- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/31/25 at 2:38 pm to Scoob
quote:
But like he's pointed out, this is what the reviewer looked at: *Brown "gets" ball, one foot in. So far so good. *Brown crosses plane of goal line with ball in control. So far, so good.
And once crossing the plane, ball is dead, TD.
End of story.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 2:38 pm to King Joey
quote:
Where do you get this? What in the rule says that running with the ball is part of the process of making a catch?
As part of his momentum that led to his hitting the ground, his feet "hit the ground" twice in that process (of falling to the ground). They were not voluntary, "football move" steps. Therefore, he did not complete the definition of completing a catch.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 2:39 pm to Biggiebam
A similar scenario happened last year at South Carolina by Kyren Lacy (not a TD) and the officials reviewed and got it right. Once a football move is made, surviving the ground is not part of the requirement.
IMO the official simply botched the rule interpretation.
IMO the official simply botched the rule interpretation.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 2:41 pm to goatmilker
There is no understanding this call in anyway.
It is just like the Patrick Peterson interception in the Alabama game, which Patrick was clearly in bounce and one foot in before going out.
Which everyone the next day called it in and in clear wonder how the replay officials called it a out.
It is just like the Patrick Peterson interception in the Alabama game, which Patrick was clearly in bounce and one foot in before going out.
Which everyone the next day called it in and in clear wonder how the replay officials called it a out.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 2:42 pm to TDTOM
100%??
I don’t think you can prove that lol. Looked like it was moving around to me…
But I don’t know for sure. Call on field was TD so I thought it would stand.
I don’t think you can prove that lol. Looked like it was moving around to me…
But I don’t know for sure. Call on field was TD so I thought it would stand.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 2:44 pm to Havoc
quote:
And once crossing the plane, ball is dead, TD. End of story.
He has to “catch” the ball for this to be correct.
Per the rule he did not catch the ball.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 2:45 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
They questioned the ball and its contact with the ground
I know what they saw but it’s an overly lawyered interpretation of the rule.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 2:51 pm to Dire Wolf
I love this reply:
They were not voluntary, "football move" steps. Therefore, he did not complete the definition of completing a catch.
Humm a voluntary step rule, vs the real rule of a football move, which means near everything, turning, leaping, stepping, jumping, being pushed, etc.
So, if a player is pushed across the goal line, which is not a voluntary football move, would not that then mean it is not a touchdown?
They were not voluntary, "football move" steps. Therefore, he did not complete the definition of completing a catch.
Humm a voluntary step rule, vs the real rule of a football move, which means near everything, turning, leaping, stepping, jumping, being pushed, etc.
So, if a player is pushed across the goal line, which is not a voluntary football move, would not that then mean it is not a touchdown?
This post was edited on 8/31/25 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 8/31/25 at 2:59 pm to Havoc
quote:No. I wish and thr rule is dumb.
And once crossing the plane, ball is dead, TD.
End of story.
Because it's a catch, the whole "is it a catch" has to be satisfied.
Everyone watching, including the rules expert (Pererra), thought that part was satisfied. The official who reviewed did not.
The problem is, all those dumbass rules and "definition of catch".
Used to be, did he catch the ball and get 1 foot down (2 for NFL)?"
And yeah. He clearly did that. Even the Clemson db would acknowledge that.
This post was edited on 8/31/25 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 8/31/25 at 3:08 pm to Born to be a Tiger1
Thanks.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 3:14 pm to Biggiebam
LSU won what was clearly a fixed game. We have a so,I’d team and more importantly, the coaching has turned a corner
Posted on 8/31/25 at 3:15 pm to Born to be a Tiger1
Ultimately we have money (gambling, etc) to blame. That's why we have all these mental gymnastics to do, when objectively anyone would agree he caught the ball. But he can't just do that, he has to "control through the ground", or "make a football move" etc.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 3:35 pm to Scoob
quote:no he’s not
Lester's correct on this one.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 3:55 pm to icecreamsnowball
quote:quote:
Lester's correct on this one.
no he’s not
Ok simple question:
Did they count the score?
Why did they overturn it? Did they say "we dont like LSU"?
No, they didn't say that. They said he didn't complete the catch.
None of us agree with that, but that's the rationale for overturning it.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:02 pm to icecreamsnowball
quote:
no he’s not
Yes I am. 110%
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News