- 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
What was the deal with the penalty on Loston's INT?
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:30 am
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:30 am
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?
Also, what is blocking above the helmet?
6
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:32 am to ProjectP2294
quote:
It doesn't seem like you can just change the penalty like that
How was it changed?
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:32 am to ProjectP2294
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.
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:33 am to c on z
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.
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 11/18/12 at 9:35 am
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:34 am to ProjectP2294
It was a bullshite 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.
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:35 am to 777Tiger
The foul was the foul. If it occurred before the whistle blew or after changed the call. same infraction
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:35 am to ProjectP2294
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
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
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:37 am to jack6294
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.
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:37 am to stapuffmarshy
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.
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:39 am to c on z
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.
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:41 am to 777Tiger
true
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:47 am to ultratiger89
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.
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:49 am to ProjectP2294
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.
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:52 am to ForeLSU
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?
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:56 am to ProjectP2294
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.
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:57 am to ProjectP2294
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.
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:57 am to Golfer
Thanks. We didn't get a replay so I couldn't tell.
Posted on 11/18/12 at 9:59 am to EarthwormJim
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.
Posted on 11/18/12 at 10:02 am to ProjectP2294
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.
Posted on 11/18/12 at 10:03 am to ProjectP2294
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.
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News