In the aftermath of Saturday’s 59-37 football loss to Boise State, Hawaii officials submitted 11 plays to the Mountain West Conference for further review and interpretation.

Seeking a postgame interpretation is a standard procedure and not considered a protest of the officiating. But two of the plays to be reviewed were controversial: a targeting call against linebacker Jeremiah Pritchard, and a lost fumble by quarterback Cole McDonald.

“It’s not anything new,” coach Nick Rolovich said of the request to review plays. “This week is more than usual.”

On first-and-10 during Boise State’s third possession, Pritchard tackled running back George Holani after a 2-yard gain. Pritchard was called for targeting. When the replay official affirmed the call, Pritchard was ejected.

“I think that’s a very uncommon place for a targeting call to be called,” Rolovich said. “That’s not where you see it.”

Holani was not affected by the hit and remained in the lineup for the rest of the drive.

“With the targeting,” Rolovich said, “once it goes up to the booth (for review), with all the attention targeting has gotten the last few years, if they call it (on the field), nobody wants to be guy who says it’s not targeting. … To me, I could go through that game and find six other plays that were very similar to that, that they could have called targeting on (but did not). I’m all for safety, but I’m also all for these kids to have the experience they deserve.”

Rolovich said he felt badly for Pritchard, who redshirted as a junior last year and missed most of spring training because of an ailment.

“This kid has worked very hard in rehab and maturity and growing up to get to play on that stage,” Rolovich said. “That’s where I was upset.”

Rolovich also had a different perspective on a play in which McDonald was ruled to have fumbled while attempting to pass. Like two other UH fumbles, the Broncos parlayed the turnover into a touchdown drive.

“I thought it was a forward pass,” Rolovich said. “But that one was on the review sheet, too.”

Rolovich acknowledged the referees “are trying to do their best.”

The general reasoning is it is safer to rule the play a fumble and have it reversed on a review than to change an incomplete call to a fumble. But it also shifted the burden to proving indisputably that the play was not a fumble.

“There’s no black-and-white line,” Rolovich said. “You can’t say, ‘No, that’s an incomplete pass.’ (The reviewer) has to say, ‘I have to see enough where that’s not a fumble.’ I think that’s where the flaw is in … this particular case.”

But Rolovich said none of the calls contributed to the outcome.

“The refs didn’t lose that game for us,” Rolovich said. “We didn’t play very well, especially offensively. I don’t think we played up to our standard at all.”