Started By
Message
PP7 still mad, pals. Oh he still real mad......
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:37 pm
29
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:37 pm to Gump
Too bad it wasn't an interception.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:38 pm to Gump
I'd be mad too. That is a pretty terrible frick up by the refs
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:38 pm to Gump
Well he's not wrong
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:38 pm to Gump
Trolling the creepy Bama fans that follow an opposing ex player
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:39 pm to Gump
Obviously shopped
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:39 pm to Gump
quote:
Oh he still real mad......
Well it was obvious from multiple camera angles and obvious to every tv viewer that he was in bounds.... so yea still mad.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:40 pm to Gump
Photo doesn't show shite.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:41 pm to Gump
I just love how everyone looks at pictures of PP7 clearly inbounds and thinks that proves something. The issue was not whether he was in bounds. The issue is if he was in bounds with complete control of the ball and if there was "indisputable video evidence" of that, since the call on the field was in incomplete pass.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:41 pm to Gump
"Were you out of bounds" should be a question on the Wonderlic. Peterson might have gotten one right that way.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:41 pm to Gump
Tom Ritter was officiating that day, so therefore it wasn't an INT.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:42 pm to Monticello
quote:
bounds. The issue is if he was in bounds with complete control of the ball and if there was "indisputable video evidence" of that, since the call on the field was in incomplete pass.
thanks for the clarification, bama fan.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:42 pm to schexyoung
quote:
Well it was obvious from multiple camera angles and obvious to every tv viewer that he was in bounds.... so yea still mad.
as a neutral party, I thought it was a close call. you have to look at it from where he had control of the ball, not when it first touched his hands.
I think it could have gone either way.
I have seen the video multiple times, but what was the initial ruling on the field?
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:42 pm to schexyoung
quote:
Well it was obvious from multiple camera angles and obvious to every tv viewer that he was in bounds.... so yea still mad.
He was inbounds there, but out of bounds when he got possession.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:44 pm to JuiceTerry
Roll Tide!!!
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:44 pm to Gump
Ya'll got very lucky that game. How much did you guys pay off the refs?
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:44 pm to Monticello
quote:
he issue is if he was in bounds with complete control of the ball
Had control all the way.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:44 pm to Monticello
There were plenty of camera angles that showed Peterson had complete control of the ball.
I mean shite, he was tucking the ball away.
LINK
I mean shite, he was tucking the ball away.
LINK
Posted on 7/24/13 at 2:45 pm to TreyAnastasio
quote:
He was inbounds there, but out of bounds when he got possession
The ball doesn't have to be tucked away to have possession.
Page 1 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News