Beating a Dead Horse: Question on PP Int in 09

no validity to what he's saying

if he had his hand on it before PP, then yeah that is a deadball. If he touched it after PP caught the ball, then no.

quote:

---

if he had his hand on it before PP, then yeah that is a deadball. If he touched it after PP caught the ball, then no.

---

Yes, and if that were the case, wouldn't it seem logical that that would have been given as the explanation instead of the SEC going mute and every major media source questioning call?

Have any of you heard that explanation, at the time or since?

I don't know how to even respond to this guy.

Go back and watch the replay. Julio Jones never touched that ball.

Wrong on numerous levels.

First, Jones didn't have his hands on the ball. It looks like he does from one misleading angle, but the others clearly show he did not.

Second, imagine the ramifications of the retarded rule that the Gump is proposing. If a RB is running down the sideline and I am behind him, can I reach out and put one hand on the ball and then tap my toe out of bounds so that the ball is ruled "dead"? Have you ever seen that call? If I'm a DB defending a fade route in the corner of the endzone, can I just stand out of bounds and tap the ball as the receiver makes the catch so that the ball is "dead" Have you ever seen that? This is just an unheard of rule fabricated by Gumps to rationalize the refs utter incompetence.

Finally, no actual official nor the SEC office has ever mentioned, much less endorsed, this cockamamee Gump theory.

quote:

---

The official said that replay indicated Peterson never posessed the ball in bounds, not that it was touched by the other player while out of bounds. The replay official was dead wrong.

---

This is what was announced at the time by the ref after the review, correct? PP didn't possess the ball thus no catch/int? That's what I remember being the justification. then after the game the SEC gave no official comment. Am I remembering correctly?

I know this just another inane pissing match put this one guy and several others honestly believe this. The mind control/conditioning is really effective over there.

The only validity is he is a fricktard

quote:

---

This fricktard I work with keeps telling me that the PP int was ruled correctly because Jones had his hand on the ball going out of bounds, which made it a dead ball.

---

I could kind of buy into that argument if it were basketball, even then, not really though

I think that was the basis for the refs calling it the way they did but there was photographic evidence to the contrary.

It was discussed in this thread:

Bryant Denny thread

(no message)