The ball hit the ground. Carry on.
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
The ball hit the ground. Carry on.
the ball hit the ground, and the ground unquestionably allowed the wr to gain possession.
I wouldn't say unquestionably. I know I thought it was a TD.
I would. I thought it was a TD until the replay was shown. This was covered extensively after the game, it was very clear on the replay that the ground assisted his 'catch'.
The ball twisted as it hit the ground. And my impression as soon as I saw it live was there's no way that was a catch in bounds with control.
The misconception is that because there's an argument over the indisputability (wow, this is actually a word!) of the play that the default action should be call-it-as-stands. Reality is that one person's definition of indisputible is different from anothers. The rulebook is fairly ho-hum and unclear about what a catch really is. What really needs to change is how a catch is interpreted. I say, personally, that they should change it to if the ball hits the ground its no catch...it removes any and all uncertainty, and players would know ahead of time that to make a good catch they have to get their hands/arms under the ball. Instead of the nebulous "did he really 100% possess the ball before it hits the ground?" which does nothing but leaves room for open arguments that can never be solved even in the face of video evidence that (to me, again) looks very conclusive.
indisputable does not take 10 minutes to decide. Instant replay is designed to correct glaring errors and/or omissions, not to result in the infinitely detailed review of every "close call."
I disagree that instant replay is designed to correct only glaring errors. Glaring errors may have been the biggest impetus for its creation, but I think instant replay is designed to make the correct call as often as possible.
There have been many plays that are very close, but with careful examination, it's possible to determine what happened conclusively. From all appearances, the VaTech touchdown was one of those plays. I don't see any abuse of the replay system that it was called correctly.
I'm certainly not the everyone you describe. It may work best to correct glaring mistakes, but it would be dumb to ignore the close calls or not even give them the proper time of analysis just because it was close.
True, some things you really cannot tell by looking at super ultra slow-mo replay. But by that same token, the human eye cannot see everything at game speed either, despite being even only a few feet away. Why not take the time to analyze every camera angle you have? So long as there are not differing interpretations of each angle (like, the Fitz TD where one angle looked in and the other he looked out), then use the evidence you have. Officials are good, but not perfect. And if a close call costs a team 6 points, I'd rather they take the time to be absolutely sure than to look at it for a few seconds and simply give up and say "inconclusive".
The end goal isn't just to correct some mistakes. The end goal is to correct everything insofar as it is possible via cameras. Indisputable doesn't have anything to do with the length of time it takes to determine whether it is indisputable or not.
In fact, I think if there were no booth review, it would have been a call that few of us would have complained about. It was a close one.
the replay system, and the complete absence of consistent and uniform application of both the procedural rules for review and the standard used to uphold/reverse calls need to be addressed. I think that they are pretty clear that they are not crying foul and I think that instant replay is getting out of control right now.
and you should have been up 21-0 midway through the second quarter, instead of settling for 2 FGs and turning the ball over on downs deep in the red zone. Next!
Good lord, the ball hit the damn ground. I'm sure you can fly to Africa if you want one of those Pour Some Sugar on Me T-shirts.
That's classic. While he's there, tell him to pick me up some Buffalo Bills Super Bowl shirts.
or MSU 2011 Big Ten Champs....hahaha
I bet those things would still sell like hotcakes in East Lansing.
Lay off my Bills Man! It still hurts to this day.
Maybe the refs were thinking about Brunette girls during the review..lord knows I was
Who's up for another weekend in New Orleans if they overturn it???
New Orleans was awesome.
I hope we get in the Sugar Bowl every year, except when the MNC is hosted in New Orleans. In that case, I'll take the MNC birth. Nawlins!
I was just expecting it to be another city with its own flavor (NTTAWWT) blah blah. But New Orleans was just some good old fashioned fun. I would go back in a heart beat.
Michigan 2012 Sugar Bowl Champions. That's never going to change so I really don't care what anybody has to say about it
I have no problem with that.
Then we would have had two people confirm the ball hit the ground, that is all.
This is football, not CSI VA Tech. No catch.
why don't they get an entire platoon of fucking replay officials, or a congress. this is some of the most stupid shit i've seen. now i have to troll that article's comments
that seemed to prevent most fistfights over disputed calls when we were kids.
What happens if the two disagree? But maybe we should have five to make sure there isn't an outlier who exerts undue influence on a second guy in a three man crew to tip the call to 2-1 the wrong way. Yeah, five should be enough.
“Well, the bee-watcher-watcher watched the bee-watcher. He didn't watch well so another Hawtch-Hawtcher had to come in as a watch-watcher-watcher! And now all the Hawtchers who live in Hawtch-Hawtch are watching on watch watcher watchering watch, watch watching the watcher who's watching that bee. You're not a Hawtch-Watcher you're lucky you see!”
We will call this the Dr. Seuss solution.
How about a supreme court model with 8 and then a chief review official
If you've got two replay officials, and they don't agree, then what happens? How would it be any different that having one?
I vote for a triumvirate. And they also need to get a 2/3 approval from the crowd.
Regis, I'm going to ask the audience on this one
hey, that's what I just trolled with!
I think you replied to my message. On that message I'm Jeff.
as soon as you have a second one there will by accusations of influence if one is more senior then the other and lots of other crap.
the system is fine, it was the right call.
Gern Blanstein. I did reply to you. LOLz
Because of the whole indisputable clause.
However, it seems crazy to have more than one official in the box when he himself gets all the angles and can see everything. The only reason there are multiple on the field so to get every angle and see the whole field, adding more would just add to the confusion. The system would be over-constrained per se. More officials in the box doesn't make the system better in my opinion, it just increases the cost (however marginally) of hosting a college football game.
VT can suck it?
All the time, and it is just part of football. Whether a missed holding call, or out of bounds call, or even a replay that is not definitive to me but is to you. 1 replay official is enough.....
Or a miss blown whistle
I agree. Officials/Refs have always been part of the game whether people want to admit it or not. In basketball it's how they call fouls, in baseball it's how they call balls & strikes. In football it's how they call holding or interfence. The subjectiveness of officials has always been part of the game and will continue to be. My coach always told us we had to adapt to the way the refs were calling the game.
And let's go to the second replay official...
And it's still not a catch! Quit whining.
And upon even further review...... Aaaaaaaah, no!
The ball clearly moved after it hit the ground....No catch.
Now can we work on World Peace.
If anyone claims to NOT see that ball move from a horizontal position to a vertical position once it hits the ground, they're either blind or a Hokie.
I must be blind, because I see it moving from a vertical position to a horizontal one once it hits the ground
Stalactites made me blind and stalagmites tore me a new one!
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!!!!!!!!!!
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.
They shouldn't have overturned the call, but the ball did hit the ground. Maybe a makeup for the hands to the face.
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.
Why not 3 replay officials. How about we just send it out and let fans vote. Talk about a cry baby.
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.
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.
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?
You know what, sure, let's have 2 replay officials. Then we can go all the way back to the Iowa game, which we now win after the replay officials overturn the Hemingway catch, and then we don't have to play your whiney asses because we would be going to a different bowl
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:
Here's an even better view. Let's go to the booth Keith...sure looks like a fumble from up here....
1) hemingway in endzone vs iowa
2) toussaint at goal line vs ohio
Va Tech should be more concerned about the number of fans they had at the game than the number of officials.
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?
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.
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.
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.
But calling one team the winner is an unfair advantage for those players! Scandal!
WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??
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.
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.
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.
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.
65 is still young when it comes to mental faculties.
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.
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.
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.
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".
You win some (VT), you lose some (Iowa).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Screw it, lets just play the game again!
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.
Hey, VT, here's a better solution: have the wherewithal to pay the replay official $10K before the game, like I did.
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.
...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)
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.
let me get you a wamburger and some french cries.
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?
Is that how it works? No no your Honor, we strenuously object.
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...
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.
VT - you lost, we won. get over it.
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).
"“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."
So here, they try to take something away from the University of Michigan by again complaining about the call. Nice attempt to play both sides by Virginia Tech. This seems to be another example of "I am not going to complain, but..." really meaning, "I am going to complain, AND..."
In a world where replay officials call things the way some people want them to rather than correctly, that play stands as a touchdown... against Wisconsin.
You see, earlier in the season, Michigan beats Iowa because we really wanted that Hemingway catch to be a touchdown and Wisconsin beats State because they really wanted that hail mary catch to fall just short. So Michigan wins the Legends Division and beats Wisconsin in the title game (because Michigan has been Wisconsin Kryptonite since the days of Ron Dayne - even Richrod beat them in his first year!) and becomes one of the many one-loss teams demanding a chance to face LSU. Meanwhile Wisconsin gets the sugar bowl invite.
The ESPN Shadow Cabal finds the "Coach Michigan fans wanted to hire vs. coach Michigan actually hired" angle compelling and turns the wheels of the devil machine and in we go. Once there, David Molk single-handedly slays half of LSU's vaunted defense by stabbing them through their facemasks with his own dismembered shinbone, a tactic that was made legal by the changes to the game made by the Japanese Empire after they defeated America in World War 2. Michigan wins the game 17-1 and moves on to the next round of the entirely sane and logical NCAA Division 1 Football Tournament. And the rest, as they say, is history...
(or Bret Easton Ellis, depending on your taste in freaky "literature").
First off: it was not a catch. I don't think I'll ever understand how cradling a ball between your forearms without your hands on it and then seeing it rotate as it hits the turf can be called a catch by anybody. Secondly, the replay official has the authority because he can see a ton of angles - and he also has the authority to review any play on the field, taking the onus off the white hat. Do both have to be in agreement to review a play, or just to overturn it? Keep it simple, keep one replay official. Quit your whining - bad calls happen all the time, and this one wasn't all that bad.
Viriginia Tech's investigation into the Sugar Bowl loss begins and ends with Bryan Stinespring. This move is just stupid.
You're better than that. Pull yourselves together and stop proposing terrible rules change ideas. The receiver clearly did not have possession of the ball when he hit the ground.