On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:40:42 -0800 (PST), Tom Enright wrote... > On Nov 7, 6:57 pm, Anthony Summers <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Interception clear as day, foot in-bounds also clear as day.
> > I wish I was surprised. *sigh*
> "Clear as day"? If I had to bet I'd say he intercepted that ball, but > no way was the evidence "undisputable."
It was crystal clear that his foot kicked up dirt inside the field of play. Get your prescription checked, dude.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:40:42 -0800 (PST), Tom Enright
<freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 6:57=A0pm, Anthony Summers <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Interception clear as day, foot in-bounds also clear as day.
>> I wish I was surprised. =A0*sigh*
>"Clear as day"? If I had to bet I'd say he intercepted that ball, but >no way was the evidence "undisputable."
>-Tom Enright
>> -- >> A. Summers =A0|| =A0summerstorm0007-->at<--yahoo.com
I had not intended to respond to the people who said the replay was indisputable. I have changed my mind.
The foot appeared in bounds from the angle shown, thus was indisputable to unknowledgeable people. We were not given the opportunity to see the exact opposite angle. Many times, when shown from the opposite angle a foot will be on the line thus OB.
I don't know whether it was an interception or not - neither does anyone else here UNLESS they can show me the opposite angle.
On Nov 7, 8:50 pm, Anthony Summers <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:40:42 -0800 (PST), Tom Enright wrote... > > On Nov 7, 6:57 pm, Anthony Summers <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Interception clear as day, foot in-bounds also clear as day.
> > > I wish I was surprised. *sigh*
> > "Clear as day"? If I had to bet I'd say he intercepted that ball, but > > no way was the evidence "undisputable."
> It was crystal clear that his foot kicked up dirt inside the field of > play. Get your prescription checked, dude.
the play was called incomplete because of this ridiculous to the textbook rule officials are interpreting with "movement while the ball is being caught/brought in".....
I think they should change the rule because I think it's silly, but replay has done that(both in overturning catches and refusing to correct catches) all season in all conferences......
it's like in the iowa/indiana game last week.....that second replay td for indiana was overturned not because of feet but because of this obsession with maintaining total stillness of the ball for like 3 decades and 45 steps after the catch.......they need to look at that in the offseason. But any replay official this season would have done the same thing....
Group: rec.sport.football.college Date: Sat, Nov 7, 2009, 5:40pm (CST-2) From: freddy_ha...@yahoo.com (Tom Enright) On Nov 7, 6:57 pm, Anthony Summers <summerstorm0...@yahoo.com> wrote: Interception clear as day, foot in-bounds also clear as day. I wish I was surprised. *sigh*
"Clear as day"? If I had to bet I'd say he intercepted that ball, but no way was the evidence "undisputable." -Tom Enright ------------------------------------------------------ You need glasses BIG time. The instant replay is extremely clear. Two feet inbounds and possession of the ball. LSU got hosed.
|
