The picture that's worth a thousand words. (Final word on the Ole Miss call)

[AeroEngUA07]

'If you need a job, I can always use a good recruiter.'

That isnt necessarily a bad idea. He is a great recruiter and I'm pretty sure he was a solid DL coach.

 

[beardensdaman44]

I don't know if anyone read that OM board that someone posted the link to earlier in this thread but has anyone noticed that OM has some very intelligent people over there. I say there but I actually live in MS too. Anyways one genius on that board had a gem. His quote " It is still not clear who touched it first, when a ball is thrown 45 yards into the air, it has a downward spiral." HMmmmmm... its a good thing i read that post. I always thought that balls stay up in the air when thrown. Wasn't there a law of gravity, something to the effect of what goes up must come DOWN. Good call genius. Also for people at the game last Saturday. Who heard the attendance? The PA guy said it was 5,9... . Cant count over in Oxford i guess. He said 5 thousand 9 hundred and whatever the real last 3 digits were. Also to people in section B, where i sat, we had some clown walk up and ask us where section C was cause he couldnt find it. I said well we are in B and A is before us, i guess C would be over there. (pointing) He looked at me like what are you talking about. No alphabet either in Oxford. Sorry for the burns, i got off a little bit lol

Roll Tide

 

[Texas Tider]

"Who touched the ball first argument" is not a moot point. The defender is allowed to go out-of-bounds and is still eligible to touch the ball first. The offensive player is not allowed to touch the ball after he has gone out of bounds (not pushed out) until it has been touched by an opponent or an official.

From NCAA Football rules:
Eligibility Lost by Going Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 4. No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds during
a down shall touch a legal forward pass in the field of play or end zones or
while airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R.
7-3-4-I-III).

Exception: This does not apply to an eligible offensive player who
attempts to return inbounds immediately after being blocked out of bounds
by an opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-IV).
PENALTY—Loss of down at the previous spot [S16 and S9].

Thanks for posting this. I didn't know how important who touched the ball first was. I assumed since the Ole Miss receiver had stepped out of bounds that he was ineligible. I didn't realize until you posted this that the officials were actually looking for who touched the ball first during the replay. It was tough to hear the announcers/officials where I was watching the game.

 

[BEATtutorsee]

Trivia:

How many Nike swooshes are there in the picture?

From head to toe, how many swooshes are on a players uniform?

Four on the players that I count. A fifth one is on the ball. There's a possible one that could be on Lionel's thin wristband near his elbow but you can't really tell if it is or not. Did I miss any? :smile:

 

[tuck]

exactly. it was important who touched the ball first but the logic I have heard from the SEC referee guy interviewed on the radio was this.

1. he went out of bounds without being forced.

2. he came back in bounds and made a "simultaneous" catch with the defender.

3. Since the tie goes to the offensive player, he touched the ball first.

conclusion: he touched the ball first and hence was an illegal play.

all this mumbo jumbo about who touched it first is irrelevant. They ruled they touched it at the same time. period. end.of.discussion.

and thats all I've got to say bout thayat.

 

[CapstoneTider]

Four on the players that I count. A fifth one is on the ball. There's a possible one that could be on Lionel's thin wristband near his elbow but you can't really tell if it is or not. Did I miss any? :smile:

Good eye BEATtutorsee and the typical uniform can include 10 Nike swoosh advertisements. They get their money's worth I suppose

 

[Hankster2]

exactly. it was important who touched the ball first but the logic I have heard from the SEC referee guy interviewed on the radio was this.

1. he went out of bounds without being forced.

2. he came back in bounds and made a "simultaneous" catch with the defender.

3. Since the tie goes to the offensive player, he touched the ball first.

conclusion: he touched the ball first and hence was an illegal play.

all this mumbo jumbo about who touched it first is irrelevant. They ruled they touched it at the same time. period. end.of.discussion.

and thats all I've got to say bout thayat.

Minor point but I understood that a receiver who runs out of bounds can't touch the ball until it's FIRST touched by a defensive player which is what makes the simultaneous catch illegal. It's not a case of "tie goes to the offense"... but I could be wrong.

 

[bobstod]

Minor point but I understood that a receiver who runs out of bounds can't touch the ball until it's FIRST touched by a defensive player which is what makes the simultaneous catch illegal. It's not a case of "tie goes to the offense"... but I could be wrong.

Nope. The offensive player "cannot be the first to touch the ball". Therefore, since the tie goes to the offensive player, he touched it first: and was thereby ineligible.

 

[tuck]

Minor point but I understood that a receiver who runs out of bounds can't touch the ball until it's FIRST touched by a defensive player which is what makes the simultaneous catch illegal. It's not a case of "tie goes to the offense"... but I could be wrong.

The ""tie goes to the offense" thing was stated by the SEC official who was interviewed by the afternoon show on 690 AM earlier this week. I thought since he brought it up, he was stating that the reasoning was used in the overturned replay call and they felt that it was indisputable that they simultaneously caught it and since the tie goes to the offense---he touched it first and since he had run out of bounds, it was illegal.

 

[THE BAMA IRISHMAN]

The wounds are deep at Ole Miss. Sad thing is I knew this would be a hard fought battle. Ole Miss ignored Vanderbilt and others but clearly focused on Florida and Alabama. Putting all your marbles on one or two games a year is clearly moronic. Somehow one of the two games would have drawn validation for an entire season. If you miss by a mile or two blocks it does not matter. You lose regardless.

Coach O clearly said that week of practice was the best all season. Really. We are really for Alabama. And they were.

In the future Ole Miss has to understand it must win more than one game a year against the Tide or Gators to make their season. Sad truly Sad that somehow a game or two makes a teams season.

All the Ole Miss players could do was to advertise how they were going to win and were prepared. Coach O, you have to win more than a few games to have a successful season. If beating an Alabama or Florida is a good season then count me out on pulling for such mediocre expectations.

:BigA:

If Alabama was their season as stated by a few Ole Miss players then I guess now the season was a bust. I can not see how beating one or two teams can make a teams season with a record like 2 - 5. That is truly Sad indeed.

Unless Ole Miss players are willing to give the same effort each and every week then football at Oxford is in big trouble.

 

[CHATTBRIT]

The new Ole Miss Cheer.

Hoddy Toddy God-a Mighty, we just want to beat some-body!

And they should remove the "Ole Miss" from the end zones, and re-paint it "Al-Most"

Roll Tide!!!!

Probably "Near Miss" would be more appropriate

 

[USCBAMA]

Thanks for posting this. I didn't know how important who touched the ball first was. I assumed since the Ole Miss receiver had stepped out of bounds that he was ineligible. I didn't realize until you posted this that the officials were actually looking for who touched the ball first during the replay. It was tough to hear the announcers/officials where I was watching the game.

Has anyone thought that maybe the ruling on the field was aready that the receiver touched the ball first (or that it was touched simultaneously, which in college football is the same thing as the receiver touching it first)? The official ruled it a catch, thus determining that the receiver had possession. Since the ball seemed to touch both players at or near the same time (at least in fast motion), the official basically ruled that the receiver touched the ball first.

If this was the case there would need to be inconclusive evidence that the defender touched the ball first to overrule that portion of the of the play. Such inconclusive evidence DOES NOT EXIST! Cannot read the officials mind, but he clearly felt that the receiver had greater or equal possession of the ball in the struggle for it, so it seems likely that he felt that the receiver touched the ball first (or simultaneously).

Overall this is silly for anyone on either side to still be debating as the major sports news media outlets have indicated it was the right call.

 

[Texas Tider]

Overall this is silly for anyone on either side to still be debating as the major sports news media outlets have indicated it was the right call.

I agree. I was really thanking him for clearing up that rule for me. I didn't realize how important that aspect was with the out of bounds/inelegible receiver call.

 

[Hankster2]

Nope. The offensive player "cannot be the first to touch the ball". Therefore, since the tie goes to the offensive player, he touched it first: and was thereby ineligible.

Not sure why you're saying "nope" then repeating my point. We appear to be saying the same thing except I don't believe the "tie goes to the offense" rule was necessary and possibly confused some fans. The rule clearly states the receiver can't touch the ball till AFTER it's first touched by a defensive player.

I just don't see why they applied the "tie goes the the offensive player" rule since once you've determined it's a tie by definition the defensive player didn't touch the ball first.

It made it seem to the fans that it had to be proven that the WR touched the ball first when that's not the case. It only needs to be proven that the WR didn't make his first contact AFTER a defensive player touched the ball which is marginally easier to prove.

I'm also not sure why I'm still posting on this subject. Can't... seem... to... stop.

 

[Hankster2]

The ""tie goes to the offense" thing was stated by the SEC official who was interviewed by the afternoon show on 690 AM earlier this week. I thought since he brought it up, he was stating that the reasoning was used in the overturned replay call and they felt that it was indisputable that they simultaneously caught it and since the tie goes to the offense---he touched it first and since he had run out of bounds, it was illegal.

Every excerpt of the rules I've read states that the WR can't touch the ball till AFTER it's first touched by a defensive player. My only point was that I'm not sure why they bothered to use "tie goes to the offense" when a "simultaneous touching" is good enough to make the catch illegal.

IMO - applying that rule was like running a replay to determine whether the FB was stopped 3 or 3.5 yards deep in the endzone.

 

[StoneMtnDew]

Anyways one genius on that board had a gem. His quote " It is still not clear who touched it first, when a ball is thrown 45 yards into the air, it has a downward spiral." HMmmmmm... its a good thing i read that post. I always thought that balls stay up in the air when thrown. Wasn't there a law of gravity, something to the effect of what goes up must come DOWN. Good call genius.

You can throw a ball and not have a downward spiral. If you throw the ball straight up in the air it will not have a downward spiral when it comes down, it will be pointing up while it falls.

What's he apparently meant was that if you throw the ball a certain distance a noticeable parabola is created by the trajectory of the ball. If it's a well thrown ball the tip of the ball will follow the flight of the ball. So while it is going up the point of the ball will point up, when it's in the middle of the flight it's pointing parallel to the ground and as it falls the tip will point to where it will land.

So he made a valid point. Of course, that doesn't notice that that doesn't matter based on the picture, but he's right about the downward spiral.

 

[Dixiedawg]

"I'm sick, but I have to deal with it," Orgeron said. "There's nothing I can do about it. It's very, very unfair. This is not about me. It's about my team. We should've been allowed to play that last 7 seconds and let the best team win."

I could have sworn his team was on the field when John Parker Wilson took a knee. Let's look at that replay one more time.

Roll Tide Roll

 

[GrayTide]

:BigA: Unless Ole Miss players are willing to give the same effort each and every week then football at Oxford is in big trouble.

Football has been in big trouble in Oxford since Archie Manning and Johnny Vaught left.

 

[BEATtutorsee]

Good eye BEATtutorsee and the typical uniform can include 10 Nike swoosh advertisements. They get their money's worth I suppose

They sure do.

 

[tupelosusan]

living in mississippi is hard on alabama football,if we win we paid off the officials,if they win they are the better team.as long as i have lived here we(bama) have never won a honest game.i am so TIRED of their whining