Virginia Tech head coach Brent Pry was not happy with the officiating in this game. (Ivan Morozov)
Well, it feels like yesterday I was soliciting questions following a disappointing Vanderbilt opener, so it’s only fitting we bookend the season with yet another disappointment. I am of course referring to ESPN/Duke’s Mayo’s unsuccessful attempt to get play-by-play man Matt Barrie to quit mid-game, live on air.
This article is for TSL Pass subscribers
Get full access to premium articles, recruiting intel, and analysis from the team that's covered Virginia Tech sports since 1996.
In the Army Navy game there was a debate over the unsportsmanlike conduct call against the Navy running back after he scored a touchdown and spiked the ball. Putting aside that the announcers seemed to think the issue was taunting, the subsequent online discussion claimed that refs are inconsistent in calling spiking. Which raises the question in my mind of what is a spike. Simply drop the ball after crossing the goal line is legal, raising it above your head and forcefully slamming it to the ground (which the Navy rb did) is not allowed, so where is the boundary between dropping and spiking? I'm thinking of a no-call against Tuten in 2023 when he pretty forcefully slammed the ball down, but he did it from a waist level starting point. Did the refs miss the call, or is that not spiking because of where he started from?
TechHokie13
Good observation, as there is a fine line between "excitedly chucking downward," which we'll usually let slide and "spiking," which we'll flag.
General rule of thumb (mileage may vary on this one) is the shoulder pad: if both the player's windup and the ball's bounce clear his shoulders, that's probably going to be called a spike.
That fine line is precisely why every coach in America wants their players to just hand the ball to the nearest official. But we know it's an emotional game, and we'll let some showings of excitement slide. Generally speaking, the more the action involves celebrating with teammates than drawing personal attention (choreographed dances and such aside) or rubbing it in to the opponent, the higher the bar for an UNS flag.
HokieRob
The officials are always right, blah blah blah. No need to read these wasted columns again.
TechHokie13
You must have missed some of my earlier commentary on how the ACC called QB contact fouls this year ?
Thanks for reading as far as you did, I hope you found some aspects of why the officials are always right interesting at least.
Exit8Hokie
Well that was uncalled for!
Tristan has consistently delved into the whys and hows of officiating - and has done so with amazing clarity and honesty. I thought only one of the non-PI calls could have been called, but I also recognized that it was very close and could reasonably go either way. I had no problem with the PI call made on Tech, it was clearly a foul.
I truly value the insights Tristan provides with these articles, it is one of the best features of Tech Sideline. I look forward to as many more of these as he is willing to take the time and effort to produce.
You sir, may go pound sand.
TechHokie13
I, um, appreciate the sentiment, Exit8 ?
Thanks for reading, high praise given the rest of what TSL has to offer!
downjerseyhokie
Thanks Tristan, love these articles and hearing about the mechanics of how the officials see/call the game. Question if I may- in the 1st overtime of the Texas ASU game when Texas had 3rd and 10 the lineman are still moving around setting protection for the play when the WR goes in motion. There was no flag. Is there leniency with Olineman moving a little like that, or just leniency with Texas?
TechHokie13
Thanks for reading! I think I remember that one. Basically what must happen is 1) everyone must be set for at least 1 second before the snap (including a man in motion - he has to be set for 1 second before he motions), and 2) everyone must stop moving - even for an instant - before a player goes in motion.
In that case, it was super close, but I think I'm okay with the way they called it. You could justify saying the OL was set for a split-second before the receiver went in motion (and then of course the full-second requirement would have been met for the OL shortly thereafter).
We'll give *some* leniency in those situations, but there's a limit that the offense was pretty close to. If the OL is still just starting to get into his stance when a receiver motions, that'll be a flag for sure. In this case, I'll say the OL was nearing the end/just finished his setup. Had it been the 1st quarter, I'd be fine with a flag just to send the message, but that seems pretty ticky-tack for an OT situation imo.
downjerseyhokie
Awesome, thanks for in the insight!
HokieBlueprint
I would love to get your take on the Texas - ASU non -targeting call?
TechHokie13
Should have been targeting. I have yet to hear an official explanation, and any unofficial justification I've heard just leaves me baffled. It wasn't as bad a miss as the no-call on LT3 in the 2013 Sun Bowl, but it's one I would have 100% expected to see called a foul after video review.
RustyHokie94
To Hell with these articles and the back judge ALWAYS taking the side of the refs on the field.
It's ridiculous.
Wanna piss off your readers? This is how.
nkhooch
I think the point of this segment is to give honest assessments and share expert knowledge regardless of whether it pisses off readers or not. So, instead of being upset because this expert doesn't side with you, how about you offer an intelligent rebuttal on why you think he is wrong. Why do you think all these calls should have gone our way?
TechHokie13
Oh man, y'all have no idea how many times I have BEGGED the call on the field to be straight-up incorrect. I legitimately do my best to give an objective assessment as if I was the conference office reviewer for a given crew. It just so happens that in this case - and most I've been asked about - the call on the field is consistent with the rule and established officiating guidelines.
If you're mad at me, you're really mad at the NCAA Rules Committee and the each conference head of officials. I'm just letting you guys know how it all works, I'm not here to join the torches 'n pitchforks crowd just because of my orange and maroon glasses.
Again, I would have made the exact same call on those 2 potential DPIs. It's close, but fully justifiable no-call based on Rule 7 and how we're trained to officiate the game.
Cheesehokie
Glad for your contribution to the dialogue, Tristan. Thanks for the insight!
TechHokie13
Thanks for reading!
Femoyer74
Enjoyed your explanations and articles this year Tristan. On the passing potential PI plays I didn’t see any comment about the obvious offside fouls on both plays ?
TechHokie13
Thanks for reading! In my defense, it was called on the first play. I'm not sure I see it on the second, though.
VT Trainman
Thank you for answering my question. I loved this series and I hope it continues next year if it is your will.
TechHokie13
Thanks for reading, I hope so too!
tspoon5
Edit, the 2nd no call was Wiggins, not Jennings. Thanks for the great article!
TechHokie13
Good catch, my mistake. Must've let that 7 turn into a 1 in my brain.
Late 80s Hokie
Here's a crazy "What if" on the Minnesota guy attempting to block a long/low Field Goal.
What if they get a tall 300+ lb lineman back there, and he puts a lightweight (though tall) DB or WR on his shoulders?
TechHokie13
Believe it or not, that exact scenario is explicitly prohibited by rule:
"No player may position themselves with their feet on the back or shoulders of a teammate before the snap" - 9-1-11e
"No defensive player, in an attempt to block, bat, or catch a kick or an apparent kick, may:
1. Step, jump, or stand on a teammate.
2. Place a hand(s) on a teammate to get leverage for additional height.
3. Be picked up by a teammate, or be elevated, propelled, or pushed." 9-1-11d
Safe to say the Rules Committee thought that one through pretty thoroughly. Can't stand on a teammate before the snap, and you can't stand on, push off of, or be thrown by a teammate to block a kick.
AbsolutVT03
Ah the old no chicken fighting rule. I have to admit it would be pretty cool to see a big guy with a small guy on his shoulders trying to do football things.
TechHokie13
Precisely.
There are plenty of things I've been sad that I have to flag, and that would absolutely be one of them ?
Late 80s Hokie
Even better if the big guy could military press the little guy. Extra height.
TechHokie13
Easily would be the hardest I've laughed while tossing a flag ?
BGHokie13
Maybe if refs made correct calls on the obvious ones there wouldn’t be as much of an issue with people hating refs. It is the stunning lack of consistency in their calls that drive fans nuts. I would also argue it is the ridiculous attempts at justifying bad calls that makes it worse. (But let’s be realistic, people will always have issues with refs—I am not naive.)
TechHokie13
I don't actually inherently disagree. There's a longer discussion to be had about the professionalization of officiating (virtually all officials through college typically have a normal day job. Self-employed or folks who can set their own hours like lawyers with their own practice are obviously most common).
But - and I've written this before, forgive the repeat - I think fans' expectations have taken a big step up with the rise of high-definition broadcasts and replay angles. Quality of officiating is leaps and bounds beyond where it was even 15-20 years ago, but the margin of error fans will tolerate is much smaller as well.
We do our best, and we're still humans. But boy howdy does the game move fast. I try hard as a fan to treat the officials' calls as just another factor of the game like weather or the bounce of an oblong ball.
BaltimoreHokie80
Danny Coale caught that ball. Need I say more!
TechHokie13
You've read my article on that one, right? ?
HokiePride
Great article! Did I miss your take on the ASU/Texas targeting non-call? Very interested to know your thoughts.
TechHokie13
Thanks! And I haven't officially written anything on that one, but posted on the Sub board that I disagreed with the no-call. Seems most people I trust/listen to are on the same page with that one as well. Should have been ruled targeting.
nvpbrown
Regarding "goaltending", a hypothetical... I assume that the Minnesota player was back deep in case the kick fell short and they decided to try to field it and run it back for a TD as was done famously in one Auburn/Alabama game. Let's say that he instead "goaltended" it and knocked the ball back into the field of play.
* Is it a live ball?
* If so, could VT recover it to retain possession?
* If so, could VT advance it an score a TD?
* If Minnesota recovers it, is the ball spotted where the player recovers it / advances it, or does it go back to the original line of scrimmage like normal FG misses?
* If Minnesota recovers it in the end zone and fails to advance it, is it a safety?
TechHokie13
Yep, I think they were 100% going for a repeat of that famous Bama/Auburn finish.
To your questions: if Minnesota's player had been able to snag the ball and keep it in play, he's 100% entitled to run it back. Ball's live, and it's essentially a punt return at that point.
Let's say he swats it (and nobody flags him for illegal batting - I'm not convinced that's legal, but I'm also not convinced it isn't).
If VT recovered it, it would be either a TD or a first down, depending on whether it was in the end zone or not.
If Minnesota recovers, again, it's essentially a punt return, so they'll get the ball wherever it's dead by rule. If he never makes it out of the end zone, it's a touchback (VT's kick is responsible for putting the ball in the end zone in the first place, so it's a touchback no matter what happens until the ball leaves the end zone and then is forced back across the goal line).
5_star_commenter
Thanks for answering my question. I had mentioned three no-calls as I was also including the one with Gosnel later in the game. Assume that one was not egregious at all?
TechHokie13
The 4th down one in the red zone in the 4th quarter? Yeah, that was a textbook no-call for DPI. Defender arrived virtually simultaneously with the ball, no issue at all with that one.
TomTurkey
I used to drop a flag in youngest rec football when a defender "landed" (if not pushed) on a player on the ground. It was usually due to the defender being clumsy and it occurred well after our whistles. I did it simply for safety sake even though they were padded more than Randy in "A Christmas Story." Big boy football is different but safety should still be a primary concern. RTP should be a reasonable interpretation of continuation of a full speed attempted tackle - no more, no less.
TechHokie13
Fully agree with the way we officiate youngsters. Yes, they're uncoordinated, clumsy, and don't really know the game, but what more reason to make sure they learn it properly!
Mentioned this in an earlier comment: I see where the ACC is coming from when it comes to player safety, but the hit on Schlee is one where I'm guessing it would be just on the wrong side of the line in the ACC, and seems to be at least just on the right side of the line for the SEC, and I'm inclined to agree with the SEC. I just see a hit like that - right after the QB released the ball and the defender clearly made a bona fide effort to pull up and avoid an excessively punishing hit - as an acceptable level of risk for a passer without sacrificing a defenders ability to make a play.
IB4TECH
I love these articles Trisdan. And we should show more respect for our officials and the job that they are doing. I would suggest a national Officials Day but I could see that one backfiring lol.
TechHokie13
Thanks so much!
I'm also concerned that would lead less to expressions of appreciation and more to jokes and burnings in effigy ?
HokieBrian
The Miami review makes me question any catch if you can be out of bounds and pull a ball away from the receiver who is already on the ground and in the end zone. ACC officiating only screws up calls on game deciding plays involving favored teams.
TechHokie13
Happily (I'm upset at how sincere that sentiment is), this was an SEC crew. I mentioned it in another comment below, but I was actually a big fan of how this game was called.
It seems the ACC has gone above and beyond prioritizing player safety in a lot of cases (and potentially over-complicating the replay review system), and to an extent I get that and support it. But I thought the way that SEC crew called this game gave us a much more enjoyable /consistent game experience, without substantially sacrificing player safety. Really hope the ACC takes a page from the SEC's officiating handbook next season.
RhinoVT
Great work all year, Tristan. Thanks for everything. Officials are like TV weather people: they get it right a vast majority of the time but when they miss, it's all anyone remembers!
TechHokie13
Thanks for reading, glad you enjoyed it!
You're very much correct with the weather forecaster comparison. ?
Diehard Hokie
All I know is when a VT defender makes contact with a receiver prior to the ball arriving, and the VT defender doesn't have his head turned around, it's call DPI on the VT defender.
TechHokie13
With the glaring exception of the 2016 Pitt game, I'm inclined to agree that it seems the ACC has tended to call PI much more tightly than other conferences.
I can't believe I'm actually typing this, as SEC officialls have historically been some of the sloppiest/least consistent (weirdly enough), but I wouldn't mind one bit if the ACC came more in line with SEC officiating. I really liked how the Duke's Mayo game was called.
xhokiehurler19
I agree, but maybe that’s just our M&O glasses clouding our judgement. However, I do feel like Tristan works hard to defend the brotherhood of officials in these articles…
VTScanlo
FWIW, Tristan always references the specific rule and how officials are trained to call things. This isn't defense of the brotherhood. This is simply "using the law" which I appreciate immensely. Now, if you want to take issue with something, take issue with some of the rules and their vagueness. There are still too many interpretation rules (ahem, targeting).
TechHokie13
Much appreciated, VTScanlo.
I can certainly understand the "defense of the brotherhood" idea, but my goal here has always been to simply bring an official's perspective to the situations I've covered.
Gripe at will about the outcome of a given call, but I'm simply giving my best idea of the how and why that outcome came about.
Sawhill Hokie
Completely agree and thats why I rarely read his articles but I was curious how he would justify these potential PI calls.
My issue is that the defenders are clearly playing the man and not the ball and the proximity and contact makes it nearly impossible for the receiver to complete a catch. IF the defender's heads were turned I would have no issues with the no calls.
TechHokie13
Man, y'all sure do know how to keep a guy humble, don't you? ?
The main point is that it's the timing of the ball arriving which bails out the defender, not necessarily his position or technique. If the defender had done the same thing with the ball still 10+ yards away, it's a flag every time.
For these plays, all I'm saying is that the no-call is consistent with how we officials are trained to approach those specific situations, and I would have likely made the same call in both cases.
D-Day
My issue with the non called roughing the passer wasn’t shown in your clip. It wasn’t that Schlee was simply knocked to the ground, it was that the defender put his knee in Schlee’s chest flying in like a Karate Kid extra.
TechHokie13
I kind of see 2 coming in, but it's hard to see how much contact that knee actually makes (or at least it isn't nearly as much as the other defender coming in from the side). Maybe another angle I didn't catch showed it a bit more clearly.
Still, unless that contact is excessively heavy, I'm inclined to give 2 the benefit of the doubt, as in my judgment he's clearly playing the ball and then trying to avoid contact in mid-air.
VTScanlo
Do you agree with lawyers' statements about "spirit of the law" vs "letter of the law?" It's seems there is a quite a bit of "spirit of the law" within the football rules which leads to a lot of the ire from the players, coaches, and fans.
TechHokie13
Yep, there will always be some gray area between the wording of the rule and how things play out on the field at game speed. In those cases, we do our best with training and film review and such to shrink those gray areas as much as possible, but there will always be judgement calls. I'll always remember something one of my mentors told me early on: you'll never go wrong going by the rule book. A coach can gripe all he wants, but his case basically falls apart when you start your sentence with, "by rule..."
So a lot of our judgement calls will have a lot to do with the spirit of the law, but we'll also do our best to stick as close to the letter of the law as we can.
57 Comments