Can anyone explain the no-safety call in the Clemson-Miami game? Every bit of Klubnik, and the ball, was in the end zone when he was tackled other

[Psycock]

than his R foot. How in the hell was that not a safety? Could have easily cost Miami the game.

 

[Prestonyte]

No explanation and my thought exactly. I forgot about this since Miami won anyway.
And it was Klubnik's own momentum which put him in the endzone - there was no forward progress.
And they reviewed it and still got it wrong.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

I slightly disagree on the forward progress. Cade is running parallel to the goal line but not in the end zone. Contact makes him move back into the end zone enacting forward progress. That’s the best I can come up with.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

I could not figure out how that was not called a safety, the ball was never past the goal line. If that is not a safety then clearly I am not well versed on the rules.

 

[FootballLVR]

I can't figure out how it wasn't a safety. I'm kind of hoping for news to come out from the ACC about it but haven't seen anything yet.

 

[Lurker123]

I can't believe it wasn't called a safety.

The only explanation I can think of, and I don't buy it, is if contact was made when the ball was still in the field of play. Then, the booth could say that the defense was at least partially at fault for him moving into the endzone.

My recollection of the play was that he was in the endzone first.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

I can't believe it wasn't called a safety.

The only explanation I can think of, and I don't buy it, is if contact was made when the ball was still in the field of play. Then, the booth could say that the defense was at least partially at fault for him moving into the endzone.

My recollection of the play was that he was in the endzone first.

He was out of the end zone completely turned to run away was hit then went into the end zone. Forward progress rules.
Contact was first made when he and the ball are out of the end zone. Forward progress rules. It was the right call.