ACC refs let Miami off the hook again

[TD_6082]

I dont think it was a catch either but the evidence wasnt clear and undisputable. If anything, it was a "we're pretty sure it wasnt a catch." That isnt good enough. If VT was undefeated, the call would have stood.

I'm not sure what they saw that made them rule it a TD in the first place. It was pretty clear they had no clue.

 

[cashisking884]

I think the issue most people have is that two weeks in a row, with the outcome of the game depending on a ruling from the replay booth, they ruled in favor of Miami both times. That's just a very bad look for the ACC.

Without question, the OP clip is targeting.

As for last the Virginia Tech game, I don't think there is any way that was a catch. However, since it was ruled a TD, its hard to say there is indisputable evidence to overturn it if they have to spend over 5 minutes reviewing it.

Just my 2 cents.

It was absolutely indisputable.



The VT player hits the ground at the 0 second mark in this video.

Because he never established himself as an upright runner, he has to maintain possession through the process of the ground.

Slowly take your finger and run it across the cursor. And go to the one second mark. And then slowly go back to the 0 mark. And then slowly forward to the 1 second mark.

I’m sorry. It’s *impossible* to argue the ball isn’t moving.
And it’s not the Miami’s player that is even making it move. His right arm is up around the face mask/left shoulder of the VT player. That’s why the “C” patch disappears. The Miami’s players hand is what is blocking it.
His left hand is down at his left hip.

It’s the impact of the ground and the back and up jolt from it that causes the ball to start moving.
The Miami player then reaches over with his left hands at the 1.5-ish mark and touches it. But by that point the ball is basically in his his lap. But there is a VT player who has his foot between the Miami’s players legs, resting on his crotch. That’s the only thing stopping the ball from being in the Miami players full possession. The ball is pinned to another player’s foot. Literally all of that happens before the time stamp goes to two seconds. It’s still at the 1 second mark.

You have to be deliberately trying to either see a catch or a controversy, to not see the play by play I described in the video.

 

[TD_6082]

It was absolutely indisputable.

View embedded media

The VT player hits the ground at the 0 second mark in this video.

Because he never established himself as an upright runner, he has to maintain possession through the process of the ground.

Slowly take your finger and run it across the cursor. And go to the one second mark. And then slowly go back to the 0 mark. And then slowly forward to the 1 second mark.

I’m sorry. It’s *impossible* to argue the ball isn’t moving.
And it’s not the Miami’s player that is even making it move. His right arm is up around the face mask/left shoulder of the VT player. That’s why the “C” patch disappears. The Miami’s players hand is what is blocking it.
His left hand is down at his left hip.

It’s the impact of the ground and the back and up jolt from it that causes the ball to start moving.
The Miami player then reaches over with his left hands at the 1.5-ish mark and touches it. But by that point the ball is basically in his his lap. But there is a VT player who has his foot between the Miami’s players legs, resting on his crotch. That’s the only thing stopping the ball from being in the Miami players full possession. The ball is pinned to another player’s foot. Literally all of that happens within the time stamp going to 2 seconds. It’s still at the 1 second mark.

You have to be deliberately trying to either see a catch or a controversy, to not see the play by play I described in the video.

It's hard to call something indisputable when you spend over 5 minutes reviewing it.

 

[cashisking884]

It's hard to call something indisputable when you spend over 5 minutes reviewing it.

How long do juries deliberate for in criminal trials when the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[CanesSwagger]

All good guys, best of luck the rest of the season, stay undefeated and hope to see Pitt in Charlotte.

Go Canes!!

 

[cashisking884]

“They took too long to get the call right” is a tv viewing argument, not a merit of the call argument.

As I said: slowly move your finger from 0 to like 1.5. Slowly move it back. Slowly move it again.

Does anybody actually dispute what I described is happening in that time frame? If so, what is the reasonable alternative narrative? Because I’m not kidding when I say I think it’s impossible to see anything else. Which is why the ACC ruled the way they did.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

“They took too long to get the call right” is a tv viewing argument, not a merit of the call argument.

As I said: slowly move your finger from 0 to like 1.5. Slowly move it back. Slowly move it again.

Does anybody actually dispute what I described is happening in that time frame? If so, what is the reasonable alternative narrative? Because I’m not kidding when I say I think it’s impossible to see anything else. Which is why the ACC ruled the way they did.

If it takes more than 30 seconds to review, the call should stand, just like in soccer. People have this notion that replay is to get the call right. That's incorrect. Replay is there ONLY to overturn a call that is CLEARLY wrong. The VT catch call wasn't clearly wrong.

 

[TD_6082]

How long do juries deliberate for in criminal trials when the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt?

Do we need 12 guys to unanimously agree on the call?

 

[cashisking884]

Do we need 12 guys to unanimously agree on the call?

I don’t know how many people are reviewing it back in Charlotte.

I’m also not sure what the relevancy of that is? If something is beyond a reasonable doubt, if it takes 1 out of 12 a week to agree, you wouldn’t argue that’s evidence that an injustice has been committed?

 

[cashisking884]

If it takes more than 30 seconds to review, the call should stand, just like in soccer. People have this notion that replay is to get the call right. That's incorrect. Replay is there ONLY to overturn a call that is CLEARLY wrong. The VT catch call wasn't clearly wrong.

As I said, I disagree and I truly don’t know how anybody can watch the replay above and think otherwise.

unless you’re trying to find a conspiracy.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

As I said, I disagree and I truly don’t know how anybody can watch the replay above and think otherwise.

unless you’re trying to find a conspiracy.

Let me ask you this. If the Miami player tried intentionally to commit a targeting penalty there because lets say had the Cal Moneyline, what would he had to have done differently to draw the flag? Everything he did was textbook targeting.

 

[TD_6082]

I don’t know how many people are reviewing it back in Charlotte.

I’m also not sure what the relevancy of that is? If something is beyond a reasonable doubt, if it takes 1 out of 12 a week to agree, you wouldn’t argue that’s evidence that an injustice has been committed?

Well, I don't think that was a catch. I don't think it should have been ruled a catch on the field.

The targeting call, on the other hand... It's irrelevant as whether Cal did anything deserving or not to win the game. I don't see how anyone can watch that and conclude that it isn't targeting.

 

[cashisking884]

Let me ask you this. If the Miami player tried intentionally to commit a targeting penalty there because lets say had the Cal Moneyline, what would he had to have done differently to draw the flag? Everything he did was textbook targeting.

We’re talking about the VT Hail Mary when I said it’s impossible to see the video any other way.

The Cal highlight I agree. That very easily could have been a targeting call. Probably should have been. I simply don’t care.