When does Florida fire Muschamp? Apparently today.

I am right. 100%

 

...in your dreams?

 

Figures you would team up with that knucklehead

You don't even know who James Harden is

 

She doesn't?

I've been watching this to see who you were talking about and when I caught the first name...

 

And you my friend are defining the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing (in this case saying the same thing) expecting a different response.

You keep saying that the call was no interception, have you looked at the video recently? It was clearly considered an INT they (the refs) were trying to figure if PP landed in bounds. In fact they have a little meeting and then one makes the sign he was out (which was obviously incorrect, just looking at the footprint in the grass). This is what is being debated.

Keep spinning bud, keep spinning.

For your viewing pleasure:

 

Technology, which some say can really be a bitch, has its advantages. In this case, a quote feature is offered on this site.

So, show me where I keep saying "the call was no interception."

l say it one more time with the fleeting hope you can read this, understand it, and let it sink in.

Neither you or I know what the decision was made in the replay booth other than it was called incomplete. You've assumed it was about whether or not it was an interception. You don't know that. I've seen some suggest Peterson stepped out of bounds. I don't know that. I've mentioned earlier how it was explain to me. I can only take him for his word, but I don't know that's the case. (Same guy told me earlier this year SEC officials haven't been missing illegal men downfield and we see how that's worked out.)

I have no need to watch this video again. I can tell you what Danielson said mirrors what I have. He specifically mentions "we don't know what the ruling on the field is..." Then, he and Verne begin discussing whether his foot was in bounds.

To repeat, my point is, we don't know what the discussion was or what the decision was based on...it was never stated during or after the game. All we do know is Miles made the comment the following week that he'd talked with the SEC head of officials and understood.

 

Let me delve into the crazy mind here. What else do you think the call might have been? I know you say "I don't know what the call was" but humor me, what else could the call have been? That he didn't catch/hold on to the ball? No he clearly has the ball in his hands. That he didn't get one foot in bounds? Well to me that is the horribly blown call here, because he not only got one but may have gotten two in bounds. So what else could it have been? That he was blocking JJ in the back, or perhaps a face mask, or illegal formation, or roughing the passer? Your argument whether this was about an interception is perhaps the weakest argument I have ever heard. Of course it is about whether this was an INT or not, and if your sighting the geniouses that are danielson and lundquist then you are undermining your point right off the bat. Might as well say slobbering "lou holtz agrees with me too."

The decision why this was called incomplete is simple as can be, home cooking. Nothing more nothing less any one with a shred of objectivity can see this.

 

if the defender touched it first while out of bounds the ball is dead. it looks like it may have happened from the angle from behind. but from the front its clear as day pp7 touched it first, caught it, got his foot down.

 

Terry, you would make a great White House spokesperson.