Started By
Message

re: 32 photographs of Reid's interception

Posted on 11/9/11 at 4:30 pm to
Posted by dreaux
baton rouge
Member since Oct 2006
40882 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 4:30 pm to
quote:

exactly


Yup. The TE never had possession
Posted by DrD
Houston
Member since Jan 2010
2771 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 4:33 pm to
AWESOME images! That's the angle I was hoping to see. It was the most conclusive in real time.

What I see in more pictures is the receiver for Ala. not having his right arm/hand on the ball at all when he nears the ground. Reid's left arm has secured the ball b/w he and the Ala. players mid-section and Reid's left leg prevents the Ala. receiver from landing on the ground w possession b/f Reid takes it away. Pretty cut and dry to me.

Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
55400 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 4:38 pm to
quote:

the call was "CONFIRMED" meaning there was undisputable video evidence that he did intercept it.. Meaning if they had called it a complete pass and reviewed it, it would have been overturned

I disagree. If it had been ruled complete on the field the replay booth might have ruled "stands". You're assuming the replay guys are not influenced by what was called. I am sure it was an interception, but I would not want to relive this if the refs called it complete. Would you?
Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
55400 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 4:41 pm to
quote:

if a ball comes loose when a reciever hits the ground is that a complete or incomplete pass?

Incomplete! You're right. No way that's a completion.
Posted by bcwarb
Member since Jun 2008
639 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 4:42 pm to
People need to admit that was the biggest defensive play of the year and maybe the best for the whole country this year. Unbelievable.
Posted by Mike Linebacker
Texas
Member since Sep 2009
3404 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 4:47 pm to
I don't get the "it was either a completion or incompletion" argument. The ball itself never touched the ground. It's either a "completion or an interception."
Posted by Rza32
Member since Nov 2008
4560 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 4:59 pm to
Seal the deal that it should be a completion to Bama?
Posted by cubsgrace
New Orleans
Member since Sep 2007
1994 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 5:05 pm to
quote:

TBH these photos dont show me a clear interception.


i agree
Posted by attheua
Tuscaloosa
Member since Apr 2008
5442 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 5:05 pm to
Here's a different angle, fwiw

LINK
Posted by windhammontanatigers
windham-stanford, montana
Member since Nov 2009
4993 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 5:09 pm to
Thank ou TulaneLSU and thank you Times Picayune. Wow , I miss the Picayune way up here in Montana.
Posted by Choctaw
Pumpin' Sunshine
Member since Jul 2007
77774 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 5:10 pm to
quote:

if that wasn't call a interception on the field, we could very well be 8-1


false...it would've been overturned
Posted by dreaux
baton rouge
Member since Oct 2006
40882 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 5:16 pm to
quote:

I don't get the "it was either a completion or incompletion" argument. The ball itself never touched the ground. It's either a "completion or an interception."


Not the point I was trying to make. If a reciever can hit the ground and it's an incomplete pass, the he can lose possession on the interception since some seem to think the TE had possession when he hit the ground
Posted by Camp Randall
The Shadow of the Valley of Death
Member since Nov 2005
17570 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 5:26 pm to
quote:

f a reciever can hit the ground and it's an incomplete pass, the he can lose possession on the interception since some seem to think the TE had possession when he hit the ground


Some have brought up the argument that the ground can't cause a fumble (true)...but it can cause an incomplete pass. I really don't see where the argument is coming in when looking at the still shots. The ball is moving around and is up for grabs until the players are on the ground...when it's all over Reid has the ball and it has never touched the ground. Therefore it's an interception.

We were blessed that Reid went after that ball so strongly...if the TE had any fight in him he could have easily had the reception.

Great defensive play by Reid and Mingo. Poor execution by Maze and the TE. Hallelujah.
Posted by Beastfense
New Orleans, Louisiana
Member since Oct 2011
63 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 6:13 pm to
Money shot:



Posted by TulaneLSU
Member since Aug 2003
Member since Dec 2007
13635 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 6:13 pm to
Good post. Reid's want for the ball was greater than the tight end's. Desire in life often is much greater than natural gifts and those who want something, no matter the disadvantages they face, may be able to attain it even before others who have advantages they do not.
Posted by Crumble
Planet LSU
Member since Jan 2006
2264 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 6:14 pm to
From the interception that wasn't ('09) to the interception that was ('11)
Posted by Carlos Santannaclaus
Houston
Member since Jan 2008
3272 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 6:16 pm to
I said GODDAMN!!!!!!!
Posted by NOSA
Member since Jan 2004
10323 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 6:20 pm to
I'm not convinced these pictures prove anything, however I also don't give a damn because Peterson intercepted it in 09.
Posted by TBoy
Kalamazoo
Member since Dec 2007
28534 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 6:26 pm to
quote:

Here's a different angle, fwiw


Thanks for posting those, attheua, because they contain the first shot which is absolutely indisputable to me.

For the most part, however, the series has a terrible angle as the shots are to the receiver's back. However, in the shot where it looks like the receiver is almost sitting on the defensive player's leg, the ball is frozen in mid-air on two fingers on the receiver's left hand, and the receiver's right hand is empty. That is before the receiver touched the ground. That shot shows for certain that the receiver did not have possession right before he touched the ground. It was anybody's ball at that point. We know that the defender secured the ball immediately after that, although the following shots in the series you linked are all obscured by the receiver's back.
This post was edited on 11/9/11 at 6:29 pm
Posted by TBoy
Kalamazoo
Member since Dec 2007
28534 posts
Posted on 11/9/11 at 6:27 pm to
quote:

Money shot:


That's the shot that proves that the receiver did not have possession. Thanks for posting it Beastfense.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram