Started By
Message
re: The Interception.....OR WAS IT ??
Posted on 11/6/11 at 2:33 pm to BAMABREZE
Posted on 11/6/11 at 2:33 pm to BAMABREZE
quote:
Williams had control and was down
No he didn't. The ball was still being bobbled when he was coming down. What happened was Williams got punked by a safety who wanted the ball more. Maze made a decent pass when the receiver has it in his hands it is his responsibility to keep that ball.
0
Posted on 11/6/11 at 2:33 pm to GumboPot
quote:
1.) Williams had initial control.
2.) Williams loss control (due to Reid) on the way down.
3.) Both Williams and Reid did not have control on the ground.
4.) Reid gained control on the ground.
5.) Interception by Reid.
This. Great description of what really happened.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 2:34 pm to BAMABREZE
quote:
Williams had control and was down
Ummmm no. He didn't have control when they landed it was clear from the best angle. Maybe if you whine some more they'll change the score though.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 2:38 pm to attheua
quote:
I'm more mad about the non call on the dirty hit on Kirkpatrick. It looked like they didn't even give the guy a personal foul? I couldn't hear the ref's explanation for all the booing
It was a holding call and was half the distance to the goal. I think it would have been the same distance if it was a pf.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 2:40 pm to BAMABREZE
If the ball had not been moving in his hands as he fell to the ground then it would have been a catch. but the ball clearly moves around while going to the ground meaning he didn't maintain possession so it's an Interception. You have to take your biased opinion out of it. Go look at the goaline view of the replays you see it.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 2:40 pm to BAMABREZE
Beating Bama on a controversial call is so sweet 
This post was edited on 11/6/11 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 11/6/11 at 2:47 pm to Rex Manning
It was an INT by the new definition. The new rule is you have to maintain the catch through the ground. Bama player definately didn't catch that ball,and maintain it through contact with the ground, and it ended up in Reid's arms without ground contact. Thats why the ruling was CONFIRMED, and not "Stand as called".
Posted on 11/6/11 at 2:48 pm to BAMABREZE
quote:
The Interception.....OR WAS IT ??
I could agree that maybe it was not an interception. Bama dude caught the ball and had it in his possession. However, Reid wrestled the ball away from him on the way down. Not really sure if that would be considered a recovered fumble by Reid. This is one of those times when a qb shouldn't be charged with an int., imo. Just wondering, what is it called when a running back has the ball taken away from him without the ball hitting the ground? Same thing should apply here.
I know, it's a stretch but it does have a little merit to it.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 2:51 pm to hg
Peterson's and Reid's were both picks. Williams lost possession before he hit the ground and Reid took it away.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 2:55 pm to Tigah32
If they had called it a catch, the ruling on the field would have stood.
Not saying it WASN'T an INT, it was just no real evidence to say one way or another by replay
Not saying it WASN'T an INT, it was just no real evidence to say one way or another by replay
This post was edited on 11/6/11 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 11/6/11 at 2:59 pm to BamainCFL
quote:
it was just no real evidence to say one way or another by replay
There is clear evidence that Williams did not have control of the ball when he hit the ground. Watch the video and start it at about 1:23 and you can see the ball come out before he is down.
LINK
Posted on 11/6/11 at 2:59 pm to BamainCFL
quote:Wrong. It was CLEARLY a PICK. If you look 100 more times it will steel be a pick. Sorry, that is FACT!
f they had called it a catch, the ruling on the field would have stood.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 3:00 pm to BamainCFL
quote:
Not saying it WASN'T an INT, it was just no real evidence to say one way or another by replay
you apparently don't watch much football. There's a difference between "the call on the field is confirmed" and "the call on the field stands"
Posted on 11/6/11 at 3:00 pm to 7thWardTiger
This pic (no pun intended) should clear the whole controversy.
Unless you think he has possession at this moment, which would take an amazing disconnect with reality.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 3:01 pm to BAMABREZE
That was an interception man.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 3:02 pm to dawgdayafternoon
wasn't near the call that PP7's was a few years ago!
Posted on 11/6/11 at 3:02 pm to BamainCFL
quote:Replay CONFIRMED the interception. In other words, there was indisputable video evidence that the ruling was correct.
If they had called it a catch, the ruling on the field would have stood.
Had it been ruled a catch on the field, it would have been overturned to an INT. . .10 times out of 10.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 3:05 pm to BAMABREZE
College Football News has an interesting article about simultaneous possession and their contention is once the players were down...LSU isn't allowed to take the ball away. Per rule, the ball stays with the offensive team. LSU had to make a clear catch in the air - which he didn't. It's like an amalgamation of three different rules. Instead of the rule being applying, common sense was applied.
I have no problem with the interception but it's an interesting argument.
LINK
I have no problem with the interception but it's an interesting argument.
LINK
This post was edited on 11/6/11 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 11/6/11 at 3:06 pm to Zamoro10
Except there was no simultaneous possession.
Nobody had possession of the ball, until Reid had possession.
Nobody had possession of the ball, until Reid had possession.
Posted on 11/6/11 at 3:07 pm to Zamoro10
Moffit paid off. We take what we want!!!
Page 4 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News