- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Summary of LSU-Bama officiating errors...WITH PHOTOS!
Posted on 11/9/09 at 6:23 pm to SabansPlayers
Posted on 11/9/09 at 6:23 pm to SabansPlayers
quote:
SabansPlayers
0
Posted on 11/9/09 at 6:24 pm to SabansPlayers
quote:
If LSU would have been given the ball by the conspiracist refs, they would have not scored.
Kinda like we didn't score when trailing by 7 late in the fourth quarter at Bryant-Denny in 2007?
Oh, wait....
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 7:04 pm to SabansPlayers
quote:
Good, now take your response to this post and relate it to your pointless whining.
The fact that you CAME here to post this drivell says VOLUMES.
I think it's hilarious that a team that runs the ball as much as Bama does......doesn't get ONE holding call when they held juuuust about the entire night.
Again....i hope they win out....and lose the NC game. It would make my year!
Posted on 11/9/09 at 7:05 pm to LSUBlake8
What would be great is if they won out and got blown out by TCU or Boise State in the championship
Posted on 11/9/09 at 7:10 pm to SabansPlayers
Go Frick yourself you toothless hillbilly F_ck!Go to your Alabama board and get the hell out of here. No one here wants to here your crap. I hope you and your lying piece of Sh_t coach never win another game.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 7:14 pm to MastrShake
Great pic which also disproves the stupid argument by some Bama fans that it wasn't a catch due to Julio Jones touching the ball as he is out of bounds is ridiculous......and 100% wrong......he NEVER touched it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted on 11/9/09 at 7:16 pm to CoastalCajun
I figured it out: it was Professor Plum in the Library with a Knife. I swear I saw Slive standing on the grassy knoll!!!
Posted on 11/9/09 at 7:45 pm to arrakis
quote:
So far, there is no look that shows "green" between his foot and the sideline. If someone has it, I'd love to see it.
Hey Jackassarakis, look at the 4th pic posted in the original post and you see your evidence. Looks to me like there is a good 6-8 inches of space between the right foot and the sideline. You suck.
And you've been owned.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 7:57 pm to Tigerloo
Ok this is insignificant but had to share. We have this SEC sports program on TV here in N. FL. The guys rapped up their discussion of the LSU Bama game saying the INT was not because Jones touched the ball out of bounds and that nullifies the interseption. They then went on to say that the ONLY 2 teams that were any good in the SEC were going to play in the championship in Atlanta. WOW!!!
Posted on 11/9/09 at 8:30 pm to arrakis
Arrikas you're wrong. Only you believe this. The entire nation agrees. The SEC won't comment. Even Gerald knows deep down he f'd up...or not.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 9:09 pm to MastrShake
I love this post, but it is truly disturbing. The refs stole this one from the team guys!
Posted on 11/9/09 at 9:32 pm to puttytat
A picture might go a ways to disproving it after the fact, but it doesn't prove that there was incontrovertible video evidence that Julio didn't touch the ball. If you're saying that the video footage proves WITHOUT QUESTION that JJ's hand didn't touch the ball... then either you're not being entirely honest with yourself or you have a different video reel than I do. If the ref saw his hand touch the ball then I don't think there's enough video evidence to reverse that. If he says PP landed out of bounds then I think there IS enough video evidence to reverse it.
I'd say it was probably an INT but I don't think it was as egregious an error as people want to make it out to be. Everyone seems to be assuming they were reviewing where the feet came down and to the best of my knowledge that was never stated (statements by Gary Danielson are NOT official). If that's an assumption that Gary Danielson made then it'll be the second game in a row that he's burned us in the media for not knowing what he's talking about. Last week it was an incorrect assumption that UT would've gotten a re-kick if they'd called Cody for taking his helmet off (which was incorrect).
Either way, I've been a college fan for more than a weekend so I've lived through much worse calls than this in this rivalry.
You guys have been better than us for most of this decade. You played a tough game on Saturday but I don't think you were better than us this time.
I'd say it was probably an INT but I don't think it was as egregious an error as people want to make it out to be. Everyone seems to be assuming they were reviewing where the feet came down and to the best of my knowledge that was never stated (statements by Gary Danielson are NOT official). If that's an assumption that Gary Danielson made then it'll be the second game in a row that he's burned us in the media for not knowing what he's talking about. Last week it was an incorrect assumption that UT would've gotten a re-kick if they'd called Cody for taking his helmet off (which was incorrect).
Either way, I've been a college fan for more than a weekend so I've lived through much worse calls than this in this rivalry.
You guys have been better than us for most of this decade. You played a tough game on Saturday but I don't think you were better than us this time.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 9:34 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 9:41 pm to Hankster2
As mentioned in another thread... YOU ARE WRONG!
Posted on 11/9/09 at 9:45 pm to Hankster2
Please drop the "Jones touching" crap...with all due respect, it makes you look like a douche.
It's illegal touching if Jones touched it while out of bounds.
Eligibility Lost by Going Out of Bounds
1 of 3 possibilities exist...
1. out of bounds Jones touched the ball first = illegal touching
2. in bounds Jones touched the ball first = irrelevant, just a regular play
3. Jones didn't touch the ball...which is actually what the video and pics show.
**keep in mind the call on the field WAS NOT that Jones touched the ball...so really this whole discussion is moot. That wasn't the call to begin with.
Alabama fans coming up with this "jones touch" crap are really grasping for something that's not there. Is that really the leg you're standing on?? Just admit it was a bad call rather than pull shite out of your arse.
It's illegal touching if Jones touched it while out of bounds.
Eligibility Lost by Going Out of Bounds
quote:
ARTICLE 4. No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds during a
down shall touch a legal forward pass in the field of play or end zones or while
airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R. 7-3-4-I-III).
[Exception: This does not apply to an eligible offensive player who attempts
to return inbounds immediately after going out of bounds due to contact by an
opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-IV)].
1 of 3 possibilities exist...
1. out of bounds Jones touched the ball first = illegal touching
2. in bounds Jones touched the ball first = irrelevant, just a regular play
3. Jones didn't touch the ball...which is actually what the video and pics show.
**keep in mind the call on the field WAS NOT that Jones touched the ball...so really this whole discussion is moot. That wasn't the call to begin with.
Alabama fans coming up with this "jones touch" crap are really grasping for something that's not there. Is that really the leg you're standing on?? Just admit it was a bad call rather than pull shite out of your arse.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 9:55 pm to JPLSU1981
Hate to say this, but I think you're misinformed. Straight from the rulebook, hoss: If the ball wasn't possessed when jones touched it then the ball is immediately out of bounds. "Illegal touching" would apply when a player goes out of bounds and comes back in to catch the ball (that's your first error). It's pretty cut and dry. Not trying to be rude or start a yelling match, but if you're trying to say that PP can catch the ball AFTER JJ touched it out of bounds... then you need to brush up on the rules.
4-2 (page FR-81)
Ball Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 3. a. A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores
a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game
official or anything else that is on or outside a boundary line.
4-2 (page FR-81)
Ball Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 3. a. A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores
a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game
official or anything else that is on or outside a boundary line.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:00 pm to JPLSU1981
Just to reiterate:
The rule you quoted would apply if JJ had come back in bounds to catch the ball. Unfortunately that's not the situation.
JJ was out of bounds at the time of "touching" so the "out of bounds" rule applies.
Now that we're agreed that the "Jones touching" crap IS relevant, please notice that I'm just pointing out the rules as they apply to the situation that I saw and not calling anyone a douche.
The rule you quoted would apply if JJ had come back in bounds to catch the ball. Unfortunately that's not the situation.
JJ was out of bounds at the time of "touching" so the "out of bounds" rule applies.
Now that we're agreed that the "Jones touching" crap IS relevant, please notice that I'm just pointing out the rules as they apply to the situation that I saw and not calling anyone a douche.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:05 pm to Hankster2
quote:
Just to reiterate:
The rule you quoted would apply if JJ had come back in bounds to catch the ball.
Incorrect.
quote:
Eligibility Lost by Going Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 4. No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds during a
down shall touch a legal forward pass in the field of play or end zones or while
airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R. 7-3-4-I-III).
[Exception: This does not apply to an eligible offensive player who attempts
to return inbounds immediately after going out of bounds due to contact by an
opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-IV)].
It's irrelevant, though, as that wasn't the call. Not to mention he didn't touch it, so this discussion is, again, irrelevant.
Regardless, It's silly that a small minority of Alabama fans have tried to defend the call with this crap. It was a bad call. You know it, I know it, and the nation knows it. But congratulations on the win, your team played well enough to win, and did.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:09 pm to Craig Ferguson
quote:
That "block in the back" still didn't make Taylor whiff like a blind man on that tackle. He should have made the play.
Wow, It sure appears to me that the block in the back completely through Taylor off balance with his head and shoulders falling toward the turf. Maybe, Taylor could have not attempted to breakdown and become so off balance as to have no chance. It is a shame we did NOT have the opportunity to see what he would have been able to do WITHOUT a block in the back.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:20 pm to JPLSU1981
Just to clear the record... the key part of the rule you quoted is "in the field of play". The rule wouldn't apply because JJ was out of bounds and therefore not "in the field of play". That rule ONLY applies (as I said earlier) for a player that tries to come back in bounds to catch a ball. Put it like this: If a player stands 10 yards out of bounds and swats a ball back inbounds like a volleyball, is it live? Obviously not. At what point is it dead? The answer (according to the rules) is "when it touches the ground, a player, a game official or anything else that is on or outside a boundary line"
I didn't remember there being a "call" other than it "wasn't a catch" and that could be a myriad of things. I don't recall them saying "the player caught the ball out of bounds" but maybe I missed that. When I saw it I just assumed they were challenging whether it was touched (and therefore a dead ball) because it was pretty clear PP was in bounds.
That being said... I've already admitted that it was probably an INT but definitely not a bad enough call to warrant this amount of complaining.
Thanks for the congrats. Just tired of 2 weeks in a row of not being able to enjoy a victory because of people freaking out that there are occasionally bad calls in football.
I didn't remember there being a "call" other than it "wasn't a catch" and that could be a myriad of things. I don't recall them saying "the player caught the ball out of bounds" but maybe I missed that. When I saw it I just assumed they were challenging whether it was touched (and therefore a dead ball) because it was pretty clear PP was in bounds.
That being said... I've already admitted that it was probably an INT but definitely not a bad enough call to warrant this amount of complaining.
Thanks for the congrats. Just tired of 2 weeks in a row of not being able to enjoy a victory because of people freaking out that there are occasionally bad calls in football.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:24 pm to Hankster2
quote:
but it doesn't prove that there was incontrovertible video evidence that Julio didn't touch the ball.
Seriously? That was never the call on the field, anyway. The call was that he was out of bounds when he caught the ball and the replay booth agreed.
Page 16 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News