LSU - Alabama Play

[TXMike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDdfKvXhjpk#GU5U2spHI_4

4th and inches. Interesting "trick" play that backfired miserably. Notonly did LSU get flagged for false start (rightly so), they got an additional 15 for the yanking off of the helmet. The ensuing punt they were then forced to make from 4th and 20 was returned for a TD.

[Reffing Rev.]

The minute I saw that play on tv I said to myself, what coach thought he could get away with that? I am heartily glad that the refs called the false start, though the official at the top of the screen obviously thought twice about it, possibly because he wasn't sure what he saw, I know I wouldn't be. And then I am very glad the extra 15 yards was called.

[GPC2]

To preface my comments, I am a huge LSU fan, so there is no anti-LSU bias here.

I argued with my brother-in-law for 15 minutes after this play. When the play was run live, I immediately said, "False Start - simulating the snap." The play is OBVIOUSLY not legal (in my opinion) and the "herky-jerky" movement by the offensive line was obviously intended to draw the defense across the neutral zone. Of course it worked, and of course it was rightfully penalized.

As a side note, I thought this game was perfect evidence for those of us in the minority who despise instant replay. There were six interuptions of the game for instant replay, each seeming to last an eternity, which no doubt led to the over FOUR HOUR game. Not only was the game repeatedly interupted, but the officials came back with some questionable (to be politically correct) judgements - especially the last replay of the game that overturned Alabama's long pass reception. To me, replay is a complete and total failure (especially at the college level) and it really doesn't help the game.

[JRutledge]

And if one of those reviews would have not been corrected (I did not see the game so understand I am talking hypothetically) and the wrong team lost as a result, then all the fans of that team would have been crying foul.

Who cares how long the game takes if the right calls are made or corrected with the use of instant replay.

Peace

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And if one of those reviews would have not been corrected (I did not see the game so understand I am talking hypothetically) and the wrong team lost as a result, then all the fans of that team would have been crying foul.

Who cares how long the game takes if the right calls are made or corrected with the use of instant replay.

Peace

Oh, but take four hours to play the game and then get the replay wrong and where do we go to get our money back for sitting through that farce?

Replay has failed to live up to its billing.
However, football, both college and pro, will keep it as a hedge against gambling scandals.

[Warrenkicker]

I'm not sure I agree with the statement about instant replay being a failure. I do know that instant replay is useless in the non-televised games as the camera angles they have are worthless and usually aren't zoomed in to be able to see detail.

I think the bigger question in this game was why were there 6 reviews and at least 4 reversals. That does not bode well for that crew. And being a Big 12 fan doesn't mean that I am picking on the SEC crew. I watched two Big 12 games where the ruled players OOB when they weren't. The one at Oklahoma State was understandable. The receiver's foot slide toward the sideline and did appear to go OOB but when reviewed with a camera from a lower angle it showed that the players foot came off the ground before touching the sideline. They looked at the play and said that it was not reviewable.

The bigger one was at Iowa State when K-State ran the ball up the sideline and into the end zone. The linesman ruled that the running back was OOB at the 6. Replay showed that his foot never got within 4 inches of the sideline and the linesman was less than 5 yards from the running back. They also can back from the break taken for the review and said that the play was not reviewable. K-State went on to turn the ball over on downs.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Oh, but take four hours to play the game and then get the replay wrong and where do we go to get our money back for sitting through that farce?

Then do not go to the game or turn off the TV. I am sure someone else will gladly take your tickets and watch. I know I would if I was able to go to the game and I am not a fan of either team. I would rather watch a 4 hour football game with big time teams than a 4 hour World Series game.

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Replay has failed to live up to its billing.
However, football, both college and pro, will keep it as a hedge against gambling scandals.

It has not failed in the eyes of fans and many of the coaches that participate in the game. If you do not like it, then so be it.

Peace

[GPC2]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Who cares how long the game takes if the right calls are made or corrected with the use of instant replay.

Peace

JRutledge, that is my point. Of the six replays in the game, I would say that not one of them was cut and dry, so if the call was correct or not could still be debated even with instant replay. In fact, very rarely has replay corrected a CLEARLY egregious error. Most of the time, replay occurs on bang-bang plays, and even in super slow motion the plays are still questionable. To me, I think officials get stuff right 95% of the time, and we should just live with the 5% of the time when they make a mistake.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then do not go to the game or turn off the TV. I am sure someone else will gladly take your tickets and watch. I know I would if I was able to go to the game and I am not a fan of either team. I would rather watch a 4 hour football game with big time teams than a 4 hour World Series game.

That was an answer?

[Fan10]

I am a huge Alabama fan, so understand that I am a little biased here. But, for those who saw our receiver make what first was ruled a catch but was then overturned, I have a question. Our WR appeared to me (through my crimson colored glasses) that he had firm possession of the ball before any part of the ball touched the ground and maintained that firm possession as part of the ball touched the ground.

What is the rule here regarding a pass? I looked in the NCAA rulebook online and could find nothing definite about this play--only that it is incomplete when a pass strikes the ground. Does the WR have to keep the ball from touching the ground--even if he has firm possession before it touches the ground and maintains firm possession as it hits the ground?

Thanks in advance.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by GPC2

I argued with my brother-in-law for 15 minutes after this play.

That is what in-laws are for, isn't it!!!

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by Fan10

I am a huge Alabama fan, so understand that I am a little biased here. But, for those who saw our receiver make what first was ruled a catch but was then overturned, I have a question. Our WR appeared to me (through my crimson colored glasses) that he had firm possession of the ball before any part of the ball touched the ground and maintained that firm possession as part of the ball touched the ground.

What is the rule here regarding a pass? I looked in the NCAA rulebook online and could find nothing definite about this play--only that it is incomplete when a pass strikes the ground. Does the WR have to keep the ball from touching the ground--even if he has firm possession before it touches the ground and maintains firm possession as it hits the ground?

Thanks in advance.

For some reason, the rulemakers threw some approved rulings in this year that appear to be designed to make it much more difficult to have a completed pass. In some cases now, the receiver has to maintain possession even after he lands out of bounds, even if he touched in bounds first. I do not believe the actual rules as written require that tight an interpretation but that appears to be what they want.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Fan10

What is the rule here regarding a pass? I looked in the NCAA rulebook online and could find nothing definite about this play--only that it is incomplete when a pass strikes the ground. Does the WR have to keep the ball from touching the ground--even if he has firm possession before it touches the ground and maintains firm possession as it hits the ground?

A forward pass can end one of 2 ways: complete or incomplete. If a player has possession of the ball, it's no longer a pass, so whether the ball then touches the ground would be immaterial.

Robert

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

A forward pass can end one of 2 ways: complete or incomplete. If a player has possession of the ball, it's no longer a pass, so whether the ball then touches the ground would be immaterial.

Robert

It may seem like semantics but the NCAA interps regarding possession say otherwise, unfortunately

[jjrye22]

Then there is the definition of possession as well. If he was airborne, and the ball is the first to touch - incomplete. It's definately not as cut and dry as Robert has written.

James