Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/8/09 at 11:39 pm to magiLSU
The "Julio touched the ball" argument is a stupid one, but FWIW it's a 5-yard penalty if a player goes out of bounds and is the first to touch the ball without re-establishing himself back in bounds. It's called illegal touching.
This post was edited on 11/8/09 at 11:40 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 1:07 am to JPLSU1981
is this guy for real ? hey bama guy you've been proven wrong in every aspect of your argument . 
Posted on 11/9/09 at 1:16 am to UPT
Are you stupid? Is this necessary?
Posted on 11/9/09 at 1:18 am to UPT
B. Should have been overturned.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 12:46 pm to magiLSU
quote:
As stated earlier, you have no conclusive evidence that Julio touched the ball or was not in the air if the touch occurred, so drop your argument.
And you don't have any that he didn't. There were calls blown on both sides. I think if there's no doubt Julio doesn't touch the ball out of bounds, it's easily an INT. If it's called an INT on the field, it should stay an INT. But there's not conclusive evidence that it wasn't incomplete.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 1:12 pm to UPT
b and d 
Posted on 11/9/09 at 1:30 pm to UPT
C. Jones could have possibly touched it while out before peterson had possession, however it should have been called an interception to begin with and would not have been overturned.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 2:16 pm to UPT
B
Posted on 11/9/09 at 2:29 pm to UPT
b.) Should have been overturned by video evidence.
With video evidence, that's just piss-poor officiating. It screwed up a good game, regardless of who wins.
With video evidence, that's just piss-poor officiating. It screwed up a good game, regardless of who wins.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 2:35 pm to NawlinsTiger9
B
Posted on 11/9/09 at 2:39 pm to hogfay
B
can we move on now and start making fun of Kitten and the Volunsteers?
can we move on now and start making fun of Kitten and the Volunsteers?
Posted on 11/9/09 at 2:42 pm to spacewrangler
[quote]A- a good call--
"Ball Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 3. a. A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game official or anything else that is on or outside a boundary line."
Julio is out of bounds when he touches the ball simultaneously with Peterson. Even before Peterson could tuck the ball, the ball was dead.[quote]
Actually Julio never touched the ball, but IF he did it would be "Illegal TOUCHING" along with the interception. LSU ball with a 5 yard penalty.
"Ball Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 3. a. A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game official or anything else that is on or outside a boundary line."
Julio is out of bounds when he touches the ball simultaneously with Peterson. Even before Peterson could tuck the ball, the ball was dead.[quote]
Actually Julio never touched the ball, but IF he did it would be "Illegal TOUCHING" along with the interception. LSU ball with a 5 yard penalty.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 3:05 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:I don't think so. I think it is a loss of down only and return to the original line of scrimmage. An ineligible lineman first touch is a five yard penalty.
The "Julio touched the ball" argument is a stupid one, but FWIW it's a 5-yard penalty if a player goes out of bounds and is the first to touch the ball without re-establishing himself back in bounds. It's called illegal touching.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:29 pm to Teague
Now, wait a minute. What about the endzone dive I mentioned before? The play is live if a player that's out of bounds and in the air touches the ball, provided he does not land out of bounds and then touch the ball before the play is blown dead.
So either:
1. Jones does not touch the ground and touches the ball; result: interception, because the play is live and Peterson clearly intercepted it.
2. Jones does touch the ground and the ball; result: interception, with 5-yard illegal touching penalty declined.
3. Jones does not touch the ground and does not touch the ball; result: interception, because the play is live and Peterson clearly intercepted it.
4. Jones does touch the ground and does not touch the ball; result: interception, because the play is live and Peterson clearly intercepted it.
So which is it? 1, 2, 3, 4, or "Bama gets one pick back for free?"
So either:
1. Jones does not touch the ground and touches the ball; result: interception, because the play is live and Peterson clearly intercepted it.
2. Jones does touch the ground and the ball; result: interception, with 5-yard illegal touching penalty declined.
3. Jones does not touch the ground and does not touch the ball; result: interception, because the play is live and Peterson clearly intercepted it.
4. Jones does touch the ground and does not touch the ball; result: interception, because the play is live and Peterson clearly intercepted it.
So which is it? 1, 2, 3, 4, or "Bama gets one pick back for free?"
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 6:05 pm to UPT
d sounds like the most reasonable answer to me since every talking head on every Sports program had Bama and Fla. undedeated and playing in the SEC CG, then the winner playing in the NCG. All of the above before the gameday arrived, then the "no calls", and the "bad calls". Then again all this could be co-incidence. 
I've never been so sick after watching a football game like I was after that game; win or lose.
I've never been so sick after watching a football game like I was after that game; win or lose.
Posted on 11/10/09 at 2:38 am to UPT
quote:
b.) Should have been overturned by video evidence.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News