Noach Hiles and ACC explanation
- Thread starter gary2
- Start date
Not sure I understand the explanation. The Pitt player was responsible for putting the ball in the endzone. The out of bounds FSU player touched the ball clearly still firmly in the endzone. That negates "his" chance of possession, but does that end the play?
I mean one of the announcers even pointed out during the replay that the defender was out of bounds before the recovery .(which he clearly was)
Someone else was here was quoted saying the rule states if that's the case then the offense maintains possession where the fumble occurred . If that is accurate then imo these ACC refs were not letting Pitt win this game ...
Along with the ULC penalty on KB ....
Someone else was here was quoted saying the rule states if that's the case then the offense maintains possession where the fumble occurred . If that is accurate then imo these ACC refs were not letting Pitt win this game ...
Along with the ULC penalty on KB ....
Another indictment on this conference's incompetence- why is Al Riveron the head of the ACC officiating? Was Jeff Triplette not available?
Translation. I’m not going to discuss our shitty officiating
The rule is weird but its the rule. Had Mumpfield fumbled into the endzone and the FSU player was literally standing 5 feet out of bounds talking to a cheerleader and then reached into the field of play to grab the ball, with 95% of his body out of bounds, its still a touchback. It is what it is. In my opinion, in a play like this or the play we saw, it should have been a safety. The FSU player recovered the ball in his own endzone becoming THEN the offensive player but then went out of bounds in his own endzone. The rule should have been a safety but thats not the rule.
Pitt has been hit with some really weirdass shit this year. The slide play, I mean the game was over, dont be an effing nerd, and just give him the 1st. Now this endzone play I've never seen.
I thought that too. I thought, well that sucks, but we get 2 and get the ball back. The rule is really weird.
The ACC was never going to let Pitt win this game, the officiating proved that, the acc wil make tons of money with fla st in the playoffs, Pitt has no chance of a bowl game and the conference was by no means going to let Pitt win. Was ever going to be amother 13 - 9 game
Last edited:
If you fumble the ball into the end zone and it goes out of bounds it's the defense's ball and a touchback. If you fumble the ball into the end zone and a guy who is out of bounds touches the ball the ball is out of bounds, the play is over and it's the defense's ball and a touchback.
That's the way the rule has been for a very, very long time. Pretty much every season people write articles about why it's a dumb rule and should be changed. But it never actually does get changed. Because no one can come up with something better than everyone can agree on.
That's the way the rule has been for a very, very long time. Pretty much every season people write articles about why it's a dumb rule and should be changed. But it never actually does get changed. Because no one can come up with something better than everyone can agree on.
And incidentally, a guy who is out of bounds touching the ball makes it a dead ball is not just an end zone rule. That is the rule all over the field. If you fumble the ball at the 50 yard line and a guy who is out of bounds touches the ball the ball is considered to be out of bounds and the ball is dead.
You can decide if you think it makes sense or not, but it IS the rule, and it has been the rule for a very long time. If someone who is out of bounds touches the ball the ball is dead and the play is over.
The key is the player cannot willingly go out of bounds. So if a gunner runs around a defender out of bounds and comes back in then it’s a penalty. If they are pushed out of bounds and come back in then it’s not a penalty.
You are absolutely right. It is the rule.
Would you at least agree that it is intellectually inconsistent with handling of other instances of out of bounds?
I'd rather the rule be that if an offensive player fumbles into the end zone and either the offense recovers or the ball goes out of play that the ball is returned to the spot of the fumble and the offense retains possession.
But that's not the rule, and it never has been the rule. And there doesn't seem to be any movement among the people who could change the rule to ever make that the rule.
Maybe if a play like that happens in a national championship game and it turns the outcome of the game there will be a push to change it. But beyond that, the people that run the game don't seem to think that it's a problem.
He is not a "Pitt reporter," he works for the P-G. And he asked the question, the guy said he could not comment on a judgement call. What was Noah supposed to do, threaten to punch him over the phone? Both P-G reporters called out the ACC for not making the officials available for comment. Riveron could not comment on the judgement calls because he did not make them.
Especially since he's also quoting someone who is pointing out the fact that he didn't know the rule.
I think most agree the fumble call was correct. The thing we should be angry about is the refs missed the facemask that caused Mumpfield to fumble.
I agree, that is what they missed.
But it's also easy to see how they missed it, because on a play that long the ref was behind the play, so he probably didn't have a very good look at the facemask because he was kind of shielded by the player's bodies.
I didn't question the Mumpfield play for one second. As soon as it happened, I knew we were screwed.
I take issue with C'Bo getting roped by the neck and thrown to the ground a few feet out of bounds and the Bartholomew penalty. Other than that, just dumbassd coaches who lost the game for us. And a bad QB who wouldn't start for Central Michigan.
I take issue with C'Bo getting roped by the neck and thrown to the ground a few feet out of bounds and the Bartholomew penalty. Other than that, just dumbassd coaches who lost the game for us. And a bad QB who wouldn't start for Central Michigan.
No the right call wasn’t made. The face mask causing the fumble wasn’t called. So the fumble was irrelevant. But since they missed the call that mattered, we’re left to talk about the least incorrect call to make. But all calls after that point are wrong.
I felt that had the C'bo body slam happened in bounds, they would have called it. The fact that it happened out of bounds confused the refs because they were trying to figure out if the hit was late and werent paying attention, for lack of a better term, to the body slam. But that's as obvious of a late hit as there ever was. The Bartholomew penalty, he shouldn't be swearing at the ref but the ref cant be listening to that. I've never seen that call or the out of bounds guy recovering a fumble in my life. That call was correct though
I think coaches should get a challenge per half on judgment calls like PI's, facemasks, late hits, even holding knowing the bar to turn it over is very high. Sometimes its just so obvious. We have technology. In fact, why do we even need refs down there?
That’s true, but you have 3 deep guys on the officiating crew. These guys should be the most athletic and in position to make the call.
I don’t understand at all how with technology you don’t get a facemask call correct or Cbo late hit/twist by the head play right
It’s all to keep an illusion of making a call in real time where they end up incorrect 50% of the time anyway. Like a useless tradition….
Get the call right period. These guys can’t keep up with the players anyway (unless they chase them to the bench apparently)
It’s all to keep an illusion of making a call in real time where they end up incorrect 50% of the time anyway. Like a useless tradition….
Get the call right period. These guys can’t keep up with the players anyway (unless they chase them to the bench apparently)
I can’t believe the ACC hired Al Riveron of all people. What a joke. The guy has been a punchline for years and is now in charge in our garage league? Figures.
Yeah, if anything because it looked as though we had a player in position to recover the fumble if not for the out of bounds players impacting the play. Hate to say it but SMF’s explanation above is a good one.
So is that not reviewable I assume?What do they say about two hands to the facemask?!!!!
