The call was right

[pitbull20 0]

truth hurts dont it.

I gave props to your team. they deserved the win, but LSU was robbed and you know it.

[TexasTiger 12,853]

they deserved the win, but LSU was robbed and you know it.

Those two statements don't go together. Rodent eatin' Corndog logic.

[AUesquire 1]

Apparently, Pitbull forgot about time of possession when he said LSU outplayed us in every facet of the game. Let's see here Bull, LSU had more passing yards. Auburn had more rushing yards. The kicking game...oh, you did kick a field goal (That WAS your total offensive output ) but punting, kickoffs, kick coverage was clearly in AU's favor. (See Kody Bliss punting stats for reference if you need it).

So, we won the rushing, time of possession and kicking game and you got more passing yards. Oh, I almost forgot the most important facet of the game, the freakin' score. Please tell me how you figure LSU outplayed Auburn in every facet of the game yesterday....I'm just curious to hear this.

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

Once and for all -- the referees were absolutely right on the call. So, all you whiners complaining about the refs' decision need to either read the rule book or find another sport to follow. Here is the exact language in the Rule Book:

Rule 2/Definitions

… Section 19. Passes

Catachable Forward Pass

Article 4. A catchable forward pass is an untouched legal forward pass beyond the neutral zone to an eligible player who has a reasonable opportunity to catch the ball. When in question a legal forward pass is catchable. (A.R. 2-19-4-I and II and 7-3-8-XVIII).

Rule 7/Snapping and Passing the Ball

…Section 3. Forward Pass

Contact Interference

Article 9. a. Either Team A or Team B may interfere with opponents behind the neutral zone.

b. Players of either team legally may interfere beyond the neutral zone after the pass has been touched (A.R. 7-3-9-II).

c. Defensive players legally may contact opponents who have crossed the neutral zone if the opponents are not in a position to receive a catchable forward pass.

1. Those infractions that occur during a down when a forward pass crosses the neutral zone are pass interference infractions only if the receiver had the opportunity to receive a catchable forward pass.

Are we clear on this, now? Brock's batting the ball away nullifies the "catchability" of the pass and would allow a legal mugging of Doucet by Zach Gilbert if he chose to do so. If you are one that persists in thinking the call was "controversial" or "blown," then you are just perpetuating ignorance & stupidity. Pass the word.

[TexasTiger 12,853]

Once and for all -- the referees were absolutely right on the call. So, all you whiners complaining about the refs' decision need to either read the rule book or find another sport to follow. Here is the exact language in the Rule Book:

Rule 2/Definitions

… Section 19. Passes

Catachable Forward Pass

Article 4. A catchable forward pass is an untouched legal forward pass beyond the neutral zone to an eligible player who has a reasonable opportunity to catch the ball. When in question a legal forward pass is catchable. (A.R. 2-19-4-I and II and 7-3-8-XVIII).

Rule 7/Snapping and Passing the Ball

…Section 3. Forward Pass

Contact Interference

Article 9. a. Either Team A or Team B may interfere with opponents behind the neutral zone.

b. Players of either team legally may interfere beyond the neutral zone after the pass has been touched (A.R. 7-3-9-II).

c. Defensive players legally may contact opponents who have crossed the neutral zone if the opponents are not in a position to receive a catchable forward pass.

1. Those infractions that occur during a down when a forward pass crosses the neutral zone are pass interference infractions only if the receiver had the opportunity to receive a catchable forward pass.

Are we clear on this, now? Brock's batting the ball away nullifies the "catchability" of the pass and would allow a legal mugging of Doucet by Zach Gilbert if he chose to do so. If you are one that persists in thinking the call was "controversial" or "blown," then you are just perpetuating ignorance & stupidity. Pass the word.

What he said.

[eagle76 1]

Listen fellows, trying to convince/show these board intruders that the call was correct is like trying to teach a possum not to cross the road. No matter how hard you try, the little feller still doesn't understand and becomes roadkill.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. First of all, Doucet would not have caught the ball even without Gilbert's hit. He was on a trajectory jumping for the ball already and Brock tipped the ball away. It would have been incomplete.

But even aside from that, as the PI call that we did get proved, there is no guarantee you'll do anything with it even if the call stood. Anything could have happened over the next few plays. Russell could have coughed up the ball again, but this time not have it bounce right up into your WR's arms. There could be a fumbled snap. A ball could be tipped and intercepted. Or could have taken four shots and be unable to get it to the endzone.

So while the call may not have been right, it was a bang-bang play and unfortunately unreviewable. But that's not what lost you the game. You lost because you couldn't run for squat and were forced to pass and even then, only racked up the yardage when we went into soft zones and prevent to keep everything in front and make you use clock. You lost because we were able to fight through the defensive battle and put together a hard-earned drive and punch it in while you were not. In short, Auburn was the better team on Saturday. LSU is a great team. A GREAT team. But Auburn was better. End of story.

[Argo 8]

Once and for all -- the referees were absolutely right on the call. So, all you whiners complaining about the refs' decision need to either read the rule book or find another sport to follow. Here is the exact language in the Rule Book:

Rule 2/Definitions

… Section 19. Passes

Catachable Forward Pass

Article 4. A catchable forward pass is an untouched legal forward pass beyond the neutral zone to an eligible player who has a reasonable opportunity to catch the ball. When in question a legal forward pass is catchable. (A.R. 2-19-4-I and II and 7-3-8-XVIII).

Rule 7/Snapping and Passing the Ball

…Section 3. Forward Pass

Contact Interference

Article 9. a. Either Team A or Team B may interfere with opponents behind the neutral zone.

b. Players of either team legally may interfere beyond the neutral zone after the pass has been touched (A.R. 7-3-9-II).

c. Defensive players legally may contact opponents who have crossed the neutral zone if the opponents are not in a position to receive a catchable forward pass.

1. Those infractions that occur during a down when a forward pass crosses the neutral zone are pass interference infractions only if the receiver had the opportunity to receive a catchable forward pass.

Are we clear on this, now? Brock's batting the ball away nullifies the "catchability" of the pass and would allow a legal mugging of Doucet by Zach Gilbert if he chose to do so. If you are one that persists in thinking the call was "controversial" or "blown," then you are just perpetuating ignorance & stupidity. Pass the word.

What he said.

What is the rule on grabbing the receiver and not allowing him to make a play on the ball BEFORE the ball is tipped by the defender? Isn't the receiver allowed the right to adjust to the ball without being tackled before the ball is tipped?

[TitanTiger 20,481]

Doucet would not have been able to "adjust" to the ball. He had already jumped. Unless his arms could have grown another 8-10 inches longer and he has rocket propulsion to alter his trajectory in midair, Brock's tip still would have broken up the play, hit or no hit.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

You never did answer my question, Argo. Who else?

[Argo 8]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. First of all, Doucet would not have caught the ball even without Gilbert's hit. He was on a trajectory jumping for the ball already and Brock tipped the ball away. It would have been incomplete.

But even aside from that, as the PI call that we did get proved, there is no guarantee you'll do anything with it even if the call stood. Anything could have happened over the next few plays. Russell could have coughed up the ball again, but this time not have it bounce right up into your WR's arms. There could be a fumbled snap. A ball could be tipped and intercepted. Or could have taken four shots and be unable to get it to the endzone.

So while the call may not have been right, it was a bang-bang play and unfortunately unreviewable. But that's not what lost you the game. You lost because you couldn't run for squat and were forced to pass and even then, only racked up the yardage when we went into soft zones and prevent to keep everything in front and make you use clock. You lost because we were able to fight through the defensive battle and put together a hard-earned drive and punch it in while you were not. In short, Auburn was the better team on Saturday. LSU is a great team. A GREAT team. But Auburn was better. End of story.

I agree that LSU may not have won even with the call going their way, but you guys would be singing a completely different tune had LSU got the call, put it in the endzone and won. This would be an 8 page thread about how it WAS a PI.

Either way though, it was still the most intense game of the week, probably won't be a more exciting one this year. Congrats to AU on the win.

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

... What is the rule on grabbing the receiver and not allowing him to make a play on the ball BEFORE the ball is tipped by the defender? Isn't the receiver allowed the right to adjust to the ball without being tackled before the ball is tipped?

Here ya go, bub: NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations Find the rule you're talking about and get back to us. I'm convinced the refs called it correctly.

[Argo 8]

... What is the rule on grabbing the receiver and not allowing him to make a play on the ball BEFORE the ball is tipped by the defender? Isn't the receiver allowed the right to adjust to the ball without being tackled before the ball is tipped?

Here ya go, bub: NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations Find the rule you're talking about and get back to us. I'm convinced the refs called it correctly.

Honestly, I don't care one way or the other, just wanted to put my opinion in there. What I asked is just what I saw everyone was saying in the sports studios yesterday. I didn't watch all the halftime shows from every game, but the ones I did see said the call shouldn't have been ruled a non-catchable pass. The ball was catchable when the interference happened, and wasn't tipped until after, therefore a PI.

Like I said earlier, had the call gone the other way this would be an 8 page thread about how it was PI. That was my only true point.

[Chinese Bandit 0]

regardless of the contact on the receiver, the ball gets tipped away by another guy, Brock, and could not have been caught.

Since the tip occurred after the interference, it doesn't matter where the ball was deflected. You can't reverse an interference call because of something that happens after the interference. There is no future tense in the catchable pass rule. And at any rate, the ball was tipped about 1 yard in front of Doucet. Passes are NEVER ruled uncatchable when they get that close to a receiver. Invariably, passes are ruled uncatchable when they are thrown nowhere near them. Reveivers are always given a LARGE benefit of any doubt in such cases. If he didn't have Gilbert hanging all over him, could he have contested for the ball? Maybe, and a mabye is all you need in such cases.

Utterly impossible for Doucet to get his hands on this ball without #38 mugging him here? Please.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

My eyes are bleeding from all this.

Let's get to the root of the matter: LSU fans will always say it's PI. Some Auburn fans (myself included) will say that we are glad that the call was reversed and at the same time, we are glad that the shoe isn't on the other foot. Other Auburn fans wil defend the tipped ball and say it's not PI. Who's right?

The question is moot. Since Ronald Reagan has been in the White House, most Americans have never seen a hundred dollar bill.

Sorry, SNL flahback.

The question is moot. None of us will ever convince the others of our view. You all can argue until you are blue in the face, but as for me, I'll have another cold beverage and turn my attention to the mighty Bulls of Buffalo.

Now, I suggest everyone go smoke a Black and Mild and chill out. The game is over and a long season is in store for both teams. Enjoy it. You both have great football teams for which to cheer.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

The call was not correct, It should have been defensive holding. I am not here to argue though, just present a different side. I know I am not going to change any minds. Au has a very good Football team and played their hearts out, as did LSU. My only regret is that LSU was not allowed the chance to decide the game on the field. Before you say we had other chances look at this. LSU had 10 possesions, 3 of which had blatantly bad calls that stopped the drive. when 30% of your production is killed by the refs you can only do so much.

Auburn has some calls go against them, I saw 2 that were arguable. Even these though were not deep in LSU territory and drive killing. LSU outplayed AU in every phacet besides rushing. LSU could have easily won this game without the Ref's interference in the game. this pick says it all.. Defensive holding. Not even arguable

I can name a LSU scoring drive that resulted in points that had two first downs given to them by bad calls. A defensive holding and a miss spot of a fumble. You don't think that offensive PI, which they didn't call a obvious one on LSU later, didn't hurt. Instead of 1st and 10 from the LSU 25 we went to 2nd and long on our own side of the field.

Ive no problem admitting that Gilbert was holding on that play every LSU fan keeps refering to, my problem is they keep dodging the calls that went there way.

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

...Honestly, I don't care one way or the other, just wanted to put my opinion in there. What I asked is just what I saw everyone was saying in the sports studios yesterday. I didn't watch all the halftime shows from every game, but the ones I did see said the call shouldn't have been ruled a non-catchable pass. The ball was catchable when the interference happened, and wasn't tipped until after, therefore a PI.

Like I said earlier, had the call gone the other way this would be an 8 page thread about how it was PI. That was my only true point.

The only opinions that count are those of the officials on the field. They ruled the tip occured before the interference. Guess what? It's a judgement call based on the play happening in real time. None of those studio talking heads made the call in real time.

[AU! 0]

and regardless of whether he caught the ball or not, who are you to say that the auburn defense would change and start letting people through. My opinion is that had it been called PI, auburn would've stopped LSU who would've settled for a field goal, the score would then be 7-6 big deal, you still lose.

[TexasTiger 12,853]

Even if you want to call it PI, Gilbert didn't keep him from making the play. So what LSU missed, at most, would have been a call that could have given them a first and 10 even though the pass was batted away and would have never been caught. So even if it were a bad call, it is not like it resulted in any great injustice. Brock made a great play. He makes a great play regardless. If Gilbert had fallen down, Brock still knocks it away and it's first and 10 AU. This is not a PI play in which the defensive player got away with costing the WR a catch. So whine all year if you want, Corndogs, you were'nt "robbed." You just didn't get a cheap first down.

[Chinese Bandit 0]

So what LSU missed, at most, would have been a call that could have given them a first and 10 even though the pass was batted away and would have never been caught. So even if it were a bad call, it is not like it resulted in any great injustice. Brock made a great play. He makes a great play regardless. If Gilbert had fallen down, Brock still knocks it away and it's first and 10 AU. This is not a PI play in which the defensive player got away with costing the WR a catch. So whine all year if you want, Corndogs, you were'nt "robbed." You just didn't get a cheap first down.

1st and ten, ball at your 20 and 2.5 minutes to play with a couple time outs in a 7-3 ball game. Yeah, that's meaningless.

What Brock did is irrelevant except in the sense that it helped to confuse the officials. Rules infractions can't be overturned because "without them you probably wouldn't have done much anyway" or some other such asinine reasoning. After all, LSU intercepted a pass in front contact that was ruled PI. Since the interception would likely have been made anyway, there was no reason for the infraction, right?

[saniflush 0]

One good or bad call a game does not make. If you are an LSU fan you ought to be griping that you were in that position to start with.

[rocketman37 13]

It was the right call by the way I understand pass interference.

I thought we had gotten screwed on the original version before it was overturned.

I was yelling the same thing at the tv. The ball was not catchable! No way was that guy going to catch that ball regardless of whether he was left alone or knocked to the ground.

You're right.

The ball was catchable, and PI was before the tip.

I'm thankful for the victory, though.

Great game, LSU, and take out the Tide.

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

... What Brock did is irrelevant except in the sense that it helped to confuse the officials. Rules infractions can't be overturned because "without them you probably wouldn't have done much anyway" or some other such asinine reasoning. After all, LSU intercepted a pass in front contact that was ruled PI. Since the interception would likely have been made anyway, there was no reason for the infraction, right?

No, you're wrong about Brock. His tipping of the ball renders the pass "uncatchable." Read the definition that I quoted from the official Rule Book. Once the pass is ruled uncatchable, the only thing the officials can then rule on is whether or not the interference on the receiver happened before or after the instant the ball is tipped. (Again, read the rule I cited as it's written in black & white.) It is a JUDGEMENT call by the officials that the interference happened after the tip. In real time, that play is a bang-bang call. The TV studios & analysts have the luxury of reviewing freeze-frame stop-action instant replay from a variety of angles as many times as they want. The officials on the field have to make the call then & there. The call was close and the officials ruled on it. Deal with it.

Regarding the earlier PI call made on Courtney Taylor where LSU made an apparent interception: the PI infraction was blatant and was called BEFORE the pass even reached Taylor. Sure the pass was "uncatchable" -- Taylor was knocked out of bounds and prevented from even attempting a catch on the pass. Big difference.

SEC refs have caught a lot of flak over the years. They aren't infallible but then, who is? In this game, I have to give them credit. They did a mighty fine job.

[KunzelTiger 0]

I think when you only score 3 points in a game you lose the ability to criticize the officials on one play. All in all that was a great game played by both teams..and really Auburn came out as top dogs in an absolute war. Intense game.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

This thread is fast approaching the dead horse threshold.