So yesterday they shorted Bama an entire down and they let a player clearly out of bounds intercept a ball on the one and then give them the ball on the 2 for some reason.
Do they even acknowledge they 17d up this time or basically tell us to F off?
Printable View
So yesterday they shorted Bama an entire down and they let a player clearly out of bounds intercept a ball on the one and then give them the ball on the 2 for some reason.
Do they even acknowledge they 17d up this time or basically tell us to F off?
It's pretty ridiculous that conferences are allowed to have their own sets of referees in the first place. It should just be one set of FBS (or power 5) referees that answer only to the NCAA. (Wait that may not be any better.)
There was 2 controversial calls in the game and they both went against us. It does make you wonder
Apparently the call on the interception was the right call. Weird rule.
The fumble call was horrid. Will's hand clearly moved before the ball moved. It wasn't even that close.
Multi billion dollar industry and they can?t hire full time officials and have regular crews without conference affiliations? Smh
they seem like liberals trying to count votes
It's amazing how differently we all see things. Which is what makes the world so cool. It was so obvious a fumble to me, I immediately sunk my head when I saw the replay and said "Oh, it's clearly a fumble".Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
Nope. It wasn't the right call.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
Article 8 — Illegal Participation
It is illegal for a player of either team to go Out of Bounds, without contact with an opponent, and return to the field and participate in that play.
Notice the part in bold. If he went out without contact, then its a penalty on him for illegal participation. If he went out with contact, then it's pass interference or holding on him. There is no 're-establish' yourself part to that rule.
Interesting. Link?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjoelner34
Most people look to see forward movement of the hand once the hand is supinated (hand is facing up or forward). But the rule doesn't say that. It says any forward movement, which would include while the hand is pronated (facing down or back). His hand clearly moved in the downfield direction while it was pronated. The ball was not knocked loose until his hand was supinated.Quote:
Originally Posted by DownwardDawg
ETA: watching it again in slow motion, it's not even close. His hand moves at least two feet from the behind his body all the way to his shoulder before he's hit. But the entire time his hand is pronated. He's hit just as his hand turns from being pronated to supinated.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
I could live with the fumble call but the re-established call and miss on replay...horrible that the officials and replay made that call. Horrible
The rule says "any intentional forward movement of the passer's hand with the ball firmly in their control starts the forward pass unless the player clearly starts to bring the ball back with firm control"Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
It wasn't even close. Whomever was reviewing that should be fired today.
They blew that one bad. The movement was definitely forward with the ball in control.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
To play the other side, they missed an obvious PI call on us as USCe was in the red zone.
I can live with the fumble call, but not the out of bounds int call.
Oops! Damn Google! I googled NCAA football rules and it returned CFL rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
Here is the 2022 NCAA book. Skip to the bottom of page 84. Strange that it doesn't mention the defensive guy being out of bounds but I assume these rules cover players on both sides of the ball.
http://www.ncaapublications.com/prod...loads/FR22.pdf
Yeah that was a huge play in the game. Took away our momentum and cost us pointsQuote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
Based on my reading/understanding, there's no rules for the defensive player going out of bounds and having to reestablish himself in the field. Seems like a defensive player could leap from out of bounds with both feet out as long as 1 foot lands in bounds when catching the ball unless I'm missing something. Which would mean the call in the game was the right call if I'm understanding this correctlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Mjoelner34
This. I don't get our folks being upset about this. It's possible to throw something forward and not have control of it. His fingers weren't gripping the ball and it was spinning in his hand. Doesn't matter how it came out. It was not in his control when it went forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by DownwardDawg
Interception was the same. The SC guy reestablished his right foot barely after his left foot, which was out of bounds, came up off the ground. It's a pick.
These are close calls, but they are the right calls.
Was he pushed out of bounds or did he run out of bounds on his own. Huge difference in the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by MetEdDawg
Do only liberals count votes? I thought they were elected county officials and their staff!? What?s the reasoning for your comment? I bet the liberals counting votes in Mississippi won?t bother you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pancho
Yes they did. You'd have to defy physics for that not to be a pass. The ball went 15+ yards downfield in a wounded duck spiral. That is a forward pass. The defender slapping down ball could have never been shot downfield. Ridiculous call.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
The other int call was just as bad. Defender was making the play from out of bounds to int the ball. The intent of that rule is if he came back in ran around then made an int. Just total ineptness and corruption by SEC office. We are the sacrificial lamb this year because we got a rookie coach. Total BS. But when you are MSU what do you expect.
Very similar peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by Pancho
SEC office appears to make things up as they go to cater to the leagues national appearance regardless of how ridiculous the call looks to the average fan. What is the reasoning for the comment on whether liberals counting votes in MS? thx in advanceQuote:
Originally Posted by SailingDawg
I agree with you. Was watching with some buddies and everybody except one was like "yeah, that's a fumble."Quote:
Originally Posted by DownwardDawg
On the intereception, i would love to know the actual rules because he didn't ever establish his left foot. The call was confirmed so I would like to know the rules for myself.
Because YOU decided to insert a political comment. So what was your purpose of the comment other than TRYING to stire the pot? don't do that . k?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pancho
THX in advance...
Based on my reading and understanding, there's no rules about a defender leaving the field of play and having to reestablish himself. As long as the defender lands inbounds with one foot he can go wherever he wants to before that which seems dumb but I couldn't find any rules about defenders going out of bounds, just offensive players.
It was a fumble for sure
Anytime someone gets good, the NFL takes them. Direct from SankeyQuote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
And again, sounds like republicans can?t understand the count is actually correct and just feel like they deserve to be right.
I am in....
"A player who has been out of bounds re-establishes himself as an inbounds player when both feet, or any part of his body other than his hands, touch the ground within the boundary lines, provided that no part of his body is touching a boundary line or anything other than a player, an official, or a pylon on or outside."Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgFromOxford
He didn't have both feet in to re-establish himself.
No. Y'all are focusing on hand movement once his hand was supinated. His hand moved forward while his hand was still pronated, well before he was even hit. A qb's hand begins the forward movement before his hand ever rotates from pronation to supinationQuote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
I think they also got called for offensive holding......I truly can/t remember that EVER being called playing against the ?DOGS?,....and I?m old.....End of times must be near!!!!
I just watched it again. Over and over. It was clearly a fumble.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
If y'all don't think that was a fumble, I don't know what to tell you because that will be called a fumble every single time.
The ball was loose before his hand ever started moving forward.
I as raised to speak my opinion and back it up. I am very sorry we have soft folks but we dam sure do. you are welcomeQuote:
Originally Posted by ScoobaDawg
Which way is his palm facing when the ball becomes loose? Keep in mind the rule says what the hand does is all that matters per the rule. The arm is irrelevant. It can actually even be going backwards as long as the hand itself moves/rotates/slides forward intentionally.Quote:
Originally Posted by DownwardDawg
It?s damn, not dam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pancho
I think we essentially got penalized for Will's windup throwing motion on that call. Ball was pointed sideways when he was moving forward and the lazy ass replay official apparently assumed that was because it had already been knocked out of his control not realizing that's his throwing motion.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
If you think it was clearly a fumble, then you must be thinking that the ball has to be in control when he finished his throw. Watch this video and pay attention from the 3 to 4 second mark and the 33 to 34 second mark. Look at the change in position of will's shoulder's between the time you can see the defender's hand and the time you can't. It would take a hell of a move by Will to keep his hand from going forward when turning his shoulders that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by DownwardDawg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bCbF9OXxP8
Will didn't overpower a defensive lineman that got to him before he started him forward movement and managed to will the ball down field 10 yds. He was starting to move forward before he got hit. Just barely, but barely counts under the rule.