Talk:2012 Holiday Bowl

Revert issue: Game notes: contentious officals' call
User Ucla90024 has twice reverted this edit I twice added (once as an IP, once logged in) to the Game Notes section of the article.


 * The final play, a passing touchdown by Logan Sweet, was a point of controversy, with some sports analysts noting that referees may have incorrectly called a touchdown. The officials, from Conference USA, would not acknowledge Briles' call for a review of the play during a timeout before the extra point play; the game clock had already reached 0:00. Baylor's celebratory rings list the final score as 49-19.

I feel this addition to the article addresses a legitimate issue in a neutral point of view with numerious ; I'm giving Ucla90024 24 hours to respond before I add it again. If the user again deletes my comments without us first discussing this issue, I may take this issue to an administrator who can resolve this issue.

 CB.. .(ö)  03:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You attempted to change the final score from the official Gamebook. SBNation is a blog talking about Baylor's petty and silly actions on the part of Art Briles. It puts Baylor in a very bad unsportsmanlike view. Editor never provided the names of "with some sports analysts". User Bagumba was the one first removed the statement on this issue. There are many "phantom touchdowns" and judgment errors in the history of college football. Some of them have decided games and have not noted. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you are confusing me with someone else. I made this edit and these edits. As you can clearly see, my edits did not attempt to change the final score, but merely make a note about a controversial play (noted in references I cited from SB Nation and ESPN's Big 12 Blog, and also in the gameday television commentary and by CBS Sports). Whether Baylor's act on placing the incorrect score on their celebratory rings is "petty and silly" has no relation to the notability of the fact that both sports television and sports website commentators found the call contentious. I would love it if you would address why you feel the need to remove the edits I actually made without comment, not the vandalism and clearly biased-view that other users have made.  CB..  .(ö)  00:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, the edit of mine that Ucla90024 referred to was removal of unsourced text. There is enough sources presented now to warrant a neutral writeup of the final TD in the article.—Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)