VaTech still upset over Sugar Bowl, calls for 2nd replay official

Submitted by wisecrakker on January 26th, 2012 at 11:01 AM

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-in-wake-of-sugar-bowl-controversy-virginia-tech-ad-calls-for-second-replay-official-20120124,0,6461802.story

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.

Comments

LSAClassOf2000

January 26th, 2012 at 4:19 PM ^

"“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..."

Brhino

January 26th, 2012 at 5:18 PM ^

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...

Vasav

January 26th, 2012 at 8:15 PM ^

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.

MSHOT92

January 26th, 2012 at 8:42 PM ^

you need more points....score points and a replay is a moot point. I've argued this in our losses and I'll argue it in victory...if you have the lead at the end of regulation and you've had enough points in place ahead of your opponent that an official's call is irrelevant....you have nothing to cry about...period. You win some, you lose some. WIN the game. Don't count on a replay, don't count on anything other than your ability to win. Case in point...fourth and what three? ALL NIGHT LONG VT was running all over us...so you line up for a fake punt???? why would you put your ball carrier deeper than a QB under center  if you PLAN TO GO FOR IT? they lost...sorry you made bad decisions VT...we were owned in that game in EVERY category except the score. WIN...or shut up.

BlueDragon

January 26th, 2012 at 10:52 PM ^

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.