Great call outs.
A few things here. There are bad calls and then there are really bad calls. We seem to always be on the wrong end of a really bad call. You could have 100 head refs watch the Bell holding and not one would agree. I repeat not one. So what was the head ref trying to accomplish here? What did he see? There really is one explanation. A true fix was in there. Same goes for Frederique call. The ref who was in perfect position made the right call. A ref 40 yards from the play decides he’s going to get himself involved. Why? Because it was a critical moment and there was no way VT was getting a first down on that drive. The answer? Insert yourself into the game as a ref to help the outcome. Again, the fix was in. And then the Hail Mary. My oh my oh my. A mad scramble with 6 players involved, no has possession and finally a Miami player comes out with ball. But yet VT was rewarded a TD? How does one earn a TD when he never has the ball? I guarantee that back judge could not have told you the number of the player that scored if you had asked him five seconds after the call. And so again the answer is, the fix was in. Fellas we simply will not be allowed to ever win this conference. Only way we win is to blow the doors of these teams they favor. And yet it’s hard to blow a team out when you literally get points take off the board. So got dam fostering dude.
Great points, all around. I may not have focused as much on the OJ Frederique PI call because PI is INHERENTLY a judgment call. Personally, I felt the ball was not catchable based on positioning, but it was not one of those "10 yards over everyone's head" uncatchable calls.
Now, as to the final play of the game.
Everyone who HATES Miami has made hay out of "there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the field". And everyone who HATES Miami knows that they can hide behind that rule-construction-interpretation to **** over Miami while giving us fake-sympathy-bull**** like "yeah, I agree with you, brah, the pass was incomplete, BUT THE CALL ON THE FIELD..."
So let's walk through the steps.
1. There never was a completion. Never. The ball was always moving. THERE WAS NEVER FIRM CONTROL TO COMPLETE A RECEPTION. The video clearly shows that. But those who HATE Miami will swear that they didn't see enough. That the replay officials could not have seen enough (though they did). But all of that is wrong.
2. Before you let your dopey friends try to give you **** by citing the statutory presumption of a call on the field trumping a replay, test them on the REAL rules of football. Like the one that says IF A RECEIVER LEAVES HIS FEET (which happened), THEN THE RECEPTION NEEDS TO SURVIVE UNTIL CONTACT WITH THE GROUND (which didn't happen). So before you ever get to the rule about a player touching the ball out of bounds, there was ALWAYS video evidence to show there was never firm control.
3. More importantly, the ref was ruling "reception" based on feet coming down. What SHOULD HAVE happened is for all the refs to huddle BEFORE MAKING THE CALL ON THE FIELD to make sure that they have considered all of the rules and definitions related to a reception. While he was shouted down by ******* MORONS like Andre Ware, the ESPN rules expert actually CORRECTLY cited the rule on an out-of-bounds player touching the ball. Then Andre Ware and his moronic buddy started harping on the standard of review, and they muddied the waters of the discussion. There SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN an immediate need to make an on-field ruling (with the attendant impact of such a call) when the play was so confusing and complicated.
4. But, yeah, the two idiot refs made a call. Now it's time for review. And there are two crucial elements of the review by the ACC officials in the booth, who ultimately got the visual AND the technical correct:
a. The video CLEARLY shows that the receiver did NOT have firm possession that survived contact with the ground. The ball continued to move. Whether you look at it frame-by-frame or in real-time, the ball was moving around. If the receivers hands were tight on the ball and it never moved, I'd walk away and curse Guidry's name. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED.
b. And WHILE the ball was not in firm possession, an out-of-bounds player touched the ball. The play, BY RULE, is incomplete, even if the receiver LATER put his hands tightly on the ball and firmly controlled it. AND THIS RULE IS THE SAME FOR OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE PLAYERS. Nobody has an issue if an OFFENSIVE player who is out-of-bounds touches the ball. EVERYBODY would agree that it's an incomplete ball, no matter what happens after. For instance, an out-of-bounds OFFENSIVE receiver could tip the ball back to an in-bounds receiver...IF THAT RULE DIDN'T EXIST. But the moment that an offensive player who it out-of-bounds touches the ball, it's an incompletion. AND THE SAME IS TRUE FOR DEFENDERS. Thus, if a receiver is bobbling a ball, and then an out-of-bounds defender touches it, IT IS AN INCOMPLETION. Regardless of whether the receiver THEN recovers to catch the ball. Too bad, so sad. **** off.
To use a slightly different example. Take the INT when Xavier deflected the ball and the DB intercepted it. Now, pretend Xavier was out of bounds when he first touched the ball and the DB was in-bounds. INCOMPLETION. Or pretend that the DB was out of bounds and touched the ball first, and then Xavier caught the deflection and ran into the end zone. INCOMPLETION.
So tell all of your Miami HATING friends to **** off. The reception did not survive the ground. The ball was never in firm control. And an out-of-bounds defender TOUCHED the ball before it was ever in firm control. BY RULE, the pass is incomplete.
End discussion.
