- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
tiger45br
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | baton rouge |
| Biography: | tiger fan for decades |
| Interests: | college sports |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 20 |
| Registered on: | 8/27/2009 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Robert Smith is an ahole
Posted by tiger45br on 11/20/10 at 10:40 pm to TigerFever
The bias is so obvious!
0
probably started from a burning barn
Tbh I've let that call go
You have the right mindset. Saturday I thought I was going to have a stroke during the game between that call and our team's 2nd half play.
You have the right mindset. Saturday I thought I was going to have a stroke during the game between that call and our team's 2nd half play.
We get our fair share
Like your positive attitude in light of your avatar picture (if that's what you call it?)
Like your positive attitude in light of your avatar picture (if that's what you call it?)
The bottom line we need to remember is, that this call did not change the outcome of the game.
It does however become frustrating when it occurs year after year & seems to more frequently go against LSU --- perhaps that's just my biased view. And the illegal contact was not too subtle since it was obvious from my seat (sec. 224, row 1, seat #13) and the refs are supposed to be watching for it.
It does however become frustrating when it occurs year after year & seems to more frequently go against LSU --- perhaps that's just my biased view. And the illegal contact was not too subtle since it was obvious from my seat (sec. 224, row 1, seat #13) and the refs are supposed to be watching for it.
re: the onside kick
Posted by tiger45br on 9/7/10 at 5:22 pm to DoubleDeuce
a. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground --- this statement is referring back to the initial described situation where "a player of the receiving team" ... "is beyond the neutral zone"
c. This is the statement that described what actually happened ---- "it is an interference foul if the kicking team contacts the potential receiver before, or simultaneous to, his first touching the ball"
c. This is the statement that described what actually happened ---- "it is an interference foul if the kicking team contacts the potential receiver before, or simultaneous to, his first touching the ball"
re: the onside kick
Posted by tiger45br on 9/7/10 at 5:09 pm to whiteyc777
Whether or not they are attempting to receive the ball, they are still eligible receivers on a kick.
So, I have shown you clear video evidence of receivers being hit within the 10 yard zone. Anything else?
You have not shown any video evidence of what happened during the LSU-UNC game which was the point of discussion. Discussing this any further is pointless since you are not addressing what actually happened- a player in the process of receiving the kick within 10 yds. & being hit prior to touching the ball.
So, I have shown you clear video evidence of receivers being hit within the 10 yard zone. Anything else?
You have not shown any video evidence of what happened during the LSU-UNC game which was the point of discussion. Discussing this any further is pointless since you are not addressing what actually happened- a player in the process of receiving the kick within 10 yds. & being hit prior to touching the ball.
re: the onside kick
Posted by tiger45br on 9/7/10 at 4:55 pm to whiteyc777
but they ALL are NOT attempting to receive the ball within the 10 yd. zone
re: the onside kick
Posted by tiger45br on 9/7/10 at 4:52 pm to whiteyc777
Post all the videos you can find where the onside kick receiver is WITHIN the 10 yd. zone and is being hit by a kicking team player BEFORE the receiving team player touches the ball to support your statement "it occurs on nearly onside kick attempt"
re: the onside kick
Posted by tiger45br on 9/7/10 at 4:43 pm to whiteyc777
and for what reason are we supposed to think your opinion is more informed than his?
re: the onside kick
Posted by tiger45br on 9/7/10 at 4:24 pm to whiteyc777
not with the receiving player. Just admit you're wrong and move on.
re: the onside kick
Posted by tiger45br on 9/7/10 at 4:21 pm to whiteyc777
The link you provided shows the ball well past the 10 yd. neutral zone and the kicking team players are not making contact with the receiver prior to him touching the ball. Again --- the ball touching the ground prior to the 10 yd. mark does not allow for the kicking team to receive the ball or contacting a receiver prior to the receiver touching the ball. Otherwise each onside kick would be onto the ground parallel to the kicking team's line of play.
re: the onside kick
Posted by tiger45br on 9/7/10 at 3:09 pm to whiteyc777
Just because the ball hits the ground does not = the ball is free for the kicking team to recover. Think about it for a moment - if that would be true, the kicker would simply kick the ball 2 yards off the tee & the player next to the kicker would fall on it. Most onside kicks involve the ball hitting the ground prior to 10 yards.
re: the onside kick
Posted by tiger45br on 9/7/10 at 2:57 pm to XbengalTiger
Bottom line: Ball has to go 10 yards before kicking team can recover it (even if it "hits the ground" before 10 yards or otherwise the kicker would kick the ball next to the tee) or if a member of the receiving team touches it prior to 10 yards (prior to being hit by member of the kicking team). The contact on that kick was directly in front of me and the UNC player definitely hit the LSU receiver prior to him touching the ball. Should have been a penalty.
Popular
26
