:01 - Because it still eats me up.

[NUpolo8]

And I'm quite sure you're aware how that team reacted, as opposed to the latter.

Red herring. What happened in 1994 had no bearing on the officiating miscues in the '93 (well '94) OB.

So the players didn't adopt a slogan of "Unfinished business" for the 1994 season?

Once again, doesn't matter.

Then why was the 93 team brought up by you? I'm confused

 

[Junior]

And I'm quite sure you're aware how that team reacted, as opposed to the latter.

Red herring. What happened in 1994 had no bearing on the officiating miscues in the '93 (well '94) OB.

So the players didn't adopt a slogan of "Unfinished business" for the 1994 season?

Once again, doesn't matter.

Then why was the 93 team brought up by you? I'm confused

Anger. The same reason we're convinced ESPN has it out for us. We've always been screwed by poor officiating and never benefited. We've never lost a game, just been screwed out of a win.

 

[74Hunter]

Probably because McCoy was under a pile of players and it's a difficult play to review. If I'm not mistaken, Bo could have challenged the call on the field if he had thought replay would have been able to overturn it. (Or perhaps that was before coaches could challenge? I don't know for sure)

Regardless, those videos have literally nothing to do with the Nebraska/Texas game in 2009. Hell, they aren't even from the same season. That "fist pump" as evidence of a conspiracy? Come on. Really? You have to be joking. That could literally have been anything. He was probably communicating something to the ref that was a few feet away. Look, I hate Texas as much as the next guy, but good grief.

If it was just Nebraska fans, I'd give it to you. But everyone in the former Big 12 though Bevo got special treatment.

That doesn't make it the reality. I wonder if teams during the early days of the Big XII and late days of the Big 8 thought Nebraska got special treatment when they were going undefeated. Remember the Shevin Wiggins kick? Could/should have been a penalty.

Umm, no,,you may want to brush up on the rules and retract your statement.

http://articles.philly.com/1997-11-13/sports/25541968_1_usa-today-public-league-world

`I looked down and saw the Missouri guy about to catch it and I just wanted to keep it alive,'' Wiggins said.[/size]

``I thought I had a chance to pull it in myself, since it hadn't hit the ground yet,'' Wiggins said. ``I ended up kicking it as I was trying to pull it in. I was rolling over and I thought I hit it too hard.''[/size]

Frank Gaines, technical adviser to Big 12 football officials, said it's against the rules for a receiver to intentionally strike a loose ball with the knee, lower leg or foot.

Gaines said an incidental or accidental kick is not a penalty. He said when the play is questionable - as was the case for Wiggins's kick - the ruling is always that such a kick is accidental.

Retract what now?

I read another article (don't remember where it was) in where an official reviewer stated that the call on the field was correct. Furthermore, at the time of the flea kicker, rules allowed players to use any part of their body, including feet, to help themselves catch catch a forward pass, according to Wikipedia. Search the flea kicker.

And, the refs couldn't determine intent, thus it was deemed unintentional.

 

[Junior]

I read another article (don't remember where it was) in where an official reviewer stated that the call on the field was correct. Furthermore, at the time of the flea kicker, rules allowed players to use any part of their body, including feet, to help themselves catch catch a forward pass, according to Wikipedia. Search the flea kicker.

And, the refs couldn't determine intent, thus it was deemed unintentional.

I understand why it wasn't a penalty, however what I said was it could or even should have been one. We all know he did it intentionally, as he admitted in the above paragraph. The first part of your response is simply not accurate, as evidenced from the 1997 article I posted.

My point to all this being, I'm sure Missouri thought in 1997 that they were getting hosed by the Big XII so that Nebraska could stay in the national title race. Much like Nebraska fans feel they got hosed in 2009 so that Texas could stay in the national title race.

 

[Saunders]

Then why was the 93 team brought up by you? I'm confused

Because this statement implies that there are no officiating errors that change games.

But to blame that loss on anything but Nebraska's shortcomings is misplacing the blame. Actually that holds true for all of the losses.

The 1993 team (fantom clipping, FSU TD without the ball) had a championship taken away by poor officiating.

 

[Saunders]

Anger. The same reason we're convinced ESPN has it out for us. We've always been screwed by poor officiating and never benefited. We've never lost a game, just been screwed out of a win.

 

[Mierin]

Would the people who constantly bring this up feel good about the win, knowing that the game was ended because of a referee error? I sure wouldn't.

 

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

I'm sorry, I don't remember this game! If it didn't happen in the 90s then it didn't happen!

Husker football

Exists in my mind only when we win titles or the upcoming season! Everything else is just filler.

 

[NUance]

Would the people who constantly bring this up feel good about the win, knowing that the game was ended because of a referee error? I sure wouldn't.

But would it have been a referee error if it hadn't been reviewed? Back then only "egregious" errors were subject to review. The ball hit the rail, at most, a fraction of a second before time ran out. It certainly wasn't a full second. I think you could make an argument to say that a couple tenths of a second doesn't amount to an egregious error so there never should have been a review in the first place.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, Moiraine. I actually agree with the call. As much as I hate the Whorns, winning that game meant a lot more to them then it would have to us. IIRC, they were ranked very highly that year and went on to play in a BCS bowl.

 

[HUSKER FREAK]

It was put back on because Mack Brown basically asked for it and wish was granted. A 10-3 Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl wasn't as sexy as a 13-0 Texas in the BCS Title Game.

Yep. That and the fact that when you run the replay, you can clearly see the ball hit with :01 left on the clock.

If we're getting technical, you never see the ball hit the ground as it lands behind photographers.

You can see it well enough. Also, you can clearly see the sideline official's hand go up with :01 showing on the game clock. There was no fix. The team just imploded on that last drive.

If the situations had been reversed and they didn't put the second back on the clock for Nebraska... man the howling. Wow. I can't even fathom. And it would have been justified in that case, but still.

This is really a bad argument considering they have to have indisputable evidence to put that second back on.

 

[Junior]

It was put back on because Mack Brown basically asked for it and wish was granted. A 10-3 Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl wasn't as sexy as a 13-0 Texas in the BCS Title Game.

Yep. That and the fact that when you run the replay, you can clearly see the ball hit with :01 left on the clock.

If we're getting technical, you never see the ball hit the ground as it lands behind photographers.

You can see it well enough. Also, you can clearly see the sideline official's hand go up with :01 showing on the game clock. There was no fix. The team just imploded on that last drive.

If the situations had been reversed and they didn't put the second back on the clock for Nebraska... man the howling. Wow. I can't even fathom. And it would have been justified in that case, but still.

This is really a bad argument considering they have to have indisputable evidence to put that second back on.

Not really. Look for the official on the field's arm to go up. That indicates dead ball and the end of a play in all circumstances.

 

[Count 'Bility]

1 touchdown. 1 frickin touchdown is all we had to score. We lost four games that year. 2 of which we scored no td's( including this paricular one) and two of which we only scored 1 td. Now if we just score one-or one more-td in each of those games, we're 12-1, big 12 champs headed to the fiesta bowl, and god knows what kind of catapult that becomes in regards to where we are today. Now i have a hard time putting any blame for that loss on any part of the defense or special teams. They kept us on the game and gave us the chance. Niles almost returned a punt that set up one of our umpteen fieldgoals. Henery did his thing. If we want to blame the defense for martinez never getting jos ring, then i blame the offense for suh not getting his. If that out-of-bounds kick and horsecollar happens in the 3rd quarter and texas scores a fieldgoal then, then theyre so forgotten and not even a blip in the "whatif" game.

Sadly. These issues continued the next season. The offense did not score a td in 2 regular season losses. Each in which 1 wouldve tied and won those two games. It was equally anemic in the CCG and bowl game. But at least they scored 3 tds in 8 quarters *rolls eyes*

 

[hskrfan4life]

Would the people who constantly bring this up feel good about the win, knowing that the game was ended because of a referee error? I sure wouldn't.

But would it have been a referee error if it hadn't been reviewed? Back then only "egregious" errors were subject to review. The ball hit the rail, at most, a fraction of a second before time ran out. It certainly wasn't a full second. I think you could make an argument to say that a couple tenths of a second doesn't amount to an egregious error so there never should have been a review in the first place.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, Moiraine. I actually agree with the call. As much as I hate the Whorns, winning that game meant a lot more to them then it would have to us. IIRC, they were ranked very highly that year and went on to play in a BCS bowl.

They went to the national title game I believe. And McCoy got injured early, and they could never recover against Alabama.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

Again--the problem lies with the inconsistent officiating, and not the last :01, per se--the officials let time bleed off the clock the whole game, but they decide on this last play, when it obviously favors Texass, to change what they had done all game long and put time back on the clock?

That's about the dumbest argument I've heard. You really want to stop after each dead ball and review whether the clock was stopped exactly correctly? Or because the game isn't stopped to make sure after each and every tackle the ball is spotted at precisely the right spot they shouldn't review whether someone made it across the goal line for a touchdown?

Everybody always talked about how we got screwed in the 94 (93 season) Orange Bowl, yet the clock read 0:00, Bowden got a gatorade bath, but 2 seconds were put back on the clock, and btw we had time to get the FG unit out there which we might not have been able to do had the refs simply moved the chains immediately and restarted the clock. We missed the FG so people forget.

 

[Enhance]

At the time, my biggest problem wasn't that they made the call one or way or the other. My biggest problem was that second tick off all the time in games. Sometimes, a player will run out of bounds when when the clock hits 2:42 left in the quarter and you may see it go down to 2:41 or 2:40. Yet, those seconds are never added back on. Of course, because it was the end of the game, that's why it all of a sudden mattered.

After years of reflection, however, my biggest problem is now the people that talk about it and still discuss it. It's over, it stings but I feel like we should be so far beyond talking about it still.