Pac-12 official explains adding late touchdown

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mike Johnson Stafford, VA
    Sept. 12, 2011 5:08 p.m.

    Duckhunter, I think the play you recall is when a Virginia assistant coach tried to trip a Virginia Tech player running unopposed down the sideline. This happened several years ago and I recall hearing about a rule change because of it.

  • Mike Johnson Stafford, VA
    Sept. 12, 2011 5:03 p.m.

    I don't have a problem with him running it back for a touchdown. I do have a problem with the bench emptying during the play and going out on the field, with no consequences for it--apparently to appease Vegas odds makers. A three point or a nine point loss makes no difference for the Utes it a big scheme.

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 12, 2011 4:32 p.m.

    The only mistake made was by the personnel in the booth who did not record the score once the official on the field made the call. According to the explanation the call was made on the field as time expired or shortly thereafter, but the booth didn't make the change to the scoreboard. Either way, the score is what it is and wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game. Time to move on and deal with BYU. Go Utes!

  • wardu Fallon, NV
    Sept. 12, 2011 4:22 p.m.

    That loss cost the Utes any hope of a bowl game, well that and the other five losses they will have this year. U can look forward to the bowl of potato chips at the new years party.

  • gonefishn Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2011 2:54 p.m.

    The collusion would be between the USC betters and Pac 12 officials, not Las Veagas. I do not perscribe to the conspiracy but I think it is a safe "bet" to assume that all of the betters affiliated with USC bet on USC to cover. The post game ruling clearly helped USC betters more than any other group.
    Gambling aside, if Pac 12 officials can overide the officials on the field by adding points to widen the margin of victory after the fact, what would stop them from adding points that changed the winner and losser? What if USC was behind when this scenario played out? The pac 12 officials have opened a can of worms with this ruling.

  • gonefishn Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2011 2:30 p.m.

    The line is a reflection of the money bet. The goal is to get 50% of the money on each team. Meaning, when the line was 10 points people saw value in betting on Utah. The line changed to 8.5 - 9 points to entice money to be placed on USC. You can be assured by game time the money was pretty evenly spread between the two teams.
    You take the losers money and pay the winners minus the vig and clear 10%

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Sept. 12, 2011 11:04 a.m.


    It actually depends on the level of betting on either side of the spread. If there were more dollars bet that USC would cover then the added td cost vegas money. If there was more action on the other side of the line, that meaning that utah would beat the spread, then the added td saved Vegas money.

    I'm not sure which side of the line got more action, if I had to guess I would guess that USC covering got more action, in which case it did cost Vegas money. Of course the line changed several times during the week leading up to the game so it would also depend on how much action went to either side of the line at the times people actually made their bet.

    I think the original line was 6 1/2 for USC then moved to like 10 1/2 then wound up at 8 1/2. So there were people that got bets in on all of those seperate spreads. so the extra td paid for USC betters that got 6 1/2 and 8 1/2 but didn't for anyone that got their bet in at 10 1/2.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Sept. 12, 2011 8:26 a.m.


    That is a good point but I think there was a rule passed a few years back that a TD can be awarded if a player, coach, or someone from the sidelines interferes with a play in progress and in the ref's judgement a TD would have been scored without the interference.

    I can't remember the exact incident that precipitated that rule change but someone from a sideline, a coach if I remember correctly, did tackle a guy running for a TD.

    Anyone on else on here remember that?

    That said I don't see how it was poor sportsmanship for the player to return that block for a td. I know you didn't say it was a different poster did. These kids are in the heat of a game, they're emotional and of course they want to score a td if the opportunity arises. Utes, Jazz, and RSL forever made a great point that it may not have been the wisest decision, but it certainly wasn't poor sportsmanship. Besides what does it matter? The game was lost when the kick was blocked.

  • hohum Saint George, UT
    Sept. 12, 2011 8:22 a.m.


    Am I wrong or did a well known team do an onside kick, leading by 40+ points.

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    Sept. 12, 2011 6:37 a.m.

    @ wildcat,
    that doesn't make any sense. By beating the spread, USC just cost Vegas a lot of money. Guessing you haven't bet on too many games

  • Utes, Jazz, and RSL Forever Taylorsville, UT
    Sept. 12, 2011 1:08 a.m.

    As much as I hate to say it being a Ute fan, the player did nothing wrong in running it back for a touchdown. If Utah doesn't want him to score, it is their responsibility to run after him and stop him from scoring not the player's responsibility to stop on his own. With that being said it would have been smarter for the player to just take a knee like Weddle did in the Armed Forces Bowl because once he goes down the game is over. As long as he is running there is always a chance, however unlikely, that a Utah player would run him down and strip him of the ball and then return that subsequent fumble for a game-winning touchdown on the other end. Even if Utah didn't score in that scenario they would have had another play because of how the rule would have been applied. They then would at least have a chance at a hail mary or another field goal attempt. So really it wasn't the smartest play to take it in but you can't really fault him for doing that either.

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    Sept. 11, 2011 5:07 p.m.

    Ute fan11,

    In the heat of the moment the 'instinct' is to run with the ball and score. Do you honestly think this young man had a lot of time to think about this scenario?

    Ever wonder if any time was ever spent in practice to discuss this very scenario?

    Geesh, give the kid a break.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Sept. 11, 2011 3:27 p.m.

    re: Ade | 9:34 a.m. Sept. 11, 2011

    Ding! We have a winner.

    @ ute_fan11 | 11:26 a.m. Sept. 11, 2011

    Exactly. Of course, the current & previous head coach are not exactly the best role models.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    Sept. 11, 2011 3:16 p.m.


    Hmmm. Very interesting perspective there. I never thought of it that way.

    Oh well, a 3-pt loss looks the same as a 9-pt loss in the record books, since either way, we're 1-1.

    GO UTES!!!

  • ute_fan11 Salt Lake, UT
    Sept. 11, 2011 11:26 a.m.

    Either way, that player showed no class in running it back for a touchdown. The game was over. I remember Eric Weddle's last game as a Ute in the Armed Forces bowl - he intercepted the last play and had room to run, but just took a kneel. That is showing respect.

  • Ticky Burden salt lake city, ut
    Sept. 11, 2011 10:00 a.m.

    Live in the past much ??

  • byronbca Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2011 9:58 a.m.

    Re thomas:

    As long as it's by a substitute yes. So if a Utah player on the sideline would have ran out and tackled the guy the game would have ended 17-14.

  • Ade Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 11, 2011 9:34 a.m.

    Interesting point: The point spread was 8 1/2 pts and USC wins by 9. What a coinsidence. The UTES played a very tough team and slugged it out with them.

  • Pipes Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2011 9:33 a.m.

    3 points or 9 points is irrelevant. Either way it's a loss.

  • Wildcat O-town, UT
    Sept. 11, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    LOL! I liked the "explanation", but the real story is that Vegas "encouraged" the PAC-12 to add the points so they did not lose out on a lot of money, but try explaining that to the Press. At least it would have not been the patronizing garbage they fed everyone. Somebody could have lost their mortgage on quote the Simpsons, "Won't somebody please think of the children!"

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    Sept. 11, 2011 8:13 a.m.

    ...just adds one more referee call to the list of those that were overturned.
    But finally An Overruling that was originally called in UTES favor

  • Thomas Smith Sandy, UT
    Sept. 11, 2011 6:44 a.m.

    Do I understand this to mean that any foul whatsoever on the last play of the game is not enforceable and therefor anything goes? That doesn't sound correct to me.