• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Sugar Bowl thread: Michigan vs. Virginia Tech - 8:30 p.m.

Wakeforest22890 said:
You have to complete the catch at any point on the field, including the end zone. If the ball bobbled at all before the runner was down in bounds OR if the ball moves around through the act of completing the catch, then the ruling should be that it was incomplete. As far as I could tell the following order is what occurred:

Ball is caught
Elbow comes down inbounds around the same time as the ball begins to move around in his arms
His shoulder and rest of upper body land out of bounds after his elbow hit down on the side of the end zone.

Therefore by the rules, this should have been an incomplete catch.
Click to expand...



Without watching the game but hearing about the play in question, do you mean it was an incomplete pass or a ccompleted catch?
 
HeavyPetter said:
I don't like VPI, but it looked like a TD to me. I was also wondering about the kicker moving. Thanks for the link. That makes two big mistakes by the officiating crew in the OT.

Ultimately, this one falls on Beamer for not punting when he should have, twice.
Click to expand...

BUT VT HAS THE BEST SPECIAL TEAMS IN THE NATION!!!ONE!!!!!JUAN!!!
 
Eh it should have been a completion. It was close, very close, and I actually think it might have been an incompletion, but no way there was indisputible evidence to overturn the call.
 
Demonwolverine said:
I haven't slowed down the replay, but maybe because as long as he continues forward movement, he could technically be the "man in motion" (like a RB out of the backfield)? Not sure, just throwing it out there. Or maybe like a balk in baseball, you can even hesitate momentarily (like Robb Nen's toe tap).
Click to expand...

Except that men in motion at the snap are not allowed to be moving forward/towards the line of scrimmage, they can only be moving sideways/towards the sidelines (moving forward at the snap is only allowed in the CFL).
 
I don't know about the kicker thing. I did think when it happened in real time last night that they were going to call a false start, but then there was no flag.

As far as the Coale TD though, that is so clearly not a catch I really wonder what some of you are looking at. He dives and is trying to bring the ball in. It's moving around without him having control. Then the point of the ball hits the ground, pushing it into his chest, which is when he finally gets control of it. He then slides out of bounds.

The ground clearly helps him catch the ball, which is an incomplete pass. They absolutely got that call right.
 
Raleigh -

Just saw this posted on the other board....thought you and others would find it of interest....

From Roanoke Times online ...

From his vantage point in front of a high-definition television set in Miami, site of Wednesday night's Orange Bowl game between West Virginia and Clemson, ACC supervisor of football officials Doug Rhoads was watching intently as the Sugar Bowl went into overtime.

Virginia Tech had the ball first and appeared to score a touchdown on a pass from Logan Thomas to Danny Coale. Or, at least a touchdown was signaled.

There was a delay as the play was reviewed by a replay official assigned by the Pac-12. Rhoads doesn't know if he saw the play from every camera angle, but he saw multiple shots.

"I understood why they went to replay because it was a scoring play and it certainly met the criteria for being reviewed, but based on the replays I saw, I did not see indisputable evidence to overturn it," Rhoads said. "That's probably all I can say at this point.

"I thought the play would stand."

When the decision came down from the replay booth, the referee said the pass had been ruled incomplete because Coale did not maintain possession of the ball after hitting the ground.

Virginia Tech missed a subsequent field-goal attempt before Michigan converted a field goal for a 23-20 Wolverines' victory.

Rhoads said he emailed the Pac-12 supervisor of officials shortly after the game and expects an interpretation that first will be shared with ACC commissioner John Swofford. As of late afternoon Wednesday, Rhoads' email had not been answered.
Click to expand...

IMO, if 'the call on the field' had been no catch and then gone to review, the call would not had been overturned because there wasn't clear indisputable evidence that it was a catch. And THAT'S the point - I think - there was no indisputable evidence via the camera angles to overturn ANY call made on the field. The call was good catch-touchdown....and it should have stood.
 
Hondo said:
Raleigh -

Just saw this posted on the other board....thought you and others would find it of interest....



IMO, if 'the call on the field' had been no catch and then gone to review, the call would not had been overturned because there wasn't clear indisputable evidence that it was a catch. And THAT'S the point - I think - there was no indisputable evidence via the camera angles to overturn ANY call made on the field. The call was good catch-touchdown....and it should have stood.
Click to expand...

Well I still disagree. As I have stated since I saw it on the very first replay that night. It is clear to me that Coales does not have control of the ball until after it has already hit the ground. I absolutely think there was enough there to say it was not a catch and overturn it.
 
Anyone who thinks there was conclusive evidence to overturn that call should self ban themselves from ever discussing football on this board ever again.

You can certainly have an opinion that it wasn't a catch, but to argue there was enough evidence to actually overturn the call on the field is flat out stupid.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Anyone who thinks there was conclusive evidence to overturn that call should self ban themselves from ever discussing football on this board ever again.

You can certainly have an opinion that it wasn't a catch, but to argue there was enough evidence to actually overturn the call on the field is flat out stupid.
Click to expand...

But there must have been enough evidence. Why else would they have changed it?
 
Liquid Karma said:
Anyone who thinks there was conclusive evidence to overturn that call should self ban themselves from ever discussing football on this board ever again.

You can certainly have an opinion that it wasn't a catch, but to argue there was enough evidence to actually overturn the call on the field is flat out stupid.
Click to expand...

100% agreed. It was ruled a catch, and they had zero evidence to overturn it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top