[BostonCard]

Reading the article, I guess the controversy is really more along the lines of poor production quality/lack of camera views (plus that whole “technical difficulty”) which is a fair critique.  I thought what you meant was that the call itself was controversial, and sure, I could see why an FSU fan would be chuffed, but I think most objective observers (including the link you provided) is that there was not enough evidence to overturn.  The short of it is that the ball probably did kiss the plane, but there is no camera angle that shows it, so you are left to deduce where the ball is based on where the player is, even though the cameras are blocked from the ball (and the camera is behind the goal line, so there is some parallax).  On the last frame before the ball is shielded from view, it hasn’t crossed the goal line, and on the first view of the ball after the knee is clearly down, it is short of the goal line.  I think what happened is that it probably crossed the goal line and Galvin pushed him back, but that is conjecture on my part.

Thanks for the explanation on “upheld” versus “confirmed”/“stands”; I didn’t know the system had changed in college.  Although it was a distinction without a difference, I do think it is helpful to know the difference between when the video call proves the call on the field versus when it merely fails to overturn it (I also have always thought that when it is a coach’s challenge, if the ruling is “confirmed” then the coach should lose the challenge, but if it merely “stands” then the coach shouldn’t have lost the challenge).


FWIW, I thought the clock-keeping was fine at the end.  There were clearly two seconds left (maybe even three) when the receiver went down, and the clock operator ran it down to 0; even though it gave me a bit of heartburn, it was appropriate for the refs to stop things to ask for the clock to be re-set, which probably was enough time for FSU to get set for the play.

BC

[BostonCard]

Reading the article, I guess the controversy is really more along the lines of poor production quality/lack of camera views (plus that whole “technical difficulty”) which is a fair critique.  I thought what you meant was that the call itself was controversial, and sure, I could see why an FSU fan would be chuffed, but I think most objective observers (including the link you provided) is that there was not enough evidence to overturn.  The short of it is that the ball probably did kiss the plane, but there is no camera angle that shows it, so you are left to deduce where the ball is based on where the player is, even though the cameras are blocked from the ball (and the camera is behind the goal line, so there is some parallax).  On the last frame before the ball is shielded from view, it hasn’t crossed the goal line, and on the first view of the ball after the knee is clearly down, it is short of the goal line.  I think what happened is that it probably crossed the goal line and Galvin pushed him back, but that is conjecture on my part.

Thanks for the explanation on “upheld” versus “confirmed”/“stands”; I didn’t know the system had changed in college.  Although it was a distinction without a difference, I do think it is helpful to know the difference between when the video call proves the call on the field versus when it merely fails to overturn it (I also have always thought that when it is a coach’s challenge, if the ruling is “confirmed” then the coach should lose the challenge, but if it merely “stands” then the coach shouldn’t have lost the challenge).


FWIW, I thought the clock-keeping was fine at the end.  There were clearly two seconds left (maybe even three) when the receiver went down, and the clock operator ran it down to 0; even though it gave me a bit of heartburn, it was appropriate for the refs to stop things to ask for the clock to be re-set, which probably was enough time for FSU to get set for the play.

BC