PnG Exsanguination

quote:

---

As far as conspiracy theories go my most logical guess would be JJ was not the real kicker but knows who was.

---

Full blown conspiracy to follow:

Ooh! Or maybe JJ was the real kicker and J. Lee went to the police to dime him out so that there would be no quarterback controversy. LSU "magic" happens and the charges are downgraded, but everyone knows Lee was the snitch. They hold onto him just long enough for JJ to get over his suspension. Les allows him to stay on the team but the other players let him know, in no uncertain terms, that they won't play with Lee under center.

How does that work?

I had to check to see if this was a thread from a year ago.

Considering how the last game went down, the secret play was called "Brockers Beefy Hand" and it worked like a charm... once.

Discuss

quote:

---

14 carries

---

15 yards

quote:

---

Blocked FG...

---

This was the Big Play of the game for LSU.

quote:

---

Rule happened at request of the coaches

---

Question is whether it's being implemented as the coaches had intended.

quote:

---

Glad it happened in a blow out and can be considered a learning moment

---

Assuming the fine refs in that game don't decide to start selectively enforcing other rules in that section. There are something like eight of them.

quote:

---

I don't think you can compare ticky tack holding vs ticky tack taunting. Holding during game play can be hard to determine...

---

Why? Holding doesn't even require determining intent, it's a strictly physical action. You see a jersey being plucked, then a ref would be in their rights saying that someone on the O-line has clearly kept the defender from advancing by grasping with hands or arms. But refs definitely don't call each and every one of these. They call the egregious ones.

quote:

---

Taunting on the other hand is easy to determine whether it's split second or otherwise.

---

I guess it is if you're going by the dictionary definition of taunting. The refs are going by the NCAA definition. The two are different, which I think a lot of people are having trouble understanding. The NCAA spells out specific examples and then provides for incredibly broad interpretation. Reminds me of Potter Stewart's definition of pornography: "You know it when you see it?" Essentially, the absolutely most subjective way of determining something?

Seriously, what if a ref decides that sneering at or giving an opponent the evil eye is taunting? The letter of the rule would allow a ref to call it this way and negate a TD.

quote:

---

If you're going to go to the trouble of quoting the rule, don't omit the line that immediately precedes what you cited as the rule

---

I did in the other thread about this. That actually supports the case even more so that this was a ridiculous call. Since that phrase opens up literally EVERYTHING to potentially be adjudicated as a taunting penalty, the referees are then expected to exercise careful judgement in what they are going to include in their definition of taunting beyond what is explicitly spelled out in the rules. To include a literally split-second action that is almost impossible to notice without the aid of slow motion technology seems to be stretching the intent of this rule, particularly as "excessive" celebration.