Started By
Message
re: Best picture of PP Interception
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:18 pm to Charles Bronson
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:18 pm to Charles Bronson
Was that supposed to show that he wasn't touching it? That actually makes it look like he was a bit. Still I doubt that it was the reason it wasn't overturned.
1
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:19 pm to Charles Bronson
quote:
Does this matter?
I would think so. Maybe not. But it would make sense that it would.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 10:21 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:21 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
I'd like for the SEC to issue a statement or something... I'm almost positive it would corroborate with what I have said.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:22 pm to Charles Bronson
quote:
I'd like for the SEC to issue a statement or something...
Same. Chances are, they won't, though.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:23 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:Yeah, thinking about it some more, it probably would.
I would think so. Maybe not. But it would make sense that it would.
Regardless, I don't think Julio touching is the issue at hand. I really don't think that's the crucial issue in debating whether or not it was an INT. I really couldn't see that being the reasoning behind why they didn't overturn it.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:23 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
It looked like a pick to me if he got that right foot in which I thought he did but this angle wasnt available to the replay official; hate it happened happy for the win I think Bama earned it, and you can mail this picture to everyone in the press unless the refs had this angle it means absolutely nothing and does nothing to prove a conspiracy. I have said it before the refs had no reason to call in favor of Bama. If LSU/Fla or Bama won out any of the three would go to the NC anyone who says different is either a homer or just to obstinate to listen to logic.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:24 pm to Charles Bronson
quote:
It looks like Julio ever slightly has his left fingers on the ball, IMO.
Like all the others, it's not clear.
However, in that picture he's not OOB. Unless someone wants to say his feet are on the ground...and it's no longer a loose ball.
What the "see the proof" crowd doesn't get is you can't rely on a still picture alone to make a ruling.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:25 pm to arrakis
quote:He was in the air during that, but isn't he classified as OOB once he steps OOB, which he had prior to lunging for the ball.
However, in that picture he's not OOB. Unless someone wants to say his feet are on the ground...and it's no longer a loose ball.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:26 pm to Charles Bronson
quote:
Regardless, I don't think Julio touching is the issue at hand. I really don't think that's the crucial issue in debating whether or not it was an INT. I really couldn't see that being the reasoning behind why they didn't overturn it.
I don't think so, either. In all honesty, I doubt the officials were even thinking about that, at the time. That's why I think it could/should have stayed incomplete, though.
You make an interesting point, though, about his feet earlier. And I think that's probably why they felt they didn't have enough evidence to overturn.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:26 pm to lynxcat
Best gif of No Call
courtesy of LSUFreek
The Fark board is really helping ease the pain
courtesy of LSUFreek
The Fark board is really helping ease the pain
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:28 pm to Charles Bronson
quote:
I'd like for the SEC to issue a statement or something... I'm almost positive it would corroborate with what I have said.
I'd be stunned if the news release is anything other than "I reviewed the play and discussed it with both coaches".
Next Summer Redding is scheduled to speak at a clinic I'm attending. You can book it.....I'm going to get a few minutes of his time.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:28 pm to Charles Bronson
quote:
I'd like for the SEC to issue a statement or something... I'm almost positive it would corroborate with what I have said.
They're too busy fixing the next game...
I agree with you. It's a lot closer than LSU fans want to admit.
1. When did he have possession?
2. Did he get a foot down in bounds while maintaining possession?
Obviously the replay official didn't believe he had possession of the ball until after his left foot came up. Therefore, his right foot has to come down completely in bounds. Judging by the angle he had, it would be impossible to say with 100% accuracy that his right foot was totally in bounds. Had it been ruled an interception on the field, the replay official wouldn't have had the evidence to overturn that call either. It was very close.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:30 pm to dkreller
okay, I am almost certain that EVERYONE (excluding the dumbarse SEC refs) knows he was in. I have to admit I was VERY pissed when i saw the call. But can we please get over it, we lost. Whatever these people on the rant say wont go back in time and change the call. The game is over.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:35 pm to Charles Bronson
quote:
He was in the air during that, but isn't he classified as OOB once he steps OOB, which he had prior to lunging for the ball.
That's why a still picture doesn't cut it...we don't know what happened before that instant.
It depends on the circumstances of him being OOB. Forced out, then it would be no. It has to be voluntarily.
But, the other issue negates his touching; it's not a loose ball because PP is grasping it.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:35 pm to lil tiga
They were almost certainly only looking at the right foot (either that or talking to Slive LOL) cause they couldn't say with certainty that he had control and possession before that, hence the divot argument out the window, and then the right looks like its in but its a bad angle and you can't see any green between his toe and the line so they didn't overturn it.
Its why I was pretty sure they wouldn't overturn it even though I thought it was a pick.
Its why I was pretty sure they wouldn't overturn it even though I thought it was a pick.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:47 pm to Crede15
quote:
They were almost certainly only looking at the right foot (either that or talking to Slive LOL) cause they couldn't say with certainty that he had control and possession before that, hence the divot argument out the window, and then the right looks like its in but its a bad angle and you can't see any green between his toe and the line so they didn't overturn it.
Almost my exact words.
Either way it turns out to be, this is easily one of the toughest calls I've ever seen.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:48 pm to Charles Bronson
quote:
It looks like Julio ever so slightly has his left fingers on the ball, IMO.
I agree, except he's still in the air at this point.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:50 pm to arrakis
quote:
Either way it turns out to be, this is easily one of the toughest calls I've ever seen.
Agreed. If the call would have been the other way, Bama fans would be howling the same way as LSU fans. Of this we can be certain. My problem is with other calls during the game.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 10:51 pm to Alabama Slim
quote:
Jones touched the ball first while he had stepped out and the ball is at that moment out of play. so it doesn't really matter.
wow you couldn't be more wrong, that would be illegal touching
If you were simply being sarcastic by bad
Posted on 11/9/09 at 11:06 pm to Crede15
quote:
Was that supposed to show that he wasn't touching it? That actually makes it look like he was a bit. Still I doubt that it was the reason it wasn't overturned.
That is showing the absolute earliest he may have "touched" it and been out of bounds... and at that point it is in PPs hands.. so Int.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News