cuz i just read it on espn that the refs helped texas alot.

vince youngs knee was down, but if it was called texas has 1st and goal from the 10 and would probobly score anyway

but the clear layout interception of lienhart that was ruled incomplete and not reviewed wouldve given texas the ball and usc wouldnt have gotten the td they scored that drive if overturned

so call it even but if any advantage came from those two plays it was to usc

[Edited on January 5, 2006 at 3:06 PM. Reason : engrish->english]

1/5/2006 3:01:04 PM

engrish

1/5/2006 3:01:48 PM

did this really need to be a thread?

1/5/2006 3:12:05 PM

1/5/2006 3:13:36 PM

My god you can not be serious.


I have never seen so many people disputing such an obvious call.


The ball went flying ten feet into the air. It was not even close to being an interception.


As soon as the guy hit the ground he dropped the fucking ball.

Incomplete pass.


Be serious.

1/5/2006 3:16:14 PM

the ground cant cause a fumble

1/5/2006 3:20:41 PM

I've had this argument several times about this now, and I think it is a weakness in the rules. Logically, that shouldn't be an INT, but as the rules are now, it is, period. He had the ball tucked while in mid air, then the ground caused the fumble.

1/5/2006 3:22:28 PM

your mom can

1/5/2006 3:22:38 PM

yeah my mom might

but your mom, no way, she always keeps a nice tight grip on my balls

1/5/2006 3:23:59 PM

1/5/2006 3:26:02 PM

Do you even realize what you are saying?


The ground cant cause a fumble???????



GREAT, IT WASNT A FUMBLE. IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE PASS.


Think about this for one second.


You are citing a rule that isn't even applicable.


The ground CAN cause an incomplete pass.

1/5/2006 3:36:15 PM

some would argue that it was a complete pass, he has the ball long enough and then hit the ground... he tucked it in and then landed on his back...
if he would have landed on his stomach he probably would have maintained the ball...and knocked his breath out

i think that is what they are arguing....the people who believe he intercepted it believe it was a complete pass...

[Edited on January 5, 2006 at 3:39 PM. Reason : yep]

1/5/2006 3:38:40 PM

I'm not going to argue eitherway, because it could either have been an incompletion or a completion depending on how you want to interpret the rule. I can see how it could be an incomplete pass since he didnt maintain possession of the ball for the entire play, but then I can also see how it could have been a completion since he did tuck the ball back while he was airborne, but once he hit the ground the ball came out.

it's really a moot point now, the game is over

1/5/2006 3:41:31 PM

Well then they are dead wrong.


Had he caught the ball, he would have been lying on the ground holding the ball.


You cant trap the ball against the ground and you cant drop the ball when you hit the ground.


It doesnt matter what the fuck you do in the air. When you hit the ground, if you dont have the football, the pass is incomplete.

1/5/2006 3:41:45 PM

MORE CLASS FROM USC

1/5/2006 3:49:54 PM

i didn't say trap it on the ground... i said he TUCKED IT IN...and if he would have landed on his stomach the ball probably wouldnot have flown out..he would have caught it normally
it was the sudden hit on his back that made the ball fly up in the air 10 yards
when he hit the ground he had the football anyway...it was AFTER he hit the ground that it popped loose

[Edited on January 5, 2006 at 3:53 PM. Reason : ya]

1/5/2006 3:52:33 PM

Quote :

"My god you can not be serious. I have never seen so many people disputing such an obvious call."

This is like seriously the most infuriating thing I've seen on here in ages. People are listening to a senile Keith Jackson (God bless him) and an absolutely retarded Dan Fouts to back it up too. I still can't believe people are using the 'ground can't cause a fucking fumble' rule.

Quote :

"and if he would have landed on his stomach the ball probably wouldnot have flown out..he would have caught it normally"

Why are we using hypotheticals out of curiosity?

** One more edit:

Similar situation. Player dives head long has the ball in his hands as he hits the ground the ball pops out. Incomplete pass or reception? There is only one answer and it is clear as day.

[Edited on January 5, 2006 at 4:04 PM. Reason : f]

1/5/2006 4:01:15 PM

Argue with the rulebook.. From the 2005 NCAA College Football Rulebook

Catch, Interception, Recovery
ARTICLE 7. Acatch is an act of establishing player possession of a live ball
in flight.
a. Acatch of an opponent’s fumble or pass is an interception.
b. Securing player possession of a live ball after it strikes the ground is
“recovering it.’’
c. To catch, intercept or recover a ball, a player who leaves his feet to make
a catch, interception or recovery must have the ball in his possession
when he first returns to the ground inbounds with any part of his body
or is so held that the dead-ball provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply (A.R. 2-
2-7-I-V and A.R. 7-3-6-IV).
1. If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession and
control of the ball, it is a catch or interception even though a subsequent
step or fall takes the receiver out of bounds.
2. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch,
interception or recovery.
d. A catch by any kneeling or prone inbounds player is a completion
interception (Rules 7-3-1 and 2 and 7-3-6 and 7).
e. When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed.
Simultaneous Catch or Recovery
ARTICLE 8. A simultaneous catch or recovery is a catch or recovery
which there is joint possession of a live ball by opposing players inbounds
(A.R. 7-3-6-II and III).

1/5/2006 4:12:18 PM

BOOOM!

1/5/2006 4:16:08 PM

Quote :

"yeah my mom might but your mom, no way, she always keeps a nice tight grip on my balls"

hahahaha

1/5/2006 4:16:35 PM

If USC cared enough they woulda called a timeout.

1/5/2006 4:39:37 PM

I had this theory until that last facemask call that the refs wanted USC to win and the guys in the booth wanted Texas to win and it really came down a game between them

1/5/2006 4:50:45 PM

it's amazing that people are actually arguing that it was a catch. i'm glad someone finally posted the rule so i didn't have to. you can't have "possession" of the ball while in the air. possession is not established until the player returns to the ground. in this case, the ball popped out instantly when he hit the ground so the player never established possession of the ball. it is clear-cut... there is no gray area for argument.

Quote :

"c. To catch, intercept or recover a ball, a player who leaves his feet to make a catch, interception or recovery must have the ball in his possession when he first returns to the ground inbounds with any part of his body or is so held that the dead-ball provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply (A.R. 2- 2-7-I-V and A.R. 7-3-6-IV). 1. If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession and control of the ball, it is a catch or interception even though a subsequent step or fall takes the receiver out of bounds. 2. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch, interception or recovery."

[Edited on January 5, 2006 at 5:04 PM. Reason : needs to be posted again for emphasis]

1/5/2006 4:57:22 PM

good job with posting the rule

1/5/2006 5:00:41 PM

I want to see all the "ground can't cause a fumble" idiots come back to dispute the rule.

Come on, where did you guys go?

1/5/2006 5:15:26 PM

if he had caught it on the sideline with his feet inbounds it woulda been called an incomplete pass and no one would be disputing it

1/5/2006 5:17:40 PM

HOOK'EM

1/5/2006 5:19:13 PM

the "official reason" the play where vince young's knee was down wasn't reviewed was because the replay monitor wasn't working at the time...

1/5/2006 5:21:23 PM

Quote :

"the ground cant cause a fumble "

But it can cause an incompletion. Yes i promise it can IM NOT KIDDING!!!

1/5/2006 5:37:50 PM

I still want all the people who swear it was an interception to come back and refute the rulebook.

1/5/2006 5:39:16 PM

pwnt

also

Quote :

"vince youngs knee was down, but if it was called texas has 1st and goal from the 10 and would probobly score anyway"

not really, due to the fact that it was also a forward lateral it would have brought it back a good amount of yards, few people realize that he indeed did forward it from his knee.

also lets use this fumble thing, remember the no call on the texas reciever who obviously had control was in the process of turning to go up field and the ball got stripped and they called it an incomplete pass...yea, that was pretty obvious that it was a fumble.

if the monitor is not working STOP THE DAMN GAME repaly the play and see it, it was obviously a game turner...hell look at a TV in the box next to you and let the regular TV show you his knee was down...the refs CERTAINLY blew that one and should apologize.

[Edited on January 5, 2006 at 5:58 PM. Reason : d]

1/5/2006 5:57:18 PM

thanks for posting the rules. it clears it up..
it would have been to his advantage to landing on his stomach and the ball might not have came loose....

1/5/2006 6:05:20 PM

if you dont think the refs fucked up plenty of calls on both sides of the ball, you must not have watched the game

true, Young's knee being down was one of the more obvious plays, but it was also in the 1st half...it DID NOT decide the game

1/5/2006 6:06:51 PM

if they had called vince young down by contact that close to the endzone, they would have run another 2 minutes off the clock and scored a touchdown anyway. this probably would have resulted in USC not having time to kick a field goal at the end of the half.

1/5/2006 6:09:40 PM

also wasnt that IDIOTIC reggie bush lateral really an illegal forward pass? although texas wouldve obviously declined the penalty unless USC recovered the fumble

1/5/2006 6:10:43 PM

Quote :

"it DID NOT decide the game"

it affected the path of the game

but no, it didn't decide the game

1/5/2006 6:10:52 PM

its not like they made that call late in the 4th is what im saying...there were plenty of bad calls...dont blame the refs for texas winning...blame the refs for officiating an overall lazy and shitty game...throw some blame at the review booth while you're at it

1/5/2006 6:11:45 PM

Quote :

"remember the no call on the texas reciever who obviously had control was in the process of turning to go up field and the ball got stripped and they called it an incomplete pass"

i don't know what play you are talking about, but did he take two steps? otherwise, its not a complete pass and thereby the strip is not a fumble. also remember that you have to maintain possession all the way to the ground.

1/5/2006 6:12:37 PM

^yeah, to me that call was clearly "he caught it, but he didnt make a 'football move'" so the incomplete pass was the right call

1/5/2006 6:14:57 PM

this is not the NFL chief, those rules dont apply in NCAA see the above posted rules, and it was when Vince threw one right over the middle at the 50.

as for the forward lateral knee down TD, how far back would the forward lateral penalty have brought texas

football move is also a NFL rule, but did he not turn his head and begin to turn his body and the ball got stripped, his head obviously turned on his OWN WILL, thats good enough for me to call it a football move

[Edited on January 5, 2006 at 6:17 PM. Reason : g]

1/5/2006 6:15:35 PM

Anyone remember on that interception on the goal line how quickly the ref sprinted to get the ball back to the line of scrimmage

he sprinted stretching the ball out in front of him, luckily they called for replay in time


made me go "hmmm...."

1/5/2006 6:18:03 PM

if his knee was down, there would be no forward lateral penalty as the play was already dead. they would have been at the location where his knee touched the ground and scored a touchdown a few plays later.

1/5/2006 6:19:12 PM

^^maybe "football moves" are only NFL, but I dont think he turned at all...matter of fact, it surprised me he didnt try to make a football move, I thought it was odd that it looked like he just stood there, maybe in case someone did strip it?

1/5/2006 6:19:23 PM

^^

1/5/2006 6:20:38 PM

ummm. turning your head is not a football move. sorry.

1/5/2006 6:21:16 PM

true with the knee down lateral penalty, but either one of the two should have been called

alsoi the football move is NFL rules and i hate that rule, what decides football vs. a hockey move
he turned his head to run or check defenders, thats a football move

but that has no use in this discussion, football move DOES NOT have to do with the NCAA
if we are takin NFL rules into effect, then Bush never scored a TD

[Edited on January 5, 2006 at 6:22 PM. Reason : d]

1/5/2006 6:21:22 PM

Quote :

"not really, due to the fact that it was also a forward lateral it would have brought it back a good amount of yards, few people realize that he indeed did forward it from his knee."

no for many reasons. first of all you cant call a penalty from a reviewed play. secondly, if he was down then the forward lateral happend after the play duh. 1st and goal texas from the 10. something usc never stopped.

also on the charles play he caught the ball then had it knocked out immidiately. incomplete pass easily.

on the origianl debated interception im not arguing with the rulebook but he caught the ball landed and was down when he hit the ground then the ball popped out. as soon as his back hit the ground the play was over.

1/5/2006 6:22:14 PM

what decides a roughing the passer vs a knockdown

what decides a five yard face mask v.s a 15 yard face mask (which the refs fouled up last night, shouldah been 15)

football rules are full of that crap

1/5/2006 6:22:55 PM

if you're hellbent on convincing yourself that Texas only won because of an uncalled penalty, then try to convince yourself that it is payment with interest for the no-call that gave USC the victory over Notre Dame.

1/5/2006 6:23:27 PM

damn eleusis i like you

1/5/2006 6:23:52 PM