Talk:The Play (American football)

Great play

Great play, but what about calling a foul for unnecessary roughness against the poor trombone player ;-)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.189.247.180 (talk • contribs) 00:41 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, he got what was coming to him! Go Cal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.123.29 (talk • contribs) 17:14 25 February 2007 (UTC)

POV?

PKtm, saying that the referees had the option of awarding Cal the touchdown due to the band's interference is not a point of view statement. GeorgeC 18:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure it is. It's speculation and a subtle bolstering of the one POV (Cal, in other words). It's not "fact" and it doesn't add to the article. -- PKtm 20:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the referee of the game, Charles Moffett, himself has stated that, per NCAA rules, the option to award Cal the touchdown had Moen not crossed the goal line was open to them. (Link to Moffett's quote). Scroll down to near the end of the article. Thus, it is not a POV statement. GeorgeC 20:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

See also: original source of the quote. (I agree with GeorgeC.) ArcTheLad 23:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with GeorgeC; the statement is not POV and not speculation, but a well-sourced clarification of the rules. It is useful information to anyone who reads the article looking for in-depth information. I'll admit that it supports the POV statement "Cal deserves to have won". However, that doesn't make it POV itself; if anything, this consideration explains why it belongs in the "controversy" section, where it already is. Melchoir 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Melchoir. GeorgeC 20:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry too, but come on, adding 186 words of the quote itself actually makes it more of a POV thing. What's next? Someone else adds in statements from Stanford partisans about how poor the officiating was? NPOV is not about just making sure that all the facts for your side are in the article as many times as you can, and it's not about adding more words to explain. The quote is available elsewhere; it makes perfect sense to provide a link to it, but it doesn't need to consume this part of the article.

The point is that what might have happened is pretty irrelevant. Let's stick to what did happen. And thanks for the vote, Melchoir, always great to hear, but sorry too, you actually confirmed my point. The whole purpose of the mention of the ref's quote is to support the very POV statement "Cal deserves to have won." Let's get things out of the article that support either side in that way. -- PKtm 01:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

PKtm, I agree that the ref's quote is excessive; for that matter, Joe Starkey's call is also way too long, especially since it's material that we already link to. Ironically, I'd guess that GeorgeC wouldn't have thought it necessary to paste in the quote if you hadn't tried to delete the material it supports as "speculation". I think both quotes should be moved to the talk page and replaced with footnotes. Melchoir 02:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Melchoir, I disagree that Moffett's quote is excessive, nor do I agree that Starkey's call is too long.

As for the controversy, I endeavored to present all sides. It was a controversial call, of course, and there were hard feelings on the Stanford side, as you could probably imagine. In my opinion, all of this is relevant to the issue. GeorgeC 03:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Come on: what comes across is anything but a fair representation of all sides, frankly. It totally reads like a Cal partisan wrote it. (And this, coming from me, a Cal grad). The Stanford arguments are each put up there with one sentence, and then each one is knocked down, with all sorts of cited sources, and now with even dozens of sentences to hammer home the point. What an embarrassment, I feel, for true Cal partisans, who should be bending over backwards to preserve NPOV and let the reader decide. Instead, you've got to hit that reader over the head, push him towards one and only one conclusion, with more more more. Think of how you'd react if it were the opposite.

Let's move the ref's quotes to a footnote, as Melchoir suggests, and rewrite or eliminating the sentence(s) about the ref's likelihood of ruling a touchdown no matter what (since "could have" really doesn't count for much). Equally, the extended Elway quote is out of place and should be removed or condensed. The Starkey call transcript, while totally POV of course, is historical and fascinating and should, in my mind, be preserved as such. Otherwise, though, this stuff is all out there on Wikiquote. -- PKtm 04:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like a specific source for the Elway quote that "This was an insult to college football... They [the officials] ruined my last game as a college football player." I knew John at the time, and talked to him two or three days after the game. At that point, I was fairly upset about it, but John was completely calm and accepting about it, far less upset than I was. This makes me wonder about the validity of the quote. I know this quote is widely attributed to him, but is there a generally accepted print or video source for it? I'm not suggesting that my recollections should be trusted over documented history; I'm just asking if the history is documented. 204.120.62.127 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Partisanship? I don't think so, PKtm. Did I not post Starkey's praise of Stanford? Did I not illustrate just how well John Elway played in the fourth quarter of the game that allowed them to kick the go-ahead field goal? John Elway's quotes were posted to put across the depths of his negative feelings about the officiating to the reader. It's countered by Charles Moffett's assertion that their call was completely within the rules.

I have made no conclusion. The officials have already done that. Hence, I am neutral.

If you like, PKtm, post a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" notice and let the readers decide. I believe I posted an article that's both neutral and tells the story from all sides. GeorgeC 06:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not how Wikipedia works, GeorgeC, except as a complete last resort. I'll edit the article, boldly, as is the Wikipedia approach and recommendation, and doggedly pursuing NPOV. You really can't insist that everything in the article as it stands is perfect, and just turn to reverting other ways of going about describing the events.

But I am sorry you can't see how biased the description of the controversy is, and how some of the extended quotes detract from making the article encylopedia-style in nature. Again, I'd ask that you step back and imagine that this was all done the other way around from the side that you (evidently) favor, and how skewed you'd consider that. -- PKtm 06:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't favor any side. I stated the circumstances of the event, then, where appropriate, I presented the views of all sides — not mine. Therefore, the article is not skewed.

Do what you will, PKtm. I stand by my work. Why not do as I suggested? GeorgeC 08:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not bad, PKtm, but what about Charles Moffett's comments? They are very relevant to the event. I'm creating a section dedicated to them. GeorgeC 09:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, edit conflict over here... Without having seen the last three four comments (sorry), I've made some changes to the article. I moved Joe Starkey's call to the bottom of the article, not because I have anything against it, but simply because I don't like long quotes to break up exposition and analysis. Elway's and the ref's quotes I abstracted and moved to Wikiquote, with links. I cleaned up some of the more provocative language, and I removed the quotes from "The Play" wherever I found them; why undermine the title of the article? Melchoir 09:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"Provocative language"? GeorgeC 09:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, sue me for drama! Honestly, I just didn't want to say POV. I hope you didn't find a problem with my actual edits, though. Melchoir 09:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You did a good job. I'm not wanting to get into a pissing contest here. Peace, friend. GeorgeC 09:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I apologize for the confusion, GeorgeC, but do you really think the new section is necessary given my version of Controversy? Melchoir 09:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! The appropriateness of the officials' ruling is the crux of the whole event, is it not? It's certainly not a secondary part of the event. GeorgeC 09:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Not my view. That's the point of being able to link to larger bits of text; those that are interested can pull it up. I think Melchoir did a good job with his edits, but I still think belaboring the ref's statements is really a subtle way of saying "Cal deserved to win." I'll be making more edits in a bit. PKtm 16:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"Belaboring"? Is it belaboring to present facts germane to the event? That's like telling the story about the Titanic and leaving out the iceberg. GeorgeC 19:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Meh, my work here is done. I can't get worked up over the quote where it is, so you two can do what you will. Cheers! Melchoir 19:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to chase you off. You're a good writer. GeorgeC 19:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Aww, shucks. Anyway, I wouldn't exactly say you chased me off; the article looks fine now, and I have other dead horses to beat. Later, Melchoir 07:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to start a new POV discussion, but I've changed the line reading "The primary objection is that Dwight Garner's knee was down before he lateraled to Richard Rodgers." As i read this, it is presented as a fact that his knee was down. However, this is the POV (in this case Stanford's). Imho, it is therefore more correct to write "Primarily it was claimed that Dwight Garner's knee was down before he lateraled to Richard Rodgers." -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.186.191 (talk • contribs) March 7, 2006

Sounds good to me. I'm all in favor of removing POV whereever it rears its head... -- PKtm 19:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"some believe ...."- some believe people shouldn't write wishy washy statements without references in an "encyclopedia"

Please don't revert back to a version that purports to claim that the last lateral was in fact a forward pass. There is NO documented evidence on this point other than the Merc News reporters review. On the other hand, several sports shows, including those on the anniversary of the Play and more recently the ABC/ESPN "Pontiac's Ultimate Play" award show during the Big 12 Championship that reviewed the Play with more accurate video techniques and determined the lateral at worst was directly across the 25 yard line. (Sorry that I don't have a link reference to that program--I can only say that it's in ABC's library as with any reference material and that the show is properly referenced, and that I saw that show.) The other option is to leave out any reference to this and simply state, "the reader is left to viewing the video to determine for him- or herself as to the legality of the final lateral." Certainly I can't find any other reference that disputes its legality, and that is REQUIRED to be included in this passage. Otherwise it is simply the writers unsubstantiated opinion and is not allowed in Wikipedia.

Also note that the NCAA guidance on illegal interference is clear--if no legal defender is downfield of the offense, the runner is awarded a touchdown. This is in place so that players on the bench can't jump out on the field and tackle a break away runner. The most famous occurrence of this is in a Cotton Bowl game in the 1950s (shown often on ABC in their college football bloopers reel in the 1960s and 70s.) Viewing the video, it's clear that the Stanford Band has already interfered with the play beyond the 20 yard line.

Sorry if this all sounds like an argument defending the Play, but if counterpoints are raised questioning its legality, a balanced description should include the counterarguments that put to rest those claims. Otherwise it's a bit like putting into the story about the first landing on the moon that it was staged in a TV studio and never actually occurred. That MIGHT be true, but highly remote. Gvharrier 16:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of plurals?

Just a question about the use of plurals in this article: because some of the laterals should have been ruled as illegal forward passes. Another dispute is whether Cal ball carriers were tackled before they threw those passes. It is my understanding that the Stanford players only argued one instance of a tackle before a pass. Moreover, i think only one of the lateral passes was argued as being a possible illegal forward pass. See [1]RoguePat 08:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma-Texas??

In the absence of any evidence of "The Play" referring to anything other than the subject of this article in national media, I am reverting 129.15.76.123's changes. Melchoir 23:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Language

I think that the word that was censored in the paragraph should be not censored. I just need to know the word. Baseracer 00:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, however the source we have is censored. But please, do remove the (word removed) part! :) --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Inspiration?

Calling other similar plays as "inspired" by The Play sounds a bit off to me. The Play is not something anyone can hope to purposefully duplicate. "Similar Plays" or something like that would be more appropriate? 131.107.0.73 19:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fiddling with yard lines

Okay, I know you have an axe to grind, 67.112.196.4, but we can't just play with the numbers without sources. Where are they? Melchoir 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our job to assign our own yard numbers to the events in question. If you can't find a source for the numbers, they have to be removed. And as long as the article lacks a References section citing reliable sources, it's original research. Melchoir 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why Citations are listed "as needed". The Play is listed as called by Joe Starky. Blacklist 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe Starkey does not provide yard lines, so we can't very well cite him for yard lines, can we? I've listened to the call and read the transcript, and I guarantee you that the Cal radio announcer did not claim that a lateral was passed at the Stanford 27 and caught at the Stanford 26! This isn't an ordinary WP:NOR academic issue; the yard lines are being used in the article to argue whether or not The Play was legal, so it matters to WP:NPOV as well.

As for the video, anyone who's watched a football game knows that there is no reliable, objective way to extract yard lines from video evidence. The video we have is terrible; but even when you have six high-definition, slow-motion camera angles zoomed in on the action, the fans often disagree with the announcers, and the announcers express surprise at where the refs spot the ball. When a play goes under review, the final ruling is often unexpected and controversial, and often the refs admit that there is no conclusive evidence either way. When exactly a player gains or loses possession of the ball, when exactly a player goes down, where the ball is when these things happen, how that relates to the position of his feet, whether a ball in midair is moving forwards or backwards — sometimes you just don't have the angles.

We certainly could try to pin down the yard lines on this talk page, but fabricating the truth by consensus is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Given the time since I put up the {{citeneeded}} and {{OR}} tags but no new sources emerged, I'm going to assume that there is no source for the numbers and eliminate them. Melchoir 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

...there. Melchoir 18:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Too many men

Just a little thing. The article saying that Cal "presumably" declined should just say they declined, because accepting would have led to the kickoff being replayed with something like a 10 yard penalty, so the penalty was obviously declined--Puckeater8 00:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Often officials will "decline" a penalty for a team if the play's outcome was obviously better than the penalty, e.g., scoring a touchdown. Gvharrier 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Play by Play removed

The copy and paste of the play by play call is a copyvio and has been removed. Radio and TV sports telecasts are copyrighted, use a short key quotation and self written prose to make the point instead. --Dual Freq 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

POV + need source

Controversy section is partisan, especially paragraph reading, "The video evidence is somewhat more definitive . . . . may have gone straight sideways." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.92.37 (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have edited this section to attempt to be more balance. Closer video review has shown conclusively that the last lateral was legal, as shown during the 2003 Pontiac awards program.

I've also added a reference that this is issue is moot in any case because on-field interference would have meant that Cal would have been awarded the touchdown at that point under NCAA rules. Note that there are several other instances of this type of ruling, the most famous being the tackle off the bench in the 1950s in a Texas game that ABC loved to show.

I have to admit that I'm really sorry to see that Stanford fans are still in such complete denial about this event and how every issue really has been settled, and in fact other matters such as the uncalled penalties only serve to reinforce the outcome of that event. Every game is replete with missed official calls, many of which are much more obvious than any of these might have been. It's just part of the game.Gvharrier 23:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

25th Anniversary Rewrite of the Controversy section

Enough was enough. I've rewritten the Controversy section top to bottom. I was one of the original authors several years ago, but since then the section had become riddled with weasel words, POV judgments, WP:NOR violations, "Yes, but..." sentences, and a few flat out football whoppers. ("...offsetting penalties might have allowed the touchdown to stand"?? On what planet??!) The most recent edits on whether the officials could have awarded a TD to Cal regardless, IMO, finally pushed it over the edge; it was time to start anew. I split it into a main section discussing the three main bones of contention, and two subsections dealing with various analyses through the years and the officials' ruling.

I'd ask respectfully that future authors think twice, and then thrice, before making substantial edits to this section, to avoid the creeping-weasel problems we had earlier. If you must, start a new article called Controversies of "The Play", and nitpick it to death there.

Incidentally, and though this should not matter one bit, I have no connection to and utterly no rooting interest in either Cal or Stanford; I'm from the East Coast. The ad hominems like the one about "Stanford fans jumping to conclusions" as Gvharrier posted above, are truly loathesome and completely inappropriate for WP. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here and to get our facts right. Help us if you can, but please don't ascribe partisan motives just because some people disagree with your personal interpretation of what might be the most controversial play in the history of sports, save for the "Hand Of God" Goal. Dpiranha 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Two points re the 3/4-Dec edits. One, it appears to me from the video that Ford lateraled the ball at the 27, not the 25. So, let's compromise on "about the 26." Second, to repeat the point I made above: it is not only Stanford fans who contest the legality of the two laterals; not even close. The account of The Play on ESPN for its 30th anniversary questioned both, as did an ABC telecast a year or two ago, and I rather doubt Bristol CT and NYC are hotbeds of Cardinal fans. Dpiranha (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

While ESPN and ABC alluded to the "controversy" the fact is that the controversy is only continued by the Stanford fans. It's typical mealy-mouth journalism in which the reporter attempts to avoid attributing fault. Plus it "sells" better to make the controversy seem wider than it really is. The ABC show in 2003 spent some time on the replay, and using the technology that they now use for marking 1st downs, showed conclusively that the last lateral traveled at least on a straight line, not forward. End of controversy there, except for Stanford fans. Whether Garner had his knee down can never be resolved completely, but given that the call on the field really can't be reversed without conclusive evidence (burden of proof), again its Stanford fans who won't let lose of this. I'm obviously much closer to this than you are, and the ONLY complaints I hear are from Stanford fans. If you can give other documented evidence that others who are not either alumni or directly involved with Stanford (as the SJ Merc writer who covers Stanford is), then I stand by my statement.

There is no way to determine accurately where Ford lateraled the ball. As I mentioned above, the ABC/ESPN analysis showed conclusively that it went sideways, and Moen receives it on the 25, which means it was lateraled on the 25. To say "about the 26" goes against the facts as they actually are. So "about the 25" is as good as it gets. Leave it or we will get into an editing war. Gvharrier (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I just looked AGAIN at the video. Ford gets into traffic at the 27, is tackled falling ACROSS the 25, and falls to the ground at the 23. The ball appears over his shoulder between the 24 and 25 yard line. Moen stops at the 26 and has his hands at about the 25.5 yd line catching the ball behind his shoulder as he starts running again at the 25. Looking at this closely, I can't see why there is ANY controversy. The controversy really only exists because the outcome is so embarrassing to the Cardinal alumni through its repeated replay, that they really can't bring themselves to accept it. It's like being the butt of a repeated joke--it get old over time, especially when you've gone to school where they focus on boosting your ego. (I suspect that Gvharrier (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted most (but not all) of Gvharrier's recent edits. I've provided two recent, objective, impeccable sources -- ESPN and Sports Illustrated -- that state the final lateral was released at about the 27 (SI says it was the 28) and caught at about the 25. In addition, I reference a couple more recent articles from major news outlets referencing the "ongoing controversy". (Only SI mentions "Stanford fans" specifically in conjunction with it.) I could of course add dozens if not hundreds of other sources on the web in which The Play is debated continually, but many (perhaps most) are merely tiresome woofing between Stanford and Cal fans and not encyclopedic. Finally, I added a very recent analysis the legality of The Play, sponsored by the Bay Area News Group (which comprises major newspapers serving both Berkeley and Palo Alto), and involving the Pac-10's current Instant Replay supervisor; his ruling was "overturn". All of this should, one hopes, put to rest Gvharrier's claims that the sole source of the controversy's persistence are sore-loser Stanford fans. (Although subjectively, I happen to agree about 90% with him on this part, but neither of our opinions have any place in WP.)

I might also point out that, by WP rules, it is not I who held the burden of proof on any of this. The article stated the existence of a controversy; Gvharrier claimed it was a controversy solely driven by Stanford fans. As s/he is making a more specific claim, the burden of proof fell on him/her. Still, since it was easy enough to answer his challenge that I provide objective sources, I humored him. I will not be so obliging again.

Along the way, I learned that the computer simulation widely available on the web that purports to show all five laterals were legal was, in fact, produced by CompSci students at Cal. I am strongly tempted to remove that citation from the article but would like further opinion (it can stay in the External Links section though we should cite its source.)

Lastly, I'll state again publicly that I have no connection nor rooting interest in either Stanford or Cal, or anyone connected even remotely to The Play. (I'm a Penn grad; feel free to mock our insignificant little I-AA program all you want.) I'm merely trying to serve as an impartial arbiter. Gvharrier states he's "obviously much closer to this" than I am, and that's exactly the point. This article got completely and total out of hand over the past two years, because a few misguided Stanford and Cal fans used it improperly as a vehicle for passing off as encyclopedic their own subjective (and in some cases, preposterous) analyses of The Play. I think right now we have a fair and balanced article: an objective description of the play, an analysis of the ruling and why it remains controversial, citations of major-media deconstructions supporting both sides, the officials' on-field ruling and reasoning, a discussion of its aftermath, and a transcript of Starkey's famous call. It's once again quite a good article, one that might finally earn an A on the eval scale. I won't see it ruined again because a Cal fan or a Stanford fan wants to slant it to favor their team. Dpiranha (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "SIstory" :
  • {{cite news | last = Fimrite | first = Ron | title = The Anatomy Of A Miracle | pages = 212-228 | publisher = Sports Illustrated | date = [[1983-09-01]] | url = http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~pattrsn/anatomyofmiracle.htm }}
  • {{cite news | last = Fimrite | first = Ron | title = The Anatomy Of A Miracle | pages = 212-228 | publisher = Sports Illustrated | date = [[1983-09-01]] | url = http://www.davidpatterson.com/AnatomyOfMiracle.htm }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Previous play text removal

I have removed the bolded text below:

With Cal leading 19-17 late in the fourth quarter, quarterback John Elway and the Cardinal overcame a 4th-and-17 on their own 13-yard line with a 29-yard completion, then managed to get the ball within field goal range for placekicker Mark Harmon. Elway called a timeout with 8 seconds left on the clock. (As discussed below, Elway continues to complain about the officiating on The Play. He has failed, however, to acknowledge what the Stanford television broadcasters noted immediately upon the alleged 4th-and-17 completion: Stanford's receiver had run out of bounds before reentering the field and catching Elway's desperation pass. The pass thus should have been ruled incomplete and the ball awarded to Cal on the change of possession, and Cal would have run out the clock.) Had Elway realized there was plenty of time to let the clock run down to about 3-5 seconds then call a timeout and, a kickoff following a successful field goal may have never been necessary (the field-goal play would have used up the remaining time).

It was removed for the following reasons: POV/charged, way too long for parentheses, makes the rest of the paragraph harder to understand, and is unreferenced (not even mentioning the receiver's name). If you can find a reference to this, it would be better to be rewritten and added to the Controversy section. --Fo0bar (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that sentence or two can be rephrased, it is an important side light to the situation. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Who was it?

Two different names are given for the Trombonist who gets run over at the end:

"unaware trombone player Donovan Wackman"

and

"Gary Tyrrell, the Stanford trombonist who was run over by Moen"

So, Which was it?

65.122.250.18 (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Gary Tyrrell, ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteroidMoe (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Aftermath

The entry says: "A few days later, blue and gold t-shirts depicting the play with Xs and Os (much like a coach's diagram) complete with squiggly lines for the laterals, appeared in the Cal bookstore and throughout the Bay Area." That is incorrect. Blue versions of the shirt appeared in the bookstore years later. The original shirts were goldenrod and sold by Alpha Sigma Phi fraternity in Berkeley. I still have mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.72.138 (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

John Elway

Should something be added to the effect that if, after the last Stanford offensive play before the FG, while John Elway watched the clock tick down before calling time out, he had been a bit smarter and waited until 0:04 instead of calling the timeout at 0:08, this page wouldn't even be here? 68.5.176.101 (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Entire Band ran past endzone?

The Situation section states: "the Stanford band, all 144 members, had run out past the south end zone". This seems needlessly specific, and probably inaccurate. From the videos, it looks like a lot of them were still in the end zone, most famously the trombonist. And they don't appear to be running. Spiel496 (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What were the resolutions of the flags on the field?

The article and the play by play mention the flags on the field, but never describe the resolution. As an eye witness, the explanation I heard at Memorial Stadium that day was there was a flag on the Stanford bench as the players stepped onto the field believing the ball was dead. The explanation I had heard from band members (Including the drum major trying to explain to the band director) was that the band had seen the players go onto the field, and took their lead with the assumption that the players would know what was going on. Clearly the axe was further down the field than most of the band members.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Play (Stanford vs. California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080213162117/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com:80/football/college/news/2002/11/21/the_play/ to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/college/news/2002/11/21/the_play/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What's the meaning of this?

I find "California was denied the opportunity to kick the extra point." This isn't the NFL, where the option to try that extra point had to be provided even when the game outcome wouldn't be affected. (Some NFL tiebreakers use points for and points against.) Carlm0404 (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Misleading to say Gale Gilbert was a member of 5 straight Super Bowl teams

Gilbert was signed to the Buffalo Bills the four straight years they went to the Super Bowl (the 1990-93 seasons; 1991-94 Super Bowls). But he didn't play AT ALL in the 1991 and 1992 seasons, and seems to have made only one brief appearance in one game in 1993. (Not sure how many snaps he took in that game, but he neither threw nor ran the ball.) Most of those three years he was listed as "inactive" - didn't suit up for the game. He didn't play AT ALL in any of their postseasons - listed as inactive for most of those, too. He did, in fact, play for the 1994 San Diego Chargers, including in the postseason. 96.242.164.80 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)