Auburn-LSU PI non-call

[brokerrookie]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Actually the SEC has spoken and Rogers Redding confirmed both close calls were correctly dealt with.

He has spoken. It doesn't mean that right calls were made, it means they were "correctly dealt with". Interpretation: I stand by the calls my men made on the field because they are my men. I have been here a time or two in basketball. We take our lumps, we shove on and play the next game. Congrats to AU though, they clearly (at this point) have a top 2 team. This game would have killed lesser men.

[brokerrookie]

Is it just me or could this promote the tackling of receivers with a defender knocking the ball away and this become accepted as it was not catchable? Playing devils advocate here. And still kind of hacked off as you can tell. I am not one of those guys that come here to aggravate a situation, I have been a lurker on the basketball forum for a while refining the trade.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by brokerrookie

Is it just me or could this promote the tackling of receivers with a defender knocking the ball away and this become accepted as it was not catchable? Playing devils advocate here. And still kind of hacked off as you can tell. I am not one of those guys that come here to aggravate a situation, I have been a lurker on the basketball forum for a while refining the trade.

BTW, you can tackle a reciever if the ball is not catchable (while the ball is in the air).

You can give all the angles you like, the pass was not catchable. When a pass is not catchable, short of a personal foul you can make contact with a reciever. Also the only way this could be holding is if the ball was not in the air. The contact took place clearly while the ball is in the air. If the ball was tipped at the LOS, a defender could contact the reciever to prevent them from making the catch. You are just searching for an answer you are not going to get.

Peace

[sj]

Originally Posted by brokerrookie

Is it just me or could this promote the tackling of receivers with a defender knocking the ball away and this become accepted as it was not catchable? Playing devils advocate here. And still kind of hacked off as you can tell. I am not one of those guys that come here to aggravate a situation, I have been a lurker on the basketball forum for a while refining the trade.

It's just you. The kids are talented but you'd never be able to coach this. Not in a million years.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by brokerrookie

He has spoken. It doesn't mean that right calls were made, it means they were "correctly dealt with". Interpretation: I stand by the calls my men made on the field because they are my men. I have been here a time or two in basketball. We take our lumps, we shove on and play the next game. Congrats to AU though, they clearly (at this point) have a top 2 team. This game would have killed lesser men.

I realize you may not know much about Rogers Redding yet but since your school is in his conference, you are going to come to know him. And what you will find is that he WILL NOT make that kind of decision. He is going to go with what is right. I ddi not use his exact words but they were much more specific than "correclty dealt with". He explained why there could be no DPI as the ball was uncatchable.

[Sonofanump]

Originally Posted by TXMike

I realize you may not know much about Rogers Redding yet but since your school is in his conference, you are going to come to know him.

Let's try this:

Basically, Redding is to NCAA rules as Moses was to the Ten Commandments.