- 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
Zemek Trying to argue simultaneous possession
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:26 am
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:26 am
LINK
This is full of fail.
He claims that the TE has 'partial' possession.
How does a ball do a 180 if you have one hand with full grasp of the ball as he tries to claim? Is his wrist on a hinge?
This is full of fail.
He claims that the TE has 'partial' possession.
How does a ball do a 180 if you have one hand with full grasp of the ball as he tries to claim? Is his wrist on a hinge?
15
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:28 am to Catman88
the ball was not secured as shown in the replays, but if the called had gone to Bama, I am not sure that a replay would have over turned the call.
If he did not see the "slower replays", I can see why he said that.
If he did not see the "slower replays", I can see why he said that.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:29 am to Catman88
I asked this last night during the madness:
Does the rule that a receiver must have possession through the ground apply here? He obviously lost it by the time he stopped bouncing off the ground.
Does the rule that a receiver must have possession through the ground apply here? He obviously lost it by the time he stopped bouncing off the ground.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:29 am to Catman88
I don't understand how anyone can argue the call when the ball was visibly moving before either player hit the ground.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:30 am to Catman88
Could have gone either way, truthfully. LSU got the benefit of the call on the field
If they had given it to the tight end in the first place he is not getting that interception when they review it.
If they had given it to the tight end in the first place he is not getting that interception when they review it.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:30 am to steelreign
yea, the angle from the back endzone was the best.
at first i thought Bama had control, but the angle showed he didnt have full possession as he hit the ground. That changed everything
at first i thought Bama had control, but the angle showed he didnt have full possession as he hit the ground. That changed everything
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:31 am to Catman88
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:31 am to rbdallas
I simply do not see how the call could have gone anyway but the way it went. Even if they ruled bama's ball. Their player lost control of the ball. The ball rotation proves that. There was no possession at all by the TE when Reid had the ball. They never shared the possession.. Basically the ball would have been incomplete had Reid not grabbed it.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:32 am to Catman88
The TE had it, then began to bobble it before he hit the ground. Nobody has possession when the TE hits the ground cause the balls moving. Once the TE hits the ground, he losses all control of the ball and Reid gains control.
Amazing concentration and body control by Reid, imo.
Edit: The referee said the replay "confirmed" the call on the field. That means they didn't think it was inconclusive. I think if it had been ruled a completion on the field, it would have been overturned as a INT.
Amazing concentration and body control by Reid, imo.
Edit: The referee said the replay "confirmed" the call on the field. That means they didn't think it was inconclusive. I think if it had been ruled a completion on the field, it would have been overturned as a INT.
This post was edited on 11/6/11 at 11:34 am
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:34 am to Lester Earl
Just like you need to maintain possession after hitting the ground for it to be complete, you need to do the same for it not to be an INT.
Either way, sweet redemption for that pp7 debacle a couple years ago.
Either way, sweet redemption for that pp7 debacle a couple years ago.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:35 am to HMTVBrian2
He did not complete the catch. It is not like a running play where you are down as soon as you hit the ground. A player has to establish possession and maintain it..he did not
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:37 am to chipd
quote:Yep
Amazing concentration and body control by Reid, imo.
Saved the game for us...
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:37 am to Catman88
Make up call for the PP7 pick.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:38 am to rbdallas
quote:
the ball was not secured as shown in the replays
Yes, and the referee said the the call was "confirmed," meaning the video shows that the call is correct, rather than just that the call stands, which means there isn't enough evidence to overturn.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:39 am to xXLSUXx
I can still hear retarded Vern Lundquist:
"OH NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"
"OH NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:40 am to spinoza
REgardless of anything it's a heads up play by Eric Reid to put himself in that position.
Young man balled out last night.
Young man balled out last night.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:41 am to rbdallas
quote:
I am not sure that a replay would have over turned the call.
The call was confirmed, meaning that instant replay official determined that ball was intercepted.
There are three possible outcomes of instant replay:
Overturned - Replay official determines the wrong call was made.
Stands - Replay official determines that there is not enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.
Confirmed - Replay official determines the call on the field was correct.
The interception was confirmed.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:44 am to Antonio Moss
Not to mention it took all of 30 seconds to confirm it. They would have reversed it if it was ruled a catch
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:50 am to Catman88
quote:
The violation of logic, of JUSTICE (as opposed to a violation of LAW), is simply this: When a receiver’s rear end hits the ground, as was the case with Williams, the play is over IF the receiver shares possession of the ball with the defensive player
Here is the biggest fallacy in his argument. It is possible..in fact it is true, that neither player had possession when they first contacted the ground. Reid gained possession after they went to the ground and thus it was an interception. Imagine for a second that Reid was not there, but that Williams still bobbled the ball the way he did...the call would not have been a reception, but instead an incomplete pass. No impartial observer should come to any other conclusion.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:52 am to chipd
quote:
the play is over IF the receiver shares possession of the ball with the defensive player
Except he didn't share possession. The ball was loose before he hit.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News