|
Replies: 14
| visibility 3,618
|
All-TigerNet [10904]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12988
Joined: 8/4/14
|
Proof Scott was interfered with on pass in end zone
Jan 16, 2016, 7:23 PM
|
|
|
|
This great shot by Mark McInnis doesn't leave much doubt, does it? And the Bama DB isn't even looking back for the ball. An obviously bad no call.
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [15914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7797
Joined: 11/15/09
|
Yep, its pretty clear... and you never know what the
Jan 16, 2016, 7:26 PM
|
|
4 additional points would have done to play calling etc.. but 4 points here did not allow Bama all the big pass plays and ST gaffes we gave up.
He almost caught it anyway.. Great game by A Scott.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11188]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11/22/15
|
Re: Proof Scott was interfered with on pass in end zone
Jan 16, 2016, 7:27 PM
|
|
Feeling better now
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1858]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 1666
Joined: 1/5/15
|
Re: Proof Scott was interfered with on pass in end zone
Jan 16, 2016, 7:32 PM
|
|
While to some it may appear as sour grapes but it's not. It's just calling a bad call a bad call, period. Would it have changed the outcome? Maybe but it's more about momentum than points. Officiating mistakes should NEVER, EVER determine the outcome of a game WITHOUT a complete, thorough and exhaustive review. Change the ### rules so any play can be reviewed. It's only fair and in both teams interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11188]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5532
Joined: 11/22/15
|
Re: Proof Scott was interfered with on pass in end zone
Jan 16, 2016, 7:36 PM
|
|
Allowing reviews for players making contact with each other wouldn't work. It's unfair to all the teams which makes it fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10904]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12988
Joined: 8/4/14
|
And this sequence sure makes it look like a catch. Notice
Jan 16, 2016, 8:32 PM
|
|
|
|
in the first one, he has already gathered the ball in, by the third frame, he has taken a full step and the ball is still firmly held on to. I wish there was a shot just as he touches the ball and a couple more frames after these, I bet they would show he took at least two full steps after gathering the ball in, and before he lost it.
I am more convinced now, it was a catch, and even if not, definitely interference.
Message was edited by: longtallsam®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12539]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 12247
Joined: 11/21/11
|
knew that from the very first replay. I have watched the
Jan 16, 2016, 7:37 PM
|
|
game a couple of times and it was obvious interference. How else could his entire arm have been between the ball that Scott was holding and Scott's body. When he jerked his arm out the ball had to come out. I never for one second blamed Scott for not completing that catch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [90819]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 45503
Joined: 10/18/09
|
Knew We Was ROBBED & so did my Penn St guests !!!
Jan 16, 2016, 7:43 PM
|
|
What a farce..and this TD would have made Bama work their Arses off to beat us then!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12539]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 12247
Joined: 11/21/11
|
would have been nice to have those four points, but the game
Jan 16, 2016, 7:48 PM
[ in reply to knew that from the very first replay. I have watched the ] |
|
began to unravel when we had 1st and 10 at Bama 40 with 12 minutes to go in the game leading 24-21. We recovered our own fumble but the drive stalled. Then out chance took another blow when Bama had 3rd and 11 in their territory and completed a 38 yd pass for first down on way to field goal. If that sequence doesn't happen, its likely we never get to the special teams circus.
We held Bama to 21 points for 49 game minutes and they scored 24 in the last 12 game minutes. That explosion was due to not scoring on our part when we had three possessions leading 24-21, let them complete a 3rd and 11 for 38, an onside kick, and a kickoff return for a touchdown. ALso, our loss of Alexander for the entire second half took its toll.
Like a friend told me. We kicked their butts for 3 quarters and three minutes and then things just didn't go our way. We hung in and fought and made a close run of overcoming even all of the above, but just couldn't overcome it completely. And nearly still took over trailing 5 with 3:50 remaining but a bad angle on 2nd and 13 and Bama went on to score again.
Just wasn't meant to be. Maybe we will in in Tampa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1138]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 878
Joined: 10/27/02
|
Re: would have been nice to have those four points, but the game
Jan 16, 2016, 9:15 PM
|
|
4 points means they don't take a two score lead. It also means the last TD ties the game with 12 seconds left, because we don't go fo 2 earlier. Moot point, but OT would have been nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12539]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 12247
Joined: 11/21/11
|
They should have been able to reset the clock before
Jan 16, 2016, 7:50 PM
|
|
half. That was unacceptable clock keeping and in the national title game, wow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1127]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2041
Joined: 1/13/14
|
Re: Proof Scott was interfered with on pass in end zone
Jan 16, 2016, 8:37 PM
|
|
It's definitely pass interference but a good play by the DB because he was a millisecond off from it not being PI. No faceguarding in college so that doesn't apply. If that red called that he would have had the greatest eyes ever. That was such a bang bang play and I didn't think it was PI until about the 2nd or 3rd replay. And no they shouldn't replay those kinds of plays. The game doesn't need anymore of that. It would get out of hand with overturning stuff all the time. All in all that is a call where I think you have to be ok with it either way. Elite players make that catch in that situation sometimes and Scott came dang close. Mike probably catches it and nuk would have caught it, stayed up and pulled it away 1 handed while the guy fell all over the ground.
Long story short we lost out on a lot of close plays and Bama won out on most. We still only lost by 5 and had multiple chances to put it away ealier. Let's put this to bed and look forward to spring ball, all barn and Tampa 2017!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46322
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Of course it was. There was another blown PI call with
Jan 16, 2016, 9:07 PM
|
|
Renfrow at the goal line. The DB had his hand on Hunter's helmet well before the ball got there, and was not in any way, shape or form playing the ball. I'm not gonna whine about losing, but to say that the game was not poorly officiated, and didn't affect the outcome is either disingenuous or very naive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7114]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7324
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You're right Smiley. It was PI...
Jan 16, 2016, 11:08 PM
|
|
and I think Hunter would have snagged another TD catch if the defender hadn't been holding him by the helmet. Major missed call that impacted the game.
Bama is a great team, but they were lucky to win that game. Very lucky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1692]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 1996
Joined: 10/13/10
|
Re: Proof Scott was interfered with on pass in end zone
Jan 16, 2016, 11:13 PM
|
|
You CAN faceguard in college and the NFL as long as you have no contact
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 3,618
|
|
|
50
