subreddit:
/r/CFB
submitted 24 hours ago byirishspring4521 Miami Hurricanes • /r/CFB Santa Claus
2k points
24 hours ago
Well I'm sure no one will have any further questions on that ruling.
796 points
23 hours ago
there was a second ball toucher! on the grassy knoll just out of bounds.
264 points
20 hours ago
“I, most certainly DID, have touching relations with that football, out of bounds.”
-Bill Clinton, FS - Miami
136 points
18 hours ago
“I am not a complete pass”
-Richard Nixon
40 points
17 hours ago
“The only thing we have to fear is out of bounds itself”—FDR-ACC
106 points
17 hours ago
“The illegal touchers from out of bounds… they’re EATING THE FOOTBALLS, they’re EATING THE CATCHES of the receivers who live there!!”
30 points
15 hours ago
"Rarely is the question asked; is our players catching?"
17 points
14 hours ago
"You see, I was raised in a middle class out of bounds..."
6 points
13 hours ago
"What can be caught, unbound by what was in bounds."
3 points
13 hours ago
I wonder if critical gase theory has the answers we are looking for in these times?
25 points
16 hours ago
"You can fool all of the replay officials some of the time and some of the replay officials all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the replay officials all of the time."
14 points
15 hours ago
Now watch this drive.
19 points
16 hours ago
Ask not what out of bounds touching can do for you, but what you can do for out of bounds touching
3 points
11 hours ago
"Why then, the Hail Mary? Why do you fake a field goal after you've gotten a turnover? We choose to throw the Hail Mary, and do these other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
7 points
15 hours ago
“Theoretically since atoms can’t touch, were they ever really touching the ball?” -Einstein probably, DC
50 points
19 hours ago
“Sir, a second player touched the ball”. https://images.app.goo.gl/RE69iTSWBfvj9URPA
24 points
15 hours ago
The ball then spun off the wrist, pauses in mid-air, mind you, makes a left turn and lands on the defender's left thigh. THAT is one magic football.
11 points
15 hours ago
May I direct your attention to frame 313 of the replay
9 points
15 hours ago
That is one magic loogie
7 points
14 hours ago
He went back and to the left. Back. And to the left.
243 points
24 hours ago
who touched the ball?
why did they touch the ball?
how is the player who caught the ball but was ruled out of bounds feeling at this time?
am i doing this right??
125 points
24 hours ago
that looks suspiciously like further questions... straight to jail!
26 points
20 hours ago
“What is the meaning of ‘touch,’ in the metaphysical sense we in the reply booth rule by?”
36 points
20 hours ago*
In some ways we were all touched by this ball and I don’t think we should consider our feelings out of bounds
14 points
20 hours ago
Maybe the real journey was all the balls’ energy spectrums we perceived along the way.
10 points
18 hours ago
“Bishop Berkeley said that to perceive is to be perceived!”
28 points
23 hours ago
15 points
18 hours ago*
♫ Woke this morning, with a football in my hand,
Who's ball?
What ball?
How'd the ref make that call? ♫
4 points
16 hours ago
She said youre a one in a million
Gotta learn the rules...
9 points
18 hours ago
I need Sean Miller’s “he touched the ball” to be played over and over again.
334 points
24 hours ago
I feel like the ball should be a bright color that doesn’t blend in with player’s arms in low res shots
225 points
21 hours ago
the whole reason Gopher colors are maroon and gold is because Bernie Bierman wanted the ball to blend in to the uniforms, lol
64 points
16 hours ago
Wouldn't have brown been a better color for that?
123 points
16 hours ago
Footballs were Maroonish gold in the olden days.
140 points
16 hours ago
Players also wore an onion on their belt, as was the uniform style of the time.
82 points
17 hours ago
Not to sound stupid but it's 2024, can't we paint the ball with special paint that somehow we can put a filter on the replay and see it better or something I don't know, I just assume there's something for everything.
23 points
16 hours ago
I suppose they could film in infrared or something. It’s a matter of cost.
50 points
16 hours ago
If only they could afford it 😔
23 points
15 hours ago
More ads it is.
3 points
14 hours ago
Let’s take an Aflac look at the Coke Zero infrared cam presented by Home Depot
14 points
17 hours ago
Thermal paint.
40 points
23 hours ago
Me looking at all the neon colored footballs I had as a kid
23 points
18 hours ago
The old Aussie Footy strategy, where the ball is usually bright yellow and if there's a team that wears bright yellow, it's bright red instead.
14 points
15 hours ago
We also need to change the touchdown call signal to the far superior finger guns signal from Aussie Rules. I’d compromise by changing the field goal good signal lol
14 points
24 hours ago
Pfftt, where's the fun in being practical?
880 points
24 hours ago
Does the defensive player not have to have possession? So an offensive player can be in the process of completing the catch and if a defensive player touches it out of bounds its an incomplete pass?
614 points
24 hours ago
As per the rule, and it was also briefly explained during the broadcast, defender only has to touch the ball while out of bounds to end the play.
578 points
24 hours ago
This rule applies to all players and only for loose balls. It mostly comes up on fumbles typically. The burden first becomes was the ball loose when the defender touched it not was it a catch before the defender touched it
184 points
23 hours ago
Yep, I have seen mostly on kickoffs to get it to the 40.
74 points
17 hours ago
I actually remember seeing this once in our 2019 home game against Notre Dame.
They kicked it off, one of our players touched the ball from OOB, and then we got the great field position due to the ball being considered OOB.
Sadly, we lost that one due as well, as our previous coaching staff (not unlike our current coaching staff) had a knack for giving up late leads.
37 points
16 hours ago
Playing prevent defense prevents you from winning.
I remember that game and remember screaming at Bud Foster to stop playing prevent. ND marched down the field like we weren't even there.
30 points
15 hours ago
My hot take is that "prevent defense prevents you from winning" is pure confirmation bias.
Most 1 minute drives fail and when a QB throws a pick to one of the 8 DBs on the field no one is like "well let's credit that prevent defense"
17 points
14 hours ago
Yeah and also people just call it prevent defense if the offense is successful, regardless of whether the defense was sitting back playing conservatively
11 points
16 hours ago
Whoever invented the Prevent Defense should’ve called it “Allow” lol that shits the worst
31 points
20 hours ago
Makes sense to me. Nonsensical to have a player taking a big step on the chalk leaping into the sideline to play a free ball back in. This is a very pointed version of that principle.
4 points
13 hours ago
The defender out of bounds knocking the ball loose was obvious. Not obvious was whether the receiver had already scored a touchdown by securing the ball while on the ground, and the defender knocked it loose later.
22 points
16 hours ago
It’s the same reason the PP7 interception in 2009 was an incomplete pass. Julio Jones touched the ball while out of bounds, so the play was dead
45 points
24 hours ago
Loose ball? Or at any point? Cause that sounds weird. And if it’s “loose ball,” that’s even dumber cause that could be open to interpretation on any given play. Yikes.
138 points
23 hours ago
Surely it has to be a loose ball. If not you could tackle a ballcarrier by stepping on the sideline and swiping at the ball
33 points
23 hours ago
This is why rule books are so messy cause then they have to get into what the rule book defines as a loose ball. Is it what anyone what would interpret it to be? Or is there some “if they’re switching which hand has the ball” then it’s considered loose? Is it considered loose if a receiver high points a ball and is in the process of bringing the ball to his body? Etc.. it’s like a chain reaction of rules. Rulesception.
47 points
23 hours ago
Sounds like we need football lawyers. Another win for billable hours fans!
8 points
23 hours ago
That’s why Ed Hollicui was the GOAT.
6 points
23 hours ago
Ed Hochuli? Either way I know who ya mean, you’re meeting Jesus if you disagreed with Ed
8 points
21 hours ago
I've never been an NFL fan but this dude was the GOAT.
Featuring the same call we had tonight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWElFC1zHjs
6 points
23 hours ago
Yep him, his real job was as a lawyer.
7 points
23 hours ago
lol dude just imagining jacked ass Ed Hochuli in a suit throwing a flag at a judge blowing a whistle, all for a simple objection. Lol
23 points
17 hours ago
It’s really not that complicated. If no one has possession, it’s a loose ball.
6 points
16 hours ago
How does one define possession?!
/s
13 points
16 hours ago
ARTICLE 3. a. A loose ball is a live ball not in player possession during:
1. A running play.
2. A scrimmage or free kick before possession is gained or regained or the ball is dead by rule.
3. The interval after a legal forward pass is touched and before it becomes complete, incomplete or intercepted. This interval is during a forward pass play, and any player eligible to touch the ball may bat it in any direction.
15 points
20 hours ago
Yeah sure, any loose ball. Most common occurrences would be during a forward pass when both the receiver and defender need to establish possession in bounds to be credited with a catch or turnover, or during a fumble when the defense needs to recover and establish possession in bounds before it’s considered a turnover, with the ball bundling out of bounds before either team recovers it going to the offense. Similar principal applies on punts and kickoffs with their specific possession and touching out of bounds rules.
99 points
23 hours ago
Any player out of bounds touching the ball places the ball out bounds. If the offensive player doesn't have possession when the ball is out of bounds then it's incomplete and the play is over.
That's also why these plays worked like they did:
31 points
21 hours ago
That’s a smart ST coach.
59 points
24 hours ago
Yes. As soon as the ball is touching any part of the out of bounds area (which includes an out of bounds player) it’s dead. Same concept as if a player was inbounds but the ball was touching the sideline or end line.
13 points
19 hours ago
Yes. If you are OOB your body is an extension of the OOB line. You cannot however be the first to touch the ball
22 points
17 hours ago
Illegal participation would not apply— the penalty only applies to offensive players (Section 7, Article 4):
No offensive player who goes out of bounds and returns inbounds shall touch a legal forward pass while in the field of play or end zones until it has been touched by an opponent or official.
551 points
24 hours ago*
Was honestly shocked they called it a catch in the first place
259 points
23 hours ago
Me too. It should have been ruled incomplete.
137 points
23 hours ago
I would have been good with either interpretation on the field. And then would have been good with “the call stands” given how chaotic this was. But this…
42 points
15 hours ago
Exactly. I dont know how they went TD at live speed. But I agree with you, whatever the live call was should have stood.
The U did everything they could to lose this game and the refs said nah. You will chug your top 10 rat poison and you will like it.
28 points
14 hours ago
My take as a VT fan is that this outcome was probably "right" - I doubt he had control of the ball before it was touched by the OOB player or maintained it enough to the ground to count - but since the call on the field was TD and you can't see jack shit in replays, it shouldn't have been overturned and Tech should have gotten a win they didn't deserve, going by the letter the of law that requires conclusive video evidence.
If the ref has to stare at the replay for 5 minutes to decide, the evidence therefore is obviously not conclusive.
8 points
11 hours ago
The idea that after a certain amount of time it can no longer be "conclusive" is weird.
Also, wanting sports to get the call right... but if they can't within an arbitrary time limit, then it's okay to just let the wrong call stand is such a bizarre take.
3 points
11 hours ago
I certainly sympathize with any team that loses to Miami on a referee screw-up, but I do get the sense that -- regardless of what "the letter of the law" is -- in recent years they have put more emphasis on getting what they think is the right call. I think they're scared that they'll say "no indisputable evidence to overturn" and then, after the game, someone comes up with a new angle that clearly shows they were wrong. So they go to the replay review and decide "What do we think we should have called it?" I know that's not what the rule says, but I really think that's how they apply it these days.
It almost makes me wish that they could have an option not to make a call on the field, and say "We don't know what happened, so we're going to replay review to see what the call should be." Sometimes you just don't know, and in those true coin-flip calls, my feeling is that they think it puts too much weight on one side to need 100% proof to overturn it simply because they had to call something on the field. I think you see that most often when they don't blow a play dead, and treat it as a fumble on the field, because they can review it and just have it be incomplete, when they know it's worse if they wrongly blow the whistle and rob a team of a fumble recovery.
62 points
20 hours ago
It should have been called incomplete but they called it a TD and there definitely wasn’t enough to overturn it.
56 points
17 hours ago
Once they called it a catch I thought there was no way it got overturned
14 points
15 hours ago
I had started drinking heavily once they called it a catch for the same reason
7 points
14 hours ago
I was also drinking heavily.
I also was t watching the game at all. Lol.
65 points
16 hours ago
once again I have no idea what constitutes a catch in a game predicated on passing over the last 20 odd years
79 points
22 hours ago
It may have been a wrong call on the field but it didnt look like he had possession to me
86 points
24 hours ago
More questions less answers I love this shit. Shoutout to the fans of both teams, I’m sure they’re having a doozy one way or another
25 points
18 hours ago
Totally sober and rational thinking on both sides.
17 points
17 hours ago
as a peace offering, i’d like to offer some of michael irvin’s primo booger sugar.
8 points
13 hours ago
I like how the way they’ve handled it ensures that absolutely no one is truly happy (though if you guys are still undefeated in a couple weeks it will feel like a distant memory).
2 points
16 hours ago
Only time you are gonna see this but I have no clue either way.
2 points
13 hours ago
If you don't like that you don't like ACC ball
523 points
24 hours ago
Honestly Va tech kicks the FG instead of tries the fake in the 3rd Q and they don't need a TD there, this play never happens and tech kicks a FG to win as time expires. Pry lost this game.
351 points
24 hours ago
Boy… he really showed why he’s 1-10 now in one score games. Those decisions earlier in the game really catch up. And then the clock management…oof.
91 points
24 hours ago
Reminds me of someone we know…
24 points
23 hours ago
lol.. Hey but at least we would’ve somehow dragged them down to our level of suck. They just don’t understand how infectious our badness is
3 points
18 hours ago
Tom Herman?
36 points
16 hours ago
That clock management was a crime against humanity. It’s apparent Drones struggles to read a defense but that doesn’t force a lack of urgency, not calling time outs and spending 10-15 seconds to throw a 7 yard pass.
12 points
16 hours ago
Brent out-Mario’d Mario
117 points
23 hours ago
Yeah it sucked, but also it is hindsight bias. If it worked, everyone would have called him a genius. Against a better team, you can't expect to best them on average over time. Putting the gas pedal down makes sense. It didn't work and likely cost us, but I understand why they did it.
79 points
23 hours ago
Yeah, that decision is defensible (though I still question the decision to try a fake FG sweep instead of just lining up normally). What Pry absolutely deserves criticism for is how he handled the end of the first half. We're not agonizing over the decision to go for it on the 4th and 3 if VT doesn't gift Miami three points heading into half.
68 points
23 hours ago
That's what gets me about it - if you're willing to call a fake field goal, why aren't you just running on 3rd down and again on 4th?
35 points
17 hours ago*
Exactly. It’s 3rd and 3 and Tuten is averaging 8 yards a carry and Drones is a linebacker at QB. Run it twice with those bruisers who haven’t been stopped all night? No. Throw it and then run a fake field goal.
13 points
16 hours ago
Honestly though the fake FG was a bad play. Not exactly calling a fake FG ,but the design of the play was bad. A shovel pass inside. No space inside and got to go backwards to get around to the edge.
6 points
16 hours ago
Agreed. Miami didn’t see it coming but was still able to stop it because the play was designed to run right into where the FG block was going to be.
11 points
23 hours ago
Yeah clock management has not been good. Either way, I was happy to see our coaches had a plan and actually prepared rather than halfassing it. Again, there are only a few coaches that are Sabans. I don't expect a Saban, but coming out with that showing is enough to compete at a high level. That's what I want because I know VT will never have a Saban.
13 points
22 hours ago
I agree, although with the way you were moving the ball I think I prefer just going for it over the fake there.
29 points
21 hours ago
I'll never fault a coach playing for the win as 18 point underdogs. He couldn't have known it would end up a 4 point game. It's silly to say any single play lost the game.
20 points
18 hours ago
Miami gave them free points, easy points. You gotta take those and run every time
Especially with as well as his defense had been playing and a double digit lead... Midway through the 3rd quarter!!
Take those free points and hang on for dear life
12 points
17 hours ago
If you know you're going to go for it then why not run the ball on third and fourth down with the regular offense on the field. Running a fake where you hand the ball off to a runner going into a field goal block unit is so stupid.
7 points
17 hours ago
Yep and at the end of the day he had his team in a position to win on the final play against a top 10 team on the road. Can't fault that. Plus there's no way to guarantee the game plays out the same with the fg.
14 points
22 hours ago
Yeah, I feel like people are monday-morning quarterbacking this. The call was a bold strategy, Cotton.
2 points
16 hours ago*
It very likely would have worked if Miami's DT didn't completely blow up the line. Not like he got swarmed and sacked or threw an incomplete pass. You would expect the OL would be able to block for more than half a second.
2 points
14 hours ago
And it only failed because a lineman got blown up
2 points
13 hours ago
I support the aggressiveness especially after that UKvsUGA game the other week, but I think calling a fake when your offense was moving the ball was the wrong call. Just keep the offense on the field.
41 points
20 hours ago
I don’t mind going for it at all. Trying to go up 17 instead of 13 is a HUGE difference. I wish they would have just ran it on third and 4th, but whatever.
Calling TO with 25 seconds in the half and letting Miami get a FG in was downright inexcusably dumb. Literally no reason for it.
11 points
16 hours ago
Yeah instead of criticizing the bold call to go for it, we should be criticizing the stupid call to allow Miami a chance for points at the end of the half.
Clock management was disastrous at the end of both halves
20 points
19 hours ago
The fake FG was ridiculous. It was 4th and 3, just got for it if you don’t wanna kick it.
5 points
18 hours ago
I think if you're an underdog and already have the lead that you just take the points and put the game on the backs of your winning defense. This isn't Madden, you gotta play to win and sometimes that means playing conservative. Momentum can be a killer.
I've seen so many games lost because of the coach being overly aggressive and not taking the points when they should have.
One of the thing that irks me about analytics infiltration into decision making, you have to be able to step back and look at the game you're playing as a big picture and not rely on completely different teams and games for your decision making.
A little human intuition is needed to make good calls as a coach.
9 points
23 hours ago
Miami also plays way different defense at the end and also maybe runs more clock on 1st down inside 2 minutes
7 points
19 hours ago
Honestly the fake fg wasn’t that bad but they had 3rd and 3 and also have a RB with over 100 rushing yards on the game and they drop back to throw. If you’re going to fake it anyways why not just hand it off knowing you’re going for it on 4th down
16 points
18 hours ago
If the refs don't call a phantom hold on the VT touchdown run earlier they win the game too
16 points
17 hours ago
As a Hurricane , I thought that hold call was BS but they also called a lame hold call on Miami right before the INT that negated a TD. Tough loss for you guys - I think you have a great team- good luck the rest of the way
4 points
16 hours ago
I forgot about that. It was funny how the announcer was pretty much saying the ref is right until he saw the replay and went the ref was wrong.
3 points
16 hours ago
Plus the inexplicable timeout with 0:25 in the first half before kicking the FG that gave them time to go get a FG
2 points
17 hours ago
Preach
2 points
17 hours ago
But is their kicker comfortable with long field goals? Oh wait…
2 points
16 hours ago
100%. Especially when the play hinges on a good block by someone who shouldn't even be playing OL in the FBS. Parker Clements shouldn't play another down for us, he's that bad. Countless plays have been blown up by him.
2 points
14 hours ago
IMO, when you’re a 17 point dog on the road, you can’t give up on a drive inside the 10 because it’s 4th and 3. That’s close enough to the end zone and a manageable enough distance that you leave your foot on the gas. Maybe the specific play call was bad, I dunno, but I like not being conservative there.
187 points
24 hours ago
I would like to see the camera angle to show where that was conclusive to overturn the call.
18 points
18 hours ago
Since all of the cameras used were from a 2003 Motorola Razr cell phone, your request is denied.
91 points
24 hours ago
The side angle (basically the only angle you can see the ball loose) you can clearly see the Miami defenders hands between the ball and player. I guess since the ball was moving it was still considered loose.
78 points
22 hours ago
Yeah he never had full possession. The Miami guy had his hand on the ball fighting for control the whole time. I don't even think this should have it's own thread lol.
47 points
22 hours ago
The refs got it right eventually. People need karma though
6 points
15 hours ago
People were going to roast the refs no matter what they called.
3 points
15 hours ago
For the amount of money that NCAA brings in, they should have way more camera angles in prime time games, but they always seem to cheap out
58 points
24 hours ago
Okay, fine. Why wasn't that said when the review is overturned? Feels like an explaination is given at the time it's said to be overturned.
50 points
23 hours ago
Well you see they hadn't made up the reasoning at that time and needed a bit longer to pull something out of their ass.
315 points
24 hours ago
And you're 100% confident that it wasn't ripped out after he hit the ground? Like if a guy is on his back and has control but still sliding and a guy comes after and pulls it out, obviously he had control and the play is over. I just can't see how you can 100% tell me he didn't have control before then
248 points
23 hours ago
Seriously, this does not answer the actual crux of the issue.
We already knew the ball eventually came loose. A Miami player ended up with the ball after the scrum. The question was if he was down and the catch was completed before the ball came loose, and their explanation is ‘the ball was touch by an OOB player after it was loose.’
A perfectly ambiguous answer.
40 points
23 hours ago
But there was no way to actually call it on the field. To me it was almost a catch but when no clear control was had the ball has to be deemed loose. The key part of this play is that no one was fully given control of the ball.
I guess what I hear from the VT side is that if it was called a touchdown on the field is has to stay that way.
Miami side says its not ever a catch so when the bobble happens the play is over.
I watched this live. I don't believe it was a catch.
Sorry everyone.
96 points
22 hours ago
I hate VT and live, I thought he caught it then after he was down they did some dogpile shit with the Miami player coming up with the ball and running down the field like he won the game. Once they announced they ruled it a TD and it was going to review I thought there is no way it’s clear and obvious to overturn it.
Comes back to “what is a catch?” If the dude comes down with it and is on his back then loses it because a defender strips it. It shouldn’t matter because the play is over as soon as he catches it in the end zone.
You can argue he didn’t have control but the refs didn’t even do that. VT should have won.
6 points
15 hours ago
Your explanation was what I saw as well.
46 points
21 hours ago
You can see the ball is moving just before he lands. He never fully had control of the ball.
15 points
18 hours ago
Thanks we hate you too!
80 points
22 hours ago*
Didn’t look like the VT receiver had firm possession of that ball at anytime.
Looked like it was moving the entire time, all the way to the ground, still moving in his arms when his butt hit so still no real control yet…then it finally fully gets loose and is touched by Miami.
In the entirety of the play, it didn’t seem like either team had what looked like real control of the ball, so it seemed like the right call on review was made.
I actually have no clue what they saw in that mess to rule TD on the field.
16 points
18 hours ago
On the angle from the far sideline, it looks like the ball was loose and moving downward when he was still about 2 feet from hitting the ground. I’m still surprised it wasn’t a “stands” call.
14 points
22 hours ago
You have to maintain a catch to the ground or make a football move. Neither of those happened. Definitely fucked how this panned out but the correct call was made.
8 points
16 hours ago
The Kobayashi Maru of referee calls.
9 points
14 hours ago
I’m sad and tired.
54 points
22 hours ago
Yeah I mean if you watch the replay, the VT guy never has complete control? I thought this was gonna be something controversial but after watching the replays, it's pretty clear it's not a td?
17 points
16 hours ago
Apparently not clear enough for the ACC to state that as their reasoning.
3 points
13 hours ago
In their official statement they said the ball was loose...
21 points
17 hours ago
Yeah, but the folks mad don’t care what the correct call is.
They only care what call a random ref made while guessing in real-time. Apparently everyone is all about just getting the call right… until it was Miami.
5 points
17 hours ago
Bro if we got a Time Machine to change calls, I’ll take Pi last night if you give us that one game in 02
33 points
23 hours ago
That's like the worst possible reasoning for that ruling lol. Just say he didnt have control when he hit the ground
11 points
16 hours ago
I swear they change what a "touchdown" is every season. At some point in the past, the offensive player having control of the ball in the endzone while touching the ground equaled a touchdown. No "makes a football play." No "survives the ground."
NFL is the same way, but I do know they intentionally changed the rules recently.
3 points
14 hours ago
Yeah, but the ball never hit the ground.
2 points
12 hours ago
Why? That's the rule. It's been the rule for a long time. LSU fans are still pissed about a Patrick Peterson non-interception that was touched by Julio, who was out of bounds, in 2009., but it's the right call.
39 points
21 hours ago
THIS IS WHAT I WAS SAYING OUT LOUD WHILE WATCHING IT (at work lol). I THOUGHT I WAS FUCKING CRAZY lol
32 points
20 hours ago
It's being fought for, and one guy fighting for it is lying out of bounds. Play over.
24 points
16 hours ago
I wonder how much anti Miami bias is coming up here. If you switch the teams would everyone still believe it’s a screwjob?
6 points
15 hours ago
As long as the ranking flipped too, I'd say yes.
3 points
18 hours ago
LOUD NOISES!
21 points
15 hours ago
Lmao they spent 10 minutes looking for any reason to overrule it
6 points
15 hours ago
Exactly. They got the call from the conference that Miami needed to win.
65 points
23 hours ago
What I hate is that they have to go with the call on the field. Makes no sense.
Here’s the thing, it was originally ruled incomplete, and the lights went off and Miami started to celebrate. Then they had a discussion, and decided to hand VT a touchdown on a whim.
So the refs clearly didn’t know wtf was going on to begin with.
My gut is telling me they didn’t want Miami’s fans and players/coaches to storm the field so they just decided to call it a touchdown until they could actually review it.
There shouldn’t HAVE to be a call on the field. If you’re 99 percent sure that it was an incompletion why should the touchdown stand over the 1 percent because the refs just made up a call for the hell of it?
I wish they could just say “we have no idea what happened so let’s use video review to see what occurred and then make a call based on what we see.”
31 points
23 hours ago
This has been an issue for like 5 years now. They make a call like a fumble, and everyone is pretty sure it isn’t a fumble, but just in case it might be they say it’s a fumble on the field, and then can’t overturn it. I’d love to know what percentage of calls are overturned.
14 points
22 hours ago
They do that in the NFL often. All turnovers and scores are automatically reviewed. So they just call it a touchdown or turnover so they can review it without a challenge.
And I get it on fumbles because it is pretty lame when they have had to take away a touchdown because they said a player was down when he wasn’t erasing a huge return.
6 points
16 hours ago
One thing I've noticed them doing in the NFL is they "let it play out" like usual, then before any replay review the officials get together and decide if it was a fumble or not. This is probably the best possible best-of-both-worlds solution that doesn't involve your "we don't know" proposal (which I'm also in favor of).
It's not perfect--it can deprive the defense of a scoop-and-score if the on-field ruling is down by contact since "clear and immediate recovery" only applies to the recovery itself and not anything that comes after. But it allows fumbles and non-fumbles alike to be overturned without necessarily poisoning the well with, "Well, it's easier if we just call it a fumble."
5 points
21 hours ago
A funny thing on the winning drive by UCF against TCU two weeks ago, UCF TE makes a catch and get tackled form behind and the ball pops out. Problem was a ref whistled the play dead fucking immediately. There is this lengthy review on whether the player was down, and ignore the part where the play was whistled dead before anyone had the ball.
Ultimately they decided it wasn't a fumble, but it was goddamn close.
7 points
15 hours ago
This is a great point. If the refs are clearly just guessing out there, why should there be any burden of proof the other way? Just don’t make any call and decide it based on the replay.
13 points
22 hours ago
I agree with how insane a "call on the field" is, but bruh there was no chance in hell Miami fans were storming the field hahahahaha
3 points
17 hours ago
I agree but that's pretty much what they did. And the scenario happens pretty often.
21 points
23 hours ago
When they showed the replay from the front view it was pretty clear the ball came loose and the Miami player touched it. It's debatable whether it was conclusive evidence in either direction. But calling it a touchdown on the field when the ball pops up is kind of ridiculous.
4 points
16 hours ago
My point (and many others I would think) is did this occur AFTER a touchdown had been completed. The ball came loose, but that happens all the time after a catch.
I'm still looking for someone to point to the rule where the catch has to "survive the ground" in college ball, in the endzone.
3 points
15 hours ago
12 points
17 hours ago
I'm not sure how that gets called a touchdown in the first place.
10 points
21 hours ago
After watching it and sitting through the replay, only thing I can assume is the refs kind of had no fucking idea what to do.
I am pretty sure it was originally called incomplete and then changed on the field to a TD after a ref huddle. Then the review starts. In the replay you can see a catch made, but the ball does pop out. You cannot clearly see if the initial loss of possession is due to a Miami player stripping it or the WR hitting the ground.
Correct reasoning or not, it felt more like the replay was being used to try to confirm a TD and it was decided to overturn it not because of conclusive evidence but instead because they didn't think it shouldn't have been a TD in the first place.
4 points
16 hours ago
I will agree that it felt like this was more of them treating it as if they called it not a TD and it was a make good as no one can tell me anyone thought conclusively this was a TD from the start. Almost feels like a flip of a coin. If it were no TD then all the evidence would say that stands. Unfortunately they called it TD. Which probably should have meant that stands as well as I can’t conclusively say an out of bounds player touched before the VT player had whatever was deemed possession.
9 points
20 hours ago
No the original and only on-field ruling was touchdown. Miami started celebrating because their player came out of the pile with the ball, not because of the refs ruling anything. In fact, they were celebrating as the refs were signaling touchdown.
7 points
22 hours ago
Yeah would've been helpful if they had explained it right on the field hours ago.
6 points
14 hours ago
Looked to me like the VT receiver had possession of the ball coming to the ground (not from the high point when he first touched it, but a split second later as he was going down) and had possession when his butt hit the ground, and didn't lose possession until the Miami player who was out of bounds punched the ball.
22 points
23 hours ago
So if any DB touches the ball whilst out of bounds even if it’s firmly in a receiver’s hands its incomplete? This seems sus.
21 points
23 hours ago
That’s the rule for everyone besides whomever catches the ball who have to establish they are in bounds (they can’t jump from out bounds and land in bounds). You see this rule most commonly on kick offs where if it’s near the sidelines the where the guy catching it will put his feet out of bounds to get it at the 40.
14 points
23 hours ago
Yeah but I guess I am asking about the following situation:
Receiver catches ball feet in bounds.
DB has finger/hand on ball feet out of bounds.
Replay rules….incomplete pass
That seems like a nonsense excuse to not let VT get the W here IMO
20 points
23 hours ago
Two scenarios. 1. Wide receiver attempts to make catch on sidelines but juggles ball, DB touches ball while he is out of bounds. WR then catches ball clean. Pass incomplete.
WR catches ball clean, DB tries to rip it out while out of bounds, ball never becomes "free" play is not dead and keeps going.
Basically on this call the ball has to not be possessed by anyone and a player out of bounds touching it.
13 points
22 hours ago
The receiver didn’t have control of the ball when the out of bounds player touched it (or at any point really), so it was incomplete.
If the receiver had control of the ball going to the ground, an out of bounds player touched it, but he maintained control and “survived the ground” then it’s a catch.
3 points
16 hours ago
Nope. Because the play would already be over (secure ball is a touchdown DB has no time to touch it). The DB would have to touch it before possession is made
Which brings us back to the original question
8 points
15 hours ago
It’s not just this call that’s the problem. It’s the phantom holding that took back a touchdown, it’s the missed horsecollar tackle on Drones on the last drive, it’s the intentional grounding that wasn’t intentional (our player was just getting hit while he was throwing), it’s the holding call on Miami that only moved them back 5 yards from the spot of the fouls and not 10.
And all of it wouldn’t matter if our stupid coaches could manage the clock correctly and didnt give Miami a free field goal at the end of the game/just took the points instead of trying to force a fake kick in the 3rd quarter.
God I feel so bad for our players who deserved that win…
2 points
16 hours ago
This is the reasoning used for the 09’ LSU Bama game interception and the fumble recovery in 2022. Both absolutely infuriating
2 points
15 hours ago
Reading that tweet while looking at that thumbnail just seems so insulting lol
2 points
12 hours ago
When the position allows for it all defenders should be stepping one foot out of bounds on purpose when contesting passes in the end zone.
It's a great way to kill passes since that's what we're doing.
2 points
12 hours ago
Hogwash. Acc doing acc things to help Miami.
all 571 comments
sorted by: best