re: 3 yrs later, we all agree it wasn't pass interference...

You guys are a pitiful bunch.

Pitiful and laughable. Guess I should just pity some of you on this thread for all the after 3 years.

Again Tiger in Miami, why was PI called by LSU in the exact same scenario earlier in the game? The only difference was LSU actually intercepted it? PI was called and LSU lost the pick. That is the bigger issue here.

The game is over, but clarifying some of the BS brought on here by Auburn fans is ridiculous. To compare a 3rd down spot (1 play still to get the 6 inches) versus a 4th down play where a penalty was overturned by review? Big difference?

Now, in the the end, Auburn won. LSU lost that game because of more than the refs. They lost it because of their own playcalling and screwups. Hester holds onto the ball, then there is no need for the review. JR throws a better pass the PI doesn't happen.

It's on LSU, but still being upset about the officiating isn't invalid.

It is not invalid to an extent and primarily three years ago. Yes we got the benifit of more calls in 2006 than you did in 2007. But the level of bitching (even now) about it is ABSOLUTELY fricking LAUGHABLE.

Beyond that I am not rehashing and arguing a bunch of tired ole shite 3 years later when LSU fans proved to me here on the rant 2 years ago how ridiculous and asinine they can be.

I'd like to point out xiv brought it up. But I love rules discussions. So screw it. I’ll post the rules

RULE 9 of the NCAA rules covers player conduct
SECTION 1 is interference fouls
ARTICLE 2-f
“No player shall tackle or run into a receiver when a forward pass to him obviously is not catchable. This is a personal foul and not pass interference.”

ARTICLE 4-b
“Defensive players may not use hands and arms to tackle, hold or otherwise illegally obstruct an opponent other than a runner.”

ARTICLE 4-d
“e. When a legal forward pass crosses the neutral zone during a forward pass play and a contact foul that is not pass interference is committed, the enforcement spot is the previous spot. This includes Rule 9-3-4-c
(A.R. 7-3-9-II and A.R. 9-3-4-I and II).”

But that’s all prelude to the PI rule, found in RULE 7, SECTION 3 concerning passing. I’ll just post the whole thing:

quote:

---

ARTICLE 8
a. During a down in which a legal forward pass crosses the neutral zone, illegal contact by Team A and Team B players is prohibited from the time the ball is snapped until it is touched by any player or an official (A.R. 7-3-8-II and III).
…

c. Defensive pass interference is contact beyond the neutral zone by a Team B player whose intent to impede an eligible opponent is obvious and it could prevent the opponent the opportunity of receiving a catchable forward pass. When in question, a legal forward pass is catchable. (emphasis mine)

Defensive pass interference occurs only after a legal forward pass is thrown. It is not defensive pass interference (A.R. 7-3-8-I, IV, V, IX-XI, XIV and XV):

1. When, after the snap, opposing players immediately charge and establish contact with opponents at a point that is within one yard beyond the neutral zone.
2. When two or more eligible players are making a simultaneous and bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass. Eligible players of either team have equal rights to the ball (A.R. 7-3-8-XII).
3. When a Team B player legally contacts an opponent before the pass is thrown (A.R. 7-3-8-XIII).
4. When a Team A potential kicker, from scrimmage kick formation, simulates a scrimmage kick by throwing the ball high and deep, and contact by a Team B player occurs.

---

ETA my two cents: PI can be called unless tipped. Which it was not. So xiv's argument hinges that the ball was "obviously" not catchable. But, if that is true, Rule 9-1-2-f should apply as a defender was tackling a receiver on an obviously uncatchable ball. That is a personal foul. I think this is the incorrect reading, as the ball was catchable (all he had to do was extend his arms) and the ball had not been tipped to waive off PI.

Guys...you're speaking to Auburn students - you need to use smaller words.

I haven't really cared for a rule discussion since it has been done so many times. I will point out one thing after you were so diligent as to post the relevant rules....

quote:

---

It is not defensive pass interference

---

quote:

---

2. When two or more eligible players are making a simultaneous and bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass. Eligible players of either team have equal rights to the ball (A.R. 7-3-8-XII).

---

The ball was batted in what pretty much amounts to a simultaneous attempt to make a play on it. Now you can say the AU defender contacted the LSU player a fraction of a second sooner and I can say it was practically a simultaneous attempt to make a play on the ball. Had the AU player not touched the LSU player, Brock still would have batted the ball away as Doucet was still three yards downfield from the ball jumping vertically to prepare to catch the ball against his chest/stomach. He was not in the process of jumping 3 yards forward and extending his arms in which case Brock still may have batted it away (even though that was never his trajectory regardless of the other AU defender).

There, that is the only thing I will say about the rules and specifics because:

1. It has been rehashed too much already.

2. It is WAYYYYY to close of a call with questions to bitch about and it is pathetic that LSU has bitched so long and hard about it in the first place.

quote:

---

Stupid weak arse post. Not even relevant to the thread.

You lose again and that was a massive pitiful failure. You should quit posting now if you are too stupid to even discuss a subject without pulling out irrelevant extemporaneous bullshite.

---

Let me guess:

IQ of 68?


No?


Then subsequent to your imbecilic post; prove it.

Your interpretation of the rules would make sense if the defender that initiated contact with the receiver was making a play on the ball at all. Instead, he is wrapping the receivers arms up before the ball arrived. Otherwise, outside of that massive fail, continue on.

So, just so we are clear, your interpretation of the clearly stated rules posted above is that as long as one defender is playing the ball, another defender can come in and nail the eligible receiver whenever he wants, because two or more eligible players can make a play for the ball.

Again, in this case, as it is painfully obvious to anyone who is a) not comatose or b) not legally blind, the player who is interfering with the receiver is NOT making a play at the ball. So, while you might interpret the rules differently, your biggest problem is that your interpretation is wildly inconsistent with that of most intelligent individuals (in dumbed-down language, I am basically saying you are dumb).