|
Replies: 13
| visibility 1412
|
All-TigerNet [5824]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Wow....miss a hold, but call the PI
4
Jan 9, 2025, 10:31 PM
|
|
Penn St got them wrapped up in the 4th
|
|
|
|
 |
Game Changer [2053]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: Yea, really really really bad call...
4
Jan 9, 2025, 10:33 PM
|
|
In crunch time too. That's 2 Ints called back in favor PSU.. even tho the first one was a hold.. this one was bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7305]
TigerPulse: 96%
42
Posts: 13813
Joined: 2015
|
Re: Yea, really really really bad call...
3
Jan 9, 2025, 10:34 PM
|
|
The defender didn't turn his head but I don't think he even touched him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65417]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 18780
Joined: 2020
|
Re: Yea, really really really bad call...
2
Jan 9, 2025, 10:36 PM
|
|
Yeah, that last replay showed clearly he didn't touch him. Refs should have huddled and picked the flag up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1970]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
Re: Yea, really really really bad call...
2
Jan 9, 2025, 10:36 PM
[ in reply to Re: Yea, really really really bad call... ] |
|
If there was any contact it was less than incidental. The ref got suckered by the player falling backwards. Terrible call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [9]
TigerPulse: 99%
1
|
Re: Yea, really really really bad call...
2
Jan 9, 2025, 10:55 PM
[ in reply to Re: Yea, really really really bad call... ] |
|
Terrible call
IF there was contact it was extremely minimal and had no effect on the outcome of the play. The ball was severely under-thrown and I’m pretty sure when #8 MAYBE contacts the PSU player, pretty sure the ND defender had already touched the ball which means PI can’t be called.
Couple that with the blatantly obvious holding no-call on PSU previous TD is suspect
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6737]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Wow....miss a hold, but call the PI
1
Jan 9, 2025, 10:35 PM
|
|
Missed hold was egregious. Hate the overturned int but looked like right call
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3159]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
That was a bad PI call even though the announcers defended it
1
Jan 9, 2025, 10:36 PM
|
|
Haven’t been watching the whole game, but that seemed bogus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3159]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
On that angle after the TD..the PSU player initiated the contact.
2
Jan 9, 2025, 10:39 PM
|
|
What a terrible call on that INT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31673]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 37022
Joined: 2000
|
Well, he legally can in trying to get back to the ball.
2
Jan 9, 2025, 10:46 PM
|
|
Now, in this case it looked to me like he was falling backwards and there was very minimal contact, and certainly not enough for him to have caught the ball or stopped the interception without it.
But, the reasoning you are using isn't the rule. It is PI if the defender isn't playing the ball and stops the receiver from coming back to the ball even though the receiver initiates the contact.
But again, I thought in this case it looked to be a bit of a bailout call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3159]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
He was not coming back to the ball, and the ND player
2
Jan 9, 2025, 10:56 PM
|
|
Did not cause his fall….
The initiation of contact by PSU revealed by replay simply confirmed it wasn’t PI.
Announcers totally missed it with their ‘good call’ analysis…they thought ND player made contact, I guess.
It was definitely a bailout call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [9]
TigerPulse: 99%
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31673]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 37022
Joined: 2000
|
Faceguarding is legal
2
Jan 9, 2025, 11:00 PM
|
|
Impeding the receiver from coming back to the ball isn't.
Now, that's not what happened on that play, I was merely pointing out that the receiver "initiating the contact" doesn't automatically negate DPI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9109]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
|
I dont like DPI rewarding under thrown balls***
1
Jan 9, 2025, 10:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 13
| visibility 1412
|
|
|
50
