- 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
0
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:31 pm to xiv
quote:
Regardless of anything else you say, that right there is why the call stands.
IF the receiver touched anything, it was Peterson's hand. Peterson's hands are in between the ball and the receiver's hand. There's no physical why that the receiver could have touched the ball.
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:32 pm to tigerpawl
From two angles, the first frame where it's certain that the ball is touching someone. It isn't certain that the ball isn't touching the receiver's hand, and it isn't certain that he is in-bounds.
LINK From the angle shown at 2:58, you can see clearly that at some point the receiver's hand deflects off the ball. Therefore, the most generous you can be to the LSU cause is for the call on the field--an interception--to stand.
This post was edited on 7/18/19 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:33 pm to TigerLunatik
I regret that I have but one downvote per post to give XIV.
That has to be the most tortuous, belabored excuse for that horrendous call that I've ever heard. And I've heard a lot of them!
That has to be the most tortuous, belabored excuse for that horrendous call that I've ever heard. And I've heard a lot of them!
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:37 pm to xiv
So, by your own admission, there is no conclusive video evidence that the ball was touched by a player while out of bounds, while it seems to clearly and conclusively show that PP had possession with two feet inbounds???
Thank you.
Thank you.
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:38 pm to TigerLunatik
quote:Obviously that's not correct. The shape of the ball and the way PP caught it--the way you're taught to catch a football at face-level--has the nose of the ball protruding through the "diamond" you make with your hands. Here's a frame of the receiver touching the ball right here. If your argument is that he touched PP's hands, then it's well in position to touch the ball, too, since the nose of the ball is closer to him.
There's no physical why that the receiver could have touched the ball.
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:39 pm to flyingtexastiger
quote:Not gonna work. The call on the field was an incomplete pass, on account that an out-of-bounds player touched the ball before it was caught. There is no conclusive evidence that this is not the case--therefore, the call stands.
So, by your own admission, there is no conclusive video evidence that the ball was touched by a player while out of bounds, while it seems to clearly and conclusively show that PP had possession with two feet inbounds???
That is what happened, and proper replay protocol was performed.
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:40 pm to xiv
Using XIV's logic if a receiver catches a ball but a DB who is out of bounds touches it, there is no catch......... 
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:42 pm to LSU Bayou Jim
quote:
if a receiver catches a ball but a DB who is out of bounds touches it before possession is attained by the receiver, there is no catch
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:43 pm to xiv
quote:
Here's a frame of the receiver touching the ball right here.
This frame is after PP begins moving the ball to his hip. That's a football move while he is inbounds, meaning he has possession and it's an interception.
GEAUX TIGERS
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:44 pm to xiv
quote:
If your argument is that he touched PP's hands, then it's well in position to touch the ball, too, since the nose of the ball is closer to him.
So, the receiver touched the ball while Peterson had control of the ball with both feet in bounds. That's still an interception.
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:45 pm to Thorny
quote:No it isn't, sorry.
This frame is after PP begins moving the ball to his hip.
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:46 pm to TigerLunatik
quote:I understand that you feel that it's an interception, but your feelings just don't count here. The refs made a call, and there's no conclusive evidence that their call was incorrect, no matter how much you wish for it.
So, the receiver touched the ball while Peterson had control of the ball with both feet in bounds. That's still an interception.
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:47 pm to Thorny
BTW, it fit into a pattern:
There were a lot of questionable calls in the 2009 season that all went in favor of the higher ranked team: This one, the AJ Green celebration call that set up LSU's game winning touchdown by forcing UGA to kick off from the 20, and a hugely questionable pass interference against Arkansas that prevented them from holding on to a win in The Swamp.
2009 was a terrible year for officials.
GEAUX TIGERS
There were a lot of questionable calls in the 2009 season that all went in favor of the higher ranked team: This one, the AJ Green celebration call that set up LSU's game winning touchdown by forcing UGA to kick off from the 20, and a hugely questionable pass interference against Arkansas that prevented them from holding on to a win in The Swamp.
2009 was a terrible year for officials.
GEAUX TIGERS
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:47 pm to blueridgeTiger
Robin Williams jumanji what year is it meme
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:48 pm to xiv
well I have no idea what your eye glass prescription is but PP clearly possesses that ball in that photo....... again your argument is if someone touches a caught ball and the touching player is out of bounds there is no catch.....
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:50 pm to xiv
Oh BTW in your last photo the Bama players down foot appears in and the trailing foot is in the air...........
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:56 pm to LSU Bayou Jim
quote:Whether or not PP possesses the ball is not in question.
PP clearly possesses that ball in that photo
quote:No it isn't. The rule is this--Rule 4, Section 2, Article 3
again your argument is if someone touches a caught ball and the touching player is out of bounds there is no catch.....
quote:LINK
A ball not in player control, other than a kick that scores a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game official or anything else that is out of bounds, or that is on or outside a boundary line.
It was ruled that the ball touched an out-of-bounds player before possession was attained by PP, and there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary. Notice Ritter said that the call "stands" and not "is confirmed."
quote:I, like less than 1% of the world's population, have 20/10 vision, and I have experience working in replay.
well I have no idea what your eye glass prescription is but
Posted on 7/18/19 at 3:59 pm to xiv
At best for your argument they touched it simultaneously but even that looks unlikely
Posted on 7/18/19 at 4:01 pm to OGtigerfan87
quote:Therefore, the call stands.
At best for your argument they touched it simultaneously but even that looks unlikely
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News