re: Best picture of PP Interception

quote:

---

Buckeye Fan 19

---

He's dancing on the head of a pin. Read the A.R.'s attached to that rule to see what it actually addresses.

Also, check the play in accordance to 4-2-3a

quote:

---

A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game official or anything else that is on or outside a boundary line.

---

He looks like he's touching it at one point in the video. I really want to see a frame by frame of the play from CBS's angle, or the angle most likely used for instant replay.

quote:

---

Skimmed over that little word there, eh?

---

His right foot was out.

He initially touched it in the air, but was still touching it as his right foot landed out of bounds.

Imagine a guy jumping in the air for a ball. He catches it in the air and lands out of bounds. This is not illegal touching, it's an incompletion.

The stipulation about him being "airborne" would be if he ran out of bounds, ran back into play, jumped up to catch a ball, and before he landed, threw it to a teammate who caught it. That's illegal touching. It doesn't apply in this scenario.

You're confused on what that ruling is.

For illegal touching to be called, he has to go out of bounds first. That's the ruling.

I only feel compelled to find further evidence because some people want to suggest that there is some conspiracy. It was a tough call to make one way or the other. I don't understand why people can't see it for that.

quote:

---

I don't know how anyone can look at that picture and come to the conclusion that Jones somehow touched the ball. It's physically impossible from the positions of both of their bodies and the location of the ball. The stupidity on this board never ceases to amaze me.

---

not saying he touched it but to say it was physically impossible for him to do so is wrong

quote:

---

But JJ never touched the ball at all during the play so why does this rule even matter?

---

Mr. Rules Guru is trying to apply the wrong rule to his argument. He knows how to search.....he doesn't know how to understand

quote:

---

It was a tough call to make one way or the other.

---

This is what I'm saying.

If it was called an INT on the field, it should have stayed an INT. You can't tell with 100% certainty that JJ touches it.

Going the other way, since it was called an incompletion, it should stay that, since you can't tell with 100% certainty he doesn't touch it while out of bounds.

There's not conclusive evidence, either way, that's my point. I'm not arguing that it's clear that JJ touches it, I'm arguing you can't tell he doesn't.

Also, I don't think anyone's arguing PP didn't make the catch with at least one foot in bounds. I think everyone acknowledges that.

quote:

---

He knows how to search.....he doesn't know how to understand

---

I think he just lacks the intellectual capability because his fault has been pointed out over and over again.

Seriously, the refs were against LSU all night. If you can't figure out why the SEC would pave the way for a FL-AL matchup in the SECC, then you obviously don't understand why rich assholes can pull major tail. It's all about the $$$$$$$$.

to the AL deny-ers. AU is about to have a lot of new fans in purple and gold.