Cal 35, Illinois 20 POSTGAME

Herndon, VA
No. Only here; and only by a few. Peters was well short of the first down.

I really wish this "the refs cost us the game" garbage would get removed from this forum.
Well, yes and no. I also thought Peters came up a bit short, but then let's go back our Nebraska game earlier this season. Was there PI or not on our "last" offensive play?
 
Oswego, IL
No. Only here; and only by a few. Peters was well short of the first down.

I really wish this "the refs cost us the game" garbage would get removed from this forum.
I only said it because I loved the effort. He was very clearly short.
 
I was at the game and Illinois seemed well-represented fan-wise. Although it is hard to tell when you are looking across the field at the opposing fans, it appeared we at least matched the number of Cal fans who were in the stadium. Has anyone seen any numbers on fan participation? I know that is history now, but it may come into play in bowl selections in the future. And yes, I am a complete optimist.
By the way, in the stadium, the Marching Illini completely outclassed the Cal band in sound and program and every other way.
I've been saying "next year" since 1964. I won't stop now. Happy New Year.
 
one of my fellow coaches once calculated our basketball stipend. Came out to .03 cents per hour. Not $.03 per hour, .03¢ per hour. We were making fractions of pennies.
I'm assuming your fellow coach didn't have a strong math background as unless you guys were getting paid under $10 to coach you were surely making more than a penny per hour. Even if you got paid $100 to work 8 hours/day for the entire year, you'd still be making more than 3 pennies per hour. Sorry couldn't resist!

More to the point of the larger discussion, whether refs are compensated well is really beside the point. The crew in the bowl game wasn't consistent and didn't have a great day. Probably wouldn't have changed things but, then again, getting a turnover with a chance to score and draw within a touchdown with 5+ minutes to go are how comebacks happen.
 
Probably wouldn't have changed things but, then again, getting a turnover with a chance to score and draw within a touchdown with 5+ minutes to go are how comebacks happen.
Slightly disingenuous.

We would have recovered that ball somewhere around the Cal 27-ish yard line. Less than 25 seconds later we had the ball at the Cal 35-ish yard line.

We still had our shot. Brandon gets that ball out on time and we block a little stronger up front, we could have gotten there but that doesn’t fit the narrative and such it goes mentioned by most.
 
Ah, the common fallacy that one only works when one is on the clock. Classic.

Besides that, your hourly range means nothing if you don’t get any hours. I could get $1000 an hour and it wouldn’t matter if I only received compensation for 1 hour per month. Doesn’t take a degree from our university to figure out that you aren’t making this a full time profession.
Right, still doesn't make it a bad part-time gig.
 
I thought it looked like the ball crossed out of bounds about a yard short. Is this the general consensus that it should have been a first down?
What difference does it make if the ball crosses the plane of the boundary while in the possession of the runner? Neither the ball or player touched the ground until the plane of the first down was crossed. The still-airborne screenshot is my avatar.
 
Ah, the common fallacy that one only works when one is on the clock. Classic.

Besides that, your hourly range means nothing if you don’t get any hours. I could get $1000 an hour and it wouldn’t matter if I only received compensation for 1 hour per month. Doesn’t take a degree from our university to figure out that you aren’t making this a full time profession.
We're not comparing it to a full job are we???? For what they are doing they are getting good pay.
 
South Carolina
What difference does it make if the ball crosses the plane of the boundary while in the possession of the runner? Neither the ball or player touched the ground until the plane of the first down was crossed. The still-airborne screenshot is my avatar.
Evidently it makes a big difference, as in where the ball gets spotted. I heard on the Jeremy Werner show that it is called the same way as a punt that goes out of bounds. It was still a spectacular play and being short doesn't really take much away from that
 
What difference does it make if the ball crosses the plane of the boundary while in the possession of the runner? Neither the ball or player touched the ground until the plane of the first down was crossed. The still-airborne screenshot is my avatar.
New it was only a matter of time before that was someone's avatar. It is a great pic
 
We Ready
Merced CA
I was at the game, so a few notes: 1) I’d say closer to 60-40 Cal fans. There were a noticeable number of Cal fans in Illinois sections and Cal had a number of fans in the upper deck on their side too. The Illini band was head and shoulders above the Cal band. They were sharp, well disciplined, and very entertaining/engaging. They win the battle of the bands hands down. They were also extremely engaged while in the stands. They refs were terrible! Replays in the stadium clearly showed that they were making incorrect calls. On the Peters out of bounds play. I was almost straight across from the play in the first row. It looked like he was just past the marker, but I will admit that I didn’t have a view from above to see when the ball crossed the sideline. My question is why not measure? The significant thing was that if you look at the first down marker it has been moved, it’s not straight. Also 99/100 times that same situation at the goal line is a touchdown. One of the replays shown in the stadium looked like the tackler actually hit the head with the shoulder pads and that’s what caused the head to moved backward. I was actually surprised because I initially thought it was a good call. I don’t know if the same replays are seen on TV. All in all, I was proud to be an Illini. Good crowd and band and I feel the team represented well.
 
Likes: Dude
Evidently it makes a big difference, as in where the ball gets spotted. I heard on the Jeremy Werner show that it is called the same way as a punt that goes out of bounds. It was still a spectacular play and being short doesn't really take much away from that
All the difference... since that's the rule.
Is this new, or is this just college? I've repeatedly seen commentators discussing play reviews to determine whether a player scored a touchdown when the player dove for the goal line outside the pylon. What the ruling on the field says, is that would not be a touchdown. Neither would a catch by an inbound player who reaches out of bounds for the ball...suddenly it doesn't matter if your foot was inbounds or out of bounds, because what's important is whether the ball was over the field of play.

That isn't football as I've ever seen it played. Or called. It makes absolutely no sense to me. That would mean when ball carriers run down the sideline with the ball in their outside arm, they're ending the play when the ball crosses the plane of boundary? That's BS.
 
Faber College
Is this new, or is this just college? I've repeatedly seen commentators discussing play reviews to determine whether a player scored a touchdown when the player dove for the goal line outside the pylon. What the ruling on the field says, is that would not be a touchdown. Neither would a catch by an inbound player who reaches out of bounds for the ball...suddenly it doesn't matter if your foot was inbounds or out of bounds, because what's important is whether the ball was over the field of play.

That isn't football as I've ever seen it played. Or called. It makes absolutely no sense to me. That would mean when ball carriers run down the sideline with the ball in their outside arm, they're ending the play when the ball crosses the plane of boundary? That's BS.
I argued the same thing with a group I was with. So if a runner swings the ball out of bounds while his feet are still in bounds the ball is marked out of bounds? Or is it only because he had left the ground and dove for the marker?
 
Likes: BWBW
South Carolina
Neither would a catch by an inbound player who reaches out of bounds for the ball...suddenly it doesn't matter if your foot was inbounds or out of bounds, because what's important is whether the ball was over the field of play.
The receiver must establish contact in bounds to complete the catch. Peters never established contact in bounds after the dive so they spot the ball where the ball was last in play.

I don't have the rule book, but that's my interpretation of how it is called and it makes sense to me. I'd say this was one of the less controversial calls in the gamw
 
Is this new, or is this just college? I've repeatedly seen commentators discussing play reviews to determine whether a player scored a touchdown when the player dove for the goal line outside the pylon. What the ruling on the field says, is that would not be a touchdown. Neither would a catch by an inbound player who reaches out of bounds for the ball...suddenly it doesn't matter if your foot was inbounds or out of bounds, because what's important is whether the ball was over the field of play.

That isn't football as I've ever seen it played. Or called. It makes absolutely no sense to me. That would mean when ball carriers run down the sideline with the ball in their outside arm, they're ending the play when the ball crosses the plane of boundary? That's BS.
I agree. I've remarked about how football is weird in its inconsistencies about when "the ball crosses a plane" vertically, but not so much horizontally. Then it's all about where the ball was when the foot hit the boundary stripe.

If that changed, I completely missed it.