- 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: The overturn
Posted on 8/31/25 at 11:58 am to Biggiebam
Posted on 8/31/25 at 11:58 am to Biggiebam
quote:Different rule for pass completions. Don't take this comment to mean I agree with the outcome.
Let’s just say a QB or RB went to stretch out for the pylon and hits the pylon with any of their body part but loses the ball after the fact. Wouldn’t they then not survive the ground like Barion apparently did?
2
Posted on 8/31/25 at 11:59 am to Sir Fury
That’s how I see it
Catch
Tuck
Step and a half
Lunges to the pylon and crosses
Knee hits
Very quick but All before the Ground causes slight wobble
Catch
Tuck
Step and a half
Lunges to the pylon and crosses
Knee hits
Very quick but All before the Ground causes slight wobble
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:00 pm to AlxTgr
But it was a catch by rule. Made a football move, had one foot in bounds and had firm control/possession. He did all 3. At that point he’s a ball carrier
This post was edited on 8/31/25 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:01 pm to AlxTgr
Go look at Lance Moores 2pt conversion in Super Bowl XLIV.
Ruled incomplete on the field and later overturned. Were THOSE refs wrong or are these? See what I mean?
Ruled incomplete on the field and later overturned. Were THOSE refs wrong or are these? See what I mean?
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:03 pm to Biggiebam
quote:I agree which is why I don't agree with the call
But it was a catch by rule. Made a football move, had one foot in bounds and made a football move
quote:I think that's how it works.
At that point he’s a ball carrier
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:04 pm to Vacherie Saint
Even if you ignore the crossing of the plane, the ball can move when it hits the ground…it just can’t move out of the hands. His hand never moved from the same spot on the ball when he hit.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:05 pm to Biggiebam
He has to survive the ground to complete the catch, which is what he did. The ball can move when it hits the ground but as long as the receiver exhibits control of the ball through contact with the ground, then it’s a catch. The ball can move, as it did, but he never lost control of it. It should have been a touchdown.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:07 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Yes he was by the letter of the rule. Blame the rule.
Not really. The letter of the rule leaves lots of discretion, so not sure how you can even come to this conclusion. It can certainly be argued that brown made a football move by advancing the ball, and Hitting the pylon, after satisfying the first two requirements. It can also be argued that he made the catch upright and being pushed slightly to the ground afterwards didn’t require him to “complete the catch”. Finally, it can be argued that he maintained control, since the rule allows for it to touch the ground.
And I believe the ref didn’t not apply the standard that it must be clear and indisputable to overturn the call on the field.
This rule was applied differently in 3 different reviews during the same game. Each time to Clemsons benefit. So stop with the “letter of the rule” nonsense
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:08 pm to bayouboo
I agree the rule should be changed but that play wasn't even relevant to the rule. The rule does not apply to receivers who make a football move. At that point, they would be classified as a "runner" and not a "receiver in the act of making a catch". Also, these receivers who lose possession in the end zone are NOT ones who have crossed the goal line with possession. These two circumstances I just mentioned negate the relevance of "the rule". The ABC official said it exactly right..."it was a touchdown."
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:08 pm to Asleepinthecove
I agree with you either way but prior to that it was a catch already by rule. So that no longer applies. He’s a ball carrier once he catches it. Touchdown regardless.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:09 pm to Biggiebam
quote:
But it was a catch by rule. Made a football move, had one foot in bounds and had firm control/possession.
the receiver has to survive the ground with possession. That is the contention of the play by the referees. This play happens so frequently in football games, its amazing to me people keep citing this rule partially or incorrectly lol.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:12 pm to Fun Bunch
i can certainly see the Brown touchdown call go either way so i am not going to argue your stance, however to me it does feel inconsistent to say that Sharp had enough possession to fumble the ball while Brown apparently didn’t have enough possession to score a touchdown.
since you believe the Brown catch was incomplete, what do you think the difference between the 2 catches? or would you say the fumble call was actually the incorrect one?
since you believe the Brown catch was incomplete, what do you think the difference between the 2 catches? or would you say the fumble call was actually the incorrect one?
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:13 pm to Lester Earl
He’s no longer a receiver Lester. He did all 3 by the time he hits the grown after the pylon and crossed the plain. Either way it would be a dead and a TD. The catch rules wouldn’t be applied. He’s a ball carrier. Watch it again he had possession with one foot down made a football move. Knee hits pylon. Then goes out of bounds. Clear as day a ball carrier. Even then it survives the ground. If you wanna go that route.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:15 pm to Biggiebam
quote:
I agree with you either way but prior to that it was a catch already by rule. So that no longer applies. He’s a ball carrier once he catches it. Touchdown regardless.
By the rule, I don’t feel like he was truly a runner after a catch and would then be seen as what happened when Durham crossed the goal line, scored, then fumbled. The rule needs to be changed to where, if clear evidence can be shown as a catch with the appropriate foot in bounds when touched and crossing the goal line, then it needs to be a TD, regardless of what happens when contact with the ground is made.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:17 pm to Sir Fury
quote:
He established possession by pulling the ball in, getting a foot down and touched the pylon. The rule that SHOULD have been utilized is the same one used when Durham scored in the first half and lost the ball after he hit the ground.
The second freaking foot down before he even started to fall IS a football move.
WTH is the argument.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:17 pm to Lester Earl
Not if you contend that a football move was made. Even if it wasn't theres some subjectivity around how much that ball needs to "move".
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:18 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:fricking POOLAME - BAMMER FAN. fricking leave dumbass
Fun Bunch
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:18 pm to Biggiebam
It was a catch and a touchdown. Refs are stupid and will always be stupid. End of story.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:21 pm to Biggiebam
quote:
He’s no longer a receiver Lester. He did all 3 by the time he hits the grown after the pylon and crossed the plain. Either way it would be a dead and a TD. The catch rules wouldn’t be applied. He’s a ball carrier. Watch it again he had possession with one foot down made a football move. Knee hits pylon. Then goes out of bounds. Clear as day a ball carrier. Even then it survives the ground. If you wanna go that route.
lol completely wrong. jesus frick
Posted on 8/31/25 at 12:26 pm to Lester Earl
Then correct me if I’m wrong. Would love to hear your insight bub
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News