re: Do you think the refs really cheat at Auburn?

quote:

---

The pass was uncatchable. Contact or no contact. It was an uncatchable pass because the pass was too far behind Doucet for him to have a decent shot at the ball.

---

If there is any chance for the receiver to make a play on the ball, it is catchable. That means if the defender might have fallen down and never tipped it, it is a catchable ball. There is no "decent shot" required. And the path of the ball was clearly headed with Doucet's reach because -- if he hadn't been being tackled from behind -- he could have stopped. Besides, if that were the case, why did the officials specifically indicate the ball was uncatchable because of the tip?

quote:

---

It was not pass interference, and there is not one bit of evidence that has ever been presented that even begins to suggest that it was.

---

So the fact that the refs threw the flag for pass interference and called pass interference, that doesn't "even begin to suggest" that it might have been pass interference?

quote:

---

They also lost because you, King Joey, won't stop whining. And your whining about this game two years later this week is hurting LSU's chances of winning.

---

Okay. So this is the way your mind works. You honestly believe that someone complaining about an obvious screwjob by the officials on an internet message board actually contributes to their team losing. That makes perfect sense, too. Only someone as delusionally stupid as to believe something like that could actually believe that the refs made the right call on that pass.

quote:

---

No way Doucet has a shot at catching that one 10 feet away from him against his body.

---

10 feet away? That's where you said you thought the ball was tipped? So you believe that the "uncatchable" standard refers to the receiver's ability to catch a ball where it is when the contact is made? Do you not understand that thrown balls have a flight path and a trajectory? Early would not have been catching the ball where it was tipped, or where it was when he was tackles; the ball would have kept flying along the same path it was on -- bringin it closer to him -- and he would have adjusted and moved to bring it still closer, bringing it within arms reach so as to catch it. That's the way "catchable" works. It has nothing to do with where the receiver or ball are at the time of contact. It is simply a matter of whether there is any chance the flight of the ball and the actions of the receiver could have resulted in a catch.

quote:

---

Defensive holding would have been the only correct call on this play. It saddens me that people don't see that this is obvious.

---

It amuses me that you believe no receiver could ever catch a pass that was -- at any point in its flight -- ten feet away from him. It must be mystifying to you, watching all those games and wondering how all those passes over 10 feet (3 yards) are ruled complete when there is "obviously" no way a receiver could possibly have caught a ball that was ever 10 feet away from him.

quote:

---

10 feet away?

---

LINK

quote:

---

What happened was that a flag for interference was thrown. The officials correctly determined that there was no pass interference (and I'd like you to show me any evidence at all that proves this) and waved the flag off.

---

No, they specifically ruled that there was no pass interference due to the tip of the ball. See the referee making the signal for a tipped ball when waving off the flag at the 1:11 mark of this video LINK

quote:

---

If running the same exact route but this time unabated by a defender, Doucet would have a 0% chance of catching that ball.

---

Also in reference to that video, please describe for us exactly where -- with no defenders on the field -- the ball's path would have taken it and exactly what range of area Doucet could have adjusted -- with no defenders on the field -- and reached, and show how those two no not intersect. If you can do that, you will have properly expressed your concern in accordance with the rules. I just want to see you describe how Doucet is too crippled to reach a ball that's barely three feet away from him.

The ball is thrown from the 40 yard line and tipped at the 6 yard line less than 2 seconds later, just two yards in front of Early Doucet at the 4 yard line (while being tackled). That is more than 17 yards per second, or one yard in less than 0.06 seconds. Thus, in less than .12 seconds the ball would have reached the 4 yard line where Doucet was. Now, in .12 seconds, a man covering 10 yards per second (which is REALLY fast) would move 1.2 yards in the time it would take the ball to move those last two yards. So even if the ball were in a straight line with the position where Doucet was when it was tipped, even AFTER he was interfered with, he would have still been within 38.4 inches of the ball's path. And that is the worst possible interpratation of the scene, discounting the push that drove Doucet from the 5 to the 4, and the fact that when the ball was tipped it was on a path slightly ahead of where Doucet was at that moment which would mean that his momentum would have in fact carried him directly into the path of the ball. And even discounting all that, the ball would still have come within 38.4 inches of him. And it cannot be rationally argued that a receiver has ZERO chance of catching a ball that comes within 38.4 inches of him.

quote:

---

Every official on the field that day and every official in the SEC office agrees with me, and I have been accused of:

---

No, the ones on the field specifically disagreed with you. That's why they ruled it pass interference in the first place, and THEN overturned that call on the basis of the tip of the ball (as is clearly proven by the video I linked early proving you absolutely wrong).

King Joey!!!

Good to see you. Could you elaborate some more please, I am not quite getting it.

(granted I did not read it, but I think you should still elaborate some more for us).

wheres a link to the ref being an auburn grad and big time booster. i never got to see that.


and to add this, not all refs live in alabama just because the office is there. there is one(not head ref)that lives here in lafayette. i use to drink a beer with him every now and again when Doe's was on Pinhook.

quote:

---

was a chance Brock might have missed the tip

---

That's pretty funny. Watch the video, you will see that ED left his feet before the contact. He would have had to change his momentum in mid-air. He was a good reciever, but I seriously doubt he could defy the law of physics.

quote:

---

The replay official overturned the interference and gave the ball back to Auburn. It was later discovered that the replay official was not only an Auburn alumnus, but was also a big booster to the program. I guess that’s how he got the job.

---

To anyone that might post in this thread later, realize that this is not true, and was only used as a joke. To even think this is true is laughable. Something like that would never be ignored for years.

quote:

---

To anyone that might post in this thread later, realize that this is not true, and was only used as a joke. To even think this is true is laughable

---

Dude, forget it. It's now become the gospel truth to rantards.