[msqueri]

I’m curious why you labeled the goal line stand “controversial”.  On the game thread, I thought he was in but that there wasn’t indisputable evidence to reverse the call, which I think was what happened (though the refs said that call was “upheld”, which is neither “confirmed” nor “stands”, but sounds a bit more like “confirmed” than “stands”).  In any case, going back, I do not see a clear view of the ball vis a vis the line before the ball-carriers knee was down, and the first view of the ball after the knee is down does show it short of the goal line.  As I said, I think the runner got the ball past the goal line and Galvin pushed him back, but I can’t find any of the video shots that show the position of the ball, so I think the refs got this right within the guidelines for review.  The call on the field was certainly defensible (and the line judge had the best view), and not overturning the call I think was the correct video review.

BC

I think there were several calls that were upheld because of the original call on the field rather than what likely actually happened, an issue that was exacerbated by it being a somewhat low production value game without many cameras. If one were a Florida State fan I think it would be controversial just because it was probably the case that the ball at least touched the plane. More likely than not that should have been a touchdown I think. I have also heard some say it could have plausibly been called targeting. Here is one article calling the end of game sequence controversial: https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/stanfor...eplay.html

I have seen several people comment on "upheld" vs. "confirmed" or "stands." I believe you all are getting caught up on old terminology. Everything is now either upheld or overturned. College football replay reviews no longer provide the prior nuance of "confirmed" and "stands." 

As I said in my post, I think the close calls benefited/harmed both teams. There were other upheld calls, clock keeping quirks, etc. that got FSU in the position for that play in the first place. I don't think either team was necessarily gifted/robbed by the officials overall. Just a bit of a messy, chaotic nightmare for referees to adjudicate and it was all made worse by the bad cameras.

[msqueri]

I’m curious why you labeled the goal line stand “controversial”.  On the game thread, I thought he was in but that there wasn’t indisputable evidence to reverse the call, which I think was what happened (though the refs said that call was “upheld”, which is neither “confirmed” nor “stands”, but sounds a bit more like “confirmed” than “stands”).  In any case, going back, I do not see a clear view of the ball vis a vis the line before the ball-carriers knee was down, and the first view of the ball after the knee is down does show it short of the goal line.  As I said, I think the runner got the ball past the goal line and Galvin pushed him back, but I can’t find any of the video shots that show the position of the ball, so I think the refs got this right within the guidelines for review.  The call on the field was certainly defensible (and the line judge had the best view), and not overturning the call I think was the correct video review.

BC

I think there were several calls that were upheld because of the original call on the field rather than what likely actually happened, an issue that was exacerbated by it being a somewhat low production value game without many cameras. If one were a Florida State fan I think it would be controversial just because it was probably the case that the ball at least touched the plane. More likely than not that should have been a touchdown I think. I have also heard some say it could have plausibly been called targeting. Here is one article calling the end of game sequence controversial: https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/stanfor...eplay.html

I have seen several people comment on "upheld" vs. "confirmed" or "stands." I believe you all are getting caught up on old terminology. Everything is now either upheld or overturned. College football replay reviews no longer provide the prior nuance of "confirmed" and "stands." 

As I said in my post, I think the close calls benefited/harmed both teams. There were other upheld calls, clock keeping quirks, etc. that got FSU in the position for that play in the first place. I don't think either team was necessarily gifted/robbed by the officials overall. Just a bit of a messy, chaotic nightmare for referees to adjudicate and it was all made worse by the bad cameras.