- 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: 3 terrible calls last night by the refs
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:32 am to Merchant Tiger
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:32 am to Merchant Tiger
Missed holding calls are subjective and happen every play. Talking about that would be bitching about the refs
We are talking about reviewed plays with clear evidence. One which you say you have enough evidence to OVERTURN (fumble) and another where you say you don’t have enough evidence to overturn.
That’s where the inconsistency lies.
If you are consistent and say there have to be overwhelming evidence to overturn then the fumble should stand as well as the pass interference. If you go with a lesser standard of evidence then the fumble should be reversed as well as the tip.
When you consider the inconsistency in standard of evidence the bias is clear.
We are talking about reviewed plays with clear evidence. One which you say you have enough evidence to OVERTURN (fumble) and another where you say you don’t have enough evidence to overturn.
That’s where the inconsistency lies.
If you are consistent and say there have to be overwhelming evidence to overturn then the fumble should stand as well as the pass interference. If you go with a lesser standard of evidence then the fumble should be reversed as well as the tip.
When you consider the inconsistency in standard of evidence the bias is clear.
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 8:33 am
0
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:33 am to taf
This is the correct interpretation. Video review is just another way that games can be manipulated.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:34 am to taf
quote:
The nonsense about Brooks not having “complete” possession is just made up. It’s a bullshite interpretation, extrapolating from the rules about a completed pass.
It’s not a bullshite interpretation. The rules specifically say they apply to fumble recoveries.
quote:
Catch, Interception, Recovery
ARTICLE 3.
a. To catch a ball means that a player:
1. Secures firm control with the hand(s) or arm(s) of a live ball in flight before the ball touches the ground, and
2. Touches the ground in bounds with any part of the body, and then
3. Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable that player to perform an act common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc., and
4. Satisfies paragraphs b, c, and d below.
b. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent) the player must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. This is also required for a player attempting to make a catch at the sideline and going to the ground out of bounds. If the player loses control of the ball which then touches the ground before they regain control, it is not a catch. If the player regains control inbounds prior to the ball touching the ground it is a catch.
c. If the player loses control of the ball while simultaneously touching the ground with any part of their body, or if there is doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch. If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball, even if it touches the ground, will not be considered loss of possession; the player must lose control of the ball in order for there to be a loss of possession.
d. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control and continues to maintain control, and the elements above are satisfied, it is a catch.
. . .
g. A player recovers a ball if they fulfill the criteria in paragraphs a, b, c, and d for catching a ball that is still alive after hitting the ground.
They didn’t extrapolate anything. It’s written in the rule book.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:34 am to TigerLunatik
quote:
We won the fricking game and you're still crying about the refs. Jesus Christ.
Yeah how dare LSU fans discuss the game after a big win.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:35 am to lostinbr
quote:
They didn’t extrapolate anything. It’s written in the rule book.
So if a player catches the ball on his knees does he have to get up and make a football move? Or is he just down?
There wasn’t definitive evidence he didn’t have possession of the ball after they ruled he did.
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 8:37 am
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:38 am to TigerLunatik
Yes.
The holding was bad all game. I mean blatant.
I’m still pissed about the penalty we got on the punt.
The holding was bad all game. I mean blatant.
I’m still pissed about the penalty we got on the punt.
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 8:40 am
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:39 am to Merchant Tiger
They need to move the SEC office out of Alabama its beyond sad that bama keeps getting away with obvious calls bias. Did anyone also see the pass play where the bama Wr was stopped a half yard away from the 1st down marker and the line judge had already marked the ball 2 yards past the firstdown marker?
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 8:40 am
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:39 am to ChewyDante
There is no question that he contacted Daniels. It is clear on the video yet they pick up the flag.
The holding non calls are a story unto themselves.
The holding non calls are a story unto themselves.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:41 am to SulphursFinest
He didnt miss, he hit him but not in the devastating way he intended. Targeting is based on intent. Roughing is based on results
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:42 am to atltiger6487
a ball may be touched without evidently changing its trajectory.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:43 am to Merchant Tiger
Also on Alabama’s touchdown in regulation Perkins was being held as he was trying to tackle Bryce Young. And they showed the replay you can clearly see it
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:44 am to Merchant Tiger
There was also a complete BS holding call on Jenkins the negated a huge Goodwin run in the first half
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:45 am to White Tiger
quote:
a ball may be touched without evidently changing its trajectory.
This is correct. The ball changing trajectory or spin is just one of the pieces of evidence you can look for. In this case the evidence was his finger bending back and then rebounding forward.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:50 am to atltiger6487
quote:
Our guy didn't have possession (and no, two hands on the ball doesn't equal possession - ask any receiver that has a pass go through his hands
First, it wasn’t a pass. A pass has other standards it must meet.
Second, in your Hypothetical the receiver doesn’t have a knee on the ground.
Let me ask you this.. if a guy falls on a fumble what football move does he make to establish possession?
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:50 am to Prominentwon
quote:.. YES.. on the replay not only did #54 grab Perkins he also grabbed his facemask too..clear as day and no call..#54 held all night
54 got away with a blatant hold and it wasn’t called. Was this accurate?
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:51 am to SulphursFinest
quote:
And missed
Targeting mean... targeting. Targeting does not mean targeting successfully.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:54 am to Merchant Tiger
Horrible calls.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:00 am to MikeBRLA
quote:
Please site this rule where a player without possession who is out of bounds overrides a player in bounds with possession?
The sec has already stated they used rule 4 section 2 article 3
quote:
ARTICLE 3. a. A ball not in player control, 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 out of bounds, or that is on or outside a boundary line. b. A ball that touches a pylon is out of bounds behind the goal line. c. If a live ball not in player possession crosses a boundary line and then is declared out of bounds, it is out of bounds at the crossing point.
So this whole thing revolves around whether Brooks had possession or not. The SEC believes he did not. The recovery is basically under the same scrutiny as a complete pass (Rule 2 section for article 3.g).
IMO because the bama player knocked it loose, they deemed he did not have possession because Brooks didn’t “complete the catch” and when latua touched it the second time, the ball was declared dead as rule 4 sec 2 art 3 was applied.
The main objection from an LSU perspective should be that the play was overturned as conclusive Brooks didn’t have possession defined at rule 2 sec 4 article 4.a
quote:
a. Player Possession. The ball is in player possession when a player has the ball firmly in their grasp by holding or controlling it with hand(s) or arm(s) while contacting the ground inbounds.
I suppose the recovery rule overrides the possession rule. But this is a matter of judgement and was ruled controlled on the field.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:00 am to Merchant Tiger
Not to mention numerous overzealous spots that favored bama. One or two were reviewed and changed
It’s hard to say they were anything but incompetent. LSU won and Lord knows the refs could’ve screwed us if they’d chosen to so I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and just assume they suck at their jobs
It’s hard to say they were anything but incompetent. LSU won and Lord knows the refs could’ve screwed us if they’d chosen to so I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and just assume they suck at their jobs
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:00 am to Odysseus32
I agree he should have been flagged; but since he missed, not ejected from the game.
I'm certain the refs were more concerned about the potential of stripping BAMA of one of its top defenders for the balance of this game and first half against Ole Miss than the safety of the LSU QB. Had they called a personal foul, the pressure to eject would have been too great - resulting in the subsequent wrath of Saban to the Commissioner.
I'm certain the refs were more concerned about the potential of stripping BAMA of one of its top defenders for the balance of this game and first half against Ole Miss than the safety of the LSU QB. Had they called a personal foul, the pressure to eject would have been too great - resulting in the subsequent wrath of Saban to the Commissioner.
Page 4 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News