I agree 100%. I call those 50/50 calls, calls that could go either way, sometimes you get them, sometimes you don't. We got more than our share of these this year. The huge one in the GSU game comes right to mind. Then we had a few more in the Pitt game.
And therein is the crux of the matter. Does anyone on this site know if the rule is iron clad or is there room for interpretation by the ref on the field? I ask because at the time of the play I thought, "Well, if they go by the letter of the law then this is an incomplete pass but it sure looked to me like he was changing his mind and the ball slipped out of what would otherwise look like a pump fake."
Good point on the squib kick, lots of times those take a crazy bounce that sends them down to about the 20 or so where the coverage team gets all up in the returner's face right when he gets it. We were very fortunate it went right into Harrell's arms, he caught it cleanly, and was able to pick up a handful of yards on the run. We literally needed every single yard we got there at the end.
I have to say that I would almost bet the mortgage, and I don't gamble, that Justin Thomas had no intention of passing the ball, none at all, and had nobody to throw it to, anyway, there being this big guy directly in front, intending to do him harm. That's why he was running. That fake was not even as good as his VT move just before hitting Smelter for a TD, one of those forearm only things. The official made a good call, Tech did not get jobbed. The kid fumbled trying to make a play. I'm good with it, and would have been had Butker missed.
That was my point.
And I am saying, and I am done since it is a circular argument at best, that there is no way on God's green earth his arm motion had anything to do with a real forward pass, and the refs don't have to read his mind to see that.
And yet I'm sure those refs got no punishment for blowing those calls. If anything they were probably scolded for not doing enough to help their boys win.
I would just say that I would think that such a story would have been all over the papers, and surely message boards, in the wake of all the bitter complaints, particularly about the 95-yard TD "return". Really: exploding all over them. Even now, someone would have posted a copy of said interview. Yet, this is the first time I've heard or seen anything, and the said confession would have ended this debate long ago. A bit too convenient for my taste. Can you point us to the site?
It was in an interview during spring practice. I can't recall who gave the interview.
The last fumble was a hard call. Originally it was called a fumble, so they reviewed the play. What's hard about that play is the fact that it was hard to tell if the ball came out while in throwing motion or if it was after he pump faked the throw imo it was on the border so there would not be enough disputable evidence to over turn and I would have wanted the play to stay if tech was on the other side of that play. The first one was to hard to tell if he had crossed the line, but his forward progress was definitely stopped and the whistle should have been blown. When it comes to replay I'm not sure they are allowed to change a forward progress being stopped play. I think the first one was most definitely the refs fault but the second one imo was the right call to not overturn it. Think about the Pitt game, the one where their wr fumbled was very borderline,and if it was called that he was down then the call more than likely would have stayed.
