Virginia Tech
The official had a pretty solid day in the Virginia Tech-UVa game. (Ivan Morozov)

If Tech is going to consistently put themselves in a position to need to beat UVa to make a bowl game, it’s nice that the Hokies at least stuck to tradition this year and spanked the Hoos on their way to doing just that. But how did the stripes perform during the traditional de-pantsing of our in-state rivals? Keep reading below for freebee spots, a closer reading than anyone ever asked for about the true meaning of, “snap,” and more. 

Did we get away with a free non-fumble in the 1st quarter? I’m happy but curious about it. - DesertHokie

Did VT get a very favorable 1st down spot on our 1st drive? They never replayed it, but the commentators mentioned it briefly and looked like we gained an extra 2-3 yards based on the spot and refs signal to move the chains for a 1st down. - RUHokie

I do enjoy a bit of efficiency, and this ACC crew was kind enough to provide two controversial calls back-to-back on Saturday, so we’ll cover both in rapid succession. First, the non-fumble.

UVa head coach Tony Elliott mentioned in a postgame interview that he was hounding the short wing on his sideline about that call, and was told that the booth did in fact take a look (as they do on every play, for what it’s worth). That brief look (it was only a few seconds) was enough to convince the replay official that there was no fumble, play on.

I was a touch skeptical of that explanation at first, as watching live, I thought there was no way we’d get a clear shot of the ball in Jaylin Lane’s possession with his forearm/elbow on the ground. Well, wouldn’t ya know it? That official had a point, because that’s precisely what we got.

No review necessary. The ball carrier’s elbow was down with the ball firmly in his possession - no fumble.

Part of the controversy was how quickly the Tech offense hustled to the line and got the next play off, and was promptly given what appeared to be a very favorable spot.

Two things happen here that lead to things looking sketchier than they should have been. First, H certainly does give Tech a favorable spot, at least judging by the broadcast angle we have (I covered how tricky camera angles can be a bit last year following the FSU game). Best I can tell, Tuten is given a solid half-yard of extra progress than he actually earned.

Tuten is carrying the ball in his right arm. If anything, I could see him making the line to gain just as the mass of bodies is falling to the ground - and even then, it’d be close. But between said mass of bodies and the broadcast angle, I have no issue awarding Tuten the 43.

I’ve seen this decision from short wings a few times this season, and I think it’s an intentional one, made to clearly indicate that the line to gain has been made and eliminate the need for unnecessary reviews. It also makes things clearer if a review is deemed necessary. Rather than determining whether the spot should be moved a matter of inches, which is probably beyond the spatial resolution of a video review, we’re asking the replay official to make a determination in closer to full-yard increments.

Compounding the issue, however, U then sets the ball on the back of the next full-yard tick mark, the 44. We’ll do this whenever possible, simply because it makes the determination of whether or not a player has made the line to gain much easier, and therefore much more consistently judged. The problem here is that we’ve now ended up a full yard from where Tuten was actually stopped.

For what it’s worth, I think Tuten actually did make the line to gain, but only barely. I can see why H wanted to add in just a bit more padding to that spot to clearly indicate that the runner gained a first down, without adding a full extra yard to the spot. The issue is that U also did that, and the end result looks super sloppy, and definitely gives the offense a free yard it did not earn.

So, Tech’s offense, in my judgment, did indeed earn the fresh set of downs, but was probably awarded at least a full free yard. I’m not sure it mattered in the end, but it was absolutely a messier sequence than it should have been, especially when coupled with the previous play, and especially as the chains were set with the line to gain on the back side of the 43. Awarding Tuten the very back edge of the 43 yard-line, in my opinion, would have both been appropriate for what he had earned, and still been enough to gain a first down without much fuss.

At the end of the first half, there was a personal foul called on Virginia with seven seconds left in the half. The clock stopped for it. I thought on a penalty the clock did not start again till the ball was snapped. However, the clock started as we lined up for the field goal and the ball was snapped with one second left on the clock. It almost ran out before we could snap it to kick the field goal which would have been a disaster. Has something changed on stopping and starting the clock after a penalty is called? - Tech76G

This sequence perplexed me a bit, as it directly contradicts the high school rule, which I’m much more familiar with and which states that the offended team has the option to start the clock on the snap. But by the college rule, the officials got this one correct:

For each of the following reasons, the game clock is stopped on an official’s signal. If the next play begins with a snap, the game clock will start on the referee’s signal:... To complete a penalty (3-3-2e4)


I first looked through the list of “clock starts on the snap after X” scenarios (Rule 3-3-2d; there are 11 of those), and “After Team B commits a foul” isn’t on there. So it seems there is no distinction within the timing rule between offense and defense. If anyone commits a foul, the clock will start on the ready-for-play (assuming there was no other reason to stop the clock such as an incomplete pass or ball carrier out of bounds).

The field goal unit at least seemed aware of the time crunch, though I don’t see a solid reason why Tech shouldn’t have just spiked it and avoided the added time pressure altogether. Oh well, that’s not for this humble country back judge to second-guess.

With 5:41 remaining in the second quarter, is that a really good job of timing the snap or an offsides call that the officials missed? - Hokie Engineer

Last night, many fans on here (and probably in the stadium, too) saw what they thought was 100% for sure offsides on UVA. Yet there was no flag. Is it possible that not a single official saw the jump, or did it never really happen? - Beach Hokie

I’m disappointed that a good question is not able to be paired with a good camera angle, but I’ll do my best with what we’ve got.

It’s really close, and again, the camera angle means we aren’t going to get a definitive answer on this one. But boy, do those Tech players sure think he was offsides. Weirdly enough, to determine if Virginia’s Chico Bennet, Jr. was offsides or not, we first need to determine what is meant by, “the snap.” This is up there with “what is a catch?” in terms of things that simultaneously stump seasoned college football fans and things your typical middle schooler could give a solid answer to.

The critical question here, in my judgement, is whether the “snap,” for purposes of offsides determinations, must be completed or only started to give the defense the green light. By rule, there is a distinction:

The snap starts when the ball is moved legally and ends when the ball leaves the snapper’s hands; the ball then becomes alive (2-23-1b).