PAC Coordinator Football Officiating Resigns

[Ironbreaker]

More on Corente's resignation.

...and no, he wasn't forced out behind the scenes.

Latest Pac-12 officiating mess couldn't have been handled worse | FOX Sports


The story is by Mike Pereira, close friends with Corrente.

 

[trojanfight]

what can they do to fix the officiating? start over? hire them from other conferences? what conference is even looked at as having the best officials? vibe i get from other conferences is they don't call penalties unless blatant obvious. any 50-50 calls usually aren't called.

 

[trojanfight]

part of problem is conference not admitting to the bad calls. a USC writer contacted the pac 12 and these were responses he got.

I sent in a few questions about the officiating in the USC/Arizona game, specifically three of the calls. Here are the responses I received:

1) Flag was thrown on Arizona for a pass beyond the line of scrimmage. It was reviewed and the call was reversed but then an extra penalty, apparently seen on the review, was added (roughing the passer on USC). Later in the game a Justin Davis fumble was reviewed and it appeared he was subject to two helmet to helmet hits. Those penalties were not called after the review.

PAC12: There were two penalties on the play. When the officiating crew determined that it was not an illegal forward pass and that penalty was picked up, the second penalty was applied as the Arizona player was attempting a legal forward pass. If helmet-to-helmet calls are not made on the field, the video replay crew can not determine whether those calls should have been when reviewing other plays.

2) USC punted, Arizona up man called for fair catch, then proceeded to block. Arizona return man was untouched and muffed the punt, USC recovers. Refs call offsetting penalties, calling the illegal block on the up man, but also calling catch interference when the actual return man was untouched.

PAC12: There does not need to be contact with the return man for a catch interference penalty to be called. A defensive player can not be within a yard when a punt returner attempts to catch the ball.

3) Arizona receiver fumbles and bats the ball out of bounds, clearly forward. Refs throw the flag, then wave it off saying it was batted backwards. No review and it was very clear it went forwards.

PAC12: It’s a judgement call by the officials and not a reviewable play

 

[Ironbreaker]

what can they do to fix the officiating? start over? hire them from other conferences? what conference is even looked at as having the best officials? vibe i get from other conferences is they don't call penalties unless blatant obvious. any 50-50 calls usually aren't called.

what i find funny is that sometimes other conferences actually use pac refs they call it a neutral crew. i didnt know this unti l this year. I knew it was the case in bowl games, but not regular season ones. FSUmanager brought it up in week i. PAC officials had the fsu game and naturally embarrassed themselves.

who the fuck would use a neutral crew from the pac?

 

[trojanfan12]

part of problem is conference not admitting to the bad calls. a USC writer contacted the pac 12 and these were responses he got.

I sent in a few questions about the officiating in the USC/Arizona game, specifically three of the calls. Here are the responses I received:

1) Flag was thrown on Arizona for a pass beyond the line of scrimmage. It was reviewed and the call was reversed but then an extra penalty, apparently seen on the review, was added (roughing the passer on USC). Later in the game a Justin Davis fumble was reviewed and it appeared he was subject to two helmet to helmet hits. Those penalties were not called after the review.

PAC12: There were two penalties on the play. When the officiating crew determined that it was not an illegal forward pass and that penalty was picked up, the second penalty was applied as the Arizona player was attempting a legal forward pass. If helmet-to-helmet calls are not made on the field, the video replay crew can not determine whether those calls should have been when reviewing other plays.

2) USC punted, Arizona up man called for fair catch, then proceeded to block. Arizona return man was untouched and muffed the punt, USC recovers. Refs call offsetting penalties, calling the illegal block on the up man, but also calling catch interference when the actual return man was untouched.

PAC12: There does not need to be contact with the return man for a catch interference penalty to be called. A defensive player can not be within a yard when a punt returner attempts to catch the ball.

3) Arizona receiver fumbles and bats the ball out of bounds, clearly forward. Refs throw the flag, then wave it off saying it was batted backwards. No review and it was very clear it went forwards.

PAC12: It’s a judgement call by the officials and not a reviewable play

1.) The PAC's answer may be right. However, the only penalty that was announced before the replay was looked at was the illegal forward pass. The roughing the quarterback was never announced until after the review.

2.) The PAC is right that there doesn't need to be contact, however, no one was within a yard of the guy receiving the ball. Additionally, how are the players on the field supposed to know who they have to give the 1 yard "halo" to if the player who signals for the fair catch (thus identifying himself as the one who is going to field the punt) then decides to block instead?

3.) If it's not reviewable, that's fine.

The biggest issue, imo, is that the PAC is not being very forthcoming re: the officiating issue. They seem to want to make excuses, etc. What they should be doing is admitting when mistakes are made and taking corrective action, not making excuses and claiming they are a "strong unit and headed in the right direction" when it's obvious to anyone who has watched a PAC-12 game, that they aren't.

Maybe Oregon and Stanford have submitted the most plays for review, but I know plenty of other schools have to. USC sent video of the roughing call and the fair catch call to league offices for "clarification".