“There’s this great *device*… it’s a *device*, people tell me that can make any car into a beautiful clean-running car… You plug it in the cigarette lighter and bing-bong-bing there you go. California hates you. California made cars not have the cigarette lighter. Oooh! It’s cancer… No cancer in your car… Folks,…

Oh yeah I agree the spot was correct. I was just hoping to get a good angle in the article and let the readers decide. 

This is false:

Exactly what I came to say. When UCLA cut it to 49-31 my wife called a Coug job and my Coug buddy agreed it was coming.

I’m typically 100% pro-labor in these cases, but literally all Brown had to do was shut his mouth and not threaten his accuser and he would have been fine. We can all agree that guaranteed money in the NFL should be guaranteed money, period, but Brown really only has himself to blame in this specific instance.

Brown not getting the money, he was due, is because of Brown, and Brown alone.

As convincing as your low def stills, blowhard confidence, and fundamental misunderstanding of officiating are, I’m still gonna have to disagree with everything you've had to say here.

I guess there has somehow been some misunderstanding on this point, but the objective of the game is to move *the ball* past the endline. Maybe write an article about how an official made an excellent, high pressure call to avoid blowing a close game?

This is the worst possible angle. Try this one.

The camera angle makes it impossible to say of the ball crossed the plane. This was on ESPNU so apparently they lack a pylon/goalline camera to actually show whether the plane was crossed so review would have been a round of guessing too. Whatever was initially called probably would have stood. While the Pac-12 refs…

Agreed I was watching live too and I thought the ball was short. The article doesn’t mention the fact that Ole Miss ran once and scrambled once (both illadvised) in goal to go plays to kill a ton of clock. It also doesn’t mention that ole miss could have had their own replay guys buzz down to the coach to not run…

Squarely in the End Zone?

I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe fairness is part of the equation. It's the way the system is designed and that's how it has worked for like a decade now. I see why Cal wouldn't want it reviewed, but I don't think it would be unfair to review the call. 

I was watching this live and there’s a bit more to it. The last couple minutes were kind of chaotic by today’s standards because there were no replay injury, offense or defensive TOs. On first and goal Ole Miss ran for 1 yard killing a lot of clock. Both teams were really gassed and on second down, the WR barely ran…

And the ball, when the receiver catches it, is in the end zone.

How would Cal be screwed? It's exactly the reason review was implemented. The potential scoring play was razor thin, that is basically an automatic review.

I realize that there's no difference between Pac-12 and SEC refs, but is there a particular reason Old Miss used Pac-12 refs for a home game?

He is also inside the end zone.

Isn’t there a time run-off for a review with a running clock? So if the officials reviewed the play and determined the ball never crossed the goal line while in possession, the clock could have run out (this came up very recently in a Saints game where the refs screwed it up but NFL rules may be different). Ole Miss…

No, you’re right. In college football, if the ball doesn’t cross the plane, it’s not a touchdown. It doesn’t matter where the rest of his body is.