forums

Video proof that the ball was not secure

Advertisement
On one of the angles I felt I saw a lot of the football which to me meant their receiver didn’t have clear possession. Refs should’ve called no catch due to all the chaos and it being right at the back end of the EZ, then kicked it upstairs.

Worked out for us so survive and advance.
 
1727535457529.png
 
its dead as soon as an out of bounds guy touches it & it's not secured before. Agreed..Andre Ware just still holding those 80s beatdowns of Houston against Miami.

My favorite part was the insistence by the review dork that it was incomplete: he was talked into equivocation by Andre Ware just saying "not enough to overturn" 34 times in 4 minutes.
 
Still haven’t heard a clear explanation, but not sure control of ball was deciding issue. Somebody said play was already dead once player who was out of bounds touched the ball. Any rules experts?
 
bacane said:
Still haven’t heard a clear explanation, but not sure control of ball was deciding issue. Somebody said play was already dead once player who was out of bounds touched the ball. Any rules experts?
Click to expand...

That was the ACC official ruling from HQ posted earlier on here somewhere.
 
bacane said:
Still haven’t heard a clear explanation, but not sure control of ball was deciding issue. Somebody said play was already dead once player who was out of bounds touched the ball. Any rules experts?
Click to expand...
That’s what the ACC explained this morning. There is a tweet out there about it. Once the ball was touched by an out of bounds player the play was over.
 
Advertisement
bacane said:
Still haven’t heard a clear explanation, but not sure control of ball was deciding issue. Somebody said play was already dead once player who was out of bounds touched the ball. Any rules experts?
Click to expand...
Confirmed by ACC. On ACCNetwork Huddle this morning. Dead ball, no control preceding the touch by an out of bounds guy.

I'll say this -- I didn't watch football for 5 years before the FAMU game and even I know that rule.

This was the Lingerie Bowl Ref (GB vs SEA Monday Night Opener that got refs paid it was so bad) fiasco in reverse: people trying to will a touchdown into existence but they got but right not wrong.
 
Last edited:
Stingarov said:
its dead as soon as an out of bounds guy touches it & it's not secured before. Agreed..Andre Ware just still holding those 80s beatdowns of Houston against Miami.

My favorite part was the insistence by the review dork that it was incomplete: he was talked into equivocation by Andre Ware just saying "not enough to overturn" 34 times in 4 minutes.
Click to expand...
Andre Ware should stick to being one of the great NFL draft busts of all time. He was good at that.
 
Advertisement
Stingarov said:
Confirmed by ACC. On ACCNetwork Huddle this morning. Dead ball, no control preceding the touch by an out of bounds guy.

I'll say this -- I didn't watch football for 5 years before the FAMU game and even I know that rule.

This was the Lingerie Bowl Ref (GB vs SEA Monday Night Opener that got refs paid it was so bad) fiasco in reverse: people trying to will a touchdown into existence but they got but right not wrong.
Click to expand...
Would be helpful if the TV broadcast crew knew the **** rules. Even the so-called rules expert never brought up the impact of an out of bounds player touching the ball. Everything but. Had it been mentioned you wouldn’t hear all the post-game blabber.
 
Stingarov said:
its dead as soon as an out of bounds guy touches it & it's not secured before. Agreed..Andre Ware just still holding those 80s beatdowns of Houston against Miami.

My favorite part was the insistence by the review dork that it was incomplete: he was talked into equivocation by Andre Ware just saying "not enough to overturn" 34 times in 4 minutes.
Click to expand...
It would have saved a lot of this anger from people who saw it the other way if they had just explained why it was overturned …
 
mcnaire2004 said:
Charlotte was on our side as were the on-field refs (generally).

The only bad part of the call was calling it a TD on field.
Click to expand...
It was clear that no ref had a clue what happened as no one got a good view of it. That happens at times.

They had to make a call in order to review it. I don’t know the rationale/protocol of saying TD or incomplete, but it was clear they just picked one (because they had to) with the intent of reviewing it to get the actual call correct.

This is an example where forcing making a call and then requiring enough evidence to overturn it doesn’t work. They should have the option to say “we don’t have a clue what happened and need to review it to get it right based on all the looks we have.
 
Back
Top