Started By
Message
Is this pass interference?
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:20 pm
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:20 pm
If no, why?
If yes, why?
83
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:20 pm to texag7
Obsessed
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:21 pm to texag7
Nope.
LSU on defense = no PI
LSU on defense = no PI
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:21 pm to texag7
Well, it's not Ole Miss, and it's not A&M, so...
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:22 pm to texag7
Yes, he impeded the receiver without making a play on the ball.
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:22 pm to texag7
It’s only PI if it’s at a pivotal point in the game. It’s not the penalty itself, but how crucial it is to the outcome of the game.
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:24 pm to texag7
quote:
If yes, why?
They weren't playing Auburn.
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:24 pm to texag7
According to Gary it wasn’t. He said that is how you are taught 
I mean, technically he didn’t impede the receivers ability to catch the ball. But he would have certainly knocked the player out of bounds if he had caught it.
I mean, technically he didn’t impede the receivers ability to catch the ball. But he would have certainly knocked the player out of bounds if he had caught it.
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:24 pm to hwnd
If the ball wasnt under thrown then maybe.. There's no such thing as face guarding eithee
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:25 pm to texag7
Possibly. Now post the mugging by the MSU player on the LSU receiver in the end zone on the first LSU scoring drive. LSU settles for 3 instead of a likely 6 because of that missed call.
This post was edited on 10/20/19 at 9:26 pm
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:26 pm to texag7
No because lsu will always get the call that benefits them.
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:26 pm to texag7
Why would you care though? It's not a and m... The officiating is being called into question regarding Alabama not Texas a and m, so again, what's your motive
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:27 pm to texag7
Probably
That said WR didn't stop and get run over
Has to help the ref there a little no?
That said WR didn't stop and get run over
Has to help the ref there a little no?
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:27 pm to texag7
On first look He made contact before the ball even got there, and if you want to add in the head not turned for good measure you can.
However, I would need to slow it down even more because it almost looks like he got lucky and timed contact right at the time the ball touched the receiver's hands.
This post was edited on 10/20/19 at 9:28 pm
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:27 pm to texag7
If the 3rd and goal mugging of our WR wasn't, this sure as hell isn't.
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:27 pm to pioneerbasketball
Right, except see the missed interference call on the end zone pass on LSU’s first drive.
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:27 pm to texag7
Could it have been called? Absolutely
But it wasn’t
No face guarding penalty in ncaa
Ball hitting defender in the back probably had something to do with it
But it wasn’t
No face guarding penalty in ncaa
Ball hitting defender in the back probably had something to do with it
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:28 pm to Mizzou4ever
quote:
Yes, he impeded the receiver without making a play on the ball.
This
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:28 pm to texag7
No, mainly because the WR didn't work back for the ball. Chaisson was running step for step with him.
You'll see that kind of play flagged though. Some crews call it tighter than others.
You'll see that kind of play flagged though. Some crews call it tighter than others.
Posted on 10/20/19 at 9:29 pm to texag7
Are you gay?
If yes, why?
If no, wait...
If yes, why?
If no, wait...
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News