Started By
Message

re: Why wasn't it first and goal in OT?

Posted on 11/12/14 at 7:48 am to
Posted by Pauldean
Red Stick by way of Syracuse
Member since Oct 2011
2629 posts
Posted on 11/12/14 at 7:48 am to
quote:

The play happened after a play that resulted in a first down and it was a dead ball penalty. Once the ball was pushed back outside the 10 it was no longer first and goal.


quote:

I don't get why people don't understand this


Cuz what you said does not make sense.

Run a play. Get First and goal at the 1. Dead ball. Personal foul. 15 yard penalty. Should it not be First and goal at 16. This is what he is asking.

ETA: If this is a new rule just say so. But saying "new set of downs had not been established yet" is bullshite. That's the definition of a dead ball.
This post was edited on 11/12/14 at 7:51 am
Posted by TigerBait1127
Houston
Member since Jun 2005
47336 posts
Posted on 11/12/14 at 7:57 am to
quote:

ETA: If this is a new rule just say so.


It has been around for at least 5 years IMO. I can't remember when it wasn't the rule

I think the rule change people may be referring to is different and would have made it 1st and 1 from the 16
This post was edited on 11/12/14 at 7:59 am
Posted by PurpleAndGold86
Member since Jun 2012
11036 posts
Posted on 11/12/14 at 9:13 am to
quote:

Cuz what you said does not make sense.


It makes absolute perfect sense because I am 100% correct.

quote:

Should it not be First and goal at 16. This is what he is asking.


I know exactly what he is asking and I answered the question. No, it definitely should not be first and goal. The refs were right in this instance. It should have been 1st and 10 at the 16 yard line.

quote:

But saying "new set of downs had not been established yet" is bull shite.


No, it isn't.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram