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

[ibleedhuskyblue]

i only wish both teams could have lost

 

[Carl Spackler]

I think this is an instance where replay sucks. I think that with slow motion replay, the correct call was made, by the rule book. Freeze that clip above at 1:08 at just the right instant, and that ball is touching the ground, in a position where that receiver cannot possibly have a good grip on it, as it's pinned vertically between his forearms, and not part of his body has yet touched the ground.

I think that in real time, that kid made a fantastic catch.

 

[FrostyNuggets]

That's a catch. Then again its only an exhibition game.

 

[2Infinity]

In the end, whatever the collective opinion of the play observers out there is, IT DOES NOT MATTER!

The crux of the issue comes down to this; was there indisputable evidence on the replay to reverse the ruling made on the field? If there was NOT conclusive and indisputable evidence, then the call should stand!! This is exactly what SHOULD HAVE happened last night!! It was a very close play to be sure and quite disputable. After watching the replay about ten times, there is no way that the video evidence to overturn the call was indisputable!! The refs did not do their job the way they are supposed to. Never mind that VT coaches and players were making way too many poor decisions to win a BCS bowl game like this!

 

[gioff23]

... but look at the bright side --- we can now spend another year enjoying ACC ineptitude, particularly VT, in the BCS. Now, who the heck do i cheer for tonight - the conference we want to join or the team that wants nothing to do w/us?

 

[2Infinity]

... but look at the bright side --- we can now spend another year enjoying ACC ineptitude, particularly VT, in the BCS. Now, who the heck do i cheer for tonight - the conference we want to join or the team that wants nothing to do w/us?

The ineptitude is very enjoyable indeed. For a conference that does not come close to getting the negative remarks in the media that the BE gets, the ACC sure does nothing to improve it's image, even when a team gets invited (VT) would shouldn't have been selected over a much more deserving team (Boise St.).

As for tonight's game, that's easy for me, I'll go with WVA. First, we are not in the ACC as of now and no one has any idea about whether we'll be in the future either. So I will NOT be routing for Clemson. Second, WVA is certainly doing everything they can to get out of the BE, but they aren't out yet. As such, their performance tonight will go in the books as them being a BE representative. Not so easy to route for them, but who knows, they just might be in the BE next year after all! So go WVA...get a win for the BE!

 

[sportsart]

My cousin's daughter is a cheerleader for Clemson. That said I would root for anyone but the teams that are leaving the BE. Bye bye WVU.

 

[NEforceUConn]

Virginia Tech just got totally shafted ?


GREAT

Any day the ACC gets shafted is a good day for me.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

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).

I disagree here completely. I watched the replay 6 or 7 times and every time I saw the ball move pretty clearly when the end stuck in the ground. I think overturning was the right call and I don't think it was particularly controversial.

 

[Excalibur]

I disagree here completely. I watched the replay 6 or 7 times and every time I saw the ball move pretty clearly when the end stuck in the ground. I think overturning was the right call and I don't think it was particularly controversial.

Agree. Any movement of the ball makes it incomplete according to the rule. The ball moved. That's all the video evidence they needed to overturn.

 

[gars44]

Ball hit the ground, plain as day.

I shed no tears for VT. Losers.

I agree about the tears, I don't care who won that game. But, you can't overturn that call. You might as well eliminate the reply system if you are going to start overturning calls as close as that.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I agree about the tears, I don't care who won that game. But, you can't overturn that call. You might as well eliminate the reply system if you are going to start overturning calls as close as that.

I really don't see how people think this was that close. When the end of the ball stuck in the ground, it noticeably shifted in his hands. In real time it was in no way conclusive. In slow motion, it looked very conclusive that the ground helped him secure the catch.

 

[mets1090]

Ball shifted in his hands when he hit the ground. As Carl points out, the view around 1:08 is what showed it to me.

 

[Excalibur]

I really don't see how people think this was that close. When the end of the ball stuck in the ground, it noticeably shifted in his hands. In real time it was in no way conclusive. In slow motion, it looked very conclusive that the ground helped him secure the catch.

If you're not going to enforce the rules in reviewing plays, why review? The ball moved. Inquiry ends there.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You know what i think you folks might be missing, in reading this thing again, is what I Put in there about the rules, I put in only the rules that applied to the specifc situation, go through the flow of what I put below. In this case, the correct call was made,incomplete, because you can freeze a frame where the nose of that ball is pinned to the ground before any part of that receivers body touches inbound, and it's not in firm grasp, as the ball moves after it hits ground.

I didn't say anythign about what happened before that nose hits the ground. Because in slow motion, it does look to me like he's got firm grasp of that ball, pinned vertically, nose down between one hand and his forearm before it touches the ground, while he's still in the air.

That kid keeps a toe down, and drags a toe, and it's a touchdown.

Consult the rule book again.

Incomplete Pass
ARTICLE 7. a. 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.


Catch, Interception, Recovery
ARTICLE 3. a. To catch a ball means that a player:

1. Gains possession (Rule 2-4-1) of a live ball in flight; or

2. Leaves his feet and firmly grasps a live ball in flight, the ball first touching the ground inbounds while still in his firm grasp; or

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).

If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession and firm control of the ball, it is a catch or interception even though a subsequent step or fall takes the receiver out of bounds (A.R. 7-3-6-XV).

A player who satisfies any of these three conditions is said to have completed a catch.

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



Lesson to any players out there reading - keep your foot down, and if you leave your feet, get a foot a down.

 

[Carl Spackler]

So, if I'm reviewing that play, the play can be overturned by one rule onley.

Rule 2, Article 7a. Incomplete pass.

Need to determine if it's a legal in bounds catch, with the ball in firm grasp before that ball touches ground.

Firm grasp is questionable prior to ball striking the ground, because the ball moves after it strikes ground. Move on to next step.

Did this player make a legal catch prior to that ball touching ground (keep in mind your in the endzone now)......rules slightly different because all the ball needs to do is cross the plane an be in possession for a TD.

What is not questionable is that the player has left his feet and no part of the body has touched ground before the ball does.

THe ball moves after it strikes ground, player is not down in bounds before the ball hits ground.

Incomplete pass - no TD.

That kid drags a toe, and it's a TD. THere isn't enough evidence to overturn.

 

[Carl Spackler]

P.S. Running the ball across the plane of the goal is totally different situation than passing it into the endzone. The ball is already in possession of the ball carrier.

A receiver needs to establish possession of the ball in the endzone, for that instant of time, for it to be a TD, and foot down, with grasp is the golden rule. If a guy is going to lay out for a ball, with both feet in the air? he needs to be trained to physically force at least one foot down while doing it to drag a toe, and at the same time practice catching that ball, and securing it while - like opposite a cat landing on it's feet when it falls - end up rolling onto your back so the ball doesn't strike ground before you clearly establish control with your hands.

In real time, this kid makes a great catch. In slow motion it's incomplete, becasue he comes down on top of that ball, without dragging a foot first or getting a body part down first, and the ball moved.

Like I said before, this is one of those situations where replay sucks, and why people argue AGAINST replay.

There's a lot more evidence and reason for replay to exist though.

In the NFL, they have a different rule than in college. the whole process of the catch is necessary to establish possession of that ball, and you need two feet down, in college you just need to establish possession of that live ball while still in flight and it's a TD in the endzone. Can't let NFL rules confuse you.

I hope that clarifies it for all.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I think most people understand the rule, the ones that think they made the right call just disagree with you. I disagree that he had control before he hit the ground.

 

[Excalibur]

I think most people understand the rule, the ones that think they made the right call just disagree with you. I disagree that he had control before he hit the ground.

Not sure if you're replying to me or Carl. I meant to quote Gars' post. I agree with you.

 

[gars44]

I really don't see how people think this was that close. When the end of the ball stuck in the ground, it noticeably shifted in his hands. In real time it was in no way conclusive. In slow motion, it looked very conclusive that the ground helped him secure the catch.

Ball shifted in his hands when he hit the ground. As Carl points out, the view around 1:08 is what showed it to me.

Here's my view on this. Just because a ball shifts a little does not conclusively establish that the player did not have control of it. You can have control of the ball and it can still move slightly in your grasp. Like holding your dog on a leash. You have control of the dog, even though it's moving around, pulling you. If "control" must mean complete lack of any movement at all - not even an ounce of movement - then yeah, the ball shifted a tiny bit. But that is not the definition of control, and one can have control with some degree of movement. That is the distinction that you are making, and I don't believe it's a valid distinction. The catch was called a catch, and there was not enough there to overturn it unless "control" is defined as the "complete lack of any movement," or if "firmly in the grasp" means "complete" lack of any movement. Not enough to overturn, imo, and football now has too many replays because of these types of hyper-technical dissections of every fractional movement of body parts and footballs.

 

[mauconnfan]

Here's my view on this. Just because a ball shifts a little does not conclusively establish that the player did not have control of it. You can have control of the ball and it can still move slightly in your grasp. Like holding your dog on a leash. You have control of the dog, even though it's moving around, pulling you. If "control" must mean complete lack of any movement at all - not even an ounce of movement - then yeah, the ball shifted a tiny bit. But that is not the definition of control, and one can have control with some degree of movement. That is the distinction that you are making, and I don't believe it's a valid distinction. The catch was called a catch, and there was not enough there to overturn it unless "control" is defined as the "complete lack of any movement," or if "firmly in the grasp" means "complete" lack of any movement. Not enough to overturn, imo, and football now has too many replays because of these types of hyper-technical dissections of every fractional movement of body parts and footballs.

Simply put this cannot be overturned.........the ground MAY have helped but the call on the field does not allow that to be the end result. Looks to me like noone can tell me for sure if the ground was the only reason for a catch?? I mean the ball moves also when you hit the ground and you most definitely have possession right? Awful call...........again call "on the field" is why. If it was the other way then that should stand also!!

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Simply put this cannot be overturned.........the ground MAY have helped but the call on the field does not allow that to be the end result. Looks to me like noone can tell me for sure if the ground was the only reason for a catch?? I mean the ball moves also when you hit the ground and you most definitely have possession right? Awful call...........again call "on the field" is why. If it was the other way then that should stand also!!

The rule is that the ground cannot help the catch, not that the ground has to be completely responsible for the catch. Regardless, I think everyone understands the rule now and the difference is just a matter of perception that is not likely to change.

 

[Excalibur]

Here's my view on this. Just because a ball shifts a little does not conclusively establish that the player did not have control of it.

Not according to the rule. Don't like the call? Change the rule, just like the NFL's tuck rule. Otherwise, it was correctly interpreted and enforced. It was an easy call according to the rule and the officials got it right.

 

[DieHardHusky]

Michigan did just enough to win and the end result is all that matters. VT was using their 3rd string kicker too and their playcalling didn't help them/lack of execution at times hurt them. One thing Michigan and UConn have in common, clutch kickers.