| FTBL Am I the only one who ...

[musso]

still has a problem with Caddell's catch being overturned????? god i simply cannot let it go! there was no reason at all to doubt the legitimacy of that catch, and at the very least, the ruling should have been "not enough evidence to overturn it." as Saban said, it would have undoubtedly had a profound impact on the outcome of the game. ^^RAN

 

[Guest]

I don't really know how to explain it. Because the game was such a heartbreaker I've had to let that one play go. I know what it could have brought, but I also have to think about what a stop @ 4th and 4 would have brought as well as JPW not fumbling.

I'm not over this loss by any means. I haven't spent much time revisiting it because of how heartbreaking it was. I just can't go there.

I hope (and would certainly think) that the players didn't take it as hard as I did.

 

[Tideboy]

still has a problem with Caddell's catch being overturned????? god i simply cannot let it go! there was no reason at all to doubt the legitimacy of that catch, and at the very least, the ruling should have been "not enough evidence to overturn it." as Saban said, it would have undoubtedly had a profound impact on the outcome of the game. ^^RAN

Tiy're not the only one Moose. While I believe it was a catch, I certainly believe that since it was ruled a catch there was not enough evidence to over-turn the ruling on the field. :evil:

 

[Guest]

Thought about this play a-lot and the momentum it took away, but nothing you can do about it now. Move on soldiers. Btw,it was a catch and I hate that for the team and Caddell.

 

[bamabass23]

I don't really know how to explain it. Because the game was such a heartbreaker I've had to let that one play go. I know what it could have brought, but I also have to think about what a stop @ 4th and 4 would have brought as well as JPW not fumbling.

Totally agree!! ;w;w It is hard for me to forget about, i woke up sunday morning thinking " we really lost that game last night". I know it must be hard for the players as well. Though we lost, the show must go on and we just need to get a big win this weekend and put this all behind us.

I was in Athens this past weekend and got to watch the game with several GA fans and had a wonderful time. They could not believe all the reviews that were reversed in LSU's favor, especially the catch. They were just as upset as I was. Conspiracy, I tell you!! ;sus

 

[shipley00]

I'm still waiting to see the "Outrage" by certain Alabama sports "writers". You know, only certain teams get preferential treatment

 

[reger60]

I've moved on. There were plenty of opportunities for the Tide to take control of the game that were not influenced by an official.

Officials do not miss tackles, miss blocks nor fumble.

 

[bear facts]

I've moved on. There were plenty of opportunities for the Tide to take control of the game that were not influenced by an official.

Officials do not miss tackles, miss blocks nor fumble.

Occasionally they do tackle and block, though. :wink:

Seriously, I'm with you on this, Jeff.

;w;w

 

[Guest]

I've moved on. There were plenty of opportunities for the Tide to take control of the game that were not influenced by an official.

Officials do not miss tackles, miss blocks nor fumble.

right with you bud!

 

[Guest]

I think it would have long since been put to bed if the fans knew what the reason for ruling it a non-catch was. I've been a football fan for 30 years and when I don't understand why a catch is not a catch, I want to know the reason. I think this is a totally fair request.

 

[Rolling Tide]

I think it came down to LSU can get to the national championship game bama cant.

 

[reger60]

The ball touched the ground before the catch could be clearly confirmed. Accept it and sleep peacefully. :wink:

 

[CrimsonPirate]

The ball touched the ground before the catch could be clearly confirmed. Accept it and sleep peacefully. :wink:

Thanks, Reg. I thought I saw that, too. While it looked like Matt had possessed the football, if any part of the ball touches the ground, they will rule it incomplete. I don't like that rule, but that's the way it is. To me, if a receiver has (I mean, really has) the ball, touching the ground shouldn't negate the catch. But, that's just me.

 

[BamaFan425]

I don't really know how to explain it. Because the game was such a heartbreaker I've had to let that one play go. I know what it could have brought, but I also have to think about what a stop @ 4th and 4 would have brought as well as JPW not fumbling.

I totally agree. It's JUST like the Tennessee game in 2003 (the 5 OT game), when we had them at 4th and 19, but didn't make the stop! It's killer. You think, well we stop them here, we win, and it so killer when they make that 4th down. Its hard to move on from this loss, but we got to. Onto MSU, we can still win out (including a bowl game) and post a VERY respectable 10 win season!

ROLL TIDE ROLL! The Future is Bright!

 

[srollins]

The ball touched the ground before the catch could be clearly confirmed. Accept it and sleep peacefully. :wink:

Thanks, Reg. I thought I saw that, too. While it looked like Matt had possessed the football, if any part of the ball touches the ground, they will rule it incomplete. I don't like that rule, but that's the way it is. To me, if a receiver has (I mean, really has) the ball, touching the ground shouldn't negate the catch. But, that's just me.

I've said this before, if a reciever has possession of the ball it is a catch. How the reciever falls on the ball afterward is irrellevant.

That being said, I can only surmise that the replay official thought that Caddell didn't have clear possession before the ball touched the ground. BUT...The replay I saw clearly showed Caddell grasp the ball, pull it toward his chest and then FINALLY fall on the ball. I guess the official saw a different version. I'm over it though. LSU played better than we did other than discipline (penalties) and they deserved to win as much as we believe we did.

Some more food for thought, to win in the SEC, you have to be able to run the ball. We could not run on LSU that night...

 

[Elephantitis]

The ball touched the ground before the catch could be clearly confirmed. Accept it and sleep peacefully. :wink:

Thanks, Reg. I thought I saw that, too. While it looked like Matt had possessed the football, if any part of the ball touches the ground, they will rule it incomplete. I don't like that rule, but that's the way it is. To me, if a receiver has (I mean, really has) the ball, touching the ground shouldn't negate the catch. But, that's just me.

FWIW, the ball can come into contact with the ground as long as the receiver maintains possession. It was ruled a catch on the field, and there was no indisputable evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[MDBtrumpet04]

The ball touched the ground before the catch could be clearly confirmed. Accept it and sleep peacefully. :wink:

Thanks, Reg. I thought I saw that, too. While it looked like Matt had possessed the football, if any part of the ball touches the ground, they will rule it incomplete. I don't like that rule, but that's the way it is. To me, if a receiver has (I mean, really has) the ball, touching the ground shouldn't negate the catch. But, that's just me.

FWIW, the ball can come into contact with the ground as long as the receiver maintains possession. It was ruled a catch on the field, and there was no indisputable evidence to suggest otherwise.

If that's the case with caddell having possession, wouldn't the ball touching the ground on the way down be considered a "fumble"?

 

[srollins]

The ball touched the ground before the catch could be clearly confirmed. Accept it and sleep peacefully. :wink:

Thanks, Reg. I thought I saw that, too. While it looked like Matt had possessed the football, if any part of the ball touches the ground, they will rule it incomplete. I don't like that rule, but that's the way it is. To me, if a receiver has (I mean, really has) the ball, touching the ground shouldn't negate the catch. But, that's just me.

FWIW, the ball can come into contact with the ground as long as the receiver maintains possession. It was ruled a catch on the field, and there was no indisputable evidence to suggest otherwise.

If that's the case with caddell having possession, wouldn't the ball touching the ground on the way down be considered a "fumble"?

Only if he lost control of the ball would it be a fumble. Since he did not lose control of the ball, the correct ruling should have been a catch. The point where the ball touched the ground would then be where Caddell/ball were considered to be "down" and used as a spot for placing the ball for Bama's 1st down play.

 

[srollins]

I think there is some confusion about the rules of the game concerning the ball touching the ground.

Does it mean an incompletion? Answer: only if the ground is used to secure the ball [trapping the ball]. (in this case it wasn't)

Does it mean there is a "fumble"? Answer: only of the player loses control of the ball, before the ball touches the ground Remember, the ground cannot cause a fumble.

Does it mean you cannot advance the ball? YES, this is the only relevant point about the ball touching the ground on this play. The point where the ball touched the ground is where the player should be ruled "down" and the ball placed there for the next snap.

If I'm wrong about these points, by all means let me know.

Thanks,
SR

 

[lsucajunbayou]

yeah it wasnt a catch. Look here.