- 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
1
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:31 pm to Vacherie Saint
Any updates Mr Vacherie Saint?
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:32 pm to TheJuicey
What I have not heard anyone say is that is does not matter if the ball moves or even is fumbled after the player crosses the goal with the ball secured, which it was. Second, how many times did Klubnik throw the ball away with no receiver anywhere in sight, but no intentional grounding calls.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:33 pm to Juan Betanzos
quote:you honestly think the SEC replay official is cheating against LSU... in a game against an ACC opponent... because it might somehow benefit Alabama?
I’ve always said….move the SEC offices (including league officials) a more modern city like Nashville & fill full of Vandy grads.
NO ONE WILL COMPLAIN……..ok, except for Gumps
Do you know how ridiculous you sound?
Look, I thought it was a TD. But I also know the rule, and there's a huge gray area.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:37 pm to eod
quote:
What I have not heard anyone say is that is does not matter if the ball moves or even is fumbled after the player crosses the goal with the ball secured, which it was.
Runner v catcher.
Different rules.
Brian Kelly put the debate to bed. He said it was the right call for a dumb rule. Exact same thing I have said.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:38 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
Hell the head of officials was admittedly a former REC member and mr football at Tuscaloosa and I know but couldn’t prove it he was a student volunteer with the football team.
Who would that be exactly?
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:42 pm to lsupride87
quote:
LSU isn’t even turning on the TD catch to officials because BK said the ruling was 100% correct based on the rule, but the rule needs to change
It’s only 100% correct based on the rule if you believe that it’s an incomplete pass if the receiver bobbles the ball when he hits the ground 20 yards downfield from where he caught it. The wording of the rule is confusing and clearly not consistent with either the intent of the rule or how it is typically enforced. It was never intended to be applied in cases where the receiver has control of the ball long enough to complete an act common to the game and it’s rarely or ever enforced in that manner. The rule was intended and typically only enforced in cases where the receiver dives to match the catch or leaps into the air to make the catch and loses his balance before having an opportunity to complete an act common to the game.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:45 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
All apologies will be accepted.
Did you actually listen to him? Otheriwise, he is getting a fricking fine and more shitty calls against him later. Toe the fricking line or else. If you think Kiffin or others wouldn’t have hammered then, you’re as stupid fricking dumbass from Lafayette like that goober ref.
It was STILL A fricking interpretation.
The ball NEVER LEFT HIS HAND NOR DID HE LOSE THE BALL OR CONTROL. It was a fricking judgement call by a shitty fricking official.
The fact is he CAUGHT IT IN THE FIELD OF PLAY, took a step I. The end zone, it was fricking catch and the play is over.
If all that happened in the field of play it would have been a catch and not a fricking fumble.
Nobody on earth is apologizing to a fricking moron
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:45 pm to MikeTheTiger71
quote:
It’s only 100% correct based on the rule if you believe that it’s an incomplete pass if the receiver bobbles the ball when
Huh
No. It is a dumb rule but this is not true.
And Brian Kelly says it’s right. This argument is over.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:47 pm to Tiger1988
Yes. He could have just said “they explained the call I am not going to comment further”
He has done that in the past.
He did not. He confirmed the call was correct.
You all just don’t want to admit that you are wrong about the rule as it’s written.
It is a STUPID rule. But the call was correct based on the rule.
He has done that in the past.
He did not. He confirmed the call was correct.
You all just don’t want to admit that you are wrong about the rule as it’s written.
It is a STUPID rule. But the call was correct based on the rule.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:49 pm to Tiger1988
quote:Not true at all. Kelly and every coach routinely sends calls into SEC offices after games they don’t agree with. And they say so in press conferences followed with “no further comment”
Did you actually listen to him? Otheriwise, he is getting a fricking fine and more shitty calls against him later. Toe the fricking line or else.
This post was edited on 9/2/25 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:51 pm to lsupride87
Brian Kelly not only commented on it he went out of his way to say the call was CORRECT based on the rule, but that the rule should be changed. My exact argument.
And they are still arguing with me
And they are still arguing with me
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:52 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Huh No. It is a dumb rule but this is not true. And Brian Kelly says it’s right. This argument is over.
Where in the rule based on your interpretation of AND does it say that if a receiver bobbles the ball when he goes to ground 20 yards downfield from making the catch, then it’s still a catch? If you go back to the wording of 3.a.3 to make your argument, then you are admitting the AND does not apply in all cases. It then comes down to whether Brown controlled the ball long enough to have time to complete an act common to the game. Two steps and a knee down say he did possess the ball long enough to complete an act common to the game regardless of where the second step and knee down were.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:52 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
the rule as it’s written
Where is "falling" written into the rule?
It isn't. Not sure why Kelly said what he said, but the call is simply not correct according to the rule as written. The part of the rule being argued about specifically and expressly does not contemplate a situation where the player hits the ground AFTER the catch is completed, so none of what happened on the ground was relevant by the clear and unambiguous words of the rule as written. Period.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:53 pm to MikeTheTiger71
quote:
Where in the rule based on your interpretation of AND does it say that if a receiver bobbles the ball when he goes to ground 20 yards downfield
20 yards down field he is now a runner, he is no longer within the act of the catch.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:55 pm to King Joey
quote:
Where is "falling" written into the rule?
"goes to the ground"
quote:
Not sure why Kelly said what he said
quote:
but the call is simply not correct according to the rule as written.
Unbelievable.
You people have been proven wrong and you just can't change your opinion.
The rule sucks. I hate it. They got the call "right" based on the rule.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:55 pm to King Joey
quote:
The part of the rule being argued about specifically and expressly does not contemplate a situation where the player hits the ground AFTER the catch is completed
It is LITERALLY what the rule contemplates.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 12:56 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
20 yards down field he is now a runner, he is no longer within the act of the catch.
So the AND only applies if the receiver is within the act of the catch and is not a universal requirement as you have tried to argue. Two steps and a knee down say Brown also was no longer within the act of the catch.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:00 pm to MikeTheTiger71
quote:
So the AND only applies if the receiver is within the act of the catch
Yes. subsection b. literally says that if he goes to the ground within the act of the catch
quote:
Two steps and a knee down say Brown also was no longer within the act of the catch.
Wrong.
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".
Getting a knee down means he went to the ground, so subsection b. applies
Brian Kelly says you are wrong. Perhaps you can take these arguments to him.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 1:10 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Where is "falling" written into the rule?
"goes to the ground"
Are you serious? Do you really mean to say that you can't see the difference between the word "falling" and the phrase "goes to the ground"? Do you not realize that "falling" is the present participle of the act of how one gets to the ground, and "goes to ground" is a completed act? How bad is the education wherever you went to school that simple grammatical construction like this eludes you?
There is a simple reason why the rule is written as "goes to the ground while in the process of making a catch" rather than "makes a catch while in the process of going to the ground (or falling)", which would be the language necessary to support your conclusion. The present participle is attached to the process that is relevant: making the catch. If another element in introduced DURING that process (e.g., "goes to the ground"), then other considerations come into play. Placing the present participle on the catch portion rather than the falling portion of that paragraph is clearly and unambiguously stating that unless the "goes to the ground" is completed WHILE the elements of the catch (previously defined) are being completed, it is irrelevant. Jeez, I can't believe this actually has to devolve to 5th grade (or whenever you're supposed to learn basic grammar) English class. Fall-ING is not relevant because fall-ING was never written into the rule.
quote:
you just can't change your opinion.
I change my opinions all the time. However, unlike some other people, I don't consider my opinion capable of changing reality or facts. The fact is the rule doesn't say, "makes a catch in the process of going to the ground". It says, "goes to the ground in the process of making a catch." No matter what my (or anyone else's) opinion is, that is only capable of meaning what the words and the grammatical structure of the English language allow it to mean. And what it means is that the call was clearly and unambiguously wrong under the rule as written.
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News