Mercifully, the 2025 Tech football season has come to an end, and there are clearly brighter days ahead of us. And what better way to prepare for what should be a much-improved 2026 squad than to more fully understand the game and how it’s officiated?
Let’s get into it.
You Make the Call Review: Holding vs. Cal
Last month, I wrote entirely too much on the subject of holding (I kind of felt like Tolkien when he was asked to write a nice little sequel to The Hobbit and then dropped The Lord of the Rings on his editor’s desk). For those of you troopers who made it all the way through Part 2, I asked you all to make the call on a potential hold in a critical 4th-down situation.
In my judgement, there is a restriction, and guard Tomas Rimac has certainly put himself on the hook with his left arm drifting to the outside of the defender’s shoulder. And as much as we preach being patient with our flags, the tail end of the action can be deceptive as well, with the defender struggling to disengage and diving for the runner.
What seals the no-flag deal for me, however, is the combination of the defender’s feet and his head. His feet are squarely underneath his body, indicating he isn’t being dragged by his torso in a direction he doesn’t want to go, and his helmet is pointing straight into Rimac’s chest, telling me that he’s intent on fighting through the block rather than disengaging.
The dive at the end is just window dressing. No foul. Good work, honorary ACC officials.
Now on to some questions!
Who makes the final decision on review plays, the booth refs or white hat? This is probably more of a Refereeing 101 class, but that is where I am at. - VT Trainman
This is an excellent question, and actually doesn’t have nearly as straightforward an answer as one might expect. In fact, there is no “in case of disagreement, [this official] has the final say” language in the rule book. I believe that’s by design, as replay is intended to be a collaborative process, where a play is only overturned if there is clear and obvious evidence that the on-field call was incorrect.
In the “Criterion to Overturn” section of the replay rule, however, only the replay official is specifically mentioned:
To overturn an on-field ruling, the replay official must be convinced beyond all doubt by clear and obvious video evidence through one or more video replays provided to the monitor.[Exception: Targeting (Rule 12-3-5).] (12-7-1)
That tells me that the replay official by rule has the “final” say, though in practice I’m sure it’s virtually always a unanimous decision. Anecdotally, I can’t recall a single time this year when we’ve gotten a peek into the ACC replay booth (big fan of that, wish we’d get it for every game) where the replay official and referee have disagreed.
It makes sense, as the replay crew is part of the officiating crew, and good crew communication revolves around ensuring everyone has the same set of information to work from. Once we’re all on the same page, it’s typically not too difficult to come to an agreement.
How about a discussion on why the refs didn't call a late hit at the end [of the Cal game] with targeting. It favored VT obviously, and it didn't look like targeting, but it seems like a late hit call was justified. The refs screwed themselves into a bad spot by calling targeting...cost them making the appropriate lesser call, IMO. - RRHokie90
Jokes aside, you’re on the right track, in my opinion. I can mostly see why F/B passed on calling a personal foul, as Flowers is barreling in full speed to try to break up the pass, has clearly committed to the contact, and only has a step or two to pull up after the ball hits the ground.
That said, the ball lands about three yards in front of Cal receiver Jordan King, directly in front of the charging Flowers. It’s a bad look for the Tech safety, for sure.
What probably saves his bacon here is that he doesn’t fully drive through the receiver, but rather almost glances off. Heavier contact which would displace King sideways, rather than turning him around as he falls forward, would definitely bring an unnecessary roughness call which could then be “elevated” to targeting (appropriately, which was then - also appropriately - overturned via replay).
In high school, I’m flagging this regardless as excessive contact on a defenseless player (that’s a new rule at the high school level to encourage proper tackling technique, rather than leading with the shoulder/helmet). But it isn’t nearly as egregious as I initially thought it was watching that play live, and I think I’m good with passing on this one in the ACC. But it is right on that line.
Drones was running [during the Miami game], and was hit helmet-to-helmet but Drones bounced off for another five yards. Was this targeting, or since it didn't result in a tackle does that give the defender more leeway? - VT Trainman
I love this type of question, because it gives me a chance to clear up some common misconceptions about the targeting rule (which is, like, a solid 40% of what I do here it seems - I even wrote a whole article on it late last season).
Here’s the play:
We also will just about never see targeting called on a runner because there needs to be an element of “attacking” to uphold a ruling of targeting. So even when a runner lowers his head, that is almost universally to brace for and absorb impact, rather than to attack or punish the opponent.
In this case, Drones is a runner, and is therefore not defenseless by rule. So that’s half of the targeting rule off the table. Drones can absolutely take forcible contact to his head/neck area without it drawing a flag.
What we’re going to look for instead is the defender initiating contact with the crown of his helmet. This element of the rule is essentially for the defender’s safety, and functionally replaced the old “spearing” rule.
Now, I personally think it’s inappropriate to disqualify a player for what is essentially sloppy technique. One of the most gratifying experiences I can have as an official is flagging a player’s action, and then seeing him come back a series or two later, in a similar situation, and make a legal play. I think the NCAA should afford the same opportunity to players penalized for crown-of-helmet targeting: give them another chance to correct their technique (and then, after a 2nd offense, an ejection is probably appropriate).
Here, though, we can clearly see the defender’s shoulder absorbs the contact, with each player’s helmet playing only a minimal role. It’s a heavy hit, but perfectly legal.
If you're going to do the blind-side block, discuss what you CAN do there. - nvpbrown
I included this play mostly to grind Andy’s gears (does he even read these things? Eh, who knows?), as there are few things in a freelancer’s life more enjoyable than gently needling one of one’s all-time favorite sports writers.
Here’s the play in question, for those of us looking to relive some 2025 frustration:
The rule is reasonably strict, and it all comes down to what we consider “forcible contact.”
A blind-side block is an open field block against an opponent that is initiated from outside the opponent’s field of vision, or otherwise in such a manner that the opponent cannot reasonably defend themselves against the block. (2-3-7)