What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT? | TigerDroppings.com
Posted by
Message
ProjectP2294
Penn Fan
South St. Louis city
Member since May 2007
33553 posts

What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?

For those watching on TV, what was said about that play? It seemed like a hose job. It doesn't seem like you can just change the penalty like that.

Also, what is blocking above the helmet?


c on z
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
Baton Rouge, La.
Member since Mar 2009
74450 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
quote:

It doesn't seem like you can just change the penalty like that


How was it changed?


777Tiger
LSU Fan
Member since Mar 2011
18751 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
IDK, they ended up saying his knee was down prior to the run back. Seems to me, the play should have been over right there, prior to any live ball foul.


ProjectP2294
Penn Fan
South St. Louis city
Member since May 2007
33553 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
In the stadium, it sounded like they changed it to a dead ball foul when it clearly happened in the course of the play.

ETA: The reason I'm asking is because I didn't really get a clear understanding from inside the stadium. I was hoping someone that watched on TV could expound on it.
This post was edited on 11/18 at 9:35 am


Eternalmajin
LSU Fan
Member since Jun 2008
9622 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
It was a bull shite call. They flagged it as if we went after the QB and hit him in the head. The QB was trying to get to Loston to make a tackle and he was blocked. There was nothing out of the ordinary on the block, just typical SEC officials.


jack6294
LSU Fan
Greater Baton Rouge Area
Member since Jan 2007
3298 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
The foul was the foul. If it occurred before the whistle blew or after changed the call. same infraction


stapuffmarshy
Syracuse Fan
lower 9
Member since Apr 2010
12905 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
Danielson said Reid basically took Wallace's head off


and those old dudes mis-speak sometimes, hit above shoulder pads



and I kinda have to agree on one thing....if the refs screwed up and didn't call the play dead, why should any team be penalized for their frick up???


penalty should be cleared if the foul would never happened except for the ref screw up


duboisd
LSU Fan
San Angelo, Texas
Member since Jan 2006
2289 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
I didn't see anything either. I thought they might have hit someone out of the play, but TV replays never showed it. It was a huge difference in field position from where Loston originally appeared to return it.


ProjectP2294
Penn Fan
South St. Louis city
Member since May 2007
33553 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
quote:

if the refs screwed up and didn't call the play dead, why should any team be penalized for their frick up???

That's how I feel. It wouldn't have happened at all if the refs were competent. They let the play continue.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
ultratiger89
LSU Fan
Houston, Tx
Member since Aug 2007
1953 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
quote:

How was it changed?

live ball foul to dead ball foul.

it seemed odd to me because the penalty was during what was perceived to be a live ball, but the play was determined to have been over when his knee hit the ground, thus, anything that happened after that determination should be null and void. if the run back was negated so should have the penalty been negated.


Papa Tigah
LSU Fan
TIGER ISLAND, LA
Member since Sep 2007
11885 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
true


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
EarthwormJim
LSU Fan
Member since Dec 2005
9845 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
quote:

it seemed odd to me because the penalty was during what was perceived to be a live ball, but the play was determined to have been over when his knee hit the ground, thus, anything that happened after that determination should be null and void. if the run back was negated so should have the penalty been negated.


That's not how the rules work. Penalty was the correct calling and changing it to a dead ball penalty was correct.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
ForeLSU
LSU Fan
The Corner of Sanity and Madness
Member since Sep 2003
35250 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
quote:

In the stadium, it sounded like they changed it to a dead ball foul when it clearly happened in the course of the play.


I would guess the main issue in being dead ball is it is marked off from where the play ended vs. spot of the foul. It was a BS call as it was, I think it was Mills who went to block Wallace, who was trying to make a play. Their helmets collided when they hit, but it looked like Wallace actually led with his helmet more than Mills did. It was basically like any other block, it certainly wasn't a cheap shot or away from the play.


ProjectP2294
Penn Fan
South St. Louis city
Member since May 2007
33553 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
My other question for folks watching on TV is regarding the punt that was downed on the 15 and then spotted 20 yards forward. The ref said we illegally touched the ball. WTF?


Golfer
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2005
59486 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
quote:

My other question for folks watching on TV is regarding the punt that was downed on the 15 and then spotted 20 yards forward. The ref said we illegally touched the ball. WTF?


It hit the gunners leg.


EarthwormJim
LSU Fan
Member since Dec 2005
9845 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
quote:

My other question for folks watching on TV is regarding the punt that was downed on the 15 and then spotted 20 yards forward. The ref said we illegally touched the ball. WTF?


LSU player touched the ball at about the 35 then recovered it around the 15. The ball is placed where we initially touched it. It's called illegal touching but isn't a penalty.

I was in the stadium and these calls weren't that hard to understand.


ProjectP2294
Penn Fan
South St. Louis city
Member since May 2007
33553 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
Thanks. We didn't get a replay so I couldn't tell.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
ProjectP2294
Penn Fan
South St. Louis city
Member since May 2007
33553 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
quote:

I was in the stadium and these calls weren't that hard to understand.

So you understand 'blocking above the helmet' and that the ball was 'illegally touched by the kicking team'?

I'm glad you are so well versed in the misspeakings of SEC refs.


YellowShoe
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Mar 2006
1168 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
quote:

It seemed like a hose job.

Right call. LSU player treated the QB like any defender. Unfortunately, it ended up being helmet to helmet.


EarthwormJim
LSU Fan
Member since Dec 2005
9845 posts

re: What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
quote:

So you understand 'blocking above the helmet' and that the ball was 'illegally touched by the kicking team'?


Well illegal touching is the correct term. And it was pretty easy to deduce what blocking above the helmet meant on and INT return. There are a few common penalties on returns so it shouldn't have been that hard to figure out what he meant.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
Page 1 of 3

Back to top

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

FacebookTwitterInstagram