TrueOrange
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2008
- Messages
- 52,366
- Likes
- 7,587
I really don't give a rip what he is saying. I said they deserved to win, to which he replied "if you say so", which would lead one to believe that he did not think they were deserving. I simply asked him a question. Are you two dating.
Ok - let's go to the replay. Tennessee has 13 on the field - half the distance to the goal. LSU player throws helmet - dead ball unsportsmanlike. Oh wait, entire Tennessee sideline runs on field - which would also be unsportsmanlike. You can't just twist it to our advantage. You could have found multiple fouls against both teams during that dead ball period if you wanted to. I seriously hope after the dust settles this nonsense stops being discussed.
Live-BallDead-Ball Fouls
ARTICLE 6. When a live-ball foul by one team is followed by one or more
dead-ball fouls (including live-ball fouls treated as dead-ball fouls) by an
opponent or by the same team, the penalties are administered separately and
in the order of occurrence (A.R. 10-1-6-I-V).
What it means is the "too many men on the field" call should have been enforced then the 15 yd personal foul for the "removal of the helmet" should have been enforced from that spot. We got screwed on that deal, period!
the right tackle moved before the snap before any of the other penalties.
Agree with you.....this is the time we get to vent. Some points are valid and some stuff should not be taken too seriously....but we need to speak out, we cannot take this crap to sleep. Common sense may prevail tomorrow (maybe Monday).
Hell, like ole Jerry Clower would say...Shoot up here amongst us.... one of us gots to have some relief.
This is the excuse the officials will use. In reality, the clock had expired, but the game was not over because a game cannot end while a penalty is being mitigated.
In all the commotion, every single player and coach thought the game was over. Hell, most officials thought the game was over as well. The officiating travesty would have been assessing a penalty for removing the helmet
The helmet was thrown (flagrant); the game was not over. In this scenario, if one player had committed a flagrant foul that injured another player, don't you think that foul would have been assessed?
Players are supposed to have enough discipline to conduct themselves with restraint, and when they don't, they should be held accountable.
Reverse roles and have them assess the helmet penalty and tell me if you think it's a travesty.
What a fan thinks (or a player) is not related to the application of the rules. I think that many current issues are travesties of justice, but there are laws that force me that act in a civilized manner, and I comply.
The real issue in the game was that there was not an even application of the rules. The most obvious issue was the non enforcement of Rule 3, Article 5, paragraph e (NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations).
Live-BallDead-Ball Fouls
ARTICLE 6. When a live-ball foul by one team is followed by one or more
dead-ball fouls (including live-ball fouls treated as dead-ball fouls) by an
opponent or by the same team, the penalties are administered separately and
in the order of occurrence (A.R. 10-1-6-I-V).
What it means is the "too many men on the field" call should have been enforced then the 15 yd personal foul for the "removal of the helmet" should have been enforced from that spot. We got screwed on that deal, period!