I thought maybe the receiver was on top of another player so he could not be called down before the defender made him bobble the ball. Only reason could overturn the original call.
Incompletion at end of Virginia Tech/Miami game
- Thread starter Cycsk
- Start date
The officials and replay blundered the entire thing and still probably got the call correct.
Based on the replays shown, I don't see where the receiver maintained possession for the on the field call to be touchdown. Would love to know what those officials saw on field to call it a touchdown. They even had a discussion before ruling touchdown. On the field, they weren't sure.
Then for replay review to take as long as it did to result in overturning it. Clear undisputable evidence wouldn't have taken that long to find.
While I feel incomplete is the correct ruling, I don't see how replay could've taken that long to determine it should've been overturned. Based on how replay review is supposed to work, the call should've stood.
Based on the replays shown, I don't see where the receiver maintained possession for the on the field call to be touchdown. Would love to know what those officials saw on field to call it a touchdown. They even had a discussion before ruling touchdown. On the field, they weren't sure.
Then for replay review to take as long as it did to result in overturning it. Clear undisputable evidence wouldn't have taken that long to find.
While I feel incomplete is the correct ruling, I don't see how replay could've taken that long to determine it should've been overturned. Based on how replay review is supposed to work, the call should've stood.
I don't think anyone could see the hands or the ball when he hit the ground except the back judge. I think what you said is possible, but it is just as likely that he hit the ground clean and then the defender pried it loose.
People always say “there must be indisputable evidence” but is that actually what it says in the current rule book?
Criterion for Overturn
ARTICLE 1. To overturn an on-field ruling, the replay official must be convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence through one or more video replays provided to the monitor.
I think they got it right, it doesn't look like anyone has clear possession when they all hit the ground, the ball appears to be moving and rotating immediately, they're fighting over it but the Miami player is laying out of bounds.
The fact that you said 'probably' got the call correct, means that the call should have stood.
If I'm a Tech fan, I'm not mad necessarily that they called it incomplete. It's extremely close. I'm mad that they overturned a call with what is clearly not indisputable evidence. The annoying thing about replay is you'll get some crews who have a much higher standard for indisputable evidence than others and it just makes the whole thing seem random.
Yeah you're not going to get an argument from me. I'm saying that's what it looked like to me but it was really hard to tell. The OP's question was how it was an incomplete pass, so that's what I was explaining.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
This is the thing.
I didn’t see anything in the replays to indisputedly prove anything - I couldn’t tell if the ball was secured when the receiver was on the ground (ending the play as a TD before the out-of-bounds Miami player touched it) or if the ball was never secure (an incompletion) or, as the ACC finally said hours after the game was over, the ball was touched by an out-of-bounds player before the VT receiver held it securely.
I couldn’t tell, in all the replays they showed, which of these scenarios actually happened. Which means, according to the replay rules, the call on the field stands. Overturning the call given the lack of “indisputable video evidence” seems like a bail-out call to me, and does little but fuel conspiracy theories about the ACC protecting Miami for a potential CFP spot.
Can anyone tell me, looking at the replays, they could be “convinced beyond all doubt” that the call was wrong?
I’m not sure you can tell if the ground pops it out or another player after it hits the ground which would be a td.
It’s combo of tough original call and tough review.
At least it’s not a situation where the original call is truly awful, like say KU last year where our guy’s foot was in bounds by an entire foot and they whistled it out of bounds.
This is what I thought too, but none of the views are very clear so I can see how people think different. One of the views the ball is totally hidden.
If most of the Big 12 fb refs were weird Texas fans as many suspected, if we kept some or all of them shouldn’t we actually see some improvement in our games? I mean why would they even care or care who gets into cfp?
Even if they’re just random refs with no fandom, maybe not having any legendary marquee blue blood brands helps. Kind of the opposite of what we see w KU in basketball.
Even if they’re just random refs with no fandom, maybe not having any legendary marquee blue blood brands helps. Kind of the opposite of what we see w KU in basketball.
"Convinced beyond all doubt"???? Wow, that is NOT how replay is applied at all. By that standard, just ISU has probably been the victim of dozens of incorrect overturned calls. Imagine across all college football and all the years.
It's just a subjective thing a lot of the time, not really much you can do to change that.
Yeah, it has really gotten away from this. I think limiting review time to one minute would probably help, and would certainly be a better fan experience.
