Comments about ‘BYU football: Craig Thompson letter says replay officials in BYU-SDSU game 'weren't sufficiently aggressive'’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 2 2010 6:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Spanish Fork, UT

Obviously this was a fumble, get over it, move on, who cares anymore...GO UTES!!

Orem, UT

Awesome, SDSU is sending letters to BYU?

Send your letters to the MWC and while we are all sending letters and consulting lawyers, let's review every call that was ever made in error that should have been reversed, but wasn't.

I think I want to have the SDSU fumble looked at again. I want the facemask, that wasn't, reviewed. I want this call and that call reviewed and I want that university to forfeit the game.

The problem with all this, is some official will try and make some bogus call against BYU in order to redeem this apparent mistake.

Oh, and I want the SDSU game plan reviewed. I want the the entire league reviewed!

Salt Lake City, UT

I agree with Wallbanger. It was a fumble. It's also sour grapes by SDSU.
I like how SDSU glosses over the fact that these are MWC hired employees.
It's not like it was the last play of the game...
SDSU was thoroughly outplayed the entire game anyways.
You lost. Deal with it.
Best of luck to the Cougs and Utes this weekend...

Steven S Jarvis
Orem, UT

SDSU still has a chance to win the conference with both Utah and TCU on the schedule in coming weeks. Instead of showing incredible unsportmanship by divulging the crews names in the media and airing private conversations, SDSU should be moving forward with their season trying to make the best of it. What they have done instead is shown an incredible lack of class for a University.

  • 7:31 p.m. Nov. 2, 2010
  • Like
  • Top comment
Chad S
Derby, KS

Unbelievable that "private" letters from the MWC to SDSU continue to get published all across the land. Why won't the MWC protect the privacy of its officials? Because they want to smear BYU with this non-scandal. What a bunch of poor losers.

Absolute Truth
Salt Lake City, UT

Well, being an avid Ute fan, if I were in the replay booth during a Ute game, like Bunn and Moon were, I might have not shown the clear video to the head replay official either. But, that doesn't make it right. Rules are rules - they clearly had conflict of interest and changed the game outcome.

Orem, UT

"While the MWC found no malfeasance by the officials, all three were suspended because they did not aggressively find all the evidence from live TV feeds in the play."

In other words, nobody cheated, the officials simply botched the call.

The replay officials missed the fumble.

The on-field officials missed the facemasking.

Bottom line, two sets of mistakes cancelled each other out and yielded a fair result.

Time for SDSU to stop whining and move on.

You were outplayed the entire game and lost fair and square.

Get over it!

Fred Vader
Oklahoma City, OK

What I find really sad is that SDSU is so desperate for a "W" in the win/loss column, that they are willing to beg for a BYU forfeit to get it. Come on, Boosters. Have a little self respect.

Maybe BYU should just let the little whiners have it. It's not like the win is really going to help this year anyway.

Mcallen, TX

I just replayed the fumble five times. Yes!!! There was a facemask--(no call) just before the fumble. Why does'nt San Diego protest that one? It's there and no call. The TV commentator even mentioned it! He really did! He called it a double facemask. Should have been a fifteen yard walk off. I honestly don't know why it's mentioned.

Mcallen, TX

oops! not mentioned.

Provo, UT

Hoe about a new NCAA rule that states that if a missed call is seen on the replay, it can then be called. That would add a bit of hesitation to relying always in the replay cameras. It's funny that SDSU boosters make such a big deal of this when the obvious cause of the fumble was the sudden illegal upward movement of the ball-carrier's head (a botched and missed call). It's also funny that they willingly ignore the botched fumble that earlier went SDSU's direction. These boosters need to find better things to do with their time.
What really surprises me is that the MWC lets all this slander and obvious break of their own protocol go on, when they were so quick to jump on and sanction BYU players last year whennthey criticized Air force's cheap but legal blocking tactics. Total double standard by the MWC.

Cody, WY

If SDSU were the better team on that particular day they would have won the game regardless of this fumble. In every game there are calls that should not have been made and others that were missed. Folks just take it in stride. The problem here is that the MWC continues to allow "private" letters to become public--in violation of there own policy--all to the maligning of BYU. Without question it was a blown call by the replay officials. But the MWC is handling this in a way that makes BYU look bad. And they are doing it on purpose. In the eyes of Craig Thompson and the conference the Utes leaving was understandable with the Pac 10 being such a big fish. But they interpet BYU's leaving as arrogant and a rejection of the Mt. West Conference. So this is their chance to get back at the Cougars--and that's just what they are doing.

Cougar Claws
Lindon, UT

The refs blew BYU's fumble.

They also blew the SDSU facemask!

One may have resulted in the difference in a game.

One could have resulted in how well attached a players head was to his body.

Would there even have been a fumble if they didn't literally try to rip JJ's head off? Probably not.

SDSU fans, go cry to your moms. If you wanted to win the game, you should have tried to do it by a method other than a facemask.

West Jordan, ut

who cares about the call, yes it is obviously a blown call, EVERYONE knows this. EVERYONE also knew in 1990 or 91 that Colorado was given a 5th down to win a game and tied for the National Championship so obviously no one cares about blown calls.

Boise, ID

I want TCU's 50-51 victory over BYU in 2007 turned over. I saw a photo in the paper that showed it was a fumble, not a touchdown in overtime. I demand justice. My letters will go out tomorrow.

Fallbrook, CA

I chuckled the first time I heard the term "Wahz-tecs" but now I am starting to take it seriously. Does anyone remember 24 first downs to 12, 45 minutes of possession to 15? Quit acting like you deserved to win! Bad call. Why did you not step up and stop the cougs from scoring 5 plays later. It is not like no one else has stopped them this year. Get over it.

Clear Thinker
Draper, UT

To absolutle truth: Did it change the outcome? In the 3rd quarter hard to make that argument. Many calls or non-calls may be pivot points, but you like SDSU automatically assume that the outcome would have been changed. The absolute truth is that you have too many biases to present an absolute truth. Work on the biases or change the display name.

Fort Worth, TX

As an outsider, I have to say, yes it was a fumble, but clearly a facemask which. Both calls should have been made. The facemask was first, if I understand things correctly it should have been a penalty on SDSU.

SOoooooo, why is SDSU still begging. Is my logic correct here or am I missing something???

Alpine, UT

Just my uninformed opinion ...

Ref's have done make-up calls since the dawn of sports. When the head guy (from Nevada) saw the facemask and the fumble was obscured he saw enough. He didn't request any other views because he wasn't about to reverse the call on the field having seen the facemask just prior to the fumble.

Technically, the only thing that could be overturned was the fumble. Morally, the correct call was to leave it alone because of the facemask.

Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law.

Spirit of the law won this time and justice was served.

SD boosters, please stop embarrassing yourselves. Show some self restraint and understand just how petty you make yourselves and your program look.

Clear Thinker
Draper, UT

Hornedfrog your logic is correct, but most posters are not interested in logic nor is SDSU.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments