Tim Sands and Whit. are more into collaboration 'the good for the game' rather than the good for the program. WIth Sands on the Executive Board of the ACC, he COULD open his mouth having been involved in the behind he scenes. In the ACC it appears if you make noise you get more respect than if you be with the team.

right there. They should have gone with that period. So yes it should have been ruled a catch.

He Lives in Miami, apparently has U of M ties and lead official who has the authority to overturn calls.. and only he and one other guy making the call..??? hmm. Someone really needs to run the narrative of his ethics and overall ethics of the conference.

B. I've seen nothing to show that he has University of Miami ties. C. How many people do you want making the call? It's bad enough it took as long as it did with those pictured. You want a committee deciding it?

It was saying that before it was caught it touched a player out of bounds, and the play was dead before a catch. I think Andrea Adelson tweeted it. Read this morning. I was in bed when it happened.

Not you, but the ACC should show it. I have not seen one thing that irrefutably shows it, but they should at least let the players/fans/coaches see what they saw.

had the video evidence they suggests supports their decision does ANYONE think they would hesitate to have released that along with their statement?

I've been travelling today.

All they had to do was say the ball was moving and call it an incomplete catch. Sure there would still be a lot of people that disagree, but there is enough movement to justify that excuse. However, they went with an obscure call that ignores the catch part and focuses on the defender being out of bounds. Just stupid.

is the video does not provide the irrefutable proof needed to overturn the call on the field regardless of the explanation given.

on the field. Those videos were anything but conclusive, but many clearly thought he had possession of the ball, including the entire Game Day crew who had all the video views which included Nick Saban, the most accomplished College Football Coach arguably in history.

I don't watch any college football anymore, including VT games, so I didn't see this live. I've seen all of the outrage today here on TSL, and even without seeing the video, I find the the talk of legal action against the ACC hilarious. There's been a ton of smack talk on this board about Clemson and FSU being punks for wanting to leave the ACC (and many of it rightly so), but now suddenly that VT fans feel slighted by the conference, it's perfectly reasonable for VT to contemplate leaving? Give me a break. This makes VT's fanbase look pathetic. Having now seen video footage, I don't see any reason for outrage. It seemed pretty clear to me that the ball was moving the entire time and then got ripped out of the receiver's hands. With a Miami player emerging from the pile with the ball, I really don't know how that play ever got initially ruled as a touchdown in the first place. Regardless, I think the replay booth got it right - the video seems pretty conclusive to me. Tough way to lose a game, but that's how sports go sometimes. I'm sure my opinion won't be received well here, but I think a lot of folks are being affected by Hokie bias.

that had the only clear point a view. Right, we should listen to you off a video that was anything but conclusive. However, insult other’s intelligence, diversion is what makes magicians successful.

I don't know what Nick Saban had to say about this call, so I can only infer from your post that he said the replay booth got it wrong. However, I frequently read here on this board about the SEC media bias and how ESPN is constantly trying to hold the ACC down. So if we are going to believe that is ESPN's constant desire, should we not assume that they would like nothing more than to downplay an undefeated Miami's resume and suggest they should have lost that game? Do we only care about ESPN's take when it benefits VT? My opinion of the ruling is based solely on the replay linked in ManassasHoo's post. To me it appears the ball is moving in the receiver's hands the entire time and gets ripped out by the Miami player as both players hit the ground. Based on that observation, the ruling makes sense to me. It has nothing to do with me thinking I'm "smarter about college football" than anyone else. I'm just making an observation using my eyes with zero emotion involved, and then forming an opinion based on that observation. My opinion is obviously meaningless, so don't get too worked up about it. But I think the discussions about suing the ACC are silly and hypocritical based on the general bent of this board towards FSU's and Clemson's efforts to weasel their way out of the ACC.

all there is, no wonder the Jim Phillips led ACC is constantly in a a mess. The guy on the field had the indisputable view. Notre Dame is okay though, Jim “Dame” Phillips takes care of them.

The call on the field was a complete pass. But what the call does not indicate is was it completed by catching the ball in the air and completing the catch when he fell and before the ball came loose or was it completed after the ball came loose and moved around a bit and then controlled. If it was called a completed catch by catching and then hitting the ground before the ball came loose then there is no evidence to overturn. If it was called a completed catch after the ball came loose and was fought for and then controlled, then there was grounds to overturn the call. In the replay angle from the back of the endzone a player who has touched out of bounds clearly touches the ball. The problem is that the call on the field does not indicate at which point they are calling the pass complete. So the replay seems to be assuming it was after the ball was loose and then afterwards possessed. That sounds like a logical assumption and a sound reason to overturn. However, the problem is that it is possible the official on the field intended that the catch was completed when he first hit the ground. If that is the case then the explanation given by the replay officials would not apply, because it occcurred after the catch was completed. Fact is they could have possibly overturned a call that was not actually made by the official on the field (they overturned that the ball was caught after it was loose). They could not know what the on the field official intended by the call of a completed catch. Therefore, the fact that the ball was touched by an out-of-bounds player while it was loose, may not have impacted the call on the field. Therefore, there was not enough conclusive evidence to overturn the call, because it was impossible for them to know what was in the mind of the official making the call on the field. The play should have stood as called. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 9/28/2024, 5:50:46 PM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 9/28/2024, 5:52:17 PM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 9/28/2024, 5:53:34 PM

many ways, but there is not enough evidence to overturn the call, that’s the bottom line.

That’s the part that’s lost in this. It was ruled a catch. There is no video to overturn the ruling (i.e. showing the ball pop out when he hits the ground). He clearly has the ball in the air going down and nothing shows the ball out until after he’s already totally come down and been touched by a defender. If there were video showing the ball pop loose when he hits, absolutely…. But there is not.

The ball is stationary for three frames. You cannot really see how the ball is secured, but that’s not the point. The replay ref has to establish how it is not a catch, not how it is.

that had the ability to see it. As Nick Saban and everyone on Game Day said, that call should have never been overturned. ** Edited by Stech at 9/28/2024, 10:25:02 AM

but not one said it was a good call, not one, while Jim Phillips sits on his hands again, because it didn’t happen to his beloved independent Notre Dame.