Virginia Tech just got totally shafted in OT. yuck total BS

[cryjeremiah]

Refs overturned a VT TD in overtime. I really thought the receiver maintained possession before hitting the ground and maintained possession. Kicker misses FG. Mich hits FG and ballgame. just disgusting. I'll post link to video when I can.

 

[BugsyCT]

Looked like a good call on the overturn to me. Not only did the ball hit the ground, but looked like his shoulder landed OB before he got any part of his legs in bounds.

 

[kibblesnbits]

I thought it was a touchdown. The ball made contact with the ground only after he had possession ( as proven by its not moving in his hands when it hit). His elbow/forearm came down first in-bounds, which is enough. The feet/legs are irrelevant in this case.

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

Looked like a good call on the overturn to me. Not only did the ball hit the ground, but looked like his shoulder landed OB before he got any part of his legs in bounds.

The ball is allowed to hit the ground, as long as the the receiver doesn't use the ground to help gain possesion and as long as the ground doesn't move the football (which neither happened in this case). And the receiver had his elbow land inbounds before his shoulder hit out of bounds...which I believe an elbow establishes possession in bounds. I think that was a bad reversal (I think whatever was called on the field should have stood...there wasn't enough clear evidence either way to over turn in my opinion).

But that is OK. Virginia Tech was supposed to be a pansie for the B1G anyway. The B1G had to boost their BCS record, so they tried to setup a win for Michigan against a hugely overrated Virginia Tech. The problem is that the B1G was just as overrated as VT. But they made sure that the intended results came through even if they had to get some help

 

[sportsart]

I beg you to read the last 2 paragraphs in this link. Regardless whether it was a catch or not it was worth it to see these words in print. Love it.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...-outkicks-va-tech-in-ugly-sugar-bowl/related/

 

[NutmegState]

The author's point saying "he can't wait" until there is no more AQ because of the ACC's poor play, doesn't solve last night's problem. Va Tech was at large.

That's what so many "experts" aren't realizing. The AQ system is far better, and gives far greater access to the BCS, to all of college football.

 

[cohenzone]

I don't know if I'm the only one here with a connection to both UM and VT - as they say, my son and my money went to UM, and another son was on the VT faculty for 6 years before moving on to another university a year ago - but I have to say the game put me to sleep at 17 all. I did see the last few FG's on Sportscenter this morning, as well as the controversial non-TD. It was a close call, but the replay guys presumably aren't rooting for anybody, and I think they got it right.

 

[Palatine]

Ball hit the ground, plain as day.

I shed no tears for VT. Losers.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Both of those teams are in the 15-20 range. The game was ugly and a tough watch. The fact that this matchup occurred in the Sugar Bowl with neither team earning an autobid is disgusting. Delaney is the devil. ACC sucks every bit as much as the Big East does. No tears for VT from either.

 

[cryjeremiah]

Ball hit the ground, plain as day.

I shed no tears for VT. Losers.

Thanks palatine, but the ball hitting the ground means next to nothing in this instance as UconnSportsGuy points out:
"The ball is allowed to hit the ground, as long as the the receiver doesn't use the ground to help gain possesion and as long as the ground doesn't move the football (which neither happened in this case). And the receiver had his elbow land inbounds before his shoulder hit out of bounds...which I believe an elbow establishes possession in bounds. I think that was a bad reversal (I think whatever was called on the field should have stood...there wasn't enough clear evidence either way to over turn in my opinion)."

But I get it, you needed you fill your daily quota for comments containing negativity/pessimism/complaints/"I hate so-and-so" .

 

[kibblesnbits]

Ball hit the ground, plain as day.

I shed no tears for VT. Losers.

If you were applying the correct standard the implied conclusion (that the pass was incomplete) might be meaningful. However, the rulebook states, "Any forward pass is incomplete if the ball is out of bounds by rule or if it touches the ground when not firmly controlled by a player." So, merely observing that the ball touched the ground is meaningless in determining whether the play should stand. In this case, the player clearly did have control as the ball didn't move in his hands when it hit the ground.

 

[Excalibur]

The ball moved after it hit the ground. It landed point down and clearly moved.

 

[kibblesnbits]

The ball moved after it hit the ground. It landed point down and clearly moved.

The key is that it moved with, not in, the receiver's hands. If he held it solidly in his hands (i.e. not sliding down the ball when the nose hit the ground) throughout the landing and pulling it into his body then he has maintained control and it is a catch. That is how I saw it after watching the replay multiple times.

 

[Excalibur]

The key is that it moved with, not in, the receiver's hands. If he held it solidly in his hands (i.e. not sliding down the ball when the nose hit the ground) throughout the landing and pulling it into his body then he has maintained control and it is a catch. That is how I saw it after watching the replay multiple times.

I thought the opposite.

 

[Johnny Mac]

Problem is, the guy making the call in the booth never strapped on a jock and played football. He looks at video frame by frame to try to determine if a ball hits the ground before a knee, elbow, foot, whatever. I think anyone whose actually played the game, who knows how difficult it is to making a diving catch of a football, would agree that was a catch.

 

[scdono]

I think they got the call right in reversing. Clearly, the ball was moving, hit the ground, and if he had control, he was clearly on the out of bounds line. I'm tongue and check with my overuse of clearly. There was nothing obvious about the play. The problem with overturning it was that it was such a spectacular play. Nonetheless, even though the announce thought the play should stand, I think there was a basis to overturn

 

[Husky1964]

Have to agree, Delaney is the Devil, along with Joe Pa who said they needed to have 12 members to be relevant after Nov 20. Kinda funny, Delaney is an ACC guy, UNC!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sportsart]

The author's point saying "he can't wait" until there is no more AQ because of the ACC's poor play, doesn't solve last night's problem. Va Tech was at large.

That's what so many "experts" aren't realizing. The AQ system is far better, and gives far greater access to the BCS, to all of college football.

I was enjoying the 2-12 BCS Bowl record more than anything else.

 

[gioff23]

Problem is, the guy making the call in the booth never strapped on a jock and played football. He looks at video frame by frame to try to determine if a ball hits the ground before a knee, elbow, foot, whatever. I think anyone whose actually played the game, who knows how difficult it is to making a diving catch of a football, would agree that was a catch.

what was the guy's name in the replay booth and where in the rulebook does opne get credit for degree of difficulty?

I thought the play was too close to overrule and this back and forth only supports that view. I don't think VT got "shafted" when a very close play was overturned in the endzone in OT, I think they got shafted when Frankie ST guru tried a fake punt from midfield in the fourth quarter. You want to blame someone for a loss in a meaininglesds game, blame the coach. That is, of course, assuming he once strapped on a jock and played football

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I didn't think it was a catch but there was not enough on the replays to over-turn the call on field.

 

[rbny1]

Here it is. Judge for yourself:

Replay on YouTube

 

[jbdphi]

Fantastic effort by the receiver. My opinion was that it wasn't a catch but since it was ruled as one on the field, I'm not sure there was enough there to overturn it. Given there isn't even agreement after seeing everything in painstaking detail afterwards, it's tough to say someone was screwed. Also, let's not forget that VT had the ball first. Even if it was ruled a TD it doesn't mean they would have won.

 

[cryjeremiah]

Fantastic effort by the receiver. My opinion was that it wasn't a catch but since it was ruled as one on the field, I'm not sure there was enough there to overturn it. Given there isn't even agreement after seeing everything in painstaking detail afterwards, it's tough to say someone was screwed. Also, let's not forget that VT had the ball first. Even if it was ruled a TD it doesn't mean they would have won.

Fair enough. The missed FG was the real killer. You are right about that. But when I was watching it live, I was shocked when they overturned it. Clearly both broadcasters were shocked, too. From a light search of the internetweb, it seems the vast majority, including the broadcasters and myself, did not think there was enough to overturn the TD call. If they had let it stand as originally called, no one except U of M fans would have complained. I just though it was a lousy way to lose a big bowl game.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Simply, put a receiver needs to show firm grasp of the ball, to establish possession of a live ball in flight, and that receiver cannot use the ground to establish firm grasp of that ball. It's a rule that's been the center of all kinds of discussion for a long time.

Consult the rule book.

http://emaifo.net/assets/pdf/2011-12_NCAA_Football_Rulebook.pdf

Rule 2. Section 4. Catch, Recovery, Possession
Article 1. In Possession
“In possession’’ is an abbreviation meaning the holding or controlling of a live ball or a ball to be free-kicked. It may refer either to player possession or team possession.

a. A player “gains possession’’ when he secures the ball firmly by holding or controlling it while contacting the ground with his body inbounds. The ball is then in player possession

ARTICLE 3. Catch, Interception, Recovery

3a. To catch a ball means that a player:

3. Leaves his feet, firmly grasps a live ball in flight and either first returns to the ground inbounds with any part of his body or is so held that the dead-ball provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply (A.R. 2-4-3-I-IV and A.R.7-3-6-III).

Now go watch again. I think they made the right call, because I don't see FIRM GRASP of that ball until after it hits the ground, and you can't use the ground to help you establish firm grasp of that ball.

 

[jbdphi]

Fair enough. The missed FG was the real killer. You are right about that. But when I was watching it live, I was shocked when they overturned it. Clearly both broadcasters were shocked, too. From a light search of the internetweb, it seems the vast majority, including the broadcasters and myself, did not think there was enough to overturn the TD call. If they had let it stand as originally called, no one except U of M fans would have complained. I just though it was a lousy way to lose a big bowl game.

I heard the same thing from the broadcasters. Funnily enough though, I also subscribe to Pete Thamel's twitter feed (from the NY Times) and he had the completely opposite opinion when it came to the call (he said "The Pac-12 guys got it right. No Catch. VT's Myer 37 yard attempt is no good."). Not saying he's the expert but I happened to be reading his thoughts as I was watching the replays.

In my opinion, after seeing the replay in slow motion, I thought the ball moved from hitting the ground and it assisted him in retaining possession. His elbow definitely touched in-bounds on his way down but to say that he had possession at that point is tough to say given the movement of the ball at impact with the ground. Definitely a tough way to lose a game but I can think of worse (Rutgers 2009 is the first thing that comes to mind).