rejuvaphan
Recruit
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
- Messages
- 108
Miami released the reply from the ACC about our protests of bad calls in the Duke game. ACC admitted that the PI call where Burns intercepted the ball was an incorrect penalty. This would have given Miami the ball and end the game. I guarantee that not one of those haters will apologize to the U .
View attachment 33453
I hope Finebaum gets hemorrhoids.
Miami released the reply from the ACC about our protests of bad calls in the Duke game. ACC admitted that the PI call where Burns intercepted the ball was an incorrect penalty. This would have given Miami the ball and end the game. I guarantee that not one of those haters will apologize to the U .
View attachment 33453
Miami released the reply from the ACC about our protests of bad calls in the Duke game. ACC admitted that the PI call where Burns intercepted the ball was an incorrect penalty. This would have given Miami the ball and end the game. I guarantee that not one of those haters will apologize to the U .
View attachment 33453
**** the ACC.
They handled this so very poorly. There would have been talk about the play, certainly some heated debate, but the ACC's blanket apology and misleading outline of "blown" calls invited more vitriol and hate than would have existed otherwise. They gave the haters something to hang their hats on.
In fact, they could have decided to defend the referees, with a slightly different slant on the same facts.
* While still photographs suggested Walton's knee was down, the ACC could have defended the call by saying a) the video available to the referees at the time did not provide "indisputable video evidence" to overturn the call and/or b) Walton did not convincingly have possession of the ball when he knee was down.
* The missed block in the back cannot be called after review, unless it constitutes an "egregious error." Being that the block did not materially affect the play and, in fact, aided the Duke player in getting closer to the ball carrier, the play is not "egregious" and should not have been called after review.
* The Scott non-call would not have affected the outcome of the game, though it should have been called.
Then, BOOM! While Miami hate would still permeate, the noise would not have been nearly as loud. #embracethehate
I hope Finebaum gets hemorrhoids.
Email from BlakeThere were 3 pass interfernce calls on that drive all B.S but can't tell which one they admiited to being incorrect from that statement. Is there more to the statement not included there?
**** the ACC.
They handled this so very poorly. There would have been talk about the play, certainly some heated debate, but the ACC's blanket apology and misleading outline of "blown" calls invited more vitriol and hate than would have existed otherwise. They gave the haters something to hang their hats on.
In fact, they could have decided to defend the referees, with a slightly different slant on the same facts.
* While still photographs suggested Walton's knee was down, the ACC could have defended the call by saying a) the video available to the referees at the time did not provide "indisputable video evidence" to overturn the call and/or b) Walton did not convincingly have possession of the ball when he knee was down.
* The missed block in the back cannot be called after review, unless it constitutes an "egregious error." Being that the block did not materially affect the play and, in fact, aided the Duke player in getting closer to the ball carrier, the play is not "egregious" and should not have been called after review.
* The Scott non-call would not have affected the outcome of the game, though it should have been called.
Then, BOOM! While Miami hate would still permeate, the noise would not have been nearly as loud. #embracethehate
View attachment 33455 You mean this still photo.