- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 yrs later, we all agree it wasn't pass interference...
Posted on 10/22/09 at 9:52 am to Baloo
Posted on 10/22/09 at 9:52 am to Baloo
quote:If the Auburn defender was not there, it is not PI because the ball was uncatchable. It was not thrown at Doucet. It was thrown at a ghost a few yards behind Doucet. Had Doucet had an opportunity to catch the ball, it would have been pass interference. Jamarcus and the Auburn defender, however, made sure that Doucet had no opportunity, arms or not, to catch that ball.
That's essentially stating that even if the other Auburn defender was not there, it is not PI because it was just "arms flailing".
(No trolling at this point--you're the only one who is putting up a reasonable argument.
)This post was edited on 10/22/09 at 9:53 am
1
Posted on 10/22/09 at 9:55 am to xiv
quote:
the ball was catchable (all he had to do was extend his arms)
...about 10 feet.
AFTER he was blown up on the play. Had the contact not been made Doucet had a play on the ball and no amount of history rewriting will change that fact.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 9:57 am to xiv
quote:
That wasn't a running-into. It was arms flailing. There was no body collision.
Sonnyboy, then could you tell us all why Doucet was knocked UP into the air? Did those "busy hands" stir up an F3 tornado?
We're talking about "busy hands" here. I still think it's a 5-yarder.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 9:57 am to xiv
quote:
There was another Auburn defender in the path of the ball. It was his, and not Doucet's, to catch.
Oh...this is a sematics game. Fun...
The problem is, is that it was the AU DB's ball to catch PRECISELY because Doucet was being held from behind. Doucet attempted to change direction and make a play on the ball and as he was starting to jump the second AU DB basically tackled him.
Does it matter if it was or was not PI...it was clearly, without question a defensive penalty that would have resulted in a first down.
What was your point again?
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:00 am to rtgr
quote:This is not true. Sorry. I know you're bitter, but that's not my problem.
Had the contact not been made Doucet had a play on the ball
Final Four.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:07 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:This
What was your point again?
quote:But not pass interference.
...it was clearly, without question a defensive penalty that would have resulted in a first down
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:07 am to xiv
quote:
If the Auburn defender was not there, it is not PI because the ball was uncatchable
You wanna' keep this up? That image is PRIOR to 33 tipping it. Even with 38 hanging on him, Early had managed to alter his route enough to be in a position to have the ball hit him in the #9.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:08 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:Not true. Video evidence proves this. It was thrown behind him. It was a bad pass.
You wanna' keep this up? That image is PRIOR to 33 tipping it. Even with 38 hanging on him, Early had managed to alter his route enough to be in a position to have the ball hit him in the #9.
This post was edited on 10/22/09 at 10:09 am
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:11 am to xiv
This is certainly an old argument, and it's humorous and entertaining that it still raises hackles. But more importantly, I'm glad to finally see AU and LSU fans going after each other on the Rant! This thread makes it feel like AUBURN WEEK!
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:14 am to joetiger
quote:
, I'm glad to finally see AU and LSU fans going after each other on the Rant! This thread makes it feel like AUBURN WEEK!
I sure as hell have done my best to piss you guys off in this thread.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:15 am to xiv
quote:
Not true.
You're staring AT the image. I'm all about being hardhearded, but come the frick on.
Are you disputing that image was taken BEFORE the tip? It's clear 33 has not made contact yet and that the ball is certainly in the realm of being catchable.
Without being tackled, Doucet is able to adjust his route enough to make a play EASILY on that ball. He is impeded from doing so because he's being tackled as the ball is in flight. And EVEN SO, he's able to adjust enough to make an honest stab at it.
This isn't a typical defensive holding call that would occur much earlier in the pass...this is right at the end. I've never seen a holding call called in this case...which leaves PI.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:18 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:Right. There is no indication as to the trajectory of the ball. You are telling me that the ball is going toward the 9 on Doucet's jersey. I've seen the play; the ball was not going in that direction. A still photo does not prove anything here.
You're staring AT the image
You might as well be telling me that Doucet himself threw the ball with both hands.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:21 am to xiv
quote:
This is not true. Sorry. I know you're bitter, but that's not my problem.
Better take a look at the pictures in the post above yours sonnyboy.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:22 am to xiv
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:23 am to xiv
quote:
Not true. Video evidence proves this. It was thrown behind him. It was a bad pass.
With the pictures directly in front of you you make a statement like this!? You are stupid, sonnyboy and a complete jackass to boot.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:25 am to xiv
quote:
I've seen the play; the ball was not going in that direction. A still photo does not prove anything here.
So which direction was it going...?
I've always admitted that had Russell simply thrown a good ball this play never happens. He short armed it to a WIDE arse OPEN Doucet who was starting to adjust to the badly thrown ball...which is WHAT caused 38 to tackle him. But Doucet had made the adjustment and was going to be in a psotion to legitimately make the catch. And when I say that, he'd have been in the neighborhood of being able to reach out and tip the ball. Acting like the ball was so poorly thrown that he had not shot at it is simply revisionism. It was underthrown, not thrown 5 yards off fricking course.
When Doucet made his move, 38 grabbed him and 33 came over and made a play on the ball BECAUSE Doucet was being prevented form doing so.
Feel free to post some video which proves your point. And make sure it's the from the angle of my photo...because from any other you simply will not see your infamous trajectory.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:26 am to rtgr
quote:Pictures don't prove pass interference. Show me video evidence, little boy.
Better take a look at the pictures in the post above yours sonnyboy.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:26 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:Behind Doucet. Did you see the game?
So which direction was it going...?
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:30 am to xiv
quote:
Right. There is no indication as to the trajectory of the ball
yeah ok. maybe you should look up the word trajectory, or go outside and throw a football and see if you can determine where the ball will go depending on the nose of the football when a spiral is thrown.
Posted on 10/22/09 at 10:32 am to xiv
quote:
Behind Doucet. Did you see the game?
Yeah...which is why I'm stunned anyone would continue to make this horrible argument.
Let's ask another way...WHY was the ball uncatchable in your opinion? Would the ball have been uncatchable with an undefended Doucet...or did the ball become uncatchable at the last instant because Doucet was tackled prior to the ball getting to him?
The ball being tipped (as it ocuured AFTER Doucet was touched) is irrelevent to this discussion, btw.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News