| Written by Joyce Patton, City of Kansas City, MO,
|
Case: Oklahoma vs. Oregon – September 15, 2006
Situation: Oregon trails Oklahoma by 6 points with 1 minute 12 seconds left in regulation. Oregon just scored and was kicking the ball back to Oklahoma. However, because Oregon needs the ball back to attempt to score again and win, Oregon kicks the ball short (an on-side kick) to give itself a greater chance of getting the ball. During an on-side kick, the ball must go ten yards before a member of the kicking team may touch it; however, the receiving team may touch the ball before it goes the ten yards.
When Oregon on-side kicks the ball a scrum occurs and the officials figure the ball is under the pile. Replay clearly showed an Oregon player touching the ball at nine yards. The referee blows the play dead assuming an Oregon player has recovered the ball and awards the ball to Oregon. However, no one possesses the ball and as the officials are walking toward the pile an Oklahoma player is seen scooping up the football and leaving the pile with the ball. Ruling: The ball is Oregon’s. The play is reviewed by the replay official who ruled the ball was touched first by an Oklahoma player therefore an Oregon player may touch or/and recover the ball even if it had not gone ten yards. The question everyone focused on: Was the ball illegally touched by an Oregon player? If the ball was illegally touched, Oklahoma would gain possession of the ball at the point it was illegally touched. What should have been the question: who has the ball? If the referee, or replay official, had seen the Oklahoma player walk away with the ball, the ball would have been awarded to Oklahoma who probably would have won the game. Also, an Oklahoma player recovering the ball makes the question of “was the ball illegally touched” moot. Other tactical error by the officials: Declaring the play dead too soon. The officials’ assumption that the ball was in the pile caused them to blow the play dead before possession could be gain by either team. When the play was blown dead no one actually possessed the ball. Outcomes: Oregon, with the help of yet another questionable call, scored a touchdown and won the game. The on-field and replay officials were all suspended one game for their actions. While both the on-field and replay officials were wrong, fans placed more blame on the replay official. How this parallels with Auditing: Imagine if the ball is our evidence, the on-field official is the auditor, the replay official are those who internally review our work, the players going into the pile are external factors, and the crowd along with the TV announcers are citizens. As an auditor, are you following the evidence to the point where you can make an accurate, fact based finding or develop the right objectives like the Oklahoma sportscaster and the game play-by-play announcer initially did (who has the ball), or are you like the officials who let external factors (the assumption the ball is in the pile) draw you to the wrong conclusion, stop collecting evidence too soon, and/or answer the wrong objectives (was the ball touched illegally)? In the game, once the officials concluded Oregon had the ball their question became “did they legally obtain the ball” even though their original finding was incorrect. In auditing, if our findings or conclusions our incorrect or we don’t have sufficient evidence, there is a risk we may try to answer the wrong question or objective, sometimes at the expense of a more fundamental question “who recovered the ball”. Also, like the officials in the game, auditors can blow the play dead too soon. As auditors we can stop collecting evidence once we think we have an objective or a finding only to find out later if we had collected a little more evidence we found our findings are the exact opposite or the objective to be answered should be completely different. Sometimes, the objectives we should answer are simpler and could require less fieldwork (Who ended up with the ball vs. was the ball illegally touched.) On this play there was also a review process. Officials sitting in the press box notified the on-field officials that they want to review the play. However, the replay official’s review was too narrowly focused. Instead of focusing on who recovered the ball, the individual reviewing the play focused on if the ball was illegally touched. Like auditors, replay reviewers in football are under time constraints; however they may review all aspects of the play. Similarly, when we review each others work, we should not be so preoccupied with getting it “out the door” that our review merely becomes affirming the right answer (or worse, coming up with the wrong answer altogether like the replay official) to the wrong question instead of peeking a little longer to discover that a more basic question should be answered. In the game, mistakes made by the officials altered the game’s outcome and may have affected the national championship picture. If either team had won their remaining games, then potentially the wrong team could be crowned national champions. However, the consequences of us being wrong could have greater consequences than the loss of a game or a national championship. When our work leads us to the wrong findings or objectives, questions needing to be answered through our work will not be, recommendations to address to real questions cannot be made, and decision makers probably do not have information to address the real question policy at hand…or under the pile of people.
|
Quarterly Articles