The Pac-12 Conference officiating performance last Saturday night in Eugene during the Oregon-Washington State game left observers on both sides unsettled and wondering whether it can be trusted.

So what’s changed in a year? And can the officiating be counted on?

I went in search of answers.

The crew working the game struggled on the field. The review process, involving head of replay Bill Richardson and the San Francisco-based Command Center, felt cumbersome and further delayed a game that already had a 7:30 p.m. kickoff.

Oregon coach Mario Cristobal even drew a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for walking on the field to argue a call that was later, after replay, amended. At one point, Pac-12 referee Kevin Mar announced two penalties on Washington State, then subsequently corrected himself on the stadium public address system, and informed the crowd the flags were actually against Oregon.

One Pac-12 Conference executive-level official who watched the game said to me, “Not exactly a great endorsement of Pac-12 officiating, is it?”

The crew had a rough night.

It happens. That’s sports.

There were several extended conversations between officials on the field that gave the appearance of uncertainty. The officials looked out of sorts and didn’t appear unified and decisive. That probably didn’t help, either. Some WSU fans left the stadium feeling like the game wasn’t well officiated. Oregon fans felt the same way. And while that’s probably true of a lot of college football games, the Pac-12 must know it’s earned a higher level of scrutiny than some others.

I was left thinking about how much the erosion of trust in the conference over the last few years (See: Woodie Dixon fiasco, etc.) plays into what we’re experiencing all these months later.

In the wake of that WSU-USC instant-replay fiasco from last season, the conference initiated a third-party review of its officiating protocol. It was conducted over four months by Sibson Consulting. A sub-committee of Pac-12 athletic directors (ASU, Oregon, Oregon State and Colorado) oversaw the process.

The recommendations were as follows:

The head of officiating to report directly to the Commissioner rather than the football administrator;

Adoption of a new replay manual codifying processes and procedures that will eliminate the potential for an incident like the one in last year’s Washington State v. USC game reoccurring;

Enhancements to training programs for officials, and more consistency in grading and training from the officiating supervisors; and

A new communications protocol with more transparency and public comment around significant calls or errors that either impact player safety or the result of the game.

Those were healthy steps for a conference that needed them. But none of that appeared to help anything that happened in the stadium on Saturday night. Oregon won the game on a last-second field goal, and I watched from the sideline as the game officials signaled the kick good, turned, then ran toward the stadium exit as fans came running on the field to celebrate.

I felt bad for the officials.

Then, I waited for a statement from the Pac-12.

Given the “transparency” and “public comment” part above, I figured the Pac-12 would surely review the way the game was officiated and issue a statement correcting any of the significant calls that were missed. Or they’d issue a Sunday statement, perhaps, indicating that while the calls were controversial and came with bad optics, they Pac-12 officials mostly got it right.

Something.

Anything.

Because that’s where we are when it comes to trust in the Pac-12 officiating. But no statement was ever made. By Monday, it was still crickets when I reached out to Andrew Walker, a vice president with the Pac-12, to ask if I could interview someone from the conference on the subject. My aim wasn’t to be critical of the officiating, but maybe to help Pac-12 fans understand what the officials saw on the field while doing their job. If I’m the conference, I’d want to engage with fans.

Walker instead pointed me to the new process under which the Pac-12 comments on football officiating, including a link in his email. Also, he reminded me of the comprehensive review of the Pac-12 officiating program, linking that as well.

The triggers for the Pac-12 to initiate a public statement on officiating are as follows:

Game-ending call or no-call impacting the result of the game;

Call involving a significant error in officiating mechanics;

Call involving an error in rules interpretation; or

Other extraordinary circumstances.

Walker also wrote in the email, “We do make David Coleman, our head of football officiating, available to speak to media at our annual football media day but otherwise our practice is not to comment on football officiating outside of the above referenced protocol.”

Fair enough. So I turned to my email in-box.

The Pac-12 football programs have been playing football since late August. The programs played 35 combined non-conference games. And have now played 30 conference games head-to-head to date. So how many occasions do you think the Pac-12 had to issue a statement after a game on officiating?

Answer: Two.

The Sept. 14 non-conference game between Michigan State and Arizona State was the first. ASU won when Michigan State missed a last-second field goal attempt. The Pac-12 acknowledged it made an officiating error that impacted the outcome of the game (ASU should have been flagged on the final play) and that MSU should have had an untimed down, and another potential kick.

A week later, after the Sept. 21 non-conference game between Cal and Ole Miss, the Pac-12 Conference confirmed that the on-field game officials ruled correctly during the final two plays. Cal won the game and in question was a hotly debated goal line stand by the Bears. Video evidence confirmed, the Pac-12 wrote in a statement, that “Ole Miss did not score a touchdown and there was no irrefutable video evidence to reverse those calls by replay.”

These instances were small steps in the right direction. But that’s the last we’ve heard from the Pac-12 on its officiating, and that has me wondering: Has the Pac-12 officiating really been perfect in conference play? Or has the conference reverted to some unhealthy habits?

Walker confirmed there, “was no public statement made on any plays from this past weekend.”

But it goes much further than that. In 30 conference games, there haven’t been any statements on Pac-12 officiating. Nothing indicating a single significant error in officiating mechanics. Nothing noting any errors in rules interpretations. No blown calls that potentially impacted the result of the game.

The Pac-12 officials have apparently been on fire -- at least, by its own new criteria.

Do you buy that?

Or does that erode your trust in the Pac-12′s new-fangled “transparency”?

The NBA has its “last two minutes” report. It gives a self-assessment for games that were at or within three points at any point during the final two minutes of the fourth quarter and overtime. For example, the NBA included this week a foul called on Trail Blazers’ guard CJ McCollum in a close loss to the Spurs. San Antonio’s LaMarcus Aldridge, the league said, shot a pair of free throws that shouldn’t have been awarded.

Life moved on.

The Blazers still got the “L.”

But at the very least, we get the impression that there’s some level of public accountability from the NBA. And I’m now wondering if the Pac-12 left their criteria short, or simply don’t like admitting that officials make errors.

Walker later added, “There are errors in officiating made every week which are reviewed internally and with members in our efforts to ensure that our officiating program strives for and achieves continuous improvement. This kind of week-in, week-out review is standard across all best practice officiating programs.”

So why no public announcement on the errors?

“Our head of officiating David Coleman makes the determination on which calls meet the criteria,” Walker said.

These are tricky times for Pac-12 Conference Commissioner Larry Scott. I tried to tell him last year that fans in the conference have lost trust and faith. He shot me down. But I stand by that, and I’m left wondering if the conference thinks that just saying it’s being transparent means that it really is.