VaTech still upset over Sugar Bowl, calls for 2nd replay official
I want to make sure we’re not taking anything away from the University of Michigan,” Weaver said. “That’s not the intent. The intent is to get the best use of replay that we can. …
“I totally realize that had the call been upheld, that does not guarantee Virginia Tech wins the game because Michigan had to have its offensive series. But at least it would have recognized a legitimate touchdown.
January 26th, 2012 at 5:08 PM ^
sWhy has it taken 23 days to complain more about thi8s? The rule is you must have total control of the ball to complete the catch! This video proves that THE BALL HIT THE GROUND AND WAS MOVING! The reply offical made the right call. GET OVER IT VATECH!!!!!!!!!!
January 26th, 2012 at 11:24 AM ^
How about they just change the damn rule that us the ball touches the ground, it's incomplete. Takes a hell of a lot of subjective interpretation out of it.
January 26th, 2012 at 1:52 PM ^
yes, please. why do they always make things harder? leave this rule in and every situation is black and white. very easy to determine.
January 26th, 2012 at 11:26 AM ^
They shouldn't have overturned the call, but the ball did hit the ground. Maybe a makeup for the hands to the face.
January 26th, 2012 at 11:26 AM ^
Just because he wants to dispute the call - doesn't make it a disputable catch. The rule also says the ground can't aid in the catch of the ball and/or if the ball moves when it hits the ground it's not a catch. Funny how he didn't mention these rules while complaining like a little baby.
January 26th, 2012 at 11:29 AM ^
January 26th, 2012 at 11:35 AM ^
Bad idea. Then you will run into Minority Report issues.
January 26th, 2012 at 11:33 AM ^
Having two replay officials would probably result in fewer overturns, because the two might not agree on a lot of close calls. I don't think I'd like that. I think it's best to stick with the one replay official and just hope he gets it right.
January 26th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^
Clearly showed the ball was secured with the ground. It's allowed to hit the ground as long as the ball doesn't move, but it did move, case closed, get over it.
January 26th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^
my buddy's sister makes $78 an hour on the computer. She has been without a job for 10 months but last month her paycheck was $8910 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site...
Why can't we have more posts like this on here?
January 26th, 2012 at 11:37 AM ^
January 26th, 2012 at 11:37 AM ^
Many times.
However, another replay official will not create more precision. It creates another human perspective that will introduce another subjective element into an inherently subjective process. More judges will not yield more accuracy (See: Olympic figure skating, Olympic gymnastics, free style skiing, chad counting in Florida, etc. . . )
We leave you with this:
January 26th, 2012 at 11:45 AM ^
Here's an even better view. Let's go to the booth Keith...sure looks like a fumble from up here....
January 26th, 2012 at 11:39 AM ^
1) hemingway in endzone vs iowa
2) toussaint at goal line vs ohio
January 26th, 2012 at 11:39 AM ^
Va Tech should be more concerned about the number of fans they had at the game than the number of officials.
January 26th, 2012 at 11:39 AM ^
Why is everyone so bloody deferential to the call on the field anyway? Which is easier to screw up, one guy's call at game speed from one angle, or a call made with the opportunity to review multiple angles repeatedly?
<br>Frankly the whole "indisputable video evidence" thing has turned into nothing but a talisman waved around by fans who lost out on a favorable on-field call. The replay official should determine the call based on his best judgement, unless there is no camera angle with a clear view o the play.
January 26th, 2012 at 11:43 AM ^
I loved this quote:
“I think it’s wrong for fans and young people to be hurt like that.”
So are we going to work on a way both teams can win the game? I sure know I was hurt by many Michigan losses when I was a kid.
January 26th, 2012 at 11:52 AM ^
Well, we have more fans, so it'd be more wrong for us to be hurt by an incorrect rule of TD, right? /s
FFS, some people need to be smacked upside the head. When I grew up, you either won or lost, or maybe tied (and those hurt, too), and you didn't get a fucking participation award - you just dealt with it. It built character.
January 27th, 2012 at 4:45 AM ^
But calling one team the winner is an unfair advantage for those players! Scandal!
WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??
January 26th, 2012 at 11:48 AM ^
The problem is not the review its the fucking rule. Don't say "The ball can touch the ground and it still be a catch if you have full control" Because you're putting a subjective element into the determination. Just make it: if the ball touches the ground, no catch. The simplest rule is the best when we're talking about faced paced athletic competitions that give you milliseconds to determine whatever the hell "full control" is.
/soap box.
January 26th, 2012 at 11:56 AM ^
The needed change isn't for another replay booth viewer but a better rule - if the ball hits the ground for any reason, it should not be ruled a catch. The grey area introduced by the rule is what caused VaTech the pain; if the rule was clearer, it would have just been an incompletion.
Having more people to contradict themselves on these replays won't help matters - if it is a clear issue, then one person can make that call. If it is close, then people are going to be calling it from their gut, and that won't change regardless of how many eyes are looking at it.
January 26th, 2012 at 12:09 PM ^
You could clearly see the ball turn forward in his hands when he made contact with the ground. This is indisputable proof that the receiver did not have the ball secured. That's exactly what the officials saw, it's why the ruling on the field was overturned.
This isn't one of those situations where the wrong call was made but there wsn't enough evidence to overturn it or something. Here, there WAS indisputable evidence.
January 27th, 2012 at 4:48 AM ^
It didn't turn in his hands. The reason it didn't is because it wasn't even in his fucking hands. It was in between his forearms. He missed the ball and couldn't control it with his forearms, plain and simple. I honestly don't even think it's as close as people are making it out to be once you look at the angle. It's between his forearms and moves considerably.
January 26th, 2012 at 12:14 PM ^
Unfortunately for Virginia Tech, that play that they are disputing was called correctly by the replay official. However, there is a valid point in there somewhere: the replay system isn't working as well as it should, and it would be so easy to fix it.
Replay officials in every conference are retired officials: people too old and slow to keep up with the game on the field. Nobody seems to have realized that a persons' judgement deteriorates almost as quickly as his knees. There are 65-year-old men up in the booth making idiotic decisions like the pylon call that went in our favor in 2008 against Michigan State and the Toussaint touchdown call that went against us this year against Ohio State.
There is a simple solution: have officials start out as replay officials, rather than having the replay official position as a way to kick officials upstairs when their skills start to fade. Bring in refs from Division II or the FCS--people who want a job in the FBS--and use it as part of a tryout. I guarantee that they will make better decisions than the cronies of the conference directors of officiating who are up there now. You will have the advantage that they will be people who actually know how to work a DVR, they will know the rules and they will have better split-second judgement about whether or not to buzz the refs on the field and stop the game.
January 26th, 2012 at 1:51 PM ^
65 is still young when it comes to mental faculties.
January 26th, 2012 at 2:02 PM ^
Yep, I know that sounded a little critical, and I came across a little strong on that...but I stand by my overall point, that a 30-year-old hungry for a promotion to the Big Ten on-field officiating staff will do a better job as a replay official than a 65-year-old who has been kicked upstairs into semiretirement.
January 26th, 2012 at 2:35 PM ^
Who's never officiated at the Big Ten level and has no experience making those calls is better qualified to interpret rules and tell the more experienced guys on the field they're wrong than a guy who's been doing it for year, but maybe doesn't have the knees to run up and down the field anymore.
By that logic, they'd be putting the least experienced ref crew at the Super Bowl.
January 26th, 2012 at 3:02 PM ^
I'm talking partially out of my ass, because I'm not a Big Ten-level ref, and will never even be close, but it's because of the learning curve for being a top-level ref. There are plenty of refs who know the rules well enough and can identify situations correctly on television who can act as replay officials. Only a handful of them are capable of being a top-level on-field ref.
The hardest thing is to be able to identify situations as they develop and get yourself in the right spot to make the call. That's the last thing that a ref will develop on his path to the top, and that's something that a replay ref doesn't really need--the TV producers take care of that for the replay ref.
All that's left is an ability to quicky identify potential controversies, interpret them correctly on the TV screen, and apply the rulebook correctly to those situations. I think the average back judge in the GLIAC would be just as good at that as the average retired Big Ten official, if not better, and would have more incentive to get the call right--his entire career would depend on doing a good job in the replay booth.
This is an entirely different situation than asking them to ref a game on the field, where experience is needed to do a good job.
January 26th, 2012 at 12:19 PM ^
Having another replay official won't automatically make calls that were obviously difficult for a referee to call despite numerous looks/angles/speeds of replay any easier. Was it a TD? I don't think so, but I could be wrong possibly. I don't think the arguments for a TD are terrible. Crying about the replay officials not coming to the conclusion you subjectively think should have won out here just makes you look like a sore loser. Saying the "respect to Michigan" part is like Ricky Bobby saying "all due respect".
January 26th, 2012 at 12:19 PM ^
You win some (VT), you lose some (Iowa).
January 26th, 2012 at 12:36 PM ^
I understand why the Hokies were upset when the call was overturned. Like most of us, I initially thought the pass was complete. But once the replay/rules guys explained the particulars, then it clearly was not a catch; in fact, it was less disputable than the Calvin Johnson non-catch in Chicago, which really came down to a silly loophole. In the Sugar Bowl, the ball clearly hit the ground, which jostled loose the ball, which then resettled in the receiver's arms. It's okay for the ball to hit the ground. But if the ground jostles the ball out of the receiver's control -- and in this case it surely did -- then it's not a catch.
The Hokies are still mad because the play-by-play announcers thought it was a catch. But the play-by-play guys saw it in real time; they didn't know the rule and didn't study the play the way the rules experts did. The latter all agreed, both in the booth and after the game, that the overturn was the correct call. There was/is no controversy.
Basically, then, the Hokettes need to stop whining and get over it.
January 26th, 2012 at 12:37 PM ^
I read somewhere once: "A man with a watch knows what time it is, a man with two watches is never sure."
Two replay officials will not help, it will just make the reviews take longer, and multiply the effects of judgement on plays like this.
January 26th, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^
Balderdash. The man with two watches must simply average the two measurments using a Kalman filtering algorithm. His total time uncertainty will be lower than that of a man with only one watch.
January 26th, 2012 at 12:37 PM ^
More opportunities for subjective differences means an even further increase to "call as stands" replay results, rendering the whole point of replay moot except in extreme cases where the on-field official was so obviously wrong.
Frankly as it is now, replay officials are copping out and going with "call as stands" because the evidence is maybe not 100%, even if the evidence is still more in favor of an overturned call than not.
I think they need to (1) change the catch rule to state a catch cannot occur if the ball hits the ground during the catch and (2) revise the whole "indisputable" wording.
January 26th, 2012 at 12:40 PM ^
Okay, I'm probably about as sympathetic to VA Tech on this play as anyone on this board and have the negbangs to prove it. But this is just silly. What's next? Are we going to take depositions from players and refs? File writs of Certiorary to the Supreme Court? Should teams hire attorneys as part of their staffs? At some point you've got to play the damned game.
Hokie fans, I understand your frustration, but you know this was far from the worst missed call in the history of sports, and even if you'd gotten the call there's no guarantee you win the game. It's been three weeks. Let it go.
January 26th, 2012 at 12:50 PM ^
Screw it, lets just play the game again!
January 26th, 2012 at 12:59 PM ^
Big game, passionate fan base, overturned call, and they loose. I would not be surprised if they never get over it regardless that the officals were correct.
January 26th, 2012 at 1:29 PM ^
Hey, VT, here's a better solution: have the wherewithal to pay the replay official $10K before the game, like I did.
January 26th, 2012 at 1:43 PM ^
How in the heck did the on-field referee think it was a touchdown in the first place? From the ref's perspective, Coale's feet are way up in the air, half of his body lands completely out of bounds, and there's no way the ref could have seen the elbow that possibly would allow him to be considered in-bounds.
The whole thing wouldn't be less heated if he initially called what it looked like live - a nice diving catch that was out of bounds.
January 26th, 2012 at 3:02 PM ^
...I'm surprised that all of the focus has beeen on possession rather than establishing that he was in bounds in the first place.
I attended this year's Sugar Bowl and finally got around to watching the replay this week on TiVo. Overall, the game looked much worse from a UM perspective the second time around on TV than in person. Our offense was absolutely overmatched and we were fortunate to get the win, so I can understand VT's lingering sour grapes on the game, but their "solution" for a second replay official is ridiculous.
Reading today about the extent of Molk's injury, it's amazing he was able to walk that night let alone play the entire game, and provides a significant reason why the offense was so ineffective. Also, I remember reading that Lewan wasn't 100%? Was there a UFR completed for the game? (couldn't find one in a site search)
January 26th, 2012 at 1:49 PM ^
To me it WAS indisputable that the receiver didn't have control of the ball and used the ground to secure his catch. It should not have taken 10 minutes in the booth to reach that conclusion. I don't think an extra person is necessarily going to help. What WILL help, as has already been suggested, is to clarify the rules on what is a catch and what isn't.
January 26th, 2012 at 1:52 PM ^
let me get you a wamburger and some french cries.
January 26th, 2012 at 2:26 PM ^
They could have the replays sent back to Toronto and have a Justice League of Replay Officials. Not that it has anything to do with this play but yhy don't they have replay only cameras down the lines?
January 26th, 2012 at 2:44 PM ^
Is that how it works? No no your Honor, we strenuously object.
January 26th, 2012 at 2:55 PM ^
to move on..."Sometimes you eat the bar,and sometimes the bar well, it eats you"...Not every call is going to be right,just look at the Iowa game...
January 26th, 2012 at 3:21 PM ^
Knowing a bunch of VT alumni on Facebook, many seemed to think it was a bullcrap call. However I thought that the reception was too questionable to be called complete. Don't see what all those alumni are angry about.
January 26th, 2012 at 3:36 PM ^
VT - you lost, we won. get over it.
January 26th, 2012 at 3:40 PM ^
I'm all for a second replay official. Honestly, watching the game, my first thought was the ball touched the ground and was therefore not a catch. That being said, the catch is debatable and ultimately the right call needs to be made. if a second replay official helps this, then go for it. This call went the right way for us, but I can remember a couple that didn't this year cough (iowa).