Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:05 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
Notice no mention of balls tipped after contact. You lose.
You can't be serious. You are really sad tonight. Did you read the rule.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:06 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Did you read the rule he posted? Goes against everything you've stated.
Not even remotely
quote:
When in question, a legal forward pass is catchable.
A forward pass is always assumed catchable unless the ball is physically beyond the potential reach of any offensive player even in the absence of defensive inhibition.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:07 am to NYCAuburn
quote:You haven't a clue, obviously. Notice no one agreeing with you.
do I need to explain what a catchable forward pass is.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:08 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Again, a pass in the field of play headed straight for a receiver is catchable regardless of what the defense is doing prior to the ball making contact with anyone.
Might want to brush up on the rule/definition. This is absolutely incorrect.
quote:
Your incorrect interpretation of the rules in no way discredits anything Ive said. You are taking a rule to mean something it does not and simply making up your own definition of an uncatchable pass.
Didn't you just state catchable had nothing to do with it? I have not made up any definition. Please go read the rule book
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:08 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Now that we have defined the rule do I need to explain what a catchable forward pass is. He absolutely did not have the ability to catch the ball. He would have had to change trajectory in mid air and move about 2 yards or more in the opposite direction he was moving.
But not because of te trajectory of the ball, because of the defensive players around. That is not a factor in a ball being catchable, ever, in any scenario.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:09 am to NYCAuburn
Where does the rule ever mention a forward pass being tipped after interference occurs? Please, quote to me what parts of the rule support your argument. You're making very nebulous comments. Seriously, zero in what parts of the rule allow for that contact to be legal.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:11 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
A forward pass is always assumed catchable unless the ball is physically beyond the potential reach of any offensive player even in the absence of defensive inhibition.
Welp looks like you know the definition to a degree, now apply it. Please explain how it would have been physically in reach. Even without the contact(not talking about ball contact).
I've asked many times but no one can tell me how he could change directions and relocate a few yards.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:11 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Might want to brush up on the rule/definition. This is absolutely incorrect
Nothing a defensive player does can ever effect the catchability of a ball. Never ever ever ever ever. How catchable a ball is id completely independent of the defense. A defensive player standing between a player and the ball is never grounds for ruling it uncatchable.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:11 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
SIAP
which by rule should be a penalty under Article 9 section k
When someone breaks out an Article 9 Section K, it's all over with...
...and how did this get to 16 pages?
This post was edited on 4/30/14 at 1:12 am
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:12 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Welp looks like you know the definition to a degree, now apply it. Please explain how it would have been physically in reach. Even without the contact(not talking about ball contact).
Easy, if there had been no defensive player in front of him he would have had a perfect opportunity to catch the ball.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:13 am to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
The bloodbath from page 14 has manifested itself two pages later. I'm just enjoying the game 
<------want some dbt?
<------want some dbt?Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:13 am to DoreonthePlains
quote:
Where does the rule ever mention a forward pass being tipped after interference occurs? Please, quote to me what parts of the rule support your argument. You're making very nebulous comments. Seriously, zero in what parts of the rule allow for that contact to be legal.
Please show me where interference is still a penalty if it's not a catchable ball. And I quoted before you the zero parts of the rule you would be looking for.
It's not that hard here folks. Two parts to pi. And you need both.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:14 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Easy, if there had been no defensive player in front of him he would have had a perfect opportunity to catch the ball.
Might want to go rewatch the play if this is your hang up
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:15 am to NYCAuburn
IT WAS CATCHABLE!!! A pass cannot be ruled uncatchable just because a defensive player would have prevented the ball from being caught.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:17 am to NYCAuburn
The ball at the moment of the tip:
Without the tip, that ball falls right into his arms.
Without the tip, that ball falls right into his arms.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:17 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
You haven't a clue, obviously. Notice no one agreeing with you.
You are the one who can't seem to read and retain the rule. And btw your brethren agreed the ball was uncatchable, therefore rules and shite.
Have you noticed I have used the very definition of the rule from the NCAA rulebook. Whereas you have been using your own personal definition, which sadly is incorrect.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:18 am to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
quote:
When someone breaks out an Article 9 Section K, it's all over with...
And I filled that Vandy stereotype to the fullest extent.
But seriously, I just wanted to help. I thought at first he was not quite sure about the rule. NYCAuburn, look, the point is that even if you bring in some nonsensical interpretation of "uncatchable" to include the defender which played the ball, surely you can admit that the, ironically, Article 9 Section K part of the rule still means Auburn should have a 15 yard penalty and automatic first down awarded against them. Correct?
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:18 am to FourThreeForty
I'll need about 2 gallons. Have no idea what this is about but I'm mesmerized the F Lee Bailey angle.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:19 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Without the tip, that ball falls right into his arms.
So when you change what happened it fits your definition. The tip, locations and trajectories render the ball uncatchable and therefore loses the second qualifier for pi.
Page 16 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News