- 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: Bo pelini tunnel
Posted on 12/7/09 at 9:28 pm to lsutothetop
Posted on 12/7/09 at 9:28 pm to lsutothetop
quote:
game clock on its own is not reviewable
It's obvious you are not aware of 12-3-6
quote:
No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable. However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving the game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable.
Posted on 12/7/09 at 9:29 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
Bleeding purple
Waiting for you to prove me wrong or have you hid under the porch?
Posted on 12/7/09 at 9:37 pm to arrakis
I remember as a kid encountering huskers fans at the 1985 and 1987 sugar bowls and they were the nicest, most knowledgeable football fans I could ever remember ...
Posted on 12/7/09 at 9:47 pm to TigahRag
quote:
I remember as a kid encountering huskers fans at the 1985 and 1987 sugar bowls and they were the nicest, most knowledgeable football fans I could ever remember ...
That's been my experience every time I've been around them; both at their place and bowl games. Every school has jerk fans, but with the Huskers, the classy ones outnumber the jerks by 100,000:1
Posted on 12/7/09 at 10:24 pm to arrakis
Either
one second is not egregious
or
every time there's a clock error, it should be reviewed
one second is not egregious
or
every time there's a clock error, it should be reviewed
Posted on 12/7/09 at 10:34 pm to lsutothetop
quote:
Either
one second is not egregious
or
every time there's a clock error, it should be reviewed
Since you didn't quote the applicable rule, I have no doubt you don't know the definition of egregious as it relates to the rule.
FYI it is conspicuous.
Also, in case you aren't aware, clock errors are corrected in many games each year.
Sound like you and Bleeding Purple are long on butthurt over the call and short on knowledge.
Posted on 12/7/09 at 11:00 pm to arrakis
quote:
arrakis
Serious question because I am not a ref and DO NOT know the rule. Should the clock stop when the football strikes an object that is out of ground (including the ground) or upon the referee's whistle blowing it dead?
IMHO, if the rule states "dead on contact", good reversal. If upon refs whistle, bad reversal.
Posted on 12/7/09 at 11:12 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
Should the clock stop when the football strikes an object that is out of ground (including the ground) or upon the referee's whistle blowing it dead?
For all plays; not just a pass OOB. The ball is dead by rule; the whistle is merely an indicator the play is already over. The only time a whistle kills the play is if it's an inadvertent whistle.
Specifically on the play in question: The ball is dead when it strikes anything OOB....player, ground, official, down marker; stopping the clock.
Posted on 12/7/09 at 11:17 pm to arrakis
Thanks. Good call IMO then.
Posted on 12/7/09 at 11:29 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
Dave Parry agrees. He reviewed the film and said they did exactly what they should have done. The crew missed some calls during the game, but they got this one RIGHT.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 12:48 am to Freddy Shoop
quote:
If they kick the ball into the end zone, they win the game, simple as that.
I have no clue why EVERYONE assumes an automatic win if Nebraska doesn't kick it out of bounds.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 12:50 am to lsutothetop
quote:
game clock on its own is not reviewable
That's been proven false on here already.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 12:52 am to josh336
quote:
As the writer in 1 of those links said, there were 24 other incompletions in that game where that extra second ticked off and they did nothing about it. They should all be treated the same way.
True.
So if you're favorite team was Nebraska, or that happened to whoever your favorite team is, you would be cool with it?
Posted on 12/8/09 at 7:44 am to shel311
quote:
I have no clue why EVERYONE assumes an automatic win if Nebraska doesn't kick it out of bounds
the way texas was moving the ball up and down the field at will against suh and the nebraska D, the extra 20 yards meant nothing, you're right ..
Posted on 12/8/09 at 3:19 pm to TigahRag
quote:
the way texas was moving the ball up and down the field at will against suh and the nebraska D, the extra 20 yards meant nothing, you're right ..
So it was automatic? No doubt, Texas has ZERO chance if the ball isn't kicked out of bounds??
Kinda funny considering Texas got 19 yards on 1 play, then another 15 on the penalty.
If the drive started at the 20, that 34 yards STILL puts them inside the 50 with, what, about 1 minute left.
Yea, victory was automatic, LOL.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 3:29 pm to shel311
quote:
I have no clue why EVERYONE assumes an automatic win if Nebraska doesn't kick it out of bounds.
They started the drive at the what 40-45yd line? Then they get what amounts to a 30 yd gain on the horsecollar. You just never know, and history isn't on their side. It would be very difficult for them to have gotten into field goal position had Nebraska not giftwrapped it.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 4:40 pm to shel311
quote:
I have no clue why EVERYONE assumes an automatic win if Nebraska doesn't kick it out of bounds.
Texas ran 4 plays in the final 1:44. 4 plays. Plus the FG. If Nebraska kicks it in bounds, I assume that Texas plays the clock much better and runs a few more plays. So I don't think it's a given at all that Nebraska wins if the don't kick the ball OB. But their chances are much better, obviously. I never thought I'd see such poor clock management from a top-notch coach again.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 6:56 pm to josh336
quote:
As the writer in 1 of those links said, there were 24 other incompletions in that game where that extra second ticked off and they did nothing about it. They should all be treated the same way.
Wouldn't that mean that there would have been 24 MORE seconds in that game?
I get your drift, though.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 7:00 pm to arrakis
quote:
Sound like you and Bleeding Purple are long on butthurt over the call and short on knowledge.
And on what basis do you say that?
Oh, and to the guy saying that what I'd said had already been disproved... false, considering that at the time I made that claim it hadn't been disproved.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News