Barn TD at the end

#76
#76
barrylee said:
Not sure about the catch but what I want to know, was the clock being operated correctly? Admittedly I look thru Orange shaded glasses but it seemed suspect to me. One play the Auburn guy clearly didn't get out of bounds but clock stopped. Seemed like they gained 20 to 30 seconds on clock mgmt..
Is there someone official who is supposed to monitor this?
Click to expand...

Has there been any explanation on why the clock was reset to 1:12 even though the ref clearly announced to reset it to 1:03?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BartW, tumscalcium and Section KK
#81
#81
99gator said:
Was it a catch? Yes.

In today’s modern craziness of determining whether something is a catch or not.....I believe under the strict letter of the law, it would have been ruled an interception.

But, the dude clearly caught the ball, IMO
Click to expand...
99, you’re a fair guy, but your comment definitely wins the “I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it” award. 😉
 
#82
#82
I think the last 2 min of that game should be reviewed. From how they managed the clock, which I still don’t understand, to the TD at the end. I rewatched it at least 10 times last night and it was not a catch. It was almost like he gave up on holding on to it just to argue with Bryce Thompson, I believe is who it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kristy*, vol-un-tear and vollygirl
#83
#83
There was also a catch on that last drive where the AU receiver came down on his butt in bounds, laid back over the sidelines and the ref stopped the clock when it should’ve kept running. Shoddy officiating in lots of SEC games lately.
 
#84
#84
The bad call was when the refs stopped the clock when the Auburn player was tackled in bounds short of the sticks. The TD was definitely a catch but, in spite of it all, the Vols emerged victorious!
 
#85
#85
LittleVol said:
No...
It was called a TD.
We would be happy for that.

But it was an interception...and it wasn't that hard to see.
Click to expand...

Some people saw it differently. He had control after the initial bobble. Both feet on the ground. It’s a catch. Sorry. Just how I “see” and the refs agreed.
 
#86
#86
Section KK said:
I could have sworn the official said reset the clock to 1:03, and they reset it to 1:12 after the targeting call. Is that true? If so that’s insane.
Click to expand...
You are correct! My son and I couldn't believe that went on without some type of correction. I watched Freak's replay this morning and yep, the official said reset to 1:03 and it went to 1:12. I didn't notice the 1:12 during the game, what made me question it was after being instructed to reset to 1:03, at the end of the next play the clock was running down through 1:04.
 
#87
#87
It reminded me of a play against Fla.in the Fulmer days.The fl. rec. didn't have the ball as long as this one.No one thought it should have been a catch except spurrier.This one was iffy too.I'm just glad it didn't prevent us winning the game.
 
#89
#89
I thought it was a touchdown. Then, this morning on vol talk, a caller called in saying the same thing. I'll have to go back and watch, not that it matters...just curious at this point.
 
#90
#90
It's a interception that's why Auburn ran and kick the extra point but the refs should have shown the same patients as they did on kicking 34 out but maybe J Peterson can play next week.
 
#91
#91
MDVols said:
I'm happy with the win but...... was that a catch? No review, no nothing. I dont think he had control of the ball, should have been a pick or at least reviewed. And I guess the Barn bought the holding get out of jail free card today.
Click to expand...

It was definitely an Int. He never had control of the ball.
 
#94
#94
Ibelieve ALL scoring plays are automatically reviewed... or at least SUPPOSED TO BE.
 
#96
#96
The refs stop the game for every other play its seems like. What would it cost the game to review this important play.
 
#97
#97
It was an interception, unless you apply the now-defunct-since-it-was-applied-when-needed-to-help-the-gatorz-win Gafney Rule. That rule being: "Possession occurs in the endzone instantaneously when any portion of a player's body makes contact with the ball for any amount of time, up to and including fractions of time under 1 second. This rule is applied equally and fairly to all SEC teams from the state of florida."

The Auburn player never had control. Period. He was trying to gain control, the ball moved behind his back, and was grabbed by the Tennessee player.

Where I am from (not the state of florida) that is called an interception.

But, whatever.
 
#99
#99
Aday25 said:
Some people saw it differently. He had control after the initial bobble. Both feet on the ground. It’s a catch. Sorry. Just how I “see” and the refs agreed.
Click to expand...

Haha.
And the refs never get it wrong?

See what you want. Doesn't change that he NEVER had control, two feet down or not.
 
#100
#100
For me, to have been a catch, the ball would have to have stopped completely at some point in the process and controlled. It was not. Kept moving the whole time until it slipped out of his hands behind his back at which point the UT player grabbed it. Ergo INT...

Matters not though. Great win! Go Vols!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MDVols
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top