- 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: So that one handed catch was totally not a catch, right?
Posted on 9/3/24 at 4:22 pm to theliontamer
Posted on 9/3/24 at 4:22 pm to theliontamer
It was a great athletic move to even come close to being a catch
0
Posted on 9/3/24 at 4:30 pm to theliontamer
The entire thing was impressive nonetheless. I was teaching my two sons and daughter who are in their first year in football and cheer (5 6 7 yo) and I explained that whatever the initial call was, that's what it's going to be. We all know it almost certainly wasn't a catch, but the rules are that you need indisputable evidence to overturn. Yeah the ball hit the ground but you couldn't see much more on if it was secured, call was never getting reversed.
Posted on 9/3/24 at 4:45 pm to atltiger6487
With all due respect, you know me as well as you know what I would be screaming. By that I mean you know nothing about either one…
That’s fine if you believe it was targeting—I said it appeared to be in real time. I agree that we need to protect players from brutal hits and being launched into, I’m just not sure that hit really qualified. But I can also check it out on the replay once more…
Maybe we have different views on targeting in general. Ideally, I think there should be different flavors of targeting like there are different types of flagrant fouls in the NBA. Perhaps this would have qualified as a flagrant 1. A flagrant 2 would get someone ejected as there was intent or the appearance of intent to injure, such as a clean hit to the head or violently launching into the opponent. Again, maybe the hit by Gilbert would have been a flagrant 1.
But I guess this means Gilbert is out for the first half of the Nicholls game. Given the way he played, I can’t say I’m devastated by that news. Maybe someone else will step up
That’s fine if you believe it was targeting—I said it appeared to be in real time. I agree that we need to protect players from brutal hits and being launched into, I’m just not sure that hit really qualified. But I can also check it out on the replay once more…
Maybe we have different views on targeting in general. Ideally, I think there should be different flavors of targeting like there are different types of flagrant fouls in the NBA. Perhaps this would have qualified as a flagrant 1. A flagrant 2 would get someone ejected as there was intent or the appearance of intent to injure, such as a clean hit to the head or violently launching into the opponent. Again, maybe the hit by Gilbert would have been a flagrant 1.
But I guess this means Gilbert is out for the first half of the Nicholls game. Given the way he played, I can’t say I’m devastated by that news. Maybe someone else will step up
This post was edited on 9/3/24 at 6:28 pm
Posted on 9/3/24 at 4:48 pm to sabbertooth
The entire section around us in 415 thought it was a no brainer seeing the ball move around on the turf all willy nilly like so.
It wasn't like a nose of the ball touching the turf but still ruled a catch. We could see it very clearly on the video boards he had a hand under the ball but it was constantly moving AND turning while touching turf.
I don't have much issue with refs other than the shift that they called offsides on us instead of false start on USC.
It wasn't like a nose of the ball touching the turf but still ruled a catch. We could see it very clearly on the video boards he had a hand under the ball but it was constantly moving AND turning while touching turf.
I don't have much issue with refs other than the shift that they called offsides on us instead of false start on USC.
This post was edited on 9/3/24 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 9/3/24 at 5:20 pm to theliontamer
I think other one handed catches were made by them
Posted on 9/3/24 at 5:31 pm to theliontamer
Here’s the question….can the ground aid a catch?
If it can it was a catch if it can’t then it wasn’t. I’ve consistently seen that called not a catch in the NFL. In college it’s all over the board.
If it can it was a catch if it can’t then it wasn’t. I’ve consistently seen that called not a catch in the NFL. In college it’s all over the board.
Posted on 9/3/24 at 7:48 pm to theliontamer
That looked like a catch.
That play doesn't determine the game tho.
That play doesn't determine the game tho.
Posted on 9/3/24 at 8:43 pm to theliontamer
I did find it odd how they rushed through the replays and immediately said it was a catch.
Posted on 9/3/24 at 9:04 pm to theliontamer
quote:
it wasnt controlled prior, it was clearly floating around the air prior to going to the ground.
Find some video that dhows that and get back with us. Until then STFU.
I thought the same thing and watched replay after replay and nothing would overrule the field ruling
Posted on 9/3/24 at 10:02 pm to theliontamer
LINK
NO, the ball rolled off his thigh when he hit the ground. Back to his arms. Was not a catch.
NO, the ball rolled off his thigh when he hit the ground. Back to his arms. Was not a catch.
This post was edited on 9/3/24 at 10:07 pm
Posted on 9/3/24 at 10:03 pm to Chicken
It was OBJ part deux
Posted on 9/3/24 at 10:03 pm to theliontamer
To close to reverse the call. Whatever was called on the field was going to stand either way.
Posted on 9/3/24 at 10:39 pm to theliontamer
I’m fine with the catch aspect what I’m not ok is the Defender getting held around his neck in a choke hold in the wide open and it not getting called. There was multiple big plays were holding was obvious or the lineman moved before the snap for USC. Not gonna say we deserved to win at all, just like to see the rules called on key downs instead of whistles being swallowed.
Posted on 9/3/24 at 11:13 pm to theliontamer
It was easily an incomplete pass. It hit the ground. The refs making another moronic decision again.
Posted on 9/3/24 at 11:22 pm to Alt26
quote:
The ball can hit the ground if the WR had controlled it prior and the ground
But he didn’t. First replay view it’s clear the defender hit the ball and it rotated before he brought it toward his body. That’s not control.
I’d love for that to be a catch, but that ship sailed 15-20 years ago.
Posted on 9/4/24 at 6:08 am to theliontamer
Not that it would have mattered but I also think the INT with 4 seconds left in the game wasn't a catch. Ball clearly hit the ground and was trapped.
Posted on 9/4/24 at 7:30 am to theliontamer
It wasn't a catch and the targeting hit was not targeting. The WR dropped his head a bit. A very subjective call. Most of the impact was on the shoulder, but it was still a little high. Could have gone either way. We lost on both.
Posted on 9/4/24 at 9:51 am to theliontamer
The in stadium gamecast didn't show any replays of contested calls that were under review. We were all sitting there in the blind.
Posted on 9/4/24 at 10:00 am to theliontamer
Play should have been called back as Womack was getting put in a headlock by their RT
Posted on 9/4/24 at 10:07 am to theliontamer
Looked good to me. At the very least, there was not enough to overturn.
If you want to complain about that play, complain about the obvious hold at the line of scrimmage that would have negated the play. They were too busy replaying the catch to go back to the beginning, but in real time and through my purple & gold glasses, the hold looked pretty bad.
If you want to complain about that play, complain about the obvious hold at the line of scrimmage that would have negated the play. They were too busy replaying the catch to go back to the beginning, but in real time and through my purple & gold glasses, the hold looked pretty bad.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News