|
|
|
The first weekend of
the year was a feast for football fans, especially for those of us who
back Ohio teams. On Penalties Miami & Ohio State played a game for the ages. The Browns and Steelers added yet another chapter to their epic saga. Penalties played a factor in the outcome of both games. Fans often say they want referees to "Let the players decide the game." And there is truth that, like the government we were supposed to have in this country, referees who referee least often times referee best. That said, penalties are a part of the game of football. If you allow players on one side or the other to violate the rules of the game, then they get an unfair advantage that denies the other team the ability to play for the win. So, like any type of mediators, referees have to walk that fine line between observing and correcting the game and not taking over the game. How much physical play is too much? In the Fiesta Bowl, I felt the refs could've made a lot more calls all night than they did. The Miami interception in the first half, for example, should have been reversed because of what I thought was pretty blatant pass interference by the other defensive back on they play, but they didn't call it. They didn't call a lot both ways, which is actually cool, on balance. On the whole, they let the players play. Some fans, & predominantly they seem to be partisans of the Miami Hurricanes, took exception to the pass interference call at the end of the first overtime. I think that on what is potentially a game ending play, you have to go by the book, and there was interference. It's not letting the players play the game if you allow one of them to mug the man he's defending. The Brownies. What can I say? The game with Pittsburgh, that was a microcosm of the whole year--not to mention the post Jim Brown/Leroy Kelley era of Cleveland football in the playoffs. Stupid penalties, missed opportunities--but, you know what? It's still better than the last couple years of Browns football, and I'd be greedy to not be satisfied by OSU's first championship since the year before I was born.
But that third penalty, the one on Robert Griffith for a late hit on Hines Ward was just unforgivable. The play was broken up and the Browns are trying to hold a lead. Why put the extra hit on him? It's kind of the flipside of the thing that's bugged me about the Browns' D this year, all the senseless celebrating that goes on after they make a good hit. I mean, I don't whoop it up when I answer a reference question, even a very difficult one. It's my job, you know? Dwayne Rudd, Robert Griffith--their job is to hit people. Just do your damn job and shut up about it. And I didn't appreciate Griffith's questioning the call after the game. He claimed the refs were wrong, it wasn't helmet to helmet contact. But that's semantics. It was a late hit however it was done, unnecessary roughness. UNNECESSARY being the key word. A Tale of Two Coaches, at Least I have to think it comes down to coaching. Both Butch Davis & Jim Tressell have inherited positions once held by Paul Brown. Tressell seems to have instilled the type of discipline in his players that Brown and Woody Hayes emphasized. After a quarter century of floundering with a-holes like Earle Bruce & John Cooper, my alma mater has finally found someone worthy for the position. Butch Davis, who has done a fine job in many respects, has taken a different approach to discipline. It's good that the players care, but they have to learn how to behave. When you get to the playoffs, act like you been there before. Who Are the Champions? Is it just me, or does everyone hate a sore loser? How 'bout this from Miami DE Jerome McDougle: ""Overall, we're the better team. They got a lot of breaks and they took advantage of it." I don't know, Jerry. OSU won, your team lost. Maybe the Buckeyes don't intercept all those passes every time the two teams play, maybe Maurice Clarett doesn't get held to about two yards a carry in a rematch either. Whatever happened to "The best team won today?" Living in Southern California, I have to
endure this absurd argument that it's unfair, USC would've beaten either
team & there should be a playoff. Well, let's see, the Trojans came
on very strong to end the season, all props to them for that. But I
seem to recall them losing two games early on, including one in OT to
Washington State, who Ohio State beat. There's lots of talk about SC
playing a tougher schedule than OSU, but you know what? The Big Ten
was a hell of a lot tougher than the Pac Ten this year. It's true that
SC scheduled Kansas State (and lost), Notre Dame & Auburn, &
hats off to them for doing that. But, I also think it's too convenient
for people to point to OSU scheduling Kent State, Cinci & San Jose
St. without mentioning the games against WSU & Texas Tech and without
seriously comparing their conference schedules. OK, USC scheduled &
blew out Colorado, but so what? We had to play Wisconsin, they beat
Colorado straight up in the postseason. Other than WSU & USC, who
produced in the Pac Ten? UCLA? Anyway, the Buckeyes are the Champions.
14-0. Miami came close but fell to 12-1, while the Trojans have nothing
to be ashamed of in their fourth ranked, 11-2 season. I don't see where
further professionalization of collegiate athletics is a desirable outcome.
If USC wanted to win the national title, they should've played harder
in October. Why should a team with two loses, whenever they occurred,
be given a shot at the title? Apart from the debacle of the Rose Bowl
|
