The play is probably still fresh in everyone's mind. On third and long in the first half, Cardale passed to Parris Campbell, who appeared to catch the ball, take a couple of steps, be stripped of the ball, and recover it when it bounced up into his hands. The pass was ruled incomplete. Instead of having a 4th and short situation in VT territory, where Urban Meyer had gone for it earlier, the Buckeyes lined up for and missed a field goal.

Inexplicably, the play was not reviewed by the ACC replay official. The announcers discussed the ruling, seemed to conclude that the pass was complete followed by a fumble and Campbell recovery, and were confused about whether the play was reviewable. Ultimately, they seemed to say the play was not reviewable because the pass was ruled incomplete. I think they were wrong, as were the officials. Fortunately, it didn't matter to the outcome of the game, but at the time, it fed a momentum shift in favor of the home team and could have become a turning point in the contest. There has been some further discussion of the play here, and there still exists confusion about what should have occurred. In hopes of clearing things up, here's what I have learned.

The NCAA publishes a Casebook on review of plays, describing hypothetical play situations and rulings, whether they are reviewable, and how the replay ruling should go. You can download it here: http://geauxcolonels.com/documents/2013/8/2/Football_Instant_Replay_Case...

An incomplete pass ruling on the field is reviewable in most cases, and typically involves whether the receiver got one foot in bounds, controlled the ball, or was aided in the catch by the ball hitting the ground. An incomplete pass ruling is also reviewable in the situation that arose when Parris Campbell appeared to catch Cardale Jones' 3rd down pass, take a couple of steps, be stripped of the ball, and recover it when it bounced up into his hands. But, the incomplete pass ruling in such a situation is reviewable only if the ball was recovered "in the immediate continuing action" of the play. That appeared to be the case with Parris' recovery, and I think the officials missed the call. However, I can understand not reviewing the call if the whistle blew the play dead after the ball came out, as that would have interrupted the continuity of the play before the ball was recovered. I couldn't hear a whistle, and this explanation was not given by the officials on the field. Anyway, here's the case description from page 18 of the NCAA Casebook:

"31. Pass ruled incomplete

First and 10 on the A-20. A10 throws a forward pass to A80 at the A-35. A80 controls the ball, takes three steps and turns up field before he is hit by a defender causing him to lose the ball which B45 falls on at the A-37. Officials rule the pass incomplete.

Ruling: Reviewable play regarding whether the ball was caught. Reverse to B 1-10 on A-37. There must be a clear recovery in the immediate continuing action in order to give the ball to the recovering team. If there is no clear recovery the ruling of incomplete stands (Rule 12-3-2-a)."