- 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
1
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:07 pm to 33inNC
quote:
"Birmingham" needs to not make these calls any longer, we need a better system with IMPARTIAL professionals, not Alabama homers.
Yep, the person that made that ruling is someone who has a bias against LSU for whatever reason. The ruling on the field was a catch and they overturned the call without indisputable evidence. It was indisputable after the catch he crossed the goal line and was not out of bounds.
Brown/ Nuss got screwed out of a TD.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:09 pm to Chicken
quote:
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass
He caught the pass well before he hit the ground and ran into the pylon.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:12 pm to Chicken
He was going to the ground as he was making the catch. It doesn't matter where the catch was made. It doesn't matter how many stumbling steps he made prior to contacting the ground. It doesn't matter that he crossed the goal line. He had to maintain possession of the ball through contact with the ground. He did not. Sucks, but that's the rule.
ETA: I don't know why ABC didn't go to the trouble that Chicken did, and post the rule. Of course, I could be wrong, but I would like to have heard Bill Lemoine at least say why he was right despite the rule.
This post was edited on 9/1/25 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:16 pm to IvoryBillMatt
So what you’re saying is if I catch a pass and run into the end zone and then trip over my feet on the way to the bench and lose the ball it’s incomplete?
It’s amazing how wrong people are on this.
It’s amazing how wrong people are on this.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:17 pm to IvoryBillMatt
It’s because he made a football move into the end zone with possession.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:20 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
He was going to the ground as he was making the catch. It doesn't matter where the catch was made. It doesn't matter how many stumbling steps he made prior to contacting the ground. It doesn't matter that he crossed the goal line. He had to maintain possession of the ball through contact with the ground. He did not. Sucks, but that's the rule.
Ok cool. Then every runner that crosses a goal line with possession and is going to the ground has to maintain possession through the ground.
You can't pick and choose when to interpret your vision of this rule.
Why does a receiver that has the same possession of the ball as a RB have to maintain possession back to the bench when a RB can drop the ball immediately after the nose of the ball crosses the line?
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:20 pm to LSU316
quote:
So what you’re saying is if I catch a pass and run into the end zone and then trip over my feet on the way to the bench and lose the ball it’s incomplete?
No. You weren't going to the ground in the process of making the catch in that scenario.
Brown was inevitably going to the ground. His possession of the ball didn't survive contact with the ground.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:25 pm to LSU316
quote:
So what you’re saying is if I catch a pass and run into the end zone and then trip over my feet on the way to the bench and lose the ball it’s incomplete?
It’s amazing how wrong people are on this.
I remember when I was a kid and I was told Santa wasn't real. I fought so hard for a few weeks before it came together.
Same thing here, except fans have held on for decades the belief that this is all on the up and up.
They've watched Grand Theft Auburn, PPINT, Devon White's "targeting", Jayden Daniels concussed with no call, just to name a few, and still think the SEC isn't crooked as frick. The ones I listed don't even scratch the surface of the monumental bullshite we have seen called or not called in game.
Close your eyes and imagine a Bama WR making that same play. What the frick do you think would happen? I'll tell you: the ref would have gotten the call correct in the game and awarded a TD immediately, not OOB at the 2. They would have gone through the usual "review a TD" crap they do, and the announcers would have gushed for minutes at the great pass by the Heisman contender and great catch from the new transfer that knew he should leave another SEC school for the greatness that is Bama. After a brief replay, the SEC official would have let you know the call on the field of a great catch was confirmed, and that would have been a top 10 play on ESPN later that night.
Tell me I'm wrong (I'm not)
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:26 pm to tgrgrd00
quote:
Then every runner that crosses a goal line with possession and is going to the ground has to maintain possession through the ground.
The rule applies ONLY to the process of catching the ball. Your example is meaningless.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:28 pm to Chicken
Catches the ball in bounds, takes a step in bounds, crosses the goal line inside the pylon, enters the end zone, takes another step half in bounds, half out of bounds, takes another step out of bounds, goes to the ground 5 yards out of bounds, still has full control, the tip of the ball hits the ground and the ball moves but control is secured and the ball does pop out. We’re told the ground can’t cause a fumble, but if it causes the ball to move and never leave possession, it’s considered not a catch after 3-4 steps, crossing into the end zone, and crossing out of bounds?
That’s insane.
That’s insane.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:29 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
The rule applies ONLY to the process of catching the ball. Your example is meaningless
He already caught the ball and had possession. The process of catching the ball was already complete.
Your rule interpretation is meaningless.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:30 pm to 33inNC
quote:
Anyone who ignores this bias is either intentionally blind or just not paying attention to how these always go.
agree 100%
instead of these subjective, open to interpretation rules like a "football move" or did the ball move 1 cm after he hit the ground while slowing the replay to 1/100th of a sec, just make it simple and well-defined. does the player have control of the ball when he crosses the goal line? everything afterwards should then be irrelevant.
speaking of "football moves", if a player reaches for and hits the pylon I would consider that a football move
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:31 pm to SludgeFactory
quote:
Same thing here, except fans have held on for decades the belief that this is all on the up and up.
I have been a diehard LSU fan for over 50 years. There is absolutely a pro-Bama bias in the SEC. I agree with all the examples you cited, and think the Peterson interception was even worse.
I just don't think this is one of those cases. How would screwing LSU in favor of an ACC title contender help ANY team in the SEC...Bama included?
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:31 pm to IvoryBillMatt
He possessed the ball before he hit the pylon clear as day.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:31 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Brown was inevitably going to the ground. His possession of the ball didn't survive contact with the ground.
No, he wasn't inevitably going to the ground. He was going in standing up until he was pushed.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:32 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
His possession of the ball didn't survive contact with the ground
Yes he did maintain possession. That’s the other part that doesn’t make any sense. The ball moved when he made contact with the ground (which it can), but he kept possession. That was a horrible overturn any way you look at it.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:32 pm to Chicken
He didn’t go the the ground “in the act of catching” the pass. He had already caught the ball, advanced it and was knocked to the ground by an opponent.
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:34 pm to IvoryBillMatt
I’m still not sure it was the right call, but this thread is full of morons. The rule is posted in its clearest form, and almost everybody is still ignoring it. One guy even thinks Brown took 3 steps after the catch, wtf.
IMO the issue is whether he fell on his own, or whether he was pushed. If he fell on his own, then the rule is clear. It’s incomplete. If he was pushed, then how could that be incomplete and Sharp’s catch a completion and a fumble?
Edit: Just reread the rule. It explicitly states “with or without contact by an opponent.” I think that’s pretty clear. Brown did not make any move other than trying to secure the ball, so it wasn't a completion since the ground clearly knocked it loose.
IMO the issue is whether he fell on his own, or whether he was pushed. If he fell on his own, then the rule is clear. It’s incomplete. If he was pushed, then how could that be incomplete and Sharp’s catch a completion and a fumble?
Edit: Just reread the rule. It explicitly states “with or without contact by an opponent.” I think that’s pretty clear. Brown did not make any move other than trying to secure the ball, so it wasn't a completion since the ground clearly knocked it loose.
This post was edited on 9/1/25 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 9/1/25 at 1:38 pm to tgrgrd00
quote:
He already caught the ball and had possession. The process of catching the ball was already complete.
We can go back in forth all day on this. The rule has always been interpreted to mean if the receiver is falling to the ground while catching the ball, his possession must survive contact with the ground.
I absolutely agree with you that he had already secured the ball, and arguably made a football move. Since the advent of this rule, however, I have never seen it ruled a catch when the receiver was falling to the ground as a result of making the catch and let the ball move.
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News