With the game literally decided by the call, it seems difficult to say the pass was incomplete with 100% certainty. It may have been a trap, but I don't think the replay crew would spend three minutes reviewing replays if there wasn't a shred of doubt. And a shred of doubt is all that is needed to maintain the call of a completed pass on the field. Per Article 2 of Rule 12 (Instant Replay) in the NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations:
ARTICLE 2. The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.Nobody likes it when officials determine the outcome of the game, and there is no argument that the replay crew determined the outcome of this matchup as the call effectively ended the game. UW absolutely could have ended up losing even if they got that first down, but we'll never know.
The next controversy is the "Stanford faking injuries" debate. Coach Sark pointed a finger at former UW assistant coach Randy Hart for instructing Stanford players Ben Gardner (defensive end) and Shayne Skov (linebacker) to fake injuries in order to slow down UW's fast-paced offense on the 4th quarter drive that ended with Price throwing a batted ball that was intercepted at the Stanford 5-yard-line.
Then Ben Gardner hopped on Twitter to refute Sark's claims and take a shot at UW ("stay classy Washington"). I'm getting a little video together that I'll post later tonight. SPOILER ALERT: Stanford's injuries look a bit suspicious...
Follow TheDawgDude on Facebook and Twitter.