PAC-12 official says it's not a catch due to the ball grazing the grass blades, even though the player maintained control of the ball throughout the catch. The grazing of the grass blades counts as the ground assisting the player with the catch.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
wait, was this called a catch or not? I mean, if it was a called catch I don't think this view overturns it, but if it was called incomplete I'd probably stay with that call after seeing this. he hand is not between the ball and the grass like danny's was so it's possible the ground did actually help.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I don't know, great effort for sure, but IMO from that view it is not a catch. He trapped the ball with his body and the ground. I could see it being overturned if called a catch on the field.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
more apt to say called a TD and confirmed not to be irrefutable evidence to overturn, right? I can clearly see the ball loose inside his arms and getting trapped by his body, hands and ground. But it isn't spot on clear that he didn't have control. I think we got lucky it was called a TD on the field rather than not.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Here's another angle. I don't "clearly" see anything that says he didn't make the catch. He brings the ball into his body with his left hand, yes it is loose on the way in, and it appears to graze the ground at about the same time that he hugs the ball to his body with both hands. But there is no change in direction or movement by the ball at the moment it grazes the ground which would indicate to me that it is not enough contact to aid in the catch. I say good call. A close call, but a good one. But, that's just my opinion, which when you add $1.25 will get you a Dr. Pepper at the vending machine here where I work.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
What I see is no control. After it initially touches his left hand neither of his hands are firmly in control or even touching the ball until the ground and his body trap it. I don't see how the ball could change direction there or even why it would given the position it touches the ground at, but his body and hands are there a moment after so even if the ball was going to change direction it couldn't. So to me it is incomplete and we got lucky with the call on the field.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
If the call on the field is a catch and a touchdown and I'm the ref who reviews it, it "stands as called"
If the call on the field is an incomplete pass and I'm the ref who reviews it, it "stands as called"
I honestly don't see enough from this angle to "confirm" or "overturn" it either way.
As a casual fan, however, I find it unlikely that he made that catch without a little help from the ground. It's definitely a tough call though. I do not envy the Zebras
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Technically, that would be referred to as "the play stands as called after review." By the rules of review, I think the language "the call is confirmed" means that video review proved that the call on the field was demonstrably correct. A play "standing" means the video doesn't make it any clearer what happened, neither confirming nor overruling the call.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
I see what you did there...
I think Bitter may have intended to write that here:
http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2015/may/15/shocking-video-look-whats-...
He has to be up to 6'14" by now...
As long as our receivers keep making plays like this, we'll be in good shape.
That's I. Ford. I think...
Awesome concentration!
PAC-12 official says it's not a catch due to the ball grazing the grass blades, even though the player maintained control of the ball throughout the catch. The grazing of the grass blades counts as the ground assisting the player with the catch.
wait, was this called a catch or not? I mean, if it was a called catch I don't think this view overturns it, but if it was called incomplete I'd probably stay with that call after seeing this. he hand is not between the ball and the grass like danny's was so it's possible the ground did actually help.
I don't know, great effort for sure, but IMO from that view it is not a catch. He trapped the ball with his body and the ground. I could see it being overturned if called a catch on the field.
IIRC that was our first TD against ECU, which was called a catch on the field and upheld on review.
Beat me to it by 10 seconds....
This was his TD catch against ECU. It was called, reviewed and confirmed to be a TD.
more apt to say called a TD and confirmed not to be irrefutable evidence to overturn, right? I can clearly see the ball loose inside his arms and getting trapped by his body, hands and ground. But it isn't spot on clear that he didn't have control. I think we got lucky it was called a TD on the field rather than not.
Here's another angle. I don't "clearly" see anything that says he didn't make the catch. He brings the ball into his body with his left hand, yes it is loose on the way in, and it appears to graze the ground at about the same time that he hugs the ball to his body with both hands. But there is no change in direction or movement by the ball at the moment it grazes the ground which would indicate to me that it is not enough contact to aid in the catch. I say good call. A close call, but a good one. But, that's just my opinion, which when you add $1.25 will get you a Dr. Pepper at the vending machine here where I work.
potato potAHto. no worries.
What I see is no control. After it initially touches his left hand neither of his hands are firmly in control or even touching the ball until the ground and his body trap it. I don't see how the ball could change direction there or even why it would given the position it touches the ground at, but his body and hands are there a moment after so even if the ball was going to change direction it couldn't. So to me it is incomplete and we got lucky with the call on the field.
Looks like it hit the ground to me.
Either way fuck ECU
Completely agree with your second point.
Regarding your first point:
If the call on the field is a catch and a touchdown and I'm the ref who reviews it, it "stands as called"
If the call on the field is an incomplete pass and I'm the ref who reviews it, it "stands as called"
I honestly don't see enough from this angle to "confirm" or "overturn" it either way.
As a casual fan, however, I find it unlikely that he made that catch without a little help from the ground. It's definitely a tough call though. I do not envy the Zebras
Danny Coale's catch was more of a catch than this was.
The refs probably decided the Hokies were due a break, and yeah, "Fuck ECU."
I remember thinking the same things when it happened. We were due and we needed to get back in that game.
Technically, that would be referred to as "the play stands as called after review." By the rules of review, I think the language "the call is confirmed" means that video review proved that the call on the field was demonstrably correct. A play "standing" means the video doesn't make it any clearer what happened, neither confirming nor overruling the call.
I believe that you're right. But either way....TOUCHDOWN!!
A glimpse at your receiver and tight end, huh?