think the official started the clock properly and UW got hosed.

No, there were no timeouts available to UW, BtH.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:39 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:Greg, that rule wasn't changed. Clock was always stopped on a first down then rolled when the "ready for play" signal was given.

Bingo... must the official who spotted the ball signal "ready for play"? He didn't and UW missed the boat.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:41 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:Due to the awesome Fox Sports coverage, we didn't have any idea at the bar how much time was left or whether UW had TOs left.

Yeah, no shit. I thought the little 'picture in picture' of the actual play clock from the scoreboard at the bottom right of the screen was kinda throwback and cool.

GreginPG · Post by **GreginPG** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:46 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:Greg, that rule wasn't changed. Clock was always stopped on a first down then rolled when the "ready for play" signal was given.

You're right. My bad.

GreginPG · Post by **GreginPG** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:47 pm

Ken wrote:There are still some questions to be answered here. Greg, you are incorrect, UW was over the ball and ready. I don't think the official started the clock properly and UW got hosed.

No, there were no timeouts available to UW, BtH.

Ken, you call that over the ball and ready?

The center didn't even have his hands on the ball. They were most definitely not ready to snap the ball.

BuddyFramm · Post by **BuddyFramm** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:59 pm

Here are the facts:

1) There should have been at least four seconds, probably five, on the clock after the first down. The SC clock operator allowed three extra seconds to run off the clock. UW coaches were screaming at them to put time back on there and I guess thats why the officials had the half-assed conference in front of the center. We wouldn't be having this discussion if they had gotten it right in the first place. UW would have had plenty of time to spike the ball or run a play.
2) The Huskies should have been under center and ready to go despite the half-assed officials conference in front of the offensive line. The Huskies own that mistake.

Now, for my opinion. The officials were discussing the situation. Carroll was going nuts trying to get the clock to start. Willingham was going nuts trying to get time put back on the clock. Given all of that confusion, the officials should have told Stanback that they were about to roll the clock. It looked like the officials just broke apart and rolled the clock. It puts a real cloud over a helluva game. The Huskies deserve major props for giving SC their best home game in five years. I believe my Huskies proved they are for real today. Its just a shame that we'll never know if we could have finished them off if we had the one play we should have had. Congrats to SC for finding a way to win the game. Thats what good teams do.

Hey, Killian, I guess we were a little better than that 31 points you predicted, huh? So, are you NOW ready to admit that Ty has done a helluva job with this team???

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:04 am

GreginPG wrote:
Ken wrote:There are still some questions to be answered here. Greg, you are incorrect, UW was over the ball and ready. I don't think the official started the clock properly and UW got hosed.

No, there were no timeouts available to UW, BtH.
Ken, you call that over the ball and ready?

The center didn't even have his hands on the ball. They were most definitely not ready to snap the ball.

Yeah, because the official didn't properly start the clock as far as I know. Once he would have signaled 'ready to play', of course the center would have snapped it.

GreginPG · Post by **GreginPG** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:05 am

Ken, in response to the question about the official spotting the ball...

The referee is the one responsible for declaring the ball ready for play "after determining the officials are ready
and shall direct the clock started on the ready for play or the snap."

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:07 am

GreginPG wrote:Ken, in response to the question about the official spotting the ball...

The referee is the one responsible for declaring the ball ready for play "after determining the officials are ready
and shall direct the clock started on the ready for play or the snap."

Okay, thanks for that... and your point is?

Eidt to add: My bust, greg. I see you were answering my original question. Still doesn't entirely answer it. HOW is the ref supoosed to declare 'ready for play'? I saw NOTHING except an offical backing away from the ball.

GreginPG · Post by **GreginPG** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:12 am

Ken wrote:
GreginPG wrote:Ken, in response to the question about the official spotting the ball...

The referee is the one responsible for declaring the ball ready for play "after determining the officials are ready
and shall direct the clock started on the ready for play or the snap."
Okay, thanks for that... and your point is?

Eidt to add: My bust, greg. I see you were answering my original question. Still doesn't entirely answer it. HOW is the ref supoosed to declare 'ready for play'? I saw NOTHING except an offical backing away from the ball.

The position of the referee is behind and to the side of the offensive backfield. If I remember correctly, he wasn't in the picture. I'm pretty sure he would have signaled ready for play once that official backed away from the ball but we couldn't see it.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:16 am

GreginPG wrote:
Ken wrote:
GreginPG wrote:Ken, in response to the question about the official spotting the ball...

The referee is the one responsible for declaring the ball ready for play "after determining the officials are ready
and shall direct the clock started on the ready for play or the snap."
Okay, thanks for that... and your point is?

Eidt to add: My bust, greg. I see you were answering my original question. Still doesn't entirely answer it. HOW is the ref supoosed to declare 'ready for play'? I saw NOTHING except an offical backing away from the ball.
The position of the referee is behind and to the side of the offensive backfield. If I remember correctly, he wasn't in the picture. I'm pretty sure he would have signaled ready for play once that official backed away from the ball but we couldn't see it.

That may be the case, but I've always seen the official who spots the ball and backs away as the one who signals ready for play' with his arm. This guy didn't.

GreginPG · Post by **GreginPG** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:32 am

Ken wrote:
GreginPG wrote:
Ken wrote: Okay, thanks for that... and your point is?

Eidt to add: My bust, greg. I see you were answering my original question. Still doesn't entirely answer it. HOW is the ref supoosed to declare 'ready for play'? I saw NOTHING except an offical backing away from the ball.
The position of the referee is behind and to the side of the offensive backfield. If I remember correctly, he wasn't in the picture. I'm pretty sure he would have signaled ready for play once that official backed away from the ball but we couldn't see it.
That may be the case, but I've always seen the official who spots the ball and backs away as the one who signals ready for play' with his arm. This guy didn't.

Well, ok. I think you're wrong but I'm just trying to tell you what I understand and what I've always seen and what I've read. To the best of my knowledge, the referee is the one who blows the whistle and signals the ball ready for play and/or to start the clock.

Anyway, it was a crappy ending to a pretty good game. Definitely not the way I would like to see a game end.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:47 am

I'm not saying I'm definitley correct either. I'm just saying that more oft than not (maybe EVERY TIME), I've seen the offical who spots it and backs away as the one who signals ready for play.

I'm looking forward to leftie's and blindref's opinions.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:21 am

That was easily the worst refed game I think I have ever seen.

U Dub had no time outs left and Willingham is out past the hash marks trying to call a play, no way it should have taken more than 45 seconds to set the ball and restart the clock. Washingtons staff and more than 20 players were huddled on the hash marks while the refs sat there and waited for them to come back to the ball like they had a fourth time out called.
There were 2 seconds to go, the refs started the clock and Washington wasnt over the ball, the 2 seconds ticked off before the Huskies snapped the ball and the game was over.

The play where Taylor Mays was called for a late hit was total bullshit, he had already left his feet before Stanback slid, are defensive players supposed to worry about the offensive player sliding on every play?

The illegal block in the back on Sam Baker on Chauncey Washingtons long run was easily the worst call I have ever seen. Plain as day on the jumbotron (well the Colis version of a jumbotron) you see the Husky defensive lineman spin on Bakers block, are O linemen supposed to stop blocking when the D Linemen spin on them?

The hold on Steve Smiths second TD catch was questionable too and Ill have to watch the thing on Tivo tonight to see if you could see one, there wasnt one you could see on the jumbotrons replays .

The Trojans have to stop getting guys injured, Smith and Jarrett both go down in todays game and though Turner played well, he was responsible for the interception, that ball was in his hands, he needs to come down with that, it would have been his second TD

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:00 am

I took several things away from this game. First, we are not very good and will have dudes from the band starting by the end of the season the way injuries are piling up.

Second...what the fuck was wrong with UW's center today? Every snap in the gun was either high, low, right or left. EVERY snap. Long snaps too. Even when Stanback went under center, the two couldn't get the exchange right.

It is little stuff like ^this^ that have us hanging on by six with four seconds left.

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:07 am

Ya, I know. But we won't be in Glendale. No complaints...but as you say facts is facts.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:17 am

Trojans may lose to feCal, Oregon and Neuter Lame at home this year if they keep playing the way they have been

GreginPG · Post by **GreginPG** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:33 am

It would sure be nice if Kiffin got away from all the short-shit/ball control crap and stretched the field a little bit.
With receivers like Smith, Jarrett, Turner and even Davis at TE I'm pretty sure if Booty gets just a little time he can complete more of the 15-20 yard variety passes instead of the "1 yard-to-thesideline-and-hope-reciever-gets-past-the-defender-for-a-decent-gain" stuff.

I know this offense is young but we have good running backs and some great receivers. Kiffin is holding these guys back.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:01 am

This team is beginning to remind me of OSU, circa 2002.

They looked beatable just about every week. Lotta close games. Conservative offense, relied on the defense. Managed to never lose. Took on a monster in the BCS title game. 12 point dogs, something like that, if I'm remembering correctly.

Ironically, this year OSU will likely play the Miami role in this scenario.

That's how it's starting to look for USC, anyway. Beatable, and nothing special, yet in the end...unbeaten?

Just a feeling. In the meantime, this sure isn't a very enjoyable team to watch. It's like pulling teeth, trying to open up and maintain comfortable leads. It always seems like the clock is just flying. One or two drives, tops, per quarter...

It seems like they're really keeping it close to the vest, as if they're just counting on winning the turn overs/field position/big plays/won't beat ourselves battle. Gotta figure this won't get it done, somewhere along the line...

Meanwhile, the clock keeps ticking and the season marches on and they keep getting the "W".

Hmm. Weird gut feeling here. Oregon or ND had better take 'em down or else yeah, this might be 2002 all over again.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:04 am

From what I saw the ref screwed-up. Washington should've been more ready but it definitely seemed like the ref screwed-the-pooch on making it clear the clock was starting. Chances are Washington wouldn't have scored but they had a reasonable shot and should have gotten the opportunity for that shot.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:51 am

After UW caught the pass and the receiver was down, why did the clock roll 2-3 seconds? Never got an explanation for that. Also, the Fox Sports announcers were terrible. They didn't even catch the fact that the clock kept rolling. So they never mentioned it. UW should have had time to spike the ball and run a last play. And when they left it at 2, the refs did not give UW a fair chance to spike the ball in time. They just rolled the clock quickly without UW knowing it was ready to go.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:07 pm

BuddyFramm wrote:Hey, Killian, I guess we were a little better than that 31 points you predicted, huh? So, are you NOW ready to admit that Ty has done a helluva job with this team???

The 31 point prediction had nothing to do with your team. It was an allusion to his three games against USC while at ND. Each time he lost by 31 points.

And no, I'm not ready to admit he's done a helluva job with that team. If he doesn't stub his toe once or twice on teams he should beat, then maybe I would be willing to admit that he did a good job. But I would suggest getting used to this. Close win/loss against someone he shouldn't, blow out loss to someone he shouldn't, and losses to teams he should beat.

BuddyFramm · Post by **BuddyFramm** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:20 pm

Thank you, Jon. You're the first person to mention that other than me. This whole fiasco shouldn't have happened in the first place. We should have had a minimum of four seconds on the clock, probably five. I'm pissed that the Huskies were robbed of an opportunity to finish off USC. Once again, Pac 10 officials are in the spotlight and thats not a good thing. I'm even more pissed that nobody is talking about the Huskies being for real or about how well they played Saturday. Lost in all of this bullshit is the fact that the Huskies are a good football team and that they are infinitely better than they were two years ago. Hopefully we'll take it out on the Beavers this week.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:53 pm

I'll give you that they're a much improved team. You'd have to be blind/overly stubborn not to admit that.

But there's a huge difference between "improved" and "for real."

Until they knock of a heavy hitter, they're still just an "improved" football team. UCLA is your best win, and although that's something no one would've seen coming in years past, it's still not an impressive enough win for me to call them the real deal.

Unfortunately for Huskie fan, your toughest PAC 10 games are all on the road. If you can take 2/3 from playing @ Cal, @ Oregon, and @ Wash St, I'll be prepared to say your team is for real.

And yeah, even though I don't think it means much yet, Ty has definitely done a good job with the team. Judging a guy's outlook based on what he did at ND certainly isn't fair. ND has a higher set of expectations than probably anyone else in the country. A 3 loss season at ND is considered a failure. These days, a 3 loss season at UW would be considered a miracle.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:58 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:And yeah, even though I don't think it means much yet, Ty has definitely done a good job with the team. Judging a guy's outlook based on what he did at ND certainly isn't fair. ND has a higher set of expectations than probably anyone else in the country. A 3 loss season at ND is considered a failure. These days, a 3 loss season at UW would be considered a miracle.

It wasn't the losses, per se, but how they happened.

If Willingham has Washington constatnly playing up to their potential and he's not getting blown out, I will give him his due. Providing he doesn't kick a game or two like he typically does.