The Southeastern Conference has commented publicly that it will have no public comment on the controversial non-interception in the fourth quarter of LSU’s game against Alabama.

LSU cornerback Patrick Peterson appeared to have snagged the ball just in front of star Bama receiver Julio Jones. At the time LSU trailed by six points, so had the Tigers gained possession of the ball, there was a chance they could drive down for a go-ahead touchdown.

But the pass was ruled incomplete even though televised replays appeared to show Peterson got maybe both feet down inbounds before he went out of bounds. For sure it appeared he got at least one foot down in the field, all that is required in college football.

Advertisement

Immediately we heard allegations of “home cookin’ ” by the refs in Alabama’s home stadium. And of course there were the criticisms heaped on SEC officiating in general, after previous disputed calls, like the one involving excessive celebration in the LSU game against Georgia. That one helped LSU.

Another controversial call resulted in an officiating crew being suspended for a few games, the same crew that was involved in the LSU-Georgia game. But despite the public outcry and questions about officiating before, this time there will be no comment.

I read published reports that the league will communicate directly to LSU about the decision not to overturn the ruling on the field, despite that most Tiger fans and the CBS announcers seemed to think they saw indisputable evidence of a missed call.

There are now those saying that the SEC has put out the word that its top teams need protection or help from the referees, with some pointing to calls that have benefitted each in their efforts to remain undefeated. You’ve heard those type of allegations for years suggested about the NBA and how it favors certain marquee teams that are likely to attract bigger TV audiences for playoff games.

I doubt the SEC is putting out the word to favor any team and for sure I don’t think the officials are purposefully making calls to benefit one team over another.

I do think there is a reluctance by the official in the video replay booth to overturn the calls made by other officials on the field — perhaps an over-respect for the brotherhood of officials or some such.

So I’ve got a suggestion.

Like so many other industries have done, let’s outsource the instant replay reviews to India or one of those other countries that does customer service for so many companies.

People there would not likely have an affiliation with the officials so wouldn’t be worried about hurting their feelings. They’d not as likely have an affiliation or affinity for one of the teams, or even a feel for what team the league would really like to see in the playoffs.

Heck, we could even send them a very plain black and white image to review, not tell them what game it was or what teams were involved.

We could blur out the logos or other images that might tell them what teams were involved.

And we’d simply ask them to tell us what they saw.

Sure it might take a bit longer as we have to constantly ask them over the phone to repeat their answers, trying to understand the accents, “What? What? Could you say again? Sorry, I didn’t understand.”

But then, perhaps, there’d be no conspiracy theories about the calls that are ultimately made — unless it’s those who believe in the New World Order and think they’re Bama fans too!

Will Chapman is publisher of The Daily Iberian.