Started By
Message
re: Auburn Football Deserves the Death Penalty
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:16 pm to Tigerdew
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:16 pm to Tigerdew
quote:#33 for Auburn is the only one who has a clear shot at the ball, and no one is interfering with him.
This was and always will be pass interference.
But enough of that. It wasn't pass interference, and every official involved agrees, and what they say, and how they interpret the rules, goes. What we think doesn't matter, and what happened years ago doesn't matter. Hopefully we Tiger fans can have a better understanding of the rules this year.
1
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:18 pm to Ramah59
quote:Boo frickin hoo. Get over it already. I said this in another thread, but if you score ONE touchdown during the game you win. If you stop AU, just as you did the entire game, in 04 you win. Stop acting like someone from the Pac 1 or the Big Sissy and blaming someone else. You lost. It was 2 and 4 years ago. Move on. Not to mention, you are going nuts over a blog. To quote Wesley Snipes in Passenger 57 "I know folks who say they saw Elvis in the #*%!!@$ mall! You gonna believe that *#!% too?"
Ramah59
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:18 pm to wahoocs
Everyone outside the border of Alabama understands this game was not only poorly officiated but clearly unfairly officiated. First, that photo is worth a million words. Anyone who says that was not interference is just stupid. The thing is that there were several more calls that were equally as bad.
I've actually heard the same "investigate" comment made by other refs who don't give two shits about LSU. The officiating that day bordered on criminal.
I've actually heard the same "investigate" comment made by other refs who don't give two shits about LSU. The officiating that day bordered on criminal.
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:19 pm to TigerInBamaLand
quote:
There's really no question that it was pass interference. There's no vast Auburn conspiracy, it was a missed call - happens all the time.
But that was pass interference.
Exactly. It was a screwed up call that went our way. The thing I don't understand is what rantards want us(Auburn fans)to do about it? Demand that Tuberville forfeit the game? I just hope that this game has no controversy and we are up by 28 at half time.
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:19 pm to xiv
quote:Correct.
and what they say, and how they interpret the rules, goes.
quote:I don't see how you can think this is true - had the defender not deflected the pass it would have hit Early even though he was being tackled at the time.
#33 for Auburn is the only one who has a clear shot at the ball
If Early was not being interfered with he could have made a play on the ball and possibly prevented the tip. Would he have, I don't know, but that is inconsequential. He was prevented the opportunity.
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:20 pm to Tigerark
quote:Fixed.
Anyone who says that was not interference is correct.
There's no pass interference. Arguable defensive holding, but no pass interference. Uncatchable by the offensive player, with or without contact.
You =
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:21 pm to AUCatfish
quote:And LSU has had our share of those too - just saying.
Exactly. It was a screwed up call that went our way.
quote:Key word:
thing I don't understand is what rantards want us(Auburn fans)to do about it?
quote:
rantards
quote:
I just hope that this game has no controversy
quote:
and we are up by 28 at half time.
SCREW YOU DUDE!Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:22 pm to TigerInBamaLand
quote:But the defender did deflect the pass because he was playing good defense. That means it was an uncatchable ball to Doucet. Could the officials have called illegal contact downfield? Yes. Pass interference? No. That ball wasn't Doucet's to catch.
had the defender not deflected the pass it would have hit Early even though he was being tackled at the time.
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:23 pm to TigerInBamaLand
Didn't LSU have the ball INSIDE the AU 50 yd line 5 TIMES in the 1st half???? And scored ZERO points. Blame the refs all you want, but LSU lost that game because of shitty play-calling. BOTTOM LINE!!!!
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:24 pm to TigerInBamaLand
quote:
SCREW YOU DUDE!
Listen, it's the only way to end some of the bad blood between us. We beat y'all by 48 and nobody gets upset with calls, or replay officials. I am not advocating this in self interest, but in the interest of inner SEC peace.
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:24 pm to xiv
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:26 pm to xiv
quote:After the interference. If this were legal the CB could tackle the WR on EVERY PLAY as long as he could tip the ball before it hit the ground.
But the defender did deflect the pass because he was playing good defense
Seriously - it was a missed call.
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:26 pm to AUCatfish
quote:In that case...
I am not advocating this in self interest, but in the interest of inner SEC peace.
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:30 pm to xiv
quote:
But the defender did deflect the pass because he was playing good defense. That means it was an uncatchable ball to Doucet. Could the officials have called illegal contact downfield? Yes. Pass interference? No. That ball wasn't Doucet's to catch.
CB was on Doucet before the deflection so it IS interference. Not to mention, the dumb arse took his helmet off on the field which should have been another 15yds.
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:32 pm to TigerInBamaLand
quote:I've watched it a million times, and I disagree. It was a bad pass thrown behind Early, and the defender had a clear shot at the ball. The best Early could have hoped for (had there not been contact, which was likely "defensive holding" that wasn't called--tant pis) was incidental contact with #33, where both players were going for the ball and collided--no interference.
Really? Watch it again. It would have hit Early.
It was determined by everyone who has any authority on the matter that it wasn't pass interference. I find their decision at least arguable, and that's why I believe the no-call to be acceptable, if not correct.
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:34 pm to xiv
quote:Well at least there's some part of this we agree on
I disagree
quote:I don't see how you can think that this is true but I guess there will be no convincing you so
It was a bad pass thrown behind Early
and Geaux Tigers. Hopefully there will be no controversy this year.
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:35 pm to Tigerdew
quote:Interesting point; if unsportsmanlike conduct had happened, and if that had been the only call, I believe Auburn still would have had the ball since the penalty was a dead ball foul after LSU failed a 4th down conversion. The ball was Auburn's the instant that it hit the ground as an incomplete pass. 1st and 25 Auburn.
Not to mention, the dumb arse took his helmet off on the field which should have been another 15yds.
The unsportsmanlike conduct no-call, which was a bad no-call, seems moot on the surface, except for the fact that two minutes later the game ended with LSU completing a pass five yards from a game-winning touchdown. I find this situation much more interesting than the perceived pass interference.
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:38 pm to dukke v
quote:
Didn't LSU have the ball INSIDE the AU 50 yd line 5 TIMES in the 1st half????
Nope.
quote:
And scored ZERO points
Nope.
Impressive, dukke, you managed to fit two full loads of bullshite into one line of text.
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:41 pm to xiv
I really don't think you understand the rule yourself.
The receiver (Doucet) was contacted (tackled) after the ball was thrown. By definition, this would be pass interference, as opposed to defensive holding. Defensive holding would occur prior to release of the ball.
All of this is regardless of the batted ball, unless the ball was deflected prior to contact, which also is not the case.
I'm no longer crying about any of it, but I must say I have become much more familiar with the SEC crews, which games they call, and I do look for tendencies.
Like I said before, the eyes will be upon them this time, and I'm hoping that scheme and ability are the deciding factors in this game, unlike the last one. Or at the very least, I hope the officials are less of a factor.
The receiver (Doucet) was contacted (tackled) after the ball was thrown. By definition, this would be pass interference, as opposed to defensive holding. Defensive holding would occur prior to release of the ball.
All of this is regardless of the batted ball, unless the ball was deflected prior to contact, which also is not the case.
I'm no longer crying about any of it, but I must say I have become much more familiar with the SEC crews, which games they call, and I do look for tendencies.
Like I said before, the eyes will be upon them this time, and I'm hoping that scheme and ability are the deciding factors in this game, unlike the last one. Or at the very least, I hope the officials are less of a factor.
Posted on 9/12/08 at 4:42 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
Nope.
Yes they did.
quote:
Nope.
Ok they scored 3 points!!! BUT that game was lost by BAD play calling!! If you can't see that then you are STILL wearing those glasses.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News