- 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: Zemek Trying to argue simultaneous possession
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:05 pm to Catman88
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:05 pm to Catman88
That is the single most worthless idiotic piece of sports journalism I have ever read in my life. Ironic that he argues in favor of "logic" and yet makes such an illogical argument.
1. Williams did not have "firm control" when his butt touched the ground.
2. As far as that goes, neither did Reid have "firm control" when Williams butt touched the ground.
3. Williams did not have possession and certainly there was not simultaneous possession, when Williams' butt touches the ground.
4. The ball is basically "not possessed" by anyone, until Reid possesses it as they roll over.
1. Williams did not have "firm control" when his butt touched the ground.
2. As far as that goes, neither did Reid have "firm control" when Williams butt touched the ground.
3. Williams did not have possession and certainly there was not simultaneous possession, when Williams' butt touches the ground.
4. The ball is basically "not possessed" by anyone, until Reid possesses it as they roll over.
0
Posted on 11/8/11 at 3:10 am to Catman88
quote:
He claims that the TE has 'partial' possession.
quote:Indeed.
This is full of fail.
Posted on 11/8/11 at 3:12 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 11/8/11 at 3:43 am to Catman88
quote:
The call that went against Alabama on the Eric Reid-Michael Williams play wasn't so much a "blown call" as it was a call which was lacking in logic. Reasonable minds can and will disagree on what it means to control a football, but the "simultaneous possession" provision of the college football rulebook was meant to protect offensive players. It wasn't cited by officials on Saturday. It mattered.
Irrelevant and butthurt.
Also...distant past.
9-6
Scoreboard.
Posted on 11/8/11 at 4:11 am to Catman88
at a caller to the finebaum show today she was bitching about how the receiver clearly had control of the ball while he was in the air and the next caller the same thing, then a caller from baton rouge called in and set them straight it does not matter if control of the ball is established in the air. The receiver must come down with possesion on the field (ball not moving or coming out after hitting the ground) or catch the ball and make a football move.
Replay showed that even if he had caught the ball he was not down before reid got the ball because the alabama receiver was laying on reid leg and hip thus no contact with the field.
Posted on 11/8/11 at 5:55 am to spinoza
quote:
I can still hear retarded Vern Lundquist:
"OH NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"
I missed this live because everyone at the party I was at was screaming and high-fiving. When I heard this on the replay I wanted to
I actually didn't hear that much of the broadcast, but CBS should be
for their lack of impartiality. Are their offices in Birmingham too?
Posted on 11/8/11 at 6:01 am to Catman88
quote:
This is full of fail.
Yep. And the beauty is, it doesn't matter howm any ways one argues it...it's a done deal and Tigers win. Suck it Bama!!!
Posted on 11/8/11 at 7:01 am to Catman88
It was obvious to me that he never had possesion, the ball was constantly moving, rolling out of his grasp.... this was happening all the way to the ground, hell, that is what allowed Reid to grab it from him so easily.... there wasnt alot of jerking going on... in real time, it would be hard to see.. but the slow relplay shows it..
Posted on 11/8/11 at 7:08 am to lake chuck fan
Talked to a college ref - the receiver (offense or defense) must control the ball ALL the way through the ground. Even if the receiver is all by himself, lands on his back, the ball bounces off his chest and a nearby defender snags the ball from his incomplete grasp it would be an interception.
Posted on 11/8/11 at 7:10 am to Catman88
SEC officials ruled. The call on the field and replay official made the correct call.
End of story!
End of story!
Posted on 11/8/11 at 7:12 am to Icansee4miles
quote:
I actually didn't hear that much of the broadcast, but CBS should be for their lack of impartiality. Are their offices in Birmingham too?
Sorry to highjack a little, but I've read this a couple times here and as much as I can't stand Lundquist the "Oh no" of that sequence wasn't about him being partial. He said the TE came down with the ball as the play unfolded, and followed that up with "Oh no, Eric Reid came down with it" after he realized his commentary was (unsurprisingly) wrong.
Posted on 11/8/11 at 7:17 am to inthebr
quote:Exactly.
"Oh no, Eric Reid came down with it" after he realized his commentary was (unsurprisingly) wrong.
Posted on 11/8/11 at 7:21 am to PeaRidgeWatash
quote:Wrong.
Yep. And the beauty is, it doesn't matter howm any ways one argues it...it's a done deal and Tigers win. Suck it Bama!!!
If it were a Patrick Peterson type call, it would matter. If it were an Early Doucet AU'06 type call, it would matter. It wasn't. It was the correct call, but it was close. It was close enough that had the on the field call gone the other way, it probably wouldn't have been overruled on replay.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News