Reversed INT

[HagginHall1999]

What I’m saying is it could only be incomplete which they called or a complete pass which would have been down on the spot. No way could it be a fumble or an interception. They got it right.

Well I don't agree with that at all. Whether they got it right or night is debatable.

Again, there HAS to be irrefutable evidence by the rule to overturn the call. It was ruled an interception on the field. There was no angle showing the ball hit the turf. I would agree it is likely, that it did, but no angle showing it.

Separate from that, I don't understand how you think it would have to be ruled complete and down. That doesn't make sense....if a live ball is batted into the air by a receiver it isn't ruled complete unless they have possession....and if it doesn't hit the turf it is still a live ball. So again, the only question is if the ball hit the turf or not.

 

[NoDef]

After watching South Carolina get hosed most of the game yesterday I wasn't expecting to get the call in UKs favor. The non call on the face mask was a worse call. I've never seen a helmet ripped off and no call.

 

[UK90]

Again, there HAS to be irrefutable evidence by the rule to overturn the call. It was ruled an interception on the field. There was no angle showing the ball hit the turf. I would agree it is likely, that it did, but no angle showing it.

I disagree. Perhaps someone could post a link of the play (I couldn't immediately find one), but I recall it being very obvious that the ball hit the ground when I watched the replay last night. Enough so to leave no doubt about it.

There's no way you or anybody else here would be having this argument if it didn't involve UK. That was clearly an incomplete pass to any objective eyes.

 

[LmdCat]

What I’m saying is it could only be incomplete which they called or a complete pass which would have been down on the spot. No way could it be a fumble or an interception. They got it right.

You explained it well. No matter how it was called, UK wasn't deserving of the ball on that play.

 

[99firerock]

If it was a catch then it would have been downed by contact. There really was no scenario where we get that TD. Refs are now instructed to let plays like that play out so they can get it sorted in replay.

They have to control the ball…flipping up and being caught by someone else is a completion, or in this case and interception

 

[HeismaNole]

Certain programs are going to be favored by refs and the media/committees. That’s undeniable. Georgia, Bama are the belle of the ball for that. LSU isn’t far behind.

 

[mrschwump]

Certain programs are going to be favored by refs and the media/committees. That’s undeniable. Georgia, Bama are the belle of the ball for that. LSU isn’t far behind.

Got to figure TN in there too. They must have video/audio of SEC admins.

 

[HagginHall1999]

I disagree. Perhaps someone could post a link of the play (I couldn't immediately find one), but I recall it being very obvious that the ball hit the ground when I watched the replay last night. Enough so to leave no doubt about it.

There's no way you or anybody else here would be having this argument if it didn't involve UK. That was clearly an incomplete pass to any objective eyes.

I watched every replay they showed. You can only assume it hit the turf, not see it. My original post was comparing to a replay where you see it hit the turf. Angles shown yesterday can only be an assumption. The WR had both hands under the ball and then view disappears. If it was so obvious they would have called it incomplete from the jump.

I'm not making excuses btw. Just stating my interpretation and it doesn't matter if I'm a UK fan. Coming at this objectively.

 

[BlueWorldOrder74]

I believe we were completely screwed. I don’t care what the ref thought, there is no indisputable video evidence that would have over turned the call on the field. Touchdown. Also two missed blatant PI calls. Also, targeting call that would have put us half the distance to the goal line.

 

[Girthang]

It was the right call. You can't win games like that when you play that conservatively. At some point you have to have the courage to go for more than just field goals.

We actually could have won the game. To say otherwise is disingenuous. You take the field goals.

WHAT YOU DON'T DO is go away from what's been working. What you don't do is put the GAME in GEORGIA'S HANDS when you have the ball in their territory. What you DON'T DO IS FORGET WHAT GOT YOU THERE.

And we did that. We continue to do that

As I said from the first 2 snaps of that series last night, we run the football and the game is ours. Confidently drive, score for the lead, and put the game squarely in the hands of your defense THAT EARNED THAT. Still can't believe we passed the ball at that point, and again, and at that point, had no choice but to try to pass one more time.

The game was lost on the FIRST 2 PLAYS of the series where we punted. It wasn't "playing conservative" that cost us the game. It was playing stupid and going away from what was working.

 

[Girthang]

What I’m saying is it could only be incomplete which they called or a complete pass which would have been down on the spot. No way could it be a fumble or an interception. They got it right.

Not true. Absolutely not true. The ONLY ruling is whether the ball made contact with the ground.

The call on the field was an INT and TD.

 

[JStaff2187]

I watched every replay they showed. You can only assume it hit the turf, not see it. My original post was comparing to a replay where you see it hit the turf. Angles shown yesterday can only be an assumption. The WR had both hands under the ball and then view disappears. If it was so obvious they would have called it incomplete from the jump.

I'm not making excuses btw. Just stating my interpretation and it doesn't matter if I'm a UK fan. Coming at this objectively.

View embedded media

What has caused all of this is the evolution of “what is possession” and “what is a football move”. Years ago, this is probably ruled a catch and downed at that spot.

However, with the rules as they are today that is not possession. You have to control the ball through the catch. He did not. If it’s ruled his hands were under the ball while he lost possession…

To me there is no way to overturn the call on the field. Had they called it incomplete, I’d say the same thing.

 

[phunterd]

Should not have been overturned. It seems he had control of the ball when it came into contact with the ground. However, he did not compete the process of retaining control and it popped in the air. It was not an incompletion nor was it down by contact because the process was not completed. It was an interception as called, IMO.

 

[BigBlueManSouthCentralKY]

Turning point in the game…if the INT would have stood we likely could have won that game. Defense played well enough to hold them. Defense would have scored UK’s only TD. That played defined the outcome of the game.

Yes and had he caught it, they would have said the ball hitting the ground does not matter because it was in his hands. Win win for GA on that play and a lose lose for us.

 

[LmdCat]

We actually could have won the game. To say otherwise is disingenuous. You take the field goals.

WHAT YOU DON'T DO is go away from what's been working. What you don't do is put the GAME in GEORGIA'S HANDS when you have the ball in their territory. What you DON'T DO IS FORGET WHAT GOT YOU THERE.

And we did that. We continue to do that

As I said from the first 2 snaps of that series last night, we run the football and the game is ours. Confidently drive, score for the lead, and put the game squarely in the hands of your defense THAT EARNED THAT. Still can't believe we passed the ball at that point, and again, and at that point, had no choice but to try to pass one more time.

The game was lost on the FIRST 2 PLAYS of the series where we punted. It wasn't "playing conservative" that cost us the game. It was playing stupid and going away from what was working.

I said the officials didn't cause UK to lose the game. UK's coaching decisions and the team's failure to execute are why they didn't win. If it makes you happy to blame the refs, good. However, it doesn't matter.

 

[LmdCat]

Yes and had he caught it, they would have said the ball hitting the ground does not matter because it was in his hands. Win win for GA on that play and a lose lose for us.

If they had called it a catch, he would have also been called down and nothing else after that would have mattered.

 

[LmdCat]

Not true. Absolutely not true. The ONLY ruling is whether the ball made contact with the ground.

The call on the field was an INT and TD.

You are either confused or just refusing to admit that you are wrong. If he had possession of the ball while on the ground, the play is over and he is down. This isn't the NFL which would have required the defender to make contact with the receiver while he is either going down or is down.

 

[bigbluedon]

I watched every replay they showed. You can only assume it hit the turf, not see it. My original post was comparing to a replay where you see it hit the turf. Angles shown yesterday can only be an assumption. The WR had both hands under the ball and then view disappears. If it was so obvious they would have called it incomplete from the jump.

I'm not making excuses btw. Just stating my interpretation and it doesn't matter if I'm a UK fan. Coming at this objectively.

View embedded media

No way and I am a bigger uk fan than any of you. I am sure you have heard that before. The ball hit the ground while he had it in his hands. Every part of his body was on the ground. So the play is over. They did call it incomplete because they didn’t think he had total control and I can see that also. The rest of you are looking at this with total uk blue glasses on. There is no way that was a TD.

 

[bigbluedon]

Not true. Absolutely not true. The ONLY ruling is whether the ball made contact with the ground.

The call on the field was an INT and TD.

Wrong

 

[Soupbean]

I think it was the right call, but at the same time I think if he didn't pop it up they call it a catch.

If they call it a catch then it’s down right there by contact with the ground and still their ball, so didn’t matter either , their ball either way.

 

[Soupbean]

Well I don't agree with that at all. Whether they got it right or night is debatable.

Again, there HAS to be irrefutable evidence by the rule to overturn the call. It was ruled an interception on the field. There was no angle showing the ball hit the turf. I would agree it is likely, that it did, but no angle showing it.

Separate from that, I don't understand how you think it would have to be ruled complete and down. That doesn't make sense....if a live ball is batted into the air by a receiver it isn't ruled complete unless they have possession....and if it doesn't hit the turf it is still a live ball. So again, the only question is if the ball hit the turf or not.

Think you’re missing the point here. Forget about the ground or the ball coming loose. If they ruled he had control and caught it the he was also down by contact with his arms on the ground at the same time as the catch so doesn’t matter what happened after he rolled over ball is dead at that point.

So it’s either a dropped bass and dead ball or catch and dead ball. Didn’t matter not our ball and we didn’t get cheated out of anything

 

[HalHR2500]

The only question is did the receiver have his hands under the ball and lost possession while completing the catch, if so call stands, rule states the catch with firm control, the ball can touch the ground, called the Bert Emmanuel rule. But he didn’t complete the catch

 

[WildcatofNati2]

We would've lost, anyway, so whatever. We don't get to just add those lost points to the final score. If we get that pick 6, then everything else after that is different in the game, and no doubt Georgia finds a path to win, anyway.

 

[jayhovah]

Ease up on paranoia. It was clearly the right call. Officials simply making the correct call on a review does not mean “they” are out to get us.

Bama fan at work just came in and was adamant it was a bad call. I agree with him, and even though we both have an incentive for the interception to stand, I think it is the perception of most people out there. He admitted Bama would have likely gotten the same call as they are in the protected class.

 

[Soupbean]

The only question is did the receiver have his hands under the ball and lost possession while completing the catch, if so call stands, rule states the catch with firm control, the ball can touch the ground, called the Bert Emmanuel rule. But he didn’t complete the catch

with all respect this is irrelevant because he's down by contact either way. You cant roll over and lose the ball trying to complete the catch, you are already down b contact whether you complete it or not. the ground cant create a fumble.

 

[Girthang]

I said the officials didn't cause UK to lose the game. UK's coaching decisions and the team's failure to execute are why they didn't win. If it makes you happy to blame the refs, good. However, it doesn't matter.

Where the fk did I say that? Quote someone else's post where they said that

 

[Girthang]

with all respect this is irrelevant because he's down by contact either way. You cant roll over and lose the ball trying to complete the catch, you are already down b contact whether you complete it or not. the ground cant create a fumble.

You have to maintain control through contact with the ground. If a receiver controls the ball while he's in the air, but hits the ground and the ball pops out, it's not a catch.

That's where the issue is. If the person is lying on tbe ground and the ball bounces off of then, without them gaining control of the ball, anyone can complete the catch before it hits the ground. That's THIS scenario exactly.

 

[Girthang]

Bama fan at work just came in and was adamant it was a bad call. I agree with him, and even though we both have an incentive for the interception to stand, I think it is the perception of most people out there. He admitted Bama would have likely gotten the same call as they are in the protected class.

And it's something we all know to be true. We have to play well enough that we take the game well out of the hands of the officials. The SEC office is gonna SEC. They've made their money by protecting the teams that have a shot at a national title.

We outplayed their calls and the Tigers in 2007 when we beat LSU. That's how it always has to be done. The reversal on the pick 6 didn't lose us the game, whether it was the right call or not. We still had chances to win this game and blew the offensive play calling.

 

[Girthang]

... We don't get to just add those lost points to the final score. If we get that pick 6, then everything else after that is different in the game....

Agree with this much. If we get that pick 6 it's likely it lights a fire under Georgia earlier, but there's no way to know. Too much time left to say that was the deciding factor.

 

[Girthang]

You are either confused or just refusing to admit that you are wrong.

Nice projection, but no.

If he had possession of the ball while on the ground, the play is over and he is down.

They never ruled he had possession. Repeat that a few times. Neither before nor after the review.

This isn't the NFL which would have required the defender to make contact with the receiver while he is either going down or is down.

Once again, that is not something I ever said, so you can shadow box with yourself all you want.

The officials ruled that the ball made contact with the ground without the receiver having control and therefore could not be a completed catch nor interception. It was ALWAYS CLEAR the receiver did not maintain proper control of the ball to call it a catch, or they would have ruled it as such and blown the whistle before the defender reached the end zone.

 

[Girthang]

Should not have been overturned. It seems he had control of the ball when it came into contact with the ground. However, he did not compete the process of retaining control and it popped in the air. It was not an incompletion nor was it down by contact because the process was not completed. It was an interception as called, IMO.

The problem is what you're saying. If he has control, it's a catch and he's down. He clearly didn't have control or the ball doesn't pop up to the defender.

If the ball hits the ground without the player having control, it's a dead ball at that point- negating the INT.

If the ball hits the receiver's hands, preventing contact with the ground, and the receiver doesn't maintain control through said contact with the ground, and it is caught before it hits the ground, its an INT and a TD.

Contact (with the ground) and control are THE two factors

 

[Girthang]

If it wasn't for replay, that's a TD. Sometimes it bites

 

[Girthang]

If they had called it a catch, he would have also been called down and nothing else after that would have mattered.

True. They never ruled he had control of the ball, and it was obvious he didn't, so it couldn't have been a catch.

 

[Girthang]

I watched every replay they showed. You can only assume it hit the turf, not see it. My original post was comparing to a replay where you see it hit the turf. Angles shown yesterday can only be an assumption. The WR had both hands under the ball and then view disappears. If it was so obvious they would have called it incomplete from the jump.

I'm not making excuses btw. Just stating my interpretation and it doesn't matter if I'm a UK fan. Coming at this objectively.

View embedded media

There was ONE angle that seemed to show the WR losing control AND the ball possibly on the ground, but you can't see definitively if his hand is no longer under it. You're 100% right though that you have to assume something that isn't proven by the video in order to overturn the call, and it's just not there.

 

[mrschwump]

Apparently during Mon's PC Stoops was asked if he had asked for conference office explanation but has not received a response. FWIW.

 

[Soupbean]

You have to maintain control through contact with the ground. If a receiver controls the ball while he's in the air, but hits the ground and the ball pops out, it's not a catch.

That's where the issue is. If the person is lying on tbe ground and the ball bounces off of then, without them gaining control of the ball, anyone can complete the catch before it hits the ground. That's THIS scenario exactly.

Thats right and thats why they called it incomplete. And your second point is right too but only if the ball never touched the ground during or after the ball boucing off of the receiver. You cant intercept an incomplete pass, its been ruled incomplete because they didnt control it and it hit the ground - both of those not just the first. It wasnt incomplete because he bobbled it and it bounced off him into the defenders hands, it was incomplete because he bobbled it and it also hit the ground in the process.

 

[LmdCat]

Bama fan at work just came in and was adamant it was a bad call. I agree with him, and even though we both have an incentive for the interception to stand, I think it is the perception of most people out there. He admitted Bama would have likely gotten the same call as they are in the protected class.

Your truth about the catch and interception is simply not true. The more you make this argument only reveals how little you know about the game. However, I suspect you already know you are not correct. You just don't want to admit it.

 

[jayhovah]

Your truth about the catch and interception is simply not true. The more you make this argument only reveals how little you know about the game. However, I suspect you already know you are not correct. You just don't want to admit it.

I do not have any faith in your ability to judge my knowledge of football. I suspect you know that as well, though.

Have a great night!

 

[bigblueinsanity]

You have to maintain control through contact with the ground. If a receiver controls the ball while he's in the air, but hits the ground and the ball pops out, it's not a catch.

That's where the issue is. If the person is lying on tbe ground and the ball bounces off of then, without them gaining control of the ball, anyone can complete the catch before it hits the ground. That's THIS scenario exactly.

The ball can touch the ground. The ground just can't help make the catch.

The ball never moved at all when it came in contact with the ground. If he holds onto that, its a catch or st least should be. No way anything on the replay shows indisputable evidence otherwise.

If it was a catch, then it was an interception.

The correct call should've actually been confirmed. At the very least it should've stood.