Started By
Message
re: Most infamous games in SEC since 1992
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:46 pm to NYCAuburn
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:46 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
There was no way in hell he could have made a play on the ball. Impossible.
Might want to brush up on the rule book
You have a misunderstanding regarding the rules that govern catchable and uncatchable passes.
The fact that a defender was in position to make a play rendering the ball uncatchable is irrelevant so long as the offense in question occurs he before he actually makes said play.
1
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:48 pm to magildachunks
quote:
And what is this qualifier?
The ball has to be catchable, and the receiver has to have the ability to make a play on the ball. If the ball was uncatchable, no pi can be called.
He could not have changed directions and moved 2yards in order to be able to do that. The interference did not hinder this ability since he was traveling the opposite direction and the ball was made uncatchable.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:50 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
The ball has to be catchable, and the receiver has to have the ability to make a play on the ball. If the ball was uncatchable, no pi can be called.
He could not have changed directions and moved 2yards in order to be able to do that. The interference did not hinder this ability since he was traveling the opposite direction and the ball was made uncatchable.
Interference occurred before the tip. That is interference.
Ball was heading straight for Doucet. Interference happens, ball is then tipped.
Interference.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:50 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The fact that a defender was in position to make a play rendering the ball uncatchable is irrelevant so long as the offense in question occurs he before he actually makes said play.
In order for pi to be called, the ball must be catchable, it was not. He was not in a position to make the catch even if he not been touched. So it is absolutely relevant. Had the receiver been in a different position, or moving in a different direction it could have been called
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:50 pm to 870Hog
quote:
Phanton fumbles vs Auburn.
This. I've hated Auburn ever since. Tis at an all time high currently
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:51 pm to magildachunks
Again in order for interference to called, what must the ball be?
This happens quite a bit with balls going out of bounds in the end zone on a regular basis as well.
This happens quite a bit with balls going out of bounds in the end zone on a regular basis as well.
This post was edited on 4/29/14 at 7:52 pm
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:54 pm to FourThreeForty
2003 "Fade in Dade" game against duh U...
2003 "Swindle in the Swamp" game with f$u
2004 "Slapgate" game with the vols...
2003 "Swindle in the Swamp" game with f$u
2004 "Slapgate" game with the vols...
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:56 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Again in order for interference to called, what must the ball be?
This happens quite a bit with balls going out of bounds in the end zone on a regular basis as well.
The ball was going straight for him.
But this is tiresome. You cannot argue with an Aubie. They are the same fans who refuse to admit that Ramsey chopblocked Dorsey because, and I quote, "The refs didn't call it. It didn't happen."
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:58 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
In order for pi to be called, the ball must be catchable,
Correct, the problem is you dont understand what defines catchable and uncatchable. A ball is not uncatchable simply because there is a man between the receiver and the ball.
quote:
it was not.
Had the defender not been there to tip the ball it would have been, which is how the situation is treated until he actually does tip it. It was tipped after the receiver was interfered with.
quote:
He was not in a position to make the catch even if he not been touched.
Yes he was. Whether or not he actually would have is irrelevant. The ball was headed right for him and was tipped by a defender in front of him, which happened after the penalty.
quote:
So it is absolutely relevant.
It isnt relevant at all. Sorry.
This post was edited on 4/29/14 at 8:00 pm
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:58 pm to magildachunks
quote:
The ball was going straight for him.
Correct and he was headed down/across the field away from the ball, the ball was tipped in an area, because of the receivers previous motion, could not have made a play.
I went back and looked a the pereira quote, if its the same game in reference he also states the receiver could have made a play on the ball. Big difference.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:59 pm to srotaG adirolF
Posted on 4/29/14 at 8:02 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Correct and he was headed down/across the field away from the ball, the ball was tipped in an area, because of the receivers previous motion, could not have made a play.
This. Does. Not. Matter.
quote:
I went back and looked a the pereira quote, if its the same game in reference he also states the receiver could have made a play on the ball. Big difference.
The NFL rules regarding catchable passes are different and werent even changed to their current reading until 2009, three years after this incident. The college rules still to this day dictate that to be a penalty and I personally saw it called a penalty three times last year alone just off the top of my head.
Again, this is just an ignorance of the rules on your part.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 8:02 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Yes he was
quote:
Correct, the problem is you dont understand what defines catchable and uncatchable. A ball is not uncatchable simply because there is a man between the receiver and the ball.
Except I do and the ball was uncatchable, not sure why this is hard to understand. Can you seriously say with a straight face, had he not been touched, he could have come close to catching the ball?
quote:
Yes he was
Oh you do, it would have been impossible.
quote:
It isnt relevant at all. Sorry.
It's part of the definition of the rule, so I would say it is.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 8:04 pm to srotaG adirolF
quote:
srotaG adirolF
Your name is annoying.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 8:04 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
This. Does. Not. Matter.
It's part of the definition of the rule, so yes it does
quote:
Again, this is just an ignorance of the rules on your part.
Seems like when you blatantly disregard key aspects to a rule, you would be the ignorant one.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 8:15 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Except I do and the ball was uncatchable, not sure why this is hard to understand. Can you seriously say with a straight face, had he not been touched, he could have come close to catching the ball?
It doesnt matter, the ball wasnt uncatchable by the definition of an uncatchable pass.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 8:15 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:Please leave now.
Can you seriously say with a straight face, had he not been touched, he could have come close to catching the ball?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 8:16 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
It's part of the definition of the rule, so yes it does
Please provide the definition of catchable/uncatchable per the college rule book.
This post was edited on 4/29/14 at 8:19 pm
Posted on 4/29/14 at 8:24 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 4/29/14 at 8:24 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
the ball wasnt uncatchable by the definition of an uncatchable pass.
Umm, it absolutely was an uncatchable ball. Not sure why you think it was. But I'd like to hear why you think it was.
Page 13 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News