Claims about officiating are the surest way to annoy rival fan bases … so let’s try to do something productive: Utah fans should agree with this specific reform proposal.
We are now three days removed from the USC-Utah game. Was it really just a spur of the moment reaction to say that officiating decided the game and that Pac-12 refs hammered the Trojans?
Nope. I still genuinely feel that while there was no conspiracy on the part of Pac-12 game officials, their impact on the game was still disproportionate.
They admitted they were wrong in levying a targeting penalty on USC in the fourth quarter, but somehow failed to rescind the 15-yard penalty attached to a roughing-the-passer call which — without targeting — did not meet any definition or criterion of a personal-foul penalty.
It wasn’t late. It wasn’t out of bounds. It didn’t involve helmet contact of any kind. Why was the 15-yard penalty kept in place? It was more than just missing a call, as on a holding penalty; this was procedural malpractice with a chance to review the play on replay (something which also doesn’t apply to holding penalties, which went both ways in this game).
That is uniquely bad, and it carries more weight in assessing the severity of calls against one team and for another.
Utah fans have predictably reacted with withering contempt for such a line of thought. That’s fine. Any opposing fan base would react the same way. I don’t expect anything else, and I certainly don’t think anything less of Utah fans. This is normal and natural.
Having gotten into a dust-up about officiating, and now that emotions have poured out for the past 72 hours, let’s move forward and try to do something productive.
Utah fans might think we’re whiners here, but we’re actually interested in improving the product of college football. What follows is a collection of reform proposals which can actually address the problem of bad officiating and a flawed procedure for getting calls right: