Arkansas definately got screwed

[joseephuss]

If your the WR, how do you make that catch without offensive interference?

You may be correct that the WR would have had to interfere with the DB in order to catch the ball; however, that does not fall into the definition of whether the ball was catchable or not. It only matters if the ball is within a reasonable distance of the receiver.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's pass interference because the defender has his hands on the receiver's chest before turning to face the ball. Most often, that's going to be PI. It's not flagrant, but it's PI.

The spot was perfect. Almost to the inch. I think they should have only suspended the one ref that through the PF. That was horrible.

But those other two calls were good calls.

Here is what I've found on incidental contact, with regards to PI.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference


(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

This rule sounds like exactly what happened on that play to me. I do understand that this is college but I could not find a link to the college rule.

 

[theogt]

If your the WR, how do you make that catch without offensive interference?

You can't when the cornerback is in your face pushing on your chest. If the cornerback is not, you could attempt to make a play on the ball.

All of the calls were poor calls IMO.

I can understand why someone would be confused about the PI call. But that spot was absolutely perfect. There's no question it's right. Unless of course you're mistakenly looking at the yellow market on the TV screen which is an entire yard out of place.

Here is what I've found on incidental contact, with regards to PI.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference


(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

This rule sounds like exactly what happened on that play to me. I do understand that this is college but I could not find a link to the college rule.

Obviously this is not the applicable rule, but I doubt the college rule is much different. Read the rule a little more closely. The incidental contact is allowed in two scenarios: (1) if both players are competing for the ball or (2) neither player is looking for the ball.

In this case when the cornerback puts his hands on the receiver's chest, the receiver was competing for the ball but the cornerback was not. The cornerback was facing the receiver and had no idea where the ball was. Thus, neither of the scenarios in the rule apply and the contact results in a pass interference.

 

[Rogah]

Notre Dame gets the same in every game it plays at South Bend

Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush beg to differ.

 

[Rogah]

That pass is most certainly catchable.

I got my plays mixed up - there have been so many bad calls in sports over the past few week I am sure you can understand.

I agree that the first play on the video from this thread was catchable. It shouldn't have been pass interference, but I retract my statement that it was uncatchable. But it was "catchable" in the sense that it was within an arm's length or so of the WR. It should not have been PI.

In this case when the cornerback puts his hands on the receiver's chest, the receiver was competing for the ball but the cornerback was not. The cornerback was facing the receiver and had no idea where the ball was. Thus, neither of the scenarios in the rule apply and the contact results in a pass interference.

The CB was looking over his left shoulder for the ball. Now the ball was coming in from his right side, so it was very awkward looking, but he was certainly looking to make a play on the ball. Combine that with the fact that he barely touched the Florida WR and we see it was a poor call.

 

[theogt]

I got my plays mixed up - there have been so many bad calls in sports over the past few week I am sure you can understand.

I agree that the first play on the video from this thread was catchable. It shouldn't have been pass interference, but I retract my statement that it was uncatchable. But it was "catchable" in the sense that it was within an arm's length or so of the WR. It should not have been PI.
The CB was looking over his left shoulder for the ball. Now the ball was coming in from his right side, so it was very awkward looking, but he was certainly looking to make a play on the ball. Combine that with the fact that he barely touched the Florida WR and we see it was a poor call.

No doubt the cornerback was beginning to turn around as the contact was made. But it's a stretch to say that he was "competing for the ball" at that point. He didn't even know where the ball was.

 

[theogt]

Here's the applicable college rule:

"When two or more eligible players are making a simultaneous and bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass. Eligible players of either team have equal rights to the ball (A.R. 7-3-8-XII)."

I don't think you can really argue that the cornerback was making a "bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass" at the point where he contacted the receiver.

 

[Biggems]

arkansas just got hosed again today against Ole Miss.....

one the first play, Snead got the ball to McCluster. the first defender wrapped up McCluster along the sideline....but he wasnt down or out of bounds. He was still fighting to break free and get more yards. The whistle hadnt blown and another defender came and hit McCluster in the back and knocked him out of bounds. It was a totally legit hit.

Here comes the flag for 15 yd late hit. The side judge less than a yd from the play did not throw the flag.

SEC refs are HORRIBLE.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

No doubt the cornerback was beginning to turn around as the contact was made. But it's a stretch to say that he was "competing for the ball" at that point. He didn't even know where the ball was.

Was not pass interference. I know that the ref furthest away thought so but the one closest didn't throw the flag and since the crew has been suspended, I'd say the SEC and NCAA probably agree that it was not.

 

[theogt]

Was not pass interference.

Unless, of course, you want to actually go by the rules.

 

[Rogah]

Was not pass interference. I know that the ref furthest away thought so but the one closest didn't throw the flag and since the crew has been suspended, I'd say the SEC and NCAA probably agree that it was not.

Considering the SEC sanctioned those refs for "a series of questionable calls" I would say they (and 99% of the rest of us) agree.

 

[Biggems]

Considering the SEC sanctioned those refs for "a series of questionable calls" I would say they (and 99% of the rest of us) agree.

I am not sure that the PI call was one of the questionable calls that got the team suspended. I do know that the personal foul call was one of the calls, though.

 

[theogt]

Considering the SEC sanctioned those refs for "a series of questionable calls" I would say they (and 99% of the rest of us) agree.

Or they could be referring to the excessive celebration penalty called a couple weeks earlier where the SEC publicly reprimanded the same crew of refs.

That might make more sense considering the rest of that quote refers to a series of calls over "several weeks."

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Unless, of course, you want to actually go by the rules.

I'm fine with going by the rules. The rules apparently say that if you make too many screwed up calls, you get suspended.

You like apples?

 

[theogt]

I'm fine with going by the rules. The rules apparently say that if you make too many screwed up calls, you get suspended.

You like apples?

If you're somehow trying to claim that I don't think they should be suspended after the two blown calls (excessive celebration and the personal foul), then you're wrong. Those calls were inexcusable and came at pivotal points in the game.

That, of course, has nothing to do with the spot being perfect and the PI being a good call in the Arkansas-Florida game.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If you're somehow trying to claim that I don't think they should be suspended after the two blown calls (excessive celebration and the personal foul), then you're wrong. Those calls were inexcusable and came at pivotal points in the game.

That, of course, has nothing to do with the spot being perfect and the PI being a good call in the Arkansas-Florida game.

You don't know if it does or it doesn't Theo. In fact, it may well have everything to do with the PI and the spot, in addition to the other calls.

 

[theogt]

You don't know if it does or it doesn't Theo. In fact, it may well have everything to do with the PI and the spot, in addition to the other calls.

You're exactly right. I don't know with certainty whether it does or not. But I didn't bring it up as evidence one way or the other.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You're exactly right. I don't know with certainty whether it does or not. But I didn't bring it up as evidence one way or the other.

Irrelevant. The fact that it has happened is central to the discussion. Those guys didn't get suspended for just one bad call in two different games IMO. They got suspended for several bad calls in multiple games. Doesn't matter, at the end of the day, I think many would agree with me in that I believe both PI calls were bad, the Personal was bad, the spot was wrong and the league took action. I don't feel as if I'm in the minority here.

 

[theogt]

Irrelevant. The fact that it has happened is central to the discussion. Those guys didn't get suspended for just one bad call in two different games IMO. They got suspended for several bad calls in multiple games. Doesn't matter, at the end of the day, I think many would agree with me in that I believe both PI calls were bad, the Personal was bad, the spot was wrong and the league took action. I don't feel as if I'm in the minority here.

Oh, I see. I don't know whether it related to those two calls or not, but you do.

Of course you think that the statement is evidence that the PI call was a poor call. Or that the spot was wrong.

But, no matter how much you wish it was, it's not. Sorry.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Oh, I see. I don't know whether it related to those two calls or not, but you do.

Of course you think that the statement is evidence that the PI call was a poor call. Or that the spot was wrong.

But, no matter how much you wish it was, it's not. Sorry.

Sorry would be the correct usage here. I clearly said, IMO. For those who require clarification, IMO means In My Opinion.

Surely, even you, can understand the difference between that and making a declarative statement.

However, I stand on the fact that most would probably agree with my position. The rest I leave up to you.