Did We Get Away With A Bad Call?

GH2001 · « **Reply #60 on:** October 18, 2011, 10:06:37 AM »

Unless someone can prove it impeded him catching it, then it was a good no call. I think it was apparent looking at the rest of the game that Rainey himself was the issue catching balls, not OM. Dude obviously had the shanks all night. Many credit Clark's punt trajectory with the mishaps more than anything. Rainey had issues with them all night. But yeah, blame OM if it makes you feel better.

He didn't touch him, he didn't touch the ball, he didnt wave his arms in front of him, he didn't stand in front of him, he didn't impede his view that we can prove. Are you guys seriously gonna try to CSI this shit? Like JR said, its a judgement call, and there wasn't enough there to warrant him interfering. You have to go with the no call in that case.

RWS · « **Reply #61 on:** October 18, 2011, 10:06:48 AM »

Let's make it simple. This is all that matters:

Ball is still in the air.

GH2001 · « **Reply #62 on:** October 18, 2011, 10:08:41 AM »

Quote from: RWS on October 18, 2011, 10:06:48 AM

Let's make it simple. This is all that matters:

Ball is still in the air.

I can draw a straight line from the ball to Rainey's eyes. And also a straight line from the ball to Rainey's hands. Omac is not between either of them.

Nice try. The only person that can tell you if he was truly impeded was Rainey. And you know what he is going to say.

RWS · « **Reply #63 on:** October 18, 2011, 10:42:35 AM »

Quote from: GH2001 on October 18, 2011, 10:08:41 AM

I can draw a straight line from the ball to Rainey's eyes. And also a straight line from the ball to Rainey's hands. Omac is not between either of them.

Nice try. The only person that can tell you if he was truly impeded was Rainey. And you know what he is going to say.

Draw all of the lines you want. Draw some rectangles, ovals, squares, and polka dots if you want. If you truly truly can look at that picture and say Rainey was clearly unimpeded and/or otherwise not distracted, then you might want to consider an eye exam.

CCTAU · « **Reply #64 on:** October 18, 2011, 11:07:50 AM »

I pray this same thing happens to bammer when we play. The mullet nation will blow a gasket. I will raise my beer a guffaw!

Snaggletiger · « **Reply #65 on:** October 18, 2011, 11:14:14 AM »

I think everyone is missing the big picture here. Regardless of whether the correct call was made, the fact is Florida still had to face Ted Roof's defense. Please don't tell me you think Florida or anyone else has a chance to score points. You'll lose all credibility.

JR4AU · « **Reply #66 on:** October 18, 2011, 11:14:30 AM »

Quote from: Hogwally on October 18, 2011, 09:42:34 AM

It was a bad call.

There was no call. Therefore no bad call. It was a judgement decision, no contact. Auburn wins! Fuck the whiners, haters, and YOU!

GH2001 · « **Reply #67 on:** October 18, 2011, 11:21:49 AM »

Quote from: RWS on October 18, 2011, 10:42:35 AM

Draw all of the lines you want. Draw some rectangles, ovals, squares, and polka dots if you want. If you truly truly can look at that picture and say Rainey was clearly unimpeded and/or otherwise not distracted, then you might want to consider an eye exam.

WAAAAH WAAAAH......this is all about Bammer and the rest of the haters trying to tarnish another win Auburn wasn't suppose to have. Remember, we were only supposed to have 4. And it's killing some people. This "no call" is just like anything else. Unless you know for sure he was impeded, you can't call it. Same thing with a guilty/no guilty verdict in court. You err on the safe side when you just aren't sure. Tell me from that picture what part of Omac is between Rainey hands/eyes and the ball. If you were to get a back angle of that picture you would see Omac off to the left slightly. How about we just say that Rainey saw Omac coming like a freight train, and the bastard nutted up. He couldn't catch shit all night. Is it not apparent to you that Rainey was having issues???

"Lookatherrr lookatherr, dat dern Aubie don got inda way a-tha ball. Dats a-fowwwll rite therrr. Dem cheatin aubies. Deyz musta paid tha reffs off with some a-that scam newton money from that bank feller"

RWS · « **Reply #68 on:** October 18, 2011, 11:31:05 AM »

Quote from: CCTAU on October 18, 2011, 11:07:50 AM

I pray this same thing happens to bammer when we play. The mullet nation will blow a gasket. I will raise my beer a guffaw!

And they would be wrong for it as well. It doesn't matter what teams are playing.

GH2001 · « **Reply #69 on:** October 18, 2011, 11:39:29 AM »

Quote from: RWS on October 18, 2011, 11:31:05 AM

And they would be wrong for it as well. It doesn't matter what teams are playing.

Easy to say that about a hypothetical that has about a 1% chance of happening. You would shit your pants if it happened and you know it. I'm talking taco bell and beer wet squirts all in your tighty whiteys. You would come undone.

Snaggletiger · « **Reply #70 on:** October 18, 2011, 11:41:29 AM »

After review, the call on the field stands. First and 10 Auburn.

Booooooo.....F%$#...Piece of &%*&...Mother %^$#@*&...son of a &%&$#..B0000000.....%&***$#@

JR4AU · « **Reply #71 on:** October 18, 2011, 11:41:56 AM »

Quote from: RWS on October 18, 2011, 11:31:05 AM

And they would be wrong for it as well. It doesn't matter what teams are playing.

They weren't wrong this time. The fact whiners like you don't like it don't make it wrong.

GH2001 · « **Reply #72 on:** October 18, 2011, 12:07:16 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on October 18, 2011, 11:41:56 AM

They weren't wrong this time. The fact whiners like you don't like it don't make it wrong.

BOOM (no pun intended). THIS^^

RWS · « **Reply #73 on:** October 18, 2011, 12:09:54 PM »

Quote from: GH2001 on October 18, 2011, 11:21:49 AM

WAAAAH WAAAAH......this is all about Bammer and the rest of the haters trying to tarnish another win Auburn wasn't suppose to have. Remember, we were only supposed to have 4. And it's killing some people. This "no call" is just like anything else. Unless you know for sure he was impeded, you can't call it. Same thing with a guilty/no guilty verdict in court. You err on the safe side when you just aren't sure. Tell me from that picture what part of Omac is between Rainey hands/eyes and the ball. If you were to get a back angle of that picture you would see Omac off to the left slightly. How about we just say that Rainey saw Omac coming like a freight train, and the bastard nutted up. He couldn't catch shit all night. Is it not apparent to you that Rainey was having issues???

"Lookatherrr lookatherr, dat dern Aubie don got inda way a-tha ball. Dats a-fowwwll rite therrr. Dem cheatin aubies. Deyz musta paid tha reffs off with some a-that scam newton money from that bank feller"

That may be why the gayturds are saying it, but I know it's not why I'm saying it, and I'm pretty certain that isn't why Vandy Vol is saying it. And that's been the hangup in this whole thread. You guys are so defensive of it because you feel like somebody is telling you that AU didn't fairly and squarely beat UF. If you read previous posts, that is not the intention. I don't care that AU won, or how they won. It doesn't change anything in my life. But if we're going to discuss the rule, then we will discuss it. You can skew the argument and try to build numbers by just throwing out there that we disagree only because we want to see AU lose, blah blah blah. But you're not really making a point; you're simply trying to sidestep.

Quote

You err on the safe side when you just aren't sure

It is clearly written right in the rule itself that if you aren't sure, it is a penalty. Exact words: "When in question, it is an interference foul." In this rule, the "safe side" is siding with the receiver. So this isn't really a good comparison on your part.

CCTAU · « **Reply #74 on:** October 18, 2011, 12:14:28 PM »

Quote from: RWS on October 18, 2011, 12:09:54 PM

It is clearly written right in the rule itself that if you aren't sure, it is a penalty. Exact words: "When in question, it is an interference foul." In this rule, the "safe side" is siding with the receiver. So this isn't really a good comparison on your part.

Hmm. I guess that settles it. There must not have been ANY doubt. Have a shitty day.

RWS · « **Reply #75 on:** October 18, 2011, 12:16:32 PM »

Quote from: GH2001 on October 18, 2011, 11:39:29 AM

Easy to say that about a hypothetical that has about a 1% chance of happening. You would shit your pants if it happened and you know it. I'm talking taco bell and beer wet squirts all in your tighty whiteys. You would come undone.

Alabama had a kick catch interference called on them a few weeks ago. How did it happen? An opposing player blocked a Bama player into the path of the ball, and the ball hit the Bama player on the back of the helmet. Bama player never saw the ball coming, and he never hit the receiver. For that matter, it was a bad call because the rule specifically states: "If interference with a potential receiver is the result of a player being blocked by an opponent, it is not a foul."

They threw the flag and penalized Alabama anyway. Did I think it was a shitty call? After watching the replay, yes. But it was what it was, and me getting angry about it wasn't going to change anything, so oh well. I still think it's a shitty call. You win some, and you lose some. There have been a few calls that went our way recently that probably shouldn't have, like the '09 LSU game. And that's how it is. For every few you get your way, you're going to get one or two that don't go your way.

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #76 on:** October 18, 2011, 12:23:12 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on October 18, 2011, 08:59:17 AM

I'm just saying, based on your interpretations of the rule, all one has to do when returning a punt is to wave your hand at the exact moment you catch it, every time, and you'l always get an additional 15 yards.

Dude...the exact scenario you've described is identified as interference by an NCAA bulletin:

Quote from: NCAA Bulletin

As B17 awaits Team A’s high scrimmage kick: a) A85 stands near B17 and shouts at him; b) A55 sprints past B17, coming very close to him; or c) A38 stands near B17 and waives his hands and arms at him. RULING: In all three scenarios, Team A foul, interference with the opportunity to catch a kick. Fifteen yards from the spot of the foul, whether or not the ball is caught by B17 (Rule 6-4-1).

I can't help it if you personally don't believe that the rule should be interpreted like that, but it is...not by me, but by the NCAA.

CCTAU · « **Reply #77 on:** October 18, 2011, 12:28:36 PM »

Quote from: Vandy Vol on October 18, 2011, 12:23:12 PM

Dude...the exact scenario you've described is identified as interference by an NCAA bulletin:

I can't help it if you personally don't believe that the rule should be interpreted like that, but it is...not by me, but by the NCAA.

Quote

s B17 awaits Team A’s high scrimmage kick: a) A85 stands near B17 and shouts at him; b) A55 sprints past B17, coming very close to him; or c) A38 stands near B17 and waives his hands and arms at him. RULING: In all three scenarios, Team A foul, interference with the opportunity to catch a kick. Fifteen yards from the spot of the foul, whether or not the ball is caught by B17 (Rule 6-4-1).

Uhh. He was referring to the guy CATCHING the ball as waving his hand at the last second.

And I did not see OM do any of a) - c)!

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #78 on:** October 18, 2011, 12:31:31 PM »

Quote from: GH2001 on October 18, 2011, 10:06:37 AM

He didn't touch him, he didn't touch the ball, he didnt wave his arms in front of him, he didn't stand in front of him, he didn't impede his view that we can prove.

Oh?

But, as you said, it's a judgment call. I don't know what was going through the ref's mind. But, I wonder how much closer he needs to be before interference is called...because if he moves any closer than what he is in this picture, they'd be wiener to wiener. And I'm pretty sure that's interference, what with the wiener contact and all..

Again, it's a judgment call. I get that. Most of what I've been posting is in regard to the fair catch having nothing to do with the interference call. By the rules, the fair catch signal doesn't affect an interference call. There isn't an interference rule for when a fair catch is signaled, and one for when a fair catch isn't signaled. There isn't a caveat to the interference rule that says if a player signals "late," or if a player makes an invalid fair catch signal, then the kicking team player can get a little closer than he normally would be able to. If he was too close for a fair catch, then he was too close for a live catch.

Was OM too close? Judgment call by the ref. Was OM too close only because Rainey improperly signaled fair catch? Doesn't matter. That's my main point.

GH2001 · « **Reply #79 on:** October 18, 2011, 12:31:48 PM »

Quote from: RWS on October 18, 2011, 12:09:54 PM

That may be why the gayturds are saying it, but I know it's not why I'm saying it, and I'm pretty certain that isn't why Vandy Vol is saying it. And that's been the hangup in this whole thread. You guys are so defensive of it because you feel like somebody is telling you that AU didn't fairly and squarely beat UF. If you read previous posts, that is not the intention. I don't care that AU won, or how they won. It doesn't change anything in my life. But if we're going to discuss the rule, then we will discuss it. You can skew the argument and try to build numbers by just throwing out there that we disagree only because we want to see AU lose, blah blah blah. But you're not really making a point; you're simply trying to sidestep.

There are a few on here I may tried to sidestep, but you aren't one of them. I am saying opponents are going to reason this in any way they can to diminish our success since we were supposed to be a 4 win team. We really didn't beat Fla fair and square. It was those darn refs...right? Egg, Face - have a nice date.

Quote

It is clearly written right in the rule itself that if you aren't sure, it is a penalty. Exact words: "When in question, it is an interference foul." In this rule, the "safe side" is siding with the receiver. So this isn't really a good comparison on your part.

What's not a good comparison is using a rule where the stipulation is "when in question". It was evidently not "in question" to the refs. It is "in question" to YOU because you want it to be - very subjective. He never blocked his view, hands or touched him. The ref saw it that way as well. It was never in question you dumbass, so your little piece of logic is thrown out the window. Now what?

Shall we stop this now or do want to keep chasing your tail?

FULL RULE just for reference:

ARTICLE 1. A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines attempting
to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free kick or a scrimmage
kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an unimpeded opportunity to
catch the kick (A.R. 6-3-1-III, A.R. 6-4-1-V and A.R. 6-4-1-X).

a. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground, when any player
of Team B muffs a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, or when any
player of Team B muffs a free kick in the field of play or in the end zone (Rule
6-5-1-a) (A.R. 6-4-1-IV).

b. If interference with a potential receiver is the result of a player being blocked
by an opponent, it is not a foul.

c. It is an interference foul if the kicking team contacts the potential receiver
before, or simultaneous to, his first touching the ball (A.R. 6-4-1-II, III, VII and
IX). When in question, it is an interference foul.