- 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: Besides the cheating, what really bugs me about the PP call
Posted on 11/14/09 at 2:03 pm to Indiana Tiger
Posted on 11/14/09 at 2:03 pm to Indiana Tiger
quote:It was called incomplete on the field. There wasn't conclusive evidence supporting his right foot landed in bounds; hence, the ruling on the field was not overturned. I don't see how this is so hard for you folks to comprehend.
I haven't been able to figure out what basis the on field refs had for calling PP out of bounds.
This is the best view the replay booth had. Can you honestly say his right foot was in? I don't think so.
6
Posted on 11/14/09 at 2:31 pm to Charles Bronson
quote:
It was called incomplete on the field. There wasn't conclusive evidence supporting his right foot landed in bounds; hence, the ruling on the field was not overturned. I don't see how this is so hard for you folks to comprehend.
A. I know it was called incomplete.
B. There wasn't any conclusive evidence supporting his right foot landing out of bounds either...the ref didn't see it, so why did the ref ASSUME the answer was out of bounds?
C. Why did you respond with this silly nonsequitor? Is reading conprehension beyond you?
D. If the ref didn't see it, imo, he should have ruled in bounds and let replay decide if he was or not.
Posted on 11/14/09 at 2:34 pm to Charles Bronson
nm
This post was edited on 11/14/09 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 11/14/09 at 2:39 pm to Charles Bronson
quote:
It was called incomplete on the field. There wasn't conclusive evidence supporting his right foot landed in bounds; hence, the ruling on the field was not overturned. I don't see how this is so hard for you folks to comprehend.
You have got to be kidding me. Go root for Bama tard.
Posted on 11/14/09 at 2:50 pm to Charles Bronson
No, it's not the best view they had. That's nonsense. The view from behind BAMA's quarterback clearly showed an interception. When the view from behind BAMA's quarterback was shown, Danielson said it was an interception, and everyone knew it was one outside the state of AL. Don't try to pretend there was not a better view available, because we all saw the better view on instant replay DURING THE GAME IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PLAY. Take that BS somewhere else.
Posted on 11/14/09 at 3:11 pm to Charles Bronson
quote:You are talking out of your arse. They showed much better views on the replays during the game and the TV guys both were convienced it was an interception and they were cautious to wait until they saw several replays from different angles before making a call.
This is the best view the replay booth had. Can you honestly say his right foot was in? I don't think so.
Posted on 11/14/09 at 3:58 pm to Charles Bronson
According to What really happens in the SEC replay booth, they also had these two views of the play:
quote:
The replay official has access to every shot the TV network provides.
This post was edited on 11/14/09 at 4:01 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News