Should the SEC still apologize to AU

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
"Unhindered?" Sounds like a judgment call to me.



First, are you sure? The above cited rule language does not say that. Second, it seemed fairly simultaneous to me. Back to the question of whether "unhindered" is a judgment call. If so, then it was close and so the call would not be incorrect.
Click to expand...
given that he was untouched until after making the catch, how is "unhindered" a judgment call in this particular case?
 
#27
#27
I watched the replay over and over (DVR is amazing) and the Auburn player stopped, receiver caught the ball and was then pounded by two Aub players. It was awesome; and an incorrect call.
 
#28
#28
lawgator1 said:
Back to the question of whether "unhindered" is a judgment call. If so, then it was close and so the call would not be incorrect.
Click to expand...

Just because it was a judgment call does not mean the judgment was correct. The guy certainly looked "unhindered" to me when he caught it; he was significantly "hindered" shortly thereafter.

awebb7 said:
I watched the replay over and over (DVR is amazing) and the Auburn player stopped, receiver caught the ball and was then pounded by two Aub players. It was awesome; and an incorrect call.
Click to expand...

I saw it the same way.
 
#29
#29
BigPapaVol said:
given that he was untouched until after making the catch, how is "unhindered" a judgment call in this particular case?
Click to expand...

awebb7 said:
I watched the replay over and over (DVR is amazing) and the Auburn player stopped, receiver caught the ball and was then pounded by two Aub players. It was awesome; and an incorrect call.
Click to expand...


I haven't watched it over and over. When it happened, it seemed to me that it was nearly at the same moment. Announcers seemed focus on the fact that he caught the ball as the reason it was a bad call, but that didn't seem like it should matter.

I think you have to put yourself on the field and its bang-bang. If it is indeed a judgment call then it was close enough that by definition you can't be so categorical that it was incorrect.

I don't understand why people are so aggravated by this. In the end it didn't matter and there's far worse calls or non-calls going on all the time, eveyr weekend.
 
#30
#30
Because there shouldn't be. I told my roommate when this call happened that ref's should be paid according to accuracy. 87% right? 87% of your salary.
 
#31
#31
LOL, I'm not pissy. Just sticking up for the Gator player with the Auburn guy right in his face.
Click to expand...

The halo rule no longer exists in college football. As stated before, the AU player let the FLA player catch the ball and then knocked the hell out of him.
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
I don't understand why people are so aggravated by this. In the end it didn't matter and there's far worse calls or non-calls going on all the time, eveyr weekend.
Click to expand...
It was a big moment in a big game and could easily have impacted the outcome. I think DAVOL had it right with the opening question: should SEC STILL apologize. That's infinitely more debatable than the quality of the call.
 
#33
#33
LawGator: I wish more UF fans were like you. Me and the new wifey were in Cancun, Mexico over the weekend, and we went down to Pat O'Briens sports bar to watch the OSU/Minnesota game, as well as catch the UF/AU game. Now, having gone to UT for my under grad degree...I am NO stranger to how some UF fans can be......but this certain group in the bar that night were COMPLETELY obnoxious. They screamed curse words at the TV, gator chomped to EVERYTHING, and screamed at the waiters if they asked them something while the game was on. More than a few of the employees and other guests there came up to our group, and said they would be OSU fans now, simply because of how those UF fans were acting. And these werent young frat guys or sorority girls....mid-30's at least. Some people need to realize they represent their fan base as a whole in some cases. Now, everyone there thinks all UF fans are complete idiots. And i cant say i wasnt happy to see them lose! :) If we cant beat you, gotta root for someone to.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
I think that's a mistake. Some kid is going to get seriously hurt because of that rule change.

And that's got nothing to do with last Saturday.
Click to expand...

It has been out for a few years now and I don't think any more have gotten hurt. you just have to let them catch the ball.
 
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
I think that's a mistake. Some kid is going to get seriously hurt because of that rule change.
Click to expand...

Of course, they've still got that rule where you can wave your hand in the air and then nobody can hit you at all.

The Halo rule was, in my opinion, a bad one; it was too easy for the receiver to move the halo into a defender and "cause" a penalty, and it was too hard for players and officials to tell exactly where the invisible halo extended in a crowd.
 
#41
#41
The rule states that a player cannot interfer with a catch by being between the receiver and where the ball will land. The receiver was already were the ball would have landed, shown by his catch. He was untouched and caught the ball. No interferance. It was an awful call.
 
#42
#42
Here is the rule from http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2007/2007_football_rules.pdf

SECTION 4. Opportunity to Catch a Kick
Interference With Opportunity

ARTICLE 1. A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (A.R. 6-3-1-III, A.R. 6-4-1-V and A.R. 6-4-1-X).

a. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground or is muffed by any player of Team B beyond the neutral zone (Rule 6-5-1-a) (A.R. 6-4-1-IV).

b. If interference with a potential receiver is the result of a player being blocked by an opponent, it is not a foul.

c. It is an interference foul if the kicking team contacts the potential
receiver before, or simultaneous to, his first touching the ball (A.R. 6-4-
1-II, III, VII and IX). When in question, it is an interference foul.
 
#43
#43
Reading the rule, it could have fallen under section C - "concacts the potenial receiver before, or SIMULTANEOUS to..."

I never like getting rid of the "Halo" rule, but it had issues as well. I think the return man is too helpless.

That being said, I have never seen the call when the player held on the the ball after the hit.
 
#44
#44
Simultaneous? The Auburn player waited to hit the guy once the ball was in his hands... that's not "Simultaneous". Just like the idea that Meyer could have actually called the timeout BEFORE the snap, when he was obviously WAITING to see the snap before he called it.
 
#45
#45
It was an awful call. I don't see why they can't use replay to get a call like that right. They use it on things a lot more subjective.
 
#46
#46
rwemyss said:
Simultaneous? The Auburn player waited to hit the guy once the ball was in his hands... that's not "Simultaneous". Just like the idea that Meyer could have actually called the timeout BEFORE the snap, when he was obviously WAITING to see the snap before he called it.
Click to expand...

I forgot about that. I liked how they showed Meyer standing next to the ref and say "Timeout" and instantly you see his eyes follow the ball through the air. Either it was BS or that was the fastest snap - set - kick ever.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top