- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Everyone I talked still involved in the game, from officials to replay officials said TD
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:11 pm to Fun Bunch
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:11 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Yes. subsection b. literally says that if he goes to the ground within the act of the catch
But c. and d. do not. The within the act of the catch part should have been a preface to b., c., and d., not embedded in b. I agree that is the context for the application of those requirements, which you have argued is not the case.
quote:
And he got one step. The other step was out of bounds and therefore is not considered part of an "act common to the game".
We’ve already been over this. The rule states he must maintain control long enough to complete an act common to the game, not that he must legally complete such an action. In bounds or out of bounds is irrelevant to the length of time he had control. It’s nonsensical to say it would have been a catch had the second step and knee been in bounds, but it’s not a catch because it happened out of bounds. It was same exact actions and the same length of time possessed. Your interpretation would mean that a player getting only one foot down in bounds can be knocked to the ground at any point thereafter and have to survive the ground to complete the catch.
0
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:11 pm to King Joey
Perhaps you should bring it up with Brian Kelly, who agrees with me and disagrees with you.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:11 pm to TutHillTiger
Heads need to roll. That is an egregious error that shouldn't happen
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:13 pm to schwartzy
quote:
Heads need to roll. That is an egregious error that shouldn't happen
Perhaps you should catch up. The call was correct, confirmed by LSU Head Coach Brian Kelly.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:18 pm to Fun Bunch
So you won’t consider the opinion of loads of rules analysts, sports media, current and former NCAA officials… but a single comment from the coach that has everything to lose by criticizing the call after the fact does it for you?
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:19 pm to Vacherie Saint
Unbelievable. 
He could have just said no comment or that he called the league office and would talk with them about it or any measure of such things.
He went out of his way to say THE LITERAL EXACT THING I have been saying:
The call is 100% correct as written but the rule is dumb
You were wrong. Or you think Brian Kelly is wrong. Pick one.
He could have just said no comment or that he called the league office and would talk with them about it or any measure of such things.
He went out of his way to say THE LITERAL EXACT THING I have been saying:
The call is 100% correct as written but the rule is dumb
You were wrong. Or you think Brian Kelly is wrong. Pick one.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:20 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
subsection b. literally says that if he goes to the ground within the act of the catch
It is refreshing to see you finally spotted the key element that he has to go to the ground during the act of making the catch. Now, did you spot the three paragraphs above that clearly defined the elements of that process, all of which were satisfied BEFORE Brown hit the ground?
quote:
And he got one step. The other step was out of bounds and therefore is not considered part of an "act common to the game".
Advancing the ball (which he did by bringing it from the 1 or 1/2 yard line into the endzone) is an "act common to the game."
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:22 pm to King Joey
quote:
It is refreshing to see you finally spotted the key element that he has to go to the ground during the act of making the catch
Finally?
I have said it from the beginning. He was, as the rule is written, within the act of the catch.
BRIAN KELLY AGREES. The Rule Official Agrees. The SEC and NCAA apparently agree.
You all were wrong. The end.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:23 pm to Fun Bunch
He’s got to deal with these crews all year. You really think he’s going to drag them after a win? Did you start watching football this year?
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:24 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Perhaps you should bring it up with Brian Kelly, who agrees with me and disagrees with you.
I seriously doubt Brian Kelly has time or inclination to discuss a call from a game he won three days ago with a random fan on the internet. At least, I desperately hope he doesn't. But I also don't need Brian Kelly to tell me how to read the English language. My mom and dad and the series of excellent teachers I was fortunate enough to have did that quite well.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:24 pm to Vacherie Saint
I have heard with my own ears Brian Kelly say he would not comment on an officiating decision MANY times.
He went out of his way to say it was 100% correct "based on how the rule is written" but that it is a dumb rule. My exact argument.
Just take the L man. I know its hard when you are convinced of something you just happened to be wrong on.
You were wrong. I was right. I will be wrong MANY MANY times in the future and have been wrong many many times in the past.
Even a blind squirrel, etc
He went out of his way to say it was 100% correct "based on how the rule is written" but that it is a dumb rule. My exact argument.
Just take the L man. I know its hard when you are convinced of something you just happened to be wrong on.
You were wrong. I was right. I will be wrong MANY MANY times in the future and have been wrong many many times in the past.
Even a blind squirrel, etc
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:25 pm to King Joey
quote:
But I also don't need Brian Kelly to tell me how to read the English language.
Maybe you do, because he understands the rule, and you do not.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:27 pm to Fun Bunch
Weird flex designed to boost your post count. Got it.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:28 pm to King Joey
Do me a favor and consider this:
Let's assume that Brian Kelly does believe that the call was correct based on how the rule is written, and that he was not placating officials.
Is he wrong? Yes or no.
Let's assume that Brian Kelly does believe that the call was correct based on how the rule is written, and that he was not placating officials.
Is he wrong? Yes or no.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:28 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
He was, as the rule is written, within the act of the catch.
What part of the act of catching had not been completed when he hit the ground?
Secured firm control with hand(s) or arm(s) of a live ball in flight before the ball touches the ground?
Touched the ground inbounds with any part of the body?
Maintained control of the ball long enough to advance it?
If you are saying one of those had not occurred before his body (besides his feet) touched the ground, then you are simply not seeing the video evidence correctly. But it seems to me you have been consistently suggesting that events that occurred after he hit the ground supported the call regardless of the fact those three elements were met before he hit the ground.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:30 pm to King Joey
Perhaps you can ask Brian Kelly these questions, as he agrees with me, and the NCAA officials.
Once again:
Assume BK DOES believe the call is correct.
Is he wrong? yes or no
Once again:
Assume BK DOES believe the call is correct.
Is he wrong? yes or no
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:30 pm to TutHillTiger
It was clearly an incompletion because Dabo said so.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:30 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Just take the L man. I know its hard when you are convinced of something you just happened to be wrong on.
Couldn't Kelly also be wrong on his interpretation of the rule too?
And trust me, we all know where you stand Fun Bunch. You've made it loud and clear.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:32 pm to spslayto
quote:
Couldn't Kelly also be wrong on his interpretation of the rule too?
Is it more likely that Tigerdroppings posters don't understand the rule and are wrong, or that Brian Kelly is wrong?
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:32 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Let's assume that Brian Kelly does believe that the call was correct based on how the rule is written, and that he was not placating officials.
Is he wrong? Yes or no.
Yes. Obviously. The rule isn't ambiguous; if the elements of 4.3.a.1-3 are met before the player hits the ground (negating the condition set forth in the first phrase of 4.3.b), then the rest of 4.3.b don't apply to the play.
Do you think Brian Kelly agreeing with something makes it right regardless of any facts or reality?
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News