realreferee

The story is false and you should be ashamed for perpetuating it apparently without serious invesstigation. I have been on the field many times at LSU and any good attorney will tell you that in order to impeach all of someone's testimony, you only need to prove one statement false. And at least one statement in the claim is undeniably false. The bottom line is this -- NONE of the game film shows an extra referee on the Ole Miss sideline at ANYTIME during the game. The referee that follows Cannon down the field and signals touchdown is plainly visible on the field when Cannon receives the punt. He does not "step on the field at the 30-yard line." He is visible for the entire run until he signals touchdown. Besides, I would think the fake ref, being an Ole Miss fan, would have been more inclined to tackle Cannon than to cheer his touchdown. There are other elements to the story which I believe are made up. First, I have never seen referees enter the stadium through a ticket gate. It would have been most unusual for him to be allowed to enter through a ticket gate unchallenged and to also enter onto the field itself through a SECOND manned gate. I believe referees always enter the stadium through the LSU locker room door in North Stadium and onto the field through the player chute from that locker room. Secondly, no referee worth his salt would EVER allow an imposter to stay on the sidelines and certainly would not allow him to remain after taking the field and signaling a touchdown during a crucial play. They would have had one of the numerous deputies nearby cart his carcass off to jail. It wouldn't have taken until 1995 for the Clarion Ledger story to hit the newspaper. No, the "fake ref" spun a great tale for the Clarion Ledger and they fell for it hook, line, and sinker. The film is unimpeachable. This guy's testimony and the subsequent reporting by the Clarion Ledger are proved false by their own words. I wonder if the Clarion Ledger now has the guts to revisit the story, or it satisfied that its journalistic standards are only high enough to report unsubstantiated tales. If any of the fake ref's story changes in order to explain the above discrepancies, that in itself would be more than enough proof that his original testimony is false. As a juror looking at the evidence, I vote guilty of Lying in the First Degree. The punishment is to watch the film every year and remember Ole Miss lost and there was nothing the guy could do but watch. How does the rest of the jury vote?