This will shut 'em up

[autiger518 1]

I now this is waaay early....but gawd can you imagine....Hey Alabama get ready....

[quietfan 233]

Re: original post.

Obviously, you are not familiar with the concept of fans, which is short for fanatic. No one who has an opinion on this is going to be swayed by any argument from someone on an internet message board or the SEC office. They have their view of things, you have yours and never the twain shall meet.

If it makes you feel better to post this, Godspeed, but don't expect it to convince a rival fan that the call was legit.

Really, if someone comes up with a formula that really shuts up fans complaining about ref calls, please bottle it and sell it. (Spiking the concessions' drinks in Bryant-Denny might be a good idea, too!)

[saniflush 0]

That is great man....I think they will like that!

[Hinklbt 0]

This is some further clarification from the SEC head of officials:

"SEC coordinator of officials Rogers Redding said Monday the call was correct because the pass was made uncatchable, making the timing of the contact irrelevant. Redding said pass interference can be called if the ball is tipped after the contact occurs, as it appeared to on the play. However, he said, "it was more than a tip, it was a deflection of the ball so it made the ball uncatchable. A key part of the pass interference rule is whether or not the pass is uncatchable."

[TxWarEagle 3]

Yeah...the SEC refs arent going to come out and say they made the wrong call.

I dont have a link, but I remember the SEC admitting that their officials made mistakes in the UT-UF game a few years back.

The reality is, the conference admits that the call was correct.

[WarTim 3,456]

I wonder....Hmmm.....What part of "CORRECT" do certain thick headed folks NOT understand?

[Tigerfan86 0]

I just watched the play again several times in slow motion and all I can say is that was one hell of a play by Brock.

[SEC FAN 0]

Honestly, can anyone say the ball was 100% non-catchable? I don't think so and even if it was then why is this not defensive holding?

[aulax1 0]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2593195

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- The Southeastern Conference determined that officials made the right decision in reversing a pass interference call late in the Auburn-LSU game.

SEC coordinator of officials Rogers Redding said Monday the call was correct because the pass was made uncatchable, making the timing of the contact irrelevant.

Auburn defensive back Zach Gilbert was flagged for interfering with receiver Early Doucet deep in its own territory in the 7-3 win over No. 6 LSU. The flag was waved off because officials deemed that Eric Brock's tip of the ball made it uncatchable.

Redding said pass interference can be called if the ball is tipped after the contact occurs, as it appeared to on the.

However, he said, "it was more than a tip, it was a deflection of the ball so it made the ball uncatchable. A key part of the pass interference rule is whether or not the pass is uncatchable."

Another controversial fourth-quarter call that went Auburn's way was also correct, Redding said.

An LSU interception on third-and-29 was negated because Daniel Francis was penalized for interference on receiver Courtney Taylor, giving Auburn an automatic first down.

"The defender just basically ran through the receiver," Redding said. "He wasn't playing the ball. The ball was definitely catchable."

LSU coach Les Miles had complained after the game about both decisions, saying the interference on Taylor "didn't disable him from catching the ball."

Miles also said he believed the other play should have been pass interference because the ball was tipped downfield, not at the line of scrimmage.

The rule states only that an infraction occurs when the contact "could prevent the opponent the opportunity of receiving a catchable forward pass."

[AUloggerhead 2,249]

Honestly, can anyone say the ball was 100% non-catchable? I don't think so and even if it was then why is this not defensive holding?

Yes, I can say it. The ball was uncatchable because Eric Brock slapped it away 4-ft in front on Early Ducet! We have videotape proof of it. Your still shot shows it. Everyone in the stands and all the people watching on TV saw it. The ball never got to Ducet -- it was uncatchable.

And for the other question: it's not defensive holding ... just because.

[autiger518 1]

Honestly, can anyone say the ball was 100% non-catchable? I don't think so and even if it was then why is this not defensive holding?

Look I havent weighed in on my actual thoughts on the call ... yet, I simply posted before the differences between the two calls. IMO the call was close it could of gone either way...was the ball 100% non-catchable.... it was after he tipped it...and thats what the refs are spouting is the reason they picked up the flag.

Problem I have with it is that you did not lose the game based on this one call, you had numerous chances to win this game including the very end and it didnt happen, so this play now becomes the deciding point. Had you made a TD at the end of the game would yall even bring this play up....my guess is no. Game is over...good luck to yall the rest of the season.

[runswithscissors 33]

i mean, maybe i shouldn't stick my nose in it....but does it really matter? it was a great well fought game with both teams playing their hearts out. the better team won. i've always felt that if you didn't play well enough that 1 single call cost you the game, maybe you should have played harder. this is just "one of those things" and all the posts in the world won't change the outcome. congrats to both teams really, was one of the best games i've seen in a while.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Honestly, can anyone say the ball was 100% non-catchable? I don't think so and even if it was then why is this not defensive holding?

Yes, I believe its called physics.

[SEC FAN 0]

i i've always felt that if you didn't play well enough that 1 single call cost you the game, maybe you should have played harder. this is just "one of those things" and all the posts in the world won't change the outcome. congrats to both teams really, was one of the best games i've seen in a while.

I've always felt the same way and still do. You can't blame one call on affecting the outcome of a game. However, there was more than one single controversial call. There was at least 3 incorrect blatant calls that stopped 3 LSU drives in the second half but your point is well taken. I'm moving on.

[Chinese Bandit 0]

Here's the rule with an example regard catchable pases:

II. A88, beyond the line of scrimmage, is maneuvering to catch a legal

forward pass thrown directly to his position. Just before the ball

reaches A88, defensive back B30 drives through A88’s back. B12

intercepts or touches the pass before the block by B30. RULING:

Not pass interference. Even though the pass was thrown directly to

A88’s position, the touching voids pass interference, but another foul

is possible (Rule 7-3-8-a)."

Now, in this case a defender is said to have possibly INTERCEPTED the ball. I'd say that makes it uncatchable even beyond a tip, right? But... it's only ruled not PI here because of when the contact with the pass occurred, not because the pass was made uncatachable by something the defender did. Since in this example the interception comes first, the receiver can not be said to have been hindered in an attempt to make a play for the ball and so therefore he wasn't going to catch it anyway. And yet, the rule says NOTHING about this being a factor in the ultimate determination of whether it's PI or not. Because it's not supposed to be.

All the SEC did today was make the case stronger for incompetence I'm afraid. Interesting also that the statement says "another foul is possible," something no one has been mentioning.

[JB33 1]

Here's the rule with an example regard catchable pases:

II. A88, beyond the line of scrimmage, is maneuvering to catch a legal

forward pass thrown directly to his position. Just before the ball

reaches A88, defensive back B30 drives through A88’s back. B12

intercepts or touches the pass before the block by B30. RULING:

Not pass interference. Even though the pass was thrown directly to

A88’s position, the touching voids pass interference, but another foul

is possible (Rule 7-3-8-a)."

Now, in this case a defender is said to have possibly INTERCEPTED the ball. I'd say that makes it uncatchable even beyond a tip, right? But... it's only ruled not PI here because of when the contact with the pass occurred, not because the pass was made uncatachable by something the defender did. Since in this example the interception comes first, the receiver can not be said to have been hindered in an attempt to make a play for the ball and so therefore he wasn't going to catch it anyway. And yet, the rule says NOTHING about this being a factor in the ultimate determination of whether it's PI or not. Because it's not supposed to be.

All the SEC did today was make the case stronger for incompetence I'm afraid. Interesting also that the statement says "another foul is possible," something no one has been mentioning.

[runswithscissors 33]

how many pages will it take for this thread to get locked or moved to the "Dead Horse" forum?

[autiger518 1]

how many pages will it take for this thread to get locked or moved to the "Dead Horse" forum?

I was wondering the same thing...can we lock this please.

[TxWarEagle 3]

All the SEC did today was make the case stronger for incompetence I'm afraid.

In your opinion, what could they have said that would have pleased the Tigah Nation? Short of "LSU should have won, we're sorry." I dont think anything would have sufficed.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

This thread has long outlived its usefulness. Time to move on folks. LSU has TooLame to prepare for and we have Buffalo. NEXT!