How did the officials fare in the Virginia Tech-Boston College game? (Ivan Morozov)
Gotta love a team that can win ugly, especially a noon kickoff in Chestnut Hill, against a bad BC team, in a monsoon (someone should check on Will after that sentence, just to be safe). We can all agree the weather was horrendous, but was the officiating much better? Let’s see what this week holds.
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.
No holding from what I see as the player turns, but I wonder if it turned into a block in the back as the player spun and his back was as to as he drove him into turf
Snow Hokie
Second this. No hold but looks like a high block in the back.
HtownHokie
third. more of block in the back than a hold.
thank you, Mr.'s Referees.
TechHokie13
I'll be sure to touch on that next week too.
ShockWaveVT
re: the Flowers no-targeting call. You call out indicator #2 "A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust.. "
Flowers crouched but made no upward and forward thrust. He crouched then was bowled over by the WR.
TechHokie13
That WR folded like Skyrim physics had kicked in 😂 Flowers was absolutely not the one getting bowled over there.
bkimbrough88
Right?! My take on it is Flowers was starting to launch to make a solid tackle, when they receiver did that. With things already in motion, he tried to go over the dude.
Hokie2Architect
Here’s my take. I don’t honestly care whether it was or wasn’t holding. Nice to see the refs keep the flags in their waterlogged britches in our favor for once. Seemed like there were plenty of holding calls that coulda gone against Bahston that didn’t happen too so it all works out in the end.
TechHokie13
Yep, consistency is key. And in a game kike that with atrocious weather, you're absolutely going to see fewer gain-of-advantage type fouls (especially holding) given how much the conditions are already hindering players' movements.
If a defender is already slippin' and slidin' around, a slight tug isn't going to have nearly the same effect as if he was able to cut and accelerate like normal.
Hokie90_CA
Absent the hold, #7 would have made a flailing attempt at an arm tackle at best. Overton would have run right through it, not even slowed a little bit. So, no flag!
TechHokie13
The no-call did allow us to enjoy whatever-that-was to the absolute fullest.
Two4VT
Layth has the player engaged, the player rotates, and Layth has some of his jersey in his hands (common on all blocking). So there's a pull of the jersey simply because of the player rotating, which could be called. However, Layth continues to drive the block and with the defender rotating, there's almost no way he's going to make that tackle (spinning and losing leverage against the Layth). The fact that #7 has his back to the runner is enough to question whether the play was impacted by the obvious jersey tug.
TechHokie13
Well-reasoned, thanks for contributing!
WV Gobbler
Layth was taking him to the bus!
spudman
What the hell was #7 for BC doing on that play?
TechHokie13
Remembering he put money on the over? 🤷♂️ I couldn't tell ya.
Coattail Hokie
Just imagine the game we love where holding IS allowed from both the offense and the defense. Now THAT would change the game of football.
TechHokie13
🤮🤮
You monster. That would be an absolute abomination. Not to mention every single team would go bankrupt replacing game jerseys.
VTsacks
I love this take on the hold:
"It was the action of the defensive player suddenly disengaging from the block that caused the grab."
If only I could be so shameless! Let's blame the defender for getting off of the block, lol.
TechHokie13
The holding equivalent of "stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself." 😂
delmarva hokie
I might be able to rephrase that to make my point more clearly. Ghannam is using proper blocking technique by having his hands on the defender on the inside of the defender's body which I believe offensive linemen are allowed to do. It's the action of the defender turning his body that brings the hand of the offensive linemen outside the shoulders. If the defender can simply turn around when he's getting blocked and that action automatically draws a holding penalty on the offensive lineman, then the defender has an unfair advantage.
robby68
In reference to whether Ghannam was holding or not, I'm a former college football official and worked Umpire. Putting my Hokie fandom aside, I've got a no-call here. Ghannam has the LB on skates and I'm not flagging someone whose has an established block and is washing the guy out of the play.
Oldfan
I agree with the no call for the reasons given by robby68
TechHokie13
Now hold on just a second here. Why in the world am *I* writing these when you're just chilling right here?? 😂
Thanks for the input!
OttawaHokie
Agreed... keeps his feet moving and pushing the defender to the sideline. In addition the defender is happy to dance with the blocker, you have to show that you are trying to get away and want to get to the BC
VTsacks
You've got to be a real homer to think this holding should have been ignored. It's at the point where the LB would make a tackle, shirt is stretched, player impeded from the wrong side. My only justification on this one is that finally the refs took into account decades of favoritism for our opponents. Clear proof that they maintain a list of past errors to remedy with future mistakes.
TechHokie13
I mean, that's just good, objective fact right there 😉
Hokester
"You can call holding on every play." If I have heard that once I have heard it a 1000 times. In this instance I guess a hold could be called but in my opinion Overton was already down the field when it happend so it did not affect the play. I am sure every BC fan seeing it will say it is a definitel hold while most VT fans will say it was good no call. Sometimes you are the bug and sometimes you are the windshield. I also might add that we VT fans are pretty paranoid when it comes being on the wrong side of an officiating decision so being on the right side for a change is nice.
TechHokie13
To your last point, you could have shoved a lump of coal up any of my orifices watching that live and retrieved a diamond in return. Took until the extra point cleared the uprights to finally relax and accept that a good thing had happened.
jdkhokie
Sorry but just can not agree with your assessment on the BC targeting overruled call. That guy was lucky he did not break his neck and he was leading with his helmet and there was clear contact. That was targeting.
TechHokie13
Oh yeah, I completely agree it looks extremely risky. It just couldn't clearly be seen that he made contact within that 6-inch radius of the top of his helmet.
There are plenty of ways to take contact in a dangerous-but-legal manner. This (leading with the helmet, angled downward, probably hit in the back of his head) looks to me to be one of them.
jcphokie72
By the letter of the law, it's holding, but I've seen more egregious examples not be called.
TechHokie13
Solid reasoning, thanks for contributing!
delmarva hokie
I'm fine with a no call on Ghannam. From my perspective, Ghannam was engaged in a block and then the defensive player turned around to try to chase Overton, and it was the action of the defensive player suddenly disengaging from the block that caused the grab and Ghannam quickly then let him go. Holding could be called by a strict interpretation of the rules, but since holding or pass interference is often not called when the contact had no effect on the play, then I'm OK because Overton was already running free when the contact happened.
TechHokie13
Thanks for participating!
Steeltown Hokie
I understand that not hitting the QB in the head but it should be that once the QB leaves the pocket to run he's now no different than any other ball carrier. QBs wanna be protected well throw the ball away or slide way earlier.
TechHokie13
Oh yeah, there has been quite the discussion this week in the college football world about whether or not QBs should even be allowed to slide. That USC hit certainly highlights the risks of sliding, even if it's done at a reasonable time.
Ti Hokie
I think you're right about needed to make an adjustment to allow a targeting call to be called with or without an ejection. A tackler can only do a certain amount in a half second. I can even make an argument that the USC guy basically just curled up into a ball in the half second he had to land and react (since both his feet were off the ground in the 0.1 second after the slide was obvious). I do wish I could see a different angle from that play but I can't find one. Plus he acted like a jackass afterwards, so throw the book at him regardless.
IB4TECH
No call for me and I agree with Slade. Plus the hold looks most egregious only when viewed from the downfield camera. I think the play just developed before the call in question.
IB4TECH
I rescind this remark. I'll go with the hold.
TechHokie13
Nothing wrong with a late flag coming out! 😄
HokieCrazy1994
I think its a hold, because the LB is restricted from turning and moving towards the ball carrier. I do think the OL lets go pretty quickly, but with a little tug at the end to stop any momentum the LB might have. Restrictive....holding.
TechHokie13
Thanks for contributing!
BJ Slade
I say no call in that the LB was turned away from the ball carrier on initial contact (before the obvious grab). He was off balance and not (much) impeded from pulling away to make a play on the ball carrier. Maybe a hold based on the letter of the law but given the discretion officials are allowed, I understand the no-call.
75hoke
Exactly my thoughts. Defender was already being driven backwards and unable to make a play on the runner. Technically a hold, but did not impact the play, refs discretion for a no call.
TechHokie13
You and the covering official (we'll get into who that likely was later) probably are on the same page there.
Or the rain obscured his vision 🤷♂️
laphroaig
Saw it on TV and said "That's gonna come back."
TechHokie13
I had similar thoughts for sure.
3TechFanz
I could argue Holding on 76 too. His hand is well outside the shoulder pads and turned the DE.
TechHokie13
Hey now, one potential foul at a time here 😄
Newt
Words do matter in rulebooks. “No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (9-1-4)”. The “and” forces officials (and partisans) to marry the objective with the subjective to reach a solution.
HokiesDiver
That's the wording for a defenseless player - JO was not defenseless. Two different standards.
TechHokie13
My interpretation there is that it essentially boils down to, "you have to make contact for a foul to occur" (we've all seen guys *try* to make those blow-up hits and just whiff), and "you need to also be attempting to hit the opponent" (so you can't call targeting on someone clearly going up for the ball who happens to collide with an opponent's head/neck area).
I'm pretty comfortable concluding that both criteria are met here (assuming you're talking about the Spencer ejection). You have to be *extremely* generous to not call the elbow to the head a target with forcible contact. The onus is on the defender to avoid that contact entirely - the NCAA doesn't want officials splitting hairs on intent in those situations.
Vtordieoff
My heart says no call. My head says jesus. I can't help but say that should have been holding.
TechHokie13
Can't knock that analysis! Thanks for contributing!
Novahokie`99
Holding - just like targeting, and pass interference is almost completely subjective. You can credibly argue both sides to every different call. I can't tell you how many times I've heard things like it's okay to hold if your hands are inside the shoulder pads or whatever. By the letter of the law is this holding? I mean I guess, but stuff like this happens on almost every play. I'm fine with a no call there. If you want to see bad/inconsistent officiating go and watch the Commanders vs. Seahawks game. That one included multiple ridiculous illegal formation calls, a bs late hit on the Commanders followed by a complete make up call against the Seahawks. Good times.
VTCC 65
I wholeheartedly AGREE with NOVA.
Change the rules to allow what has been called ‘Holding’ AND ‘Pass Interference’.
These are sissy rules that COULD be called on almost every play. Such ambiguous rules are virtually impossible for REFs to impartially enforce and sometimes even affect the outcome of the game. Abolishing these penalties does change the game somewhat but WRs will learn techniques to deal with PI to get separation, and defensive players will do likewise. It’s FOOTBALL, a rough sport. Unnecessary roughness should always be a penalty, but what is called PI or Holding is just too common and burdensome for officials to regulate IMO. Playgrounds all across America play this way EVERYDAY (no refs), no big deal. Yes, rough sport but so much fun when there are no refs to impose OVER REGULATION. Will there be more scoring or less??? I don’t know but I would like to see it but probably not in my lifetime or anybody's lifetime. We will probably end up with flag football.
TechHokie13
There's a reason my last attempt to cover the topic in detail ended up ballooning to a few thousand words and led Chris to completely reevaluate how we run this series (hence the weekly articles again) 😅.
Because yeah, there's quite a bit of nuance here. We want to throw flags when a clear advantage has been gained without backing up the offense every time a jersey is tugged and turning each game into a 5-hour slog. It's a very difficult tightrope to walk at the college level for sure.
Novahokie`99
Your articles are great by the way. Thanks for doing it.
TechHokie13
Much appreciated, thanks for reading!
jperez
I thought it was a hold live, rather shocked it didn't get called, the jersey pulled over the pad while the player is turning is usually a giveaway. It did look like Layth had already successfully blocked him out of the play but that shouldn't matter.
TechHokie13
Thanks for your input!
GusDaMan
sooooo much a hold. Grabbed jersey, directly impacted the ability of the defender to make a play, even turned him all the way around with the tug. But I'll gladly accept the no call and the victory!
TechHokie13
I'm also perfectly content with the no-call from a fan perspective.
VTScanlo
I feel like it was just after the play.
Andy Bitter
I think about your counters to my officiating takes all the time!
TechHokie13
I will do my best to not let this go to my head, though I have my doubts.
You know how to reach me if you want any of those counters directly! 🫡
68 Comments