Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Tedford Year IV: A New (Instant) Hope

By BARRY KELLY
Monday, August 8, 2005
Daily Californian
LOS ANGELES—Before he started for the Cincinnati Bengals, before he was selected as the first pick of the NFL Draft, before he became Mr. Heisman, Carson Palmer was simply a USC quarterback in the middle of what was to become a dream season.
Had that fateful 2002 campaign occurred in 2005, however, the outcome may have been different.
This season, the Pac-10 will adopt an instant replay system for the first time, following the model established by the Big Ten last year. The TiVo-based system will allow an instant replay official the opportunity to review plays during a game to ensure the referees on the field made the correct call.
At the conference’s annual media day Tuesday, Pac-10 coaches and higher-ups trumpeted the arrival of instant replay with surprising vigor, considering the complaints that often arise among NFL fans about the delays the professional replay system causes in games.
If you ask me—and if you’re reading this, you are—it’s about time.
But how might all this have affected Carson Palmer? Allow me to refresh your memory by regaling you with an epic tale of good versus evil, light versus dark, Cal versus USC. I call it, “Tedford Year I: The Phantom Touchdown.”
A long time ago (three seasons) in a galaxy far, far away (Southern California), the Bears led the Trojans by 10 points late in the first half, when Palmer threw a pass to Kareem Kelly in the end zone. Kelly dove and grabbed the ball but didn’t seem to have control. It fell and bounced against the ground, but Kelly wisely fell on top of it, trapping the ball between his body and the turf.
Officials ruled the play a touchdown, and Cal went on to lose the game by two points, 30-28.
Now, let me tell you, for the record—that pass was incomplete, and an instant replay system would have proven that fact.
Don’t believe me? Let’s ask Bears coach Jeff Tedford.
Mr. Tedford, do you think the conference’s new instant replay system could have helped avoid the Phantom Touchdown?
“Absolutely—that’s why I’m such a big fan of it. I looked up at the scoreboard and I could see it wasn’t a catch.”
OK, maybe Tedford is a little biased. His team did, after all, lose the game partially as a result of that call. Let’s see what the man who threw the ball had to say after the game.
“I’m sticking with it was a good catch,” Palmer told the Associated Press at the time. “Other than that, I have no comment.”
Of course, to imply one call could have affected the entire direction of Carson Palmer’s career is ridiculous. But then again, we’ll never know.
Sporting a less-than-flashy 3-2 record, USC entered that game on the heels of a loss to Washington State. Had the call been reversed, Palmer and the Trojans could have been a .500 team midway through their season, and I’m fairly certain the Heisman voters would have noticed such a statistic.
As it stands, Palmer went on to power his team to victories in each of its remaining seven games, including a 38-17 win over Iowa in the Orange Bowl.
This season, for the first time, fans won’t have to whine to their friends—or in student newspapers—about what should have been. And the best part is the instant replay system is designed to be as non-obtrusive as possible.
There are no coaches’ challenges, and only plays that are considered “big ticket items,” such as scoring plays, will be eligible to be reviewed. The change is simply a small addition to the game in an effort to maximize the accuracy of the officiating.
“If you have the technology and the tools to do everything you can to get the calls right, I think we should utilize it,” Tedford said.
All’s fair in love and war, but in football, I want the teams to follow the rules.

No comments: