When does Florida fire Muschamp? Apparently today.

College gameday: How Mike Slive and the SEC machine execute

 

OH, recall we aren't too far removed from this as well...

 

I agree someone doesn't understand the point that I brought up here. The play was ruled an incomplete pass instead of an INT, should have been an INT. You cant accept that and are going on about some "guy" who told you God knows what.

What Tirk said would be true if the receiver touched the ball, again look at the video he did not. So that kills that point.

Ill say it again weak argument. Other seem to agree.

http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2009/11/lsus_patrick_peterson_possible.html
http://larrybrownsports.com/college...u-alabama-interception-patrick-peterson/10969
http://www.scoresreport.com/2009/11/09/screenshots-of-patrick-pattersons-interception/
http://www.si.com/more-sports/2009/11/07/lsu-alabama
http://blog.al.com/bamabeat/2009/11/sec_not_planning_to_comment_on.html

Just to let you know many of these articles sight the play being called as incomplete and "not enough evidence to over turn". And again this is what I have issue about, there is physical (footprint), photographic, and video evidence which overturns this.

I'll Edit my point; this is a weak ass argument

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. It's your contention this is about an interception. It's my contention:

Do a quick google search seems many people know

Thank you for your empathy, and I do get what you were saying, its this thing called being sardonic.

 

@TerryP The real issue, I believe, is perception.

Assuming that your SEC referee source is correct and the question was whether Julio Jones touched the ball first while out of bounds then, taking off my rather thick Purple and Gold glasses, I can at least see the line of reasoning. 1) The ruling on the field is that the ball was dead because the receiver was out of bounds and was the first player to touch the ball; and 2) there does not seem to be undisputed video evidence that the receiver DID NOT touch the ball first. Therefore, the call on the field stands.

I've got to admit that looking at the video in the light most favorable to upholding the call, I can't say with 100% certainty that Julio Jones didn't touch the ball first. It doesn't look like he did; simple common sense tells me that after watching the replay. It doesn't look like that would have even been possible, since Peterson got to the ball first and secured it. But I can't say, based solely on the video, that Julio Jones didn't touch it first.

The reality of it is that is' a 5 year old call and if that's the basis for the call then I can accept it. I won't ever agree with it, but I can accept it.

However, here's the problem. No one, either with the officiating crew at the time of the call or with the SEC office after the game, ever publicly gave that as the basis for the call. The officials on the field simply said, "Incomplete pass." "After further review, the ruling on the field stands." So those watching live and those writing about it immediately after the fact had nearly zero information on which to base their speculation. And that speculation centered around whether or not Peterson was inbounds when he caught the ball. And the consensus was the he was so clearly inbounds that he left a hole on the field.

The whole issue could have been cleared up by the on field officials announcing that Julio Jones touched the ball first and he was out of bounds. Or the whole issue could have been cleared up by the SEC office later announcing that Julio Jones touched the football first and he was out of bounds. Neither of those were done.

Which leads to the perception problem.

Because, if Julio Jones touching the ball first is the basis for the call, it's not abundantly clear from the play itself. It needs clarification. Interested but unaffiliated observers watching the game very likely thought something like, "Damn. Bad call. Peterson was clearly inbounds. Typical SEC refs." And after five years the official SEC stance is still, "After further review, the ruling on the field stands."

So the perception lingers. The SEC Office protects its unbeatens and if two unbeatens meet, the SEC Office protects the elephant in the room.

 

Much less biased than I could have said it, well done (golf clap). I personally dont see a chance in hell JJ got a hand on the ball at all, like you said PP7 was infront. That is just my take on things.

To me the most important line in what you said was the last one. That is pretty damn evident year in and year out.

 

I agree 100%!!!

If you recall, during the game the head officials mic was going in and out all through the contest. He started with the explanation (I think that was his intent) and his mic went out, again. Horrible, horrible timing.

So, that explanation may have happened but we just didn't hear it...add to that, his back was turned to the LSU sideline because of the press box, etc.

What would have made it a lot clearer and definitely should have been done was Redding make an announcement the following Monday on the call.

Before anyone goes off on a search: Redding is a Ga. Tech grad.

 

Notice they don't show all the Bama flags or statue of Saban making out with the bear that on the back wall.

 

Why thank you, I think. By training and temperament I generally try to look at issues from all sides.

That said, even if Jones touching the ball first was the basis for the call, I disagree with the call. But it does make more sense than saying Peterson didn't intercept the ball when he clearly did.

 

That's not what happened. They know it, we know it, the SEC knows it. But it's a convenient excuse.

 

To quote red from earlier, "Any notion of a conspiracy to promote one team is fanboy crybaby shit."