Started By
Message
Oh well, I would have probably missed Williams all together. 
2
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:29 am to ChopSuey
The call was made on the field. The replay booth confirmed. That's the harsh reality. I'll never bitch about it, and any Bama fan that does is just a pussy IMO.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:30 am to ChopSuey
If Reid had ripped the ball out at the end, it would have definitely been an incomplete pass because Williams didn't have control as he took it to the ground. Because Reid took the ball while Williams didn't have control, it was an INT. People are confusing simultaneous possession with two guys fighting for the ball. Simultaneous possession only occurs when both players firmly have control of the ball. Neither player had control of the ball until they hit the ground and Reid took control without the ball hitting the ground.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:33 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
My opinion was Maze floated the shite out of that pass
Yep. And you can't really expect a WR to be a very accurate passer. Bama was driving, and there was no reason to try something that risky against a turnover hungry defense.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:40 am to BayouBlitz
quote:
Bama was driving, and there was no reason to try something that risky against a turnover hungry defense.
There has to be an ulterior motive. Saban tried to sabotage Bama's chances to win last night. Right?
Saban and his assistants were just trying to do what all that came before him tried to do. They were just trying to win the game.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:47 am to MTurbo
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:52 am to ReauxlTide222
ReauxlTide222
I agree but look closer at the play...he had to rush his throw due to pressure as well. That could also be the reason for the lofty throw.
quote:
My opinion was Maze floated the shite out of that pass
I agree but look closer at the play...he had to rush his throw due to pressure as well. That could also be the reason for the lofty throw.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 11:54 am to MTurbo
You have to control the ball through the whole play for it to be a catch. The bama player lost control as he hit the ground and the LSU player caught it, therefore LSU ball... Take away the LSU player and the bama player loses the ball as he hits the ground, and it's an incomplete pass. Good call by the refs
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:01 pm to Elleshoe
quote:
EXACTLY. Not enough evidence to overturn EITHER call.
quote:
not according to the officials. They confirmed the call.
Dude what?
Even when there's not enough evidence they still come out and say the play is confirmed. The ref never walks back out and says there wasn't enough evidence so the play stands as called.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:03 pm to MTurbo
The receiver has to have control of the ball through the play. He lost control either falling or when he hit the ground. Since the fell into the lap of the DB then it's an interception. Very clear.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:06 pm to BUCKMSTR7399
wouldn't have mattered because Bama would have eventually missed the field goal
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:08 pm to MTurbo
I think if it had been ruled on the field as a catch for Bama then it would have been reviewed and reversed to an incompletion. But the int ruling negated that and there wasn't a way they could overrule that and say it was a catch.
If he hadn't bobble the ball then it would have been a catch for Bama.
Reid left his guy and chased this receiver down. Just "boring" ole defensive play that people don't like to see and that doesn't win championships.
If he hadn't bobble the ball then it would have been a catch for Bama.
Reid left his guy and chased this receiver down. Just "boring" ole defensive play that people don't like to see and that doesn't win championships.
This post was edited on 11/6/11 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:11 pm to jaf 65
quote:
Karma is a bitch.....
Patrick Peterson Int vs Ala.
LINK
bad call vs good call
Video evidence showed conclusively, per the refs, that this was an INT.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:11 pm to MTurbo
fricking verne....what a gd homer
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:13 pm to attheua
quote:
wouldn't have mattered because Bama would have eventually missed the field goal
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:14 pm to Tigerbait337
quote:
Interception..BUT:
If the refs call that a catch on the field, they wouldn't overturn it to an INT. That's how bang-bang that play was
agreed!
had the ball been thrown correctly this conversation would never happen!
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:16 pm to Elleshoe
quote:Yup. . .if they ruled it a catch, it would have been overturned.
not according to the officials. They confirmed the call.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:17 pm to The Boat
quote:No, they say ruling stands.
Even when there's not enough evidence they still come out and say the play is confirmed.
When they see indisputable video evidence that they made the correct call, they say call is confirmed.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:26 pm to Stuttgart Tiger
stuttgart, how could it have been an incompletion? The ball never hit the ground. I really can't even believe this is being argued at all. Watching it live it was hard to tell. Watching the replay, it could not be more crystal clear. He definately lost control BEFORE hitting the ground and the ball was never possessed by anyone on the ground until Reid had it firmly. Int, no doubt hence the "confirmation" of the call.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 12:27 pm to Roaad
Then there's been some lying arse refs in te past.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News