re: Patrick Peterson non-interception vs. Quinn Sharp missed field goal: which call was worse?

Posted by TomRollTideRitter

Member since Aug 2016

12639 posts

Posted on 1/22/18 at 8:10 pm to karmew32

The worse call is obviously the interception. I don't see anything conclusive about the kick being good or not.

Posted by Ryan3232

Valet driver for TD staff

Member since Dec 2008

25918 posts

Posted on 1/22/18 at 8:17 pm to pvilleguru

There was a clear divot in the ground.

This post was edited on 1/22/18 at 8:18 pm

Posted by 14&Counting

Eugene, OR

Member since Jul 2012

37849 posts

Posted on 1/22/18 at 8:21 pm to karmew32

quote:
karmew32

Cry more LSU pussy

Posted by GarmischTiger

Humboldt County

Member since Mar 2007

6622 posts

Posted on 1/22/18 at 8:23 pm to karmew32

My memory is fuzzy, but the PP INT didn't bug me that much, because it wasn't like we were moving the ball when we had it - much less scoring.

Allowing the INT just prolongs the inevitable.

Somebody correct me if I'm remembering this wrong.

Posted by GarmischTiger

Humboldt County

Member since Mar 2007

6622 posts

Posted on 1/22/18 at 8:24 pm to 14&Counting

quote:
Cry more LSU pussy

Pure class.

Posted by pvilleguru

Member since Jun 2009

60453 posts

Posted on 1/22/18 at 8:24 pm to Ryan3232

quote:
There was a clear divot in the ground.

Maybe, maybe not. They also had to determine at what point he had possession.

This post was edited on 1/22/18 at 8:38 pm

Posted by Funky Tide 8

Tittleman's Crest

Member since Feb 2009

52925 posts

Posted on 1/22/18 at 8:40 pm to karmew32

the PP7 int was bad, but I've seen multiple worse reversals/non-reversals in the NFL this season alone.

Its not really comparable to the missed fg in question, because they made the right call on that one.

Posted by Bestbank Tiger

Premium Member

Member since Jan 2005

71785 posts

Posted on 1/22/18 at 8:50 pm to karmew32

PP7 was not only an egregious call, but it was upheld on review on spite of clear and convincing evidence. It was Al Riveron level bad.

This post was edited on 1/22/18 at 8:50 pm

Posted by 14&Counting

Eugene, OR

Member since Jul 2012

37849 posts

Posted on 1/22/18 at 8:50 pm to GarmischTiger

quote:
Pure class.

Quit crying about some dubious call that happened nearly a decade ago.

No one cares.

Posted by pvilleguru

Member since Jun 2009

60453 posts

Posted on 1/22/18 at 8:56 pm to Bestbank Tiger

quote:
it was upheld on review on spite of clear and convincing evidence.

Not on those old arse monitors they had in the replay booth.

Posted by GarmischTiger

Humboldt County

Member since Mar 2007

6622 posts

Posted on 1/22/18 at 9:21 pm to 14&Counting

quote:
Quit crying about some dubious call that happened nearly a decade ago.

I'm not crying.

I'm replying to the OP.

You however are being a bitch.

quote:
No one cares.

Apparently you do.

This post was edited on 1/22/18 at 9:23 pm

Posted by karmew32

Ponchatoula, LA

Member since Jan 2017

1521 posts

Posted on 1/23/18 at 2:06 pm to pvilleguru

You think they'd have better monitors when HDTV was the standard by then.

Posted by pvilleguru

Member since Jun 2009

60453 posts

Posted on 1/23/18 at 2:18 pm to karmew32

quote:
You think they'd have better monitors when HDTV was the standard by then

Reviewing plays was still fairly new. I think the SEC started using it around 2005. Many places used poor equipment until after 2009 or so. They were probably using the same monitor that was installed in 2004-05. They didn't have much choice but to go with the ruling on the field.

Posted by IAmReality

Member since Oct 2012

12229 posts

Posted on 1/24/18 at 7:29 am to karmew32

LSU fans intentionally ignore the fact that had Peterson's attempt been ruled an interception they still have to march down the field and score a TD to win the game.

While certainly possible, it was still more unlikely than not, given LSU's QB and the situation.

So even had they gotten the call, they still likely lose anyway.