- 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: Everyone I talked still involved in the game, from officials to replay officials said TD
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:34 pm to Fun Bunch
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:34 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Is it more likely that Tigerdroppings posters don't understand the rule and are wrong, or that Brian Kelly is wrong?
If the rule were particularly complicated or nuanced, then it might be a reasonable consideration.
When the rule is (as here) clear and unambiguous, then it doesn't matter how many people or which people agree or disagree; the facts are the facts. It doesn't matter if 9 billion people and Brian Kelly agree the Earth is flat, it isn't going to change the shape of the planet.
0
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:35 pm to Tiger_n_ATL
quote:That's absolutely not the case with a receiver.
But the bottom line is the ball crossed the goal line (he hit the pylon). Once that happened, it was a TD. What happened after that doesn’t matter.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:35 pm to Fun Bunch
The L?! Your argument?
You aren't making an argument. Refusing to acknowledge key elements of the ruling like the football move, the irrefutable evidence required to overturn, the subjectivity of control to the ground, the call on the field, or the SCORES of experts who have spoken on this disqualifies your ramblings as an "argument". You aren't debating anyone here. You are just repeating the same lines over an over again while ignoring literally anything that doesn't support your narrative.
You aren't making an argument. Refusing to acknowledge key elements of the ruling like the football move, the irrefutable evidence required to overturn, the subjectivity of control to the ground, the call on the field, or the SCORES of experts who have spoken on this disqualifies your ramblings as an "argument". You aren't debating anyone here. You are just repeating the same lines over an over again while ignoring literally anything that doesn't support your narrative.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:36 pm to AlxTgr
It is if you content that Brown made a football move.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:37 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Is it more likely that Tigerdroppings posters don't understand the rule and are wrong, or that Brian Kelly is trying not to piss off the NCAA officiating office in the middle of a championship run?
fify
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:40 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
a football move
If he were able to
quote:
perform an act common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.
Still, what I responded to is absolutely false.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:46 pm to King Joey
quote:
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.
That’s absolutely what he had been arguing until enough examples were shown to make that position untenable. Now, he’s just arguing that b., c., and d. apply because he was “in the act of the catch”. His only argument for that is that he didn’t complete an act common to football because the second step and knee coming down happened out of bounds. Even if we ignore the absurdity of that mattering in whether it was an act common to the game, it’s not relevant to the rule. The rule simply states the requirement to control the ball long enough to complete an act common to the game. It’s about the length of time having control, not the act itself. Completing those actions out of bounds still demonstrates having control long enough to complete an act common to the game.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:54 pm to AlxTgr
There's much, much more to the football move rule than that, but two things here. Remember, this was ruled a catch on the field, meaning that overwhelming evidence must exist to overturn that ruling.
1. A catch was made with the second hand coming over to tuck or secure the ball (specifically called out as a football move) and a clear stride across the plane of the endzone (caught around the two and finished some three yards deep into the endzone sideline area). Remember, last night a UNC receiver dropped a pass on a hit in mid air and it was ruled a catch and fumble because it was deemed that his head turning slightly up field was a "football move". You could make a similar argument for the Bauer Sharp fumble in the very same game.
2. If its determined there is no football move, the ball can indeed make contact with the ground, and even move, in the process of completing the catch. The issue is whether the receiver maintains control throughout. A very subjective judgement considering he never loses possession of the football. So where is the overwhelming evidence that the call on the field should have been overturned?
The bottom line is, which should be clear by the huge debate brewing over this, there wasn't clear, irrefutable evidence to overturn the call. That's where I'm at and I think most people are at. FB is acting like this POV is insane, which is ludicrous.
1. A catch was made with the second hand coming over to tuck or secure the ball (specifically called out as a football move) and a clear stride across the plane of the endzone (caught around the two and finished some three yards deep into the endzone sideline area). Remember, last night a UNC receiver dropped a pass on a hit in mid air and it was ruled a catch and fumble because it was deemed that his head turning slightly up field was a "football move". You could make a similar argument for the Bauer Sharp fumble in the very same game.
2. If its determined there is no football move, the ball can indeed make contact with the ground, and even move, in the process of completing the catch. The issue is whether the receiver maintains control throughout. A very subjective judgement considering he never loses possession of the football. So where is the overwhelming evidence that the call on the field should have been overturned?
The bottom line is, which should be clear by the huge debate brewing over this, there wasn't clear, irrefutable evidence to overturn the call. That's where I'm at and I think most people are at. FB is acting like this POV is insane, which is ludicrous.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:57 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:Is there?
There's much, much more to the football move rule than that,
quote:Totally agree.
Remember, this was ruled a catch on the field, meaning that overwhelming evidence must exist to overturn that ruling.
"Football move" isn't in the rules.
quote:I tend to agree with you on that part. In a vacuum, and by the letter of the rules, I do not think it was a catch.
The bottom line is, which should be clear by the huge debate brewing over this, there wasn't clear, irrefutable evidence to overturn the call.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 2:00 pm to AlxTgr
but he stepped out of bounds before the ball juggled or whatever. At the point he steps out of bounds, the ball is dead. This is no different on a regular play on a sideline. Once the foot goes out of bounds, there is no need to maintain control. If it were, then technically, you could never let go of the ball.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 2:07 pm to jasonbr1975
quote:This isn't true.
but he stepped out of bounds before the ball juggled or whatever. At the point he steps out of bounds, the ball is dead. This is no different on a regular play on a sideline. Once the foot goes out of bounds, there is no need to maintain control. If it were, then technically, you could never let go of the ball.
quote:
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent) he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. This is also required for a player attempting to make a catch at the sideline and going to the ground out of bounds. If he loses control of the ball which then touches the ground before he regains control, it is not a catch. If he regains control inbounds prior to the ball touching the ground it is a catch.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 2:16 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
That did not happen on the play in question.
it absolutely did
Posted on 9/2/25 at 2:18 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
He very clearly loses control
he loses control AFTER he crosses the end zone with the ball. it was a TD, called short even though he touched the pylon and broke the plane with the ball.
it was incorrectly called.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 3:23 pm to logjamming
quote:
You people are so stupid.
your family is stupider than us, so suck it ! !
that makes it even, right?
Posted on 9/2/25 at 3:52 pm to AlxTgr
Well, this is just a dumb rule then because it's saying you can be out of bounds with the play dead at that time, but you still have to maintain control. Again, it's a dumb rule...
After looking at it again...
I still maintain my position, his right foot stepped out of bounds before he lost control of the ball. Therefore, the play is over at that time. Plain and simple.
However, I'm moving on. We got the W. Brown will get redemption vs. LA Tech...
After looking at it again...
I still maintain my position, his right foot stepped out of bounds before he lost control of the ball. Therefore, the play is over at that time. Plain and simple.
However, I'm moving on. We got the W. Brown will get redemption vs. LA Tech...
This post was edited on 9/2/25 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 9/2/25 at 4:08 pm to jasonbr1975
quote:That's the majority position.
Well, this is just a dumb rule then because it's saying you can be out of bounds with the play dead at that time, but you still have to maintain control. Again, it's a dumb rule...
quote:That would probably be a good rule, but it's not the rule.
I still maintain my position, his right foot stepped out of bounds before he lost control of the ball. Therefore, the play is over at that time. Plain and simple.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 4:21 pm to AlxTgr
Posted on 9/2/25 at 4:36 pm to King Joey
quote:
Simply not correct. A catch MADE while falling is irrelevant. The only thing that triggers "surviving the ground" is if the player "goes to the ground while in the act of making a catch". Not "falling", not "stumbling", not "inevitably ending up on the ground"; "goes to the ground". And it has to be "while in the act of making the catch". Once the catch is made, the receiver is a runner and the rule is the same as any other ball carrier.
Brian Kelly has commented…
quote:
"The rule was applied correctly by the letter of it, but rules are made to be changed. Hopefully, down the road, there will be some changes in the way it is looked at."
Agreeing with my statement that the fact that he was falling matters.
This post was edited on 9/2/25 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 9/2/25 at 10:48 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
The same exact thing happened with the Dez Bryant thing 20 years ago.
quote:
Change the rule
Do you think the nfl rule 20 years ago is the same as the NCAA rule now?
Posted on 9/8/25 at 6:50 pm to OceanMan
Look whoever is on here arguing if it was a catch unless you are a mfering Hof NFL and college level receive, or top retired College official who is hired to help explain the rules, STFU! Because all those guys have already weighed in and said it was obvious catch.
The lack of any attempted bullshite explanation by the REC offices tells you all you need to know. The STFU because no matter what they say it makes it worse
The lack of any attempted bullshite explanation by the REC offices tells you all you need to know. The STFU because no matter what they say it makes it worse
Page 11 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News