Devil's Advocacy on Coales' TD Catch
Much as I respect both Brian and Seth, I don't think that it's obvious that Coales overtime TD catch, which was overturned on review, was incomplete. I'm not going to say that the review ref was wrong, but this was a tough call that could have gone either way, both on the initial call and on review. I'll start with Brian:
It's incomplete because the tip of the ball hits the ground and it shifts in his arms when it happens.
I'm not sure that's what the rules call for as part of "control". If it is it would lead to some absurd results in other situations. For instance: imagine a tackler punching at a ball while making a tackle. The ball's position shifts, but remains in the ballcarrier's hands. Would that be a fumble? The fact that the ball shifts position, by itself, doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't still under the receiver's control. Firm control doesn't mean absolute control.
The ball has the potential to slide through his upper arms when it impacts the ground...
Except it doesn't. The ref isn't there to speculate about what might happen, here's there to judge what does happen. And what happened was the ball remained in the reciever's arms and/or hands the whole time. Coales still had the ball in his hands after he hit the ground and rolled onto his back. You can argue about how tight his grip was, but nobody else touched it and it didn't roll away after Coales hit the turf.
...ground aids catch; not a catch.
I don't know how you can say the ground aided the catch. Normally if you're juggling something and then hit the ground, the ground jars the object loose. That clearly didn't happen here.
Meanwhile Seth asks about whether the replay official should have overturned the original call. He says no:
But it's too close to call/not enough evidence to overturn! If someone is saying this to you they are confusing a Law & Order episode for reality. They have conceded that "incomplete" is the correct call, and are essentially complaining that it should have been ruled incorrectly because of a technicality in the literal meaning of the review rule.
Seth confuses substantive rules with procedural rules here, and forgets that, when you're dealing with video replay, there's a procedure that's supposed to be followed. To put it another way, this kinda is "Law and Order". In real life, lawyers argue about procedure all the time.
The replay official is not there to substitute his judgement for the that of the field official on close calls, he is there to correct obviously incorrect calls -- that's what "indisputable video evidence" means. True, at this point the gripe is more about procedure than substance, but procedure matters too. The standard for a review official is high for a reason -- we don't want every tricky judgement call reviewed and overturned or we'd never finish the game. If the replay official didn't have "indisputable evidence" then he shouldn't have overruled the field official, even if he believed the pass was probably incomplete.
Okay, having said all that -- it was a helluva a game and I'm very proud of this team and the way they played. And even if Coale's catch had stood up, we would have won anyway. That's just how Team 132 was.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:15 PM ^
It hit the ground there for it is not a catch, and we got screwed at Iowa so even if it wasn't correct it's a makeup call.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:17 PM ^
That is not true. Was about ten years ago. It can touch the ground as long as it doesn't move and as long as the ground does t assist the receiver.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:23 PM ^
Not sure if serious, but November 5, 2011 wasn't ten years ago.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:36 PM ^
I'm pretty sure he means that 10 years ago, any ball that hit the ground was ruled incomplete, regardless of "control." Could be wrong, though...I don't care. This thread is a waste of space and the fact that I'm even commenting makes me sick. We just need to freakin' enjoy the win. This is the one thing my Buckeye fan friends do better than my Wolverine fan friends, they enjoy wins in ignorant bliss - regardless of the way the game was won.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:13 PM ^
This just in: We won the game.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:16 PM ^
His hands aren't even on the ball when the ball hits the ground. Compare it to Iowa / Hemingway. They are calling this consistently. I don't understand the self-loathing we are doing over this. We had nothing to do with that call and the officials looked at it long enough to call it incomplete.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:19 PM ^
"I don't know how you can say the ground aided the catch. Normally if you're juggling something and then hit the ground, the ground jars the object loose. That clearly didn't happen here." - from the OP
Call me nuts, but it seemed as if he didn't have enough control of the ball, and the ground actually pushed his arms into his chest, aiding in securing the ball. This would not be a catch. I believe that is what they saw, but I am not in the booth looking at every angle - it's just an opinion.
This being said, I believe I will have another beer in celebration of the win.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:10 PM ^
If the contact between the ground and the ball causes the ball to move (replay showed it did), then obviously the receiver did not have firm control of the ball.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:18 PM ^
Why is this thread-worthy? If you're arguing with what Brian and Seth said in their posts, shouldn't your argument go in Brian's and/or Seth's posts?
January 4th, 2012 at 9:20 PM ^
who gives a f*ck. we won! hail to the victors of the sugar bowl!
January 4th, 2012 at 9:20 PM ^
doesn't do much for me. If the replay official did not feel he saw indisputable proof, what are you accusing him of?
January 4th, 2012 at 9:21 PM ^
January 4th, 2012 at 9:23 PM ^
Watch the animated .gif in Seth's Picture Pages. The tip of the ball touches the ground and it rotates up onto the receiver's arm, the very definition of an incomplete pass. The point of being a Devil's Advocate is to argue against an opinion, not a fact.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:27 PM ^
Plus, Coales doesn't even have either of his hands on the ball when it first hit the ground.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:33 PM ^
...he (in particular the ball) was VERY close to being out of bounds -- perhaps that is what the replay officials saw as well.
January 5th, 2012 at 7:11 AM ^
1) the ball CLEARLY hits the ground
2) The ball CLEARLY moves
3) This could have been interpreted as "aiding"
Lets say for a minute that the received did gain control of the ball at some point after the ball hit the ground. He was OB at that point. So I do not understand what the argument is?
I know the VT people all think it should have been a touchdown. The local VT television station asked some local (VT) referees to determine thier opinion: guess what? They think the call should have been TD. (Now that is a shoker).
Anyway, that would not have won the game for them. Al would have called a different set of plays and we would have scored. We have a guy named Denard and he would have scored a 2 point conversion anyway.
CONCLUSION: Even if VT scores that TD we still WIN THE GAME. 'Nuff said. Hail to Team 132. Move on. Bring on Team 133 and a Rose Bowl win.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:15 AM ^
telemetry man in for an analysis.............I saw Coalesand the ball landing oob.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:24 PM ^
I don't think they should of reversed it, but on the reversed interception it hit the ground and you could make a case that he could have controlled it without the ground so they probably tried to call it consistently.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:40 PM ^
So you don't think they should stop the game for the review to make the correct call? The review got the call right.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:25 PM ^
I noticed on this tD attempt as well as the INT and other passes, that VaTech players were not catching with their hands. They basically "alligator armed" it and trapped it against their chest.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:25 PM ^
For instance: imagine a tackler punching at a ball while making a tackle. The ball's position shifts, but remains in the ballcarrier's hands. Would that be a fumble? The fact that the ball shifts position, by itself, doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't still under the receiver's control.
There's a reason that the ground and the defenders are treated differently in the rulebook.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:25 AM ^
The ball carrier already has control of the ball and possession is not being established therefore it doesn't matter how much the ball shifts.
January 5th, 2012 at 1:08 AM ^
If the ball started to move within the ball carrier's grasp as a result of the punch, and then came out upon contact with the ground, then yes, that would be a fumble.
Also, in the example, control has been established, and the ball is in the ball carrier's hands.
Coale had managed to bring the ball between his forearms. What if it had been between his legs? Would have that been "firmly controlled"?
January 5th, 2012 at 7:16 AM ^
this is a 12 year olds argument. I agree with you and I cant believe an educated person would argue this in the OP? Is it a fumble when the runner shifts the ball from one hand to the other while running? Is it a fumble when the ball is moving while his arms are "pumping" while running?
Is it a fumble when the ball is snapped out of the hands of the center? Is it a fumble when the ball is kicked out of the holders hands? Is it a fumble when a player spikes the ball after a touchdown?
January 4th, 2012 at 9:28 PM ^
Even if you don't think the ground aided the catch, you have to at least acknowledge the fact that the ball moved when he hit the ground. Therefore he didn't have complete control until after the ball moved and at that point he was out of bounds. So no catch.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:37 PM ^
Which is why I didn't say "It was a touchdown". I said "It was a tough call".
January 5th, 2012 at 2:28 AM ^
If it isn't a touchdown, why is it a tough call? So your point is to say "I am a devil's advocate that ultimately agrees with everyone that it wasn't a touchdown." You are a pretty shitty devil's advocate.
January 5th, 2012 at 7:23 AM ^
The ball hit the ground, said contact forced the ball to move.
So no control can be established at that point. Then when the receiver does gain control, he is OUT OF BOUNDS. What is so tough about this call?
The TD taken away from us against Ohio? Tough Call. It took a PhD candidate to analyze this and his opinion (MGoFan too) PROBABLY not a TD but not enough evidence to overturn the call. The Ohio call was much tougher to overturn. Did we bitch? Yes.
I dont understand the OP and its argument. It was not a tough call. Ergo it was not a TD.
We won. We are Sugar Bowl Champions. Hail to the Victors and Team 132. Hurrah for the Yellow and Blue. Here they come with Banners Fly'n.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:30 PM ^
of someone who is looking for attention by starting unnecessary garbage...
January 4th, 2012 at 9:31 PM ^
That's the way it was called. End of story. We've had close calls and official reviews go against us. Too damn bad for VT!
January 4th, 2012 at 9:36 PM ^
We got screwed in Iowa and in the OSU game when a replay official expanded his charge to only overturn a call if there was obvious and indisputable visual evidence so........
January 5th, 2012 at 12:18 AM ^
I love your posts
January 4th, 2012 at 9:35 PM ^
just imagine wat these boards woulda been like had we lost!
January 4th, 2012 at 9:37 PM ^
Because the ball shifted after it hit the ground, it shows that the receiver didn't have full contol and the ground helped him make the catch, ergo it is incomplete. It really is as simple as that
January 4th, 2012 at 9:41 PM ^
Look at Coales hands. They aren't even on the ball when the ball hits the ground.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:02 PM ^
Who says this was a catch. Thank you.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:24 PM ^
Hope you have spare time, you'll be showing this to about 75 million college football fans.
January 5th, 2012 at 11:44 AM ^
you mean a few million sparty, buckeye and hokie fans. this gif is damning proof it was not a catch and it was called our way, so best to just have it in this blog and if any of those fans, like you, ask, we can point them here. the blog is free.
January 5th, 2012 at 1:25 AM ^
during the broadcast
January 5th, 2012 at 7:59 AM ^
will help me convince some friends who've been pestering me about the win. If not, I give up on hoping for rationality from college football fans.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:47 AM ^
The overwhelming majority of college football fans are irrational.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:40 AM ^
The ball is sliding between his forearms when it hits the ground. The ground stops the ball's movement and he wraps his hands around it.
It was almost a fantastic catch.
January 5th, 2012 at 1:24 AM ^
It was a terrific effort by Coales.
When I saw it live, I thought to myself "No, he didn't. Damn."
January 5th, 2012 at 1:12 AM ^
What if it had been between his legs and then rotated upon contact with the ground.
WOuld that have been "firmly controlled"?
January 4th, 2012 at 9:38 PM ^
At least its not a thread about MSU, thank god. Oh and the receiver never had possession of the ball. Go Blue!
January 4th, 2012 at 9:41 PM ^
not post worthy
Game is over, we won,
GO BLUE
January 4th, 2012 at 9:46 PM ^
5,7,5.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:55 PM ^
lol sorry it has been far too long since I have written a Haiku
January 4th, 2012 at 9:47 PM ^
We won. Or am I missing something? Who gives a rats ass about this. They spent a shitload of time looking at it. Replay official made the call. Game over, cue the Maize confetti guns.
Rules aren't perfect. Refs aren't perfect. Replay isn't perfect. None of them ever will be. Except in the Android Football League coming sometime this millenium.
Look. Controversies like this are a part of sports. Every team has somewhere in its history calls like this, both ways. Stop whining.
January 5th, 2012 at 1:22 AM ^
Now if folks would just switch their language from
"Had the refs not been paid off to screw Virginia Tech on a couple of razor-close plays, Virginia Tech would have won"
to
"Had a couple of razor-close plays gone slightly differently, Virginia Tech would have won"
then they would be right. We were VERY fortunate to win that game, given what ALMOST happened.
In either case, the operative word is "had".