• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Big Sky Refs News

SS should concede the game to Idaho. That's the way it was done in the Ivy League in the old days.

"The Fifth Down Game was a college football game between the teams of Cornell Big Red and Dartmouth Big Green. The game was conceded by Cornell after films confirmed that errors by the game officials had allowed an unpermitted fifth down as the last play of the game."

"

Game​

Cornell entered the contest with 18 straight victories over a two-year period.

Dartmouth would manage to hold off Cornell's offense for nearly the entire low-scoring game. Dartmouth scored first, achieving a field goal (for three points) in the fourth quarter.

Finally, with less than a minute left in the game, Cornell got the ball on Dartmouth's six-yard line. Cornell expected to have four chances to win the game. On its first down, fullback Mort Landsberg gained three yards. On its second down, Cornell halfback Walt Scholl managed to run the ball to the one-yard line. On the third down, Mort Landsberg tried to run up the middle but did not gain more than a few inches.

On the fourth down, Cornell was penalized for delay of game, and referee Red Friesell spotted the ball just over the 5-yard line in order to replay the fourth down. With nine seconds left on the clock, quarterback "Pop" Scholl threw an incomplete pass into the end zone.

Normally, the ball would have gone to Dartmouth, which would have used up the remaining seconds and won the game, 3–0. Following the fourth down, linesman Joe McKenney had signaled that it was first down and that the ball should go to Dartmouth at the 20 yard line. Referee Friesell, erroneously believing it was now fourth down, placed the ball on the six-yard line, granting Cornell a "fifth" down.

Making the most of the unexpected opportunity, quarterback Scholl threw a touchdown pass to William Murphy, and following the extra-point kick, Cornell won the game 7–3.

Forfeit​

Officials discovered their error after reviewing the game films. Cornell's players, coach Carl Snavely, acting athletic director Bob Kane, and President Edmund Ezra Day, a Dartmouth alumnus, agreed that Cornell should send a telegram to Dartmouth offering to forfeit the game, which Dartmouth accepted.

If the schools had not made this agreement, it is unclear how or if the dispute would have been resolved: while Friesell admitted his mistake to the Eastern Intercollegiate Football Association, he acknowledged that his authority "ceased at the close of the game".

Similarly, the association's role was to schedule the referees, not to review or overturn game results. College football's only "official" record books at the time were kept by private publishers, based on information provided by individual schools.

The New York Times compared the Fifth Down Game to a 1922 contest between Columbia and NYU where the schools disagreed on whether the deciding play counted as a touchdown or a safety. The newspaper noted that, as of 1940, both schools continued to claim that game as a win, and at least one record book publisher compromised by listing it as a Columbia win on Columbia's page, and an NYU win on NYU's page.

Aftermath​

Although there is some doubt whether the 1940 Cornell forfeit was official according to NCAA rules, the game is regarded as a 3–0 Dartmouth victory, instead of a 7–3 triumph by Cornell.

This was described in press accounts as the only time in the history of football that a game was decided off the field."

Fifth Down Game (1940) - Wikipedia​

 
Hard to tell from the only video I could find, but appears feet and butt were out of bounds on critical catch.
 
Horribilis said:
Hard to tell from the only video I could find, but appears feet and butt were out of bounds on critical catch.
Click to expand...
What down was the play in question on? If it was on fourth down, playoff committee should take it as a loss by Sac. If not, can’t assume anything and won’t affect Sac’s chances at a birth one would assume.
 
Art Spooner said:
What down was the play in question on? If it was on fourth down, playoff committee should take it as a loss by Sac. If not, can’t assume anything and won’t affect Sac’s chances at a birth one would assume.
Click to expand...
It was 2nd down around the 20 with like 10-15 seconds and no timeouts.
 
That poor call reminds me of that 4th down pass Sac State had against us a few years ago in Sacramento. The Sac receiver was clearly out of bounds but Sac State didn't have the 13 different camera angles to "verify" it. Had the refs gotten the call correct, we would have won that game. Instead, we lost in overtime.
 
EverettGriz said:
The only thing surprising about this is that the bsc actually took some action against officials.
Click to expand...
In today's age of sports betting and the recent revelations of illegal betting on pro sports, it would be a dereliction of duty for the Big Sky Conference not to take action. Once again, if coaches and players are held accountable for their actions/inactions, it is time for the officials' evaluation cards to be made public.
 
Here's an article with a link to the play. And I agree with the author of the Football Scoop article. There have been farrrrr more egregious misses in the bsc than this one. I mean, it's a horrible call, but I cannot blame the bsc replay refs for not overturning. The problem is that bsc "stadiums" are pieces of shit, and the replay angles are worse. Seriously, why is there signage 2 feet from the sideline which blocks a camera view?

The entire thing is just sooo bsc.

 
EverettGriz said:
Here's an article with a link to the play. And I agree with the author of the Football Scoop article. There have been farrrrr more egregious misses in the bsc than this one. I mean, it's a horrible call, but I cannot blame the bsc replay refs for not overturning. The problem is that bsc "stadiums" are pieces of shit, and the replay angles are worse. Seriously, why is there signage 2 feet from the sideline which blocks a camera view?

The entire thing is just sooo bsc.

Click to expand...
Here's the thing. The official REPLAY angle had to have it too, not just the broadcast angle. The BSC wouldn't have suspended the entire crew for missing a call on the field and not being able to overturn it after review based on available replay angles (see Griz vs SAC a couple years ago).
 
I would like to know if the committee selecting officials for the playoffs told the Big Sky it had no credible refs. The Spud-SAC game was nationally televised. Chances are the conference put its "best" officials on that game.
That said, the pressure had to be intense. Seconds to go in the game. The rapper Blxt was ready for mic check. Tough, tough circumstances.
 
Last edited:
The side judge was 2-3 yards from the play with an unobstructed view, and on the replay it shows he was looking right at the play. And he doesn't spot the ball at the 3, where it was when the receiver's foot hit the ground, but where it was when he fell to the ground, at the 2. This tells me he didn't recognize the foot hit the ground out of bounds. The simple review shows the foot did hit the ground (out of bounds), which should have involved the side judge who could have confirmed it was out of bounds. This really is the definition of a clown car act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top