T1B

Believe the Heupel wrote:I want to know if the official ruling on the field was "Incomplete pass, out of bounds" or "Incomplete pass because the LSU player didn't have possession in bounds."

B-t-H wrote:Does it hurt when you take the helmet off or something?

Believe the Heupel wrote: I know the supposition is that the ruling was Peterson was out of bounds, but did the officials say that on the field? If they did, then I concede the point and they were wrong.

Believe the Heupel wrote:The problem is that Python not only failed to prove his point, he used a picture that didn't even come close to proving it and claimed victory. Hell, you even helped my point by saying the referee never stated whether the ball was out of bounds by contact with an out of bounds player or because the defender's foot was out of bounds. You're just too amazingly stupid to understand why that helped my point and not Python's.

Before the SEC clarified that what they looked at was the defender's feet, there was nothing but conjecture as to why the play was ruled incomplete out of bounds. An out of bounds player is an alternate and plausible theory, because CLEARLY the defender's feet were in bounds. My NORMAL assumption is that a referee probably knows the rulebook better than Gary Danielson and some dipshit in Missouri do, but sometimes that assumption is false.

Now I understand that as a Chiefs and Tiggers fan who doesn't watch a lot of what people would normally call football doesn't get that when the ball touches someone out of bounds then the ball is out of bounds, but I assure you that IS the rule. I also understand that someone whose sole source of mental stimulation comes from jerking off to the latest issue of Variations doesn't understand that "Incomplete" doesn't necessarily imply that the person YOU thought they were ruling out of bounds was the person who was actually out of bounds.

Now, since you've obviously failed to read this thread with any lick of comprehension, I'll spell things out for you very very clearly:

I attend the University of Alabama School of Law. As such, I tend to pull for the Tide unless they are playing Oklahoma. There's my "dog in the hunt," as if a "dog in the hunt" is necessary to discuss an official's ruling. I was at the game, so didn't hear what the ruling was on the field, as Bryant-Denny is undergoing renovation and there are no speakers in the student section. I was under the impression that the ruling on the field was simply "incomplete." Based on the fact that there was one player touching the ball who was clearly in bounds and one who might have been touching the ball who was clearly out-of-bounds, I made an inference (incorrect as it turns out) that the referee saw that the out-of-bounds player touched the ball BEFORE the in-bounds player controlled it.

Now that the official in question has clarified that his ruling was the defender was out of bounds, then yes, absolutely, that ruling was incorrect.

Does this need to be in words of less than two syllables? Grunt once for yes.