re: SEC officials release statement on LSU tears, “all calls were 100%correct”

quote:

---

What about Mond's knee being down on the INT?

---

What about it?

Also, what about the targeting on LSU that was missed in that play?

quote:

---

And they were all made correctly, by all objective accounts. So where's the controversy?

---

If the SEC felt the need to issue a statement regarding several calls made in a game, clearly there was controversy involved, otherwise a statement wouldn't have been necessary. Again, whether or not a call was not outside of the rules, that does not preclude it from being controversial. The simple definition of controversy is "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated." Nowhere does the definition of controversy say that if one side is right or correct that it can't be controversial. Were there disagreements as to the calls made on the field? Yes. Was it prolonged? Yes. Was it public? Yes. Was it heated? Yes.

So, while the only call that I believe was emphatically wrong was the PI call on Greedy, that does not mean other calls weren't "controversial." "Wrong" under the rules, no. "Controversial", yes.

I believe that incomplete pass/fumble call could have been called either way and would have been upheld under review had it been ruled a fumble. The rule itself leaves a lot of room for interpretation and discretion. So no it wasn't "wrong" but it still could have gone either way. We argue about rulings like this at every level of football every year.

The knee down or not down took the officials a long arse time to review. To say it was clear as day is a farce, otherwise the review wouldn't have taken as long as it did.

The spike also took the refs a long time to decide whether the spike occurred before time ran out and all the other concerns regarding when the clock started, etc.

The only call that turned out to be completely and irrefutably correct was the 4th and 18 conversion, but the only reason controversy was sparked was due to the yellow line on ESPN being wrong. I think the people who questioned the first down were justified in doing so initially.

I just don't know how anyone can watch that game, see what transpired, and honestly try to say there was nothing "controversial." That's just intellectually dishonest.

quote:

---

your takeaway from a game like that is one team was soft

---

your DBs were soft as butter in overtime and end of 4th Q.

It is what it is.

quote:

---

your DBs were soft as butter in overtime and end of 4th Q.

It is what it is.

---

so you don't have the ability to make any insightful comments, fair enough.

And if LSU's DBs were soft, what does that make A&M's entire defenses letting Joe Burrow run and throw for 6 TDs and accounting for over 400 yards of offense?

Maybe you've never watched football before, but defenses typically give up a lot of yards and points in multiple OT games. The 7 OT game between Ole Miss and Arkansas in 2001 ended at 17-17 in regulation. In the 7 OTs, each team scored 6 TDs and the game was ultimately decided on a failed 2 point conversion by Ole Miss. Does that mean Ole Miss' defense was soft? (that's a rhetorical question)

quote:

---

SEC officials

---

quote:

---

“all calls were 100%correct”

---

quote:

---

Grasping at straws for that penalty

---

I'm not grasping at anything. Just saying if people are going to complain about that play, then complain about everything regarding it.

quote:

---

the blantant missed false start in overtime.

---

The most pivotal false start got called.

quote:

---

The spike also took the refs a long time to decide whether the spike occurred before time ran out and all the other concerns regarding when the clock started, etc.

---

This one was also irrefutable

1. There actually was supposed to be 5 seconds on the clock

2. By rule if there is 3 seconds or more the offense gets an additional play when spiking the ball

quote:

---

So in the same breath of you saying if we're going to complain about some things, then we should complain about everything, you say this?

---

Yes. It makes no sense to carp about the judgment call regarding Mond's knee being called down and ignore the targeting that wasn't called on the very same play.

quote:

---

So we should ignore one false start call

---

Never said this. I'm saying the false start call on the 2 point attempt was far more damning to A&M's chances, which would seemingly matter more given that so many of y'all are acting like the refs gave the game to A&M in some egregious manner.

quote:

---

while at the same time saying we should complain about everything?

---

I'm not saying that you should complain about anything at all, actually. Just that what y'all have chosen to argue most makes little sense based upon the whole premise of said arguing.

COVERING THEIR ARSES - Terry McAulay SAYS DIFFERENT

"pass int on 2 pt play was incorrect"

THE FUMBLE ON THE PASS WAS A FUMBLE. THE RECV HAD CONTROL FOR TWO STEPS WHICH IS THE RULE IN COLLEGE.

quote:

---

he had possession of the ball as soon as he caught it.

---

This isn't how football works.

quote:

---

The Aggies that aren’t overly worried about arguing on this board know it was a fumble.

---

That'd be called a fumble by any ref on any field.

Conversely, if Jace had been in the endzone and had the ball jarred loose after only getting a foot down, there is not an lsufan in this life nor that which is to come that would stand up and say it should be called a touchdown.

You know it.

I know it.

America knows it.