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.
Devil's Advocacy on Coales' TD Catch
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.
Not sure if serious, but November 5, 2011 wasn't ten years ago.
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.
This just in: We won the game.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
who gives a f*ck. we won! hail to the victors of the sugar bowl!
doesn't do much for me. If the replay official did not feel he saw indisputable proof, what are you accusing him of?
Between achieving firm control in a reception and holding the ball while running. And your argument that the ground didn't aid the catch (a rule for a reason) is that the ground can't aid the catch?
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.
Plus, Coales doesn't even have either of his hands on the ball when it first hit the ground.
...he (in particular the ball) was VERY close to being out of bounds -- perhaps that is what the replay officials saw as well.
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.
telemetry man in for an analysis.............I saw Coalesand the ball landing oob.
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.
So you don't think they should stop the game for the review to make the correct call? The review got the call right.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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?
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.
Which is why I didn't say "It was a touchdown". I said "It was a tough call".
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.
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.
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!
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........
I love your posts
just imagine wat these boards woulda been like had we lost!
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
Look at Coales hands. They aren't even on the ball when the ball hits the ground.
Who says this was a catch. Thank you.
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.
during the broadcast
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.
The overwhelming majority of college football fans are irrational.
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.
It was a terrific effort by Coales.
When I saw it live, I thought to myself "No, he didn't. Damn."
What if it had been between his legs and then rotated upon contact with the ground.
WOuld that have been "firmly controlled"?
At least its not a thread about MSU, thank god. Oh and the receiver never had possession of the ball. Go Blue!
not post worthy
Game is over, we won,
lol sorry it has been far too long since I have written a Haiku
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.
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"
"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".
Is there any reason this person should be allowed to post again?
Is a play off of Keith Stone and Key Stone. I hate Keystone and I wilk never drink it.
I'm just amazed at how many people on this blog don't actually watch football. I mean, sure, I watch a TON of college football, but I've seen soooooo many "catches" like this called back that I can't believe this is even an argument. The Hemingway TD that wasn't against Iowa should be evidence enough. That, in my opinion was much more definitely controlled in bounds than the coales play.
If you're wringing your hands so badly over this, I can't imagine what you would've done if you were a Packer fan watching Titus Young's TD last Sunday...
dot really undersyand most of the rules or make calls any more than girls do. sorry but its true.
rule it one way doesn't make it right. They may have ruled Hemingway's catch incomplete, but he DID catch the ball. Just because the ball hit the ground and moved doesn't make this not a catch. There is a difference between shock at a call going a certain way and disagreement with how it is called. The rules don't say the ball can't touch the ground or move when it does. I'm happy with the outcome, but I fundamentally disagree with how the ruling was (and is typically) made.
I agree, when it comes to hemingway's catch at Iowa. I wholeheartedly DISagree as far as the VT game. That's why I said, hemingway's catch was more definitely controlled in bounds. But the more I look at it, they aren't even that close. Hemingway had possession and slightly bobbled it going to the ground. Coale didn't have possession until the ground forced it into his body. The ground can't cause a fumble, nor can it cause a reception.
The horse is fucking dead, we won.....the end.
...beaten so much that it is no longer a horse but just a mass of mushy, pulpy, horse-like substance that can't be readily identified as horse under casual examination.
Not only are you going out of your way to analyze a play in a way demeaning to your own team, but you you made yourself sound like someone who thinks they know way more about football than they actually do. I can appreciate the whole devil's advocate angle, but jesus christ man, learn the rules first.
Demeaning? How is it demeaning to say "this was a tough call for a ref to make? Is there any risk that the NCAA is going to overturn this and give VA Tech a win based on some comment on a blog?
As far as the rules go, I'm not arguing about the ball touching the ground, I'm arguing about control before the ball touches the ground. Here's the rule, courtesy of Seth:
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.
Now, it's pretty clear that if the player had control before it touches the ground, it doesn't matter what happens after it touches the ground. Damn thing can explode, it's still a catch. So if the ball comes loose after hitting the ground, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Now maybe there's another rule I'm not aware of. If there is it's probably been written down somewhere. Where?
Look, this is a football discussion board. We talk about football. In considerable detail. Seth and Brian both saw fit to comment on this play and what the refs did afterward, and now I've added my two cents. And lots of people saw fit to read and comment on what I had to say. (No matter how much they say "I don't care!", if they really didn't care they wouldn't have clicked on the link!) Lots of people disagree with what I said, and I'm okay with that.
Like I said -- it's a tough call and there was another way to look at it. I laid it out. I never claimed to be a ref, and I never actually said the replay ref got it all wrong, which should tell you that I'm not pretending to be any kind of expert.
I'm not really looking for a trip to Bolivian, but if it happens, it happens. I'll be bummed but I'll still have a job and I'm pretty sure they'll let me in the stadium as long as I can scrounge up a ticket. So, goodnight.
But with how it's been called on other examples (Jr and Calvin) we've seen that the play isnt immediately over when he has possession in-bounds. I think it was a TD, but according to the rules it wasnt. The ref made the right call, and upheld the Iowa play
Edit: The more I see of this the more it wasn't a TD, he never had possession before he hit the ground
The VT player never had control of the ball until after it hit the ground. It's clear in the gif posted above. The ball is still slipping through his forearms when it hits the ground. Once it hits the ground and stops, he wraps his hands around it.
This is not a case of the player having possession and the ball moving as the player hits the ground. In this case, the player never had possession of the ball. This play is akin to trapping the ball or one-hopping it.
an incomplete pass. Therefore it was an incomplete pass. Once that happened, it no longer mattered what the receiver thought, what the coaches thought, or what we thought. Once that decision was made, it was and always will be an incomplete pass.
It can be disected every which way, we can break out the rule book, and we can study the nuances of NFL/College Football catches. But it is still an incomplete pass.
Last year, my 12 year old son was playing Little League baseball. Late in the game with our team up by one run, some 17 year-old first base umpire called an opposing batter safe at first base. From where I was sitting, he looked out. Our coaches thought he was out and went on to argue incessantly with the 17 year-old kid about how he blew the call. (yeah, it was a disgrace). Our players were all distraught because the coaches insisted this 17 year-old umpire was a moron. Because of this upheaval, we went on to walk a couple of batters and that first runner eventually scored the game winning run. On the way home, I told my son how outraged I was about our coaches acting up like they did and arguing with a 17 year old kid about the call. My son was insistent..."He was out, Dad!"
"No son, the second that the umpire called him safe, he was safe. It did not matter what you thought, what our coaches thought, or what I thought. Heck, it did not even matter what the 17 year-old umpire thought...once he called him safe, that was the call and that is what happened." "Okay, I get that," he said. "but he was out." Again, I had to explain to him that he was not out. He was safe because that was the call.
The replay official's decision was was impartial and was based on what he saw. Once he made that call, that pass was and always will be incomplete! Great outcome for us!
Im pretty sure it was pass interference
The poster was trying to prove that this proves it was a catch. As noted above, I see that the player is not holding the football but has it between the forearms. The other images show it move into his hands after hitting the ground. I'm not sure I'll convince the original poster of this but as Michigan Moonman notes above, it doesn't really matter at this point.
What that still image doesn't show you is that the ball is still moving. It's not under the player's control.
I don't see an orange bowl open thread, so I'll just drop this here. The band Train is old. And they suck. Why are halftime shows dominated by bands that are old and suck?
A: old white people
Your argument about the ball carrier being tackled and getting the ball punched out is not a very good one. The running back already had possession, whereas Coale did not.
We won, doesnt matter.
Edit: First double post :(
I'm sure we've all seen a call that we think should be one way and goes another. I'm sure we've seen a call that was called on the field and was not overturned even if our opinions differ. Was the Hemmingway catch against Iowa really a catch or not?
The bottom line is football is a game played with teams of humans against other teams of humans coached by humans and reffed by humans. We can expect there to be mistakes. Instant replay was implimented, not to eliminate all mistakes (an impossible task with humans), but to eliminate obvious ones. If the refs thought that there was enough evidence to overturn the catch than so be it. They are paid to make the best call they, most of the time, make the right call.
We can talk all we want about what should have been called or reversed or what not, but the fact of the matter is it was reversed. The replay official must have thought that there was enough evidence to review it. We can turn being a fan into a cat fight or man up and deal with the fact that not everything will turn out the way we want it to. Afterall, isn't a little controversy part of the fun?
I do have to give it to the field refs. I much prefer the questionable calls to be bias toward plays that were made. Call it complete. Call it an interception. Call it a fumble. It's more fun that way.
is stupid. Not similar AT ALL.
comparison. The OP seems to be reaching a bit.
The biggest factor for me in showing the pass was incomplete is that the ball rotates in his hands when it makes contact with the ground. If you watch the stripes on the ball from the outside of the endzone cam it shows the stripes rotate. Thus the ground causes the ball to dislodge from possession upon landing. If the ball is loose and rotating in his hands when he comes down. and the ball hit the ground that is an incomplete pass
"it was not a catch. but great catch man."
Upon realizing how many threads/posts we have about how it was a catch and how we shouldn't have won, I am forced to look to the words of one Stewart Gilligan Griffin, who said "Are we really doing this?"
The procedural rule concerning indisputable video evidence is mostly observed in the breech. They should change it to something useful, because there is not anyone authoritative to dispute it. How about either a 30 second deadline for the review, or just rely on the best judgement of the replay official without the qualifier?