"Article 3. Ball Out of Bounds Reply
"Ball Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 3. a. A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game official or anything else that is on or outside a boundary line."

Julio is clearly out of bounds when he touches the ball simultaneously with Peterson. Even before Peterson could tuck the ball, the ball was dead."

This user called nxojkt a liar. The comment has been deleted, and the user has been banned.

That's a might convincing argument "U Are a Liar". You used so many facts...

Unfortunately if you freeze the video above at the 1:43 mark, you should be able to clearly see Julio Jones make contact with the back 1/3 of the ball with his left hand.

If you don't see it, there's not much I can do for you.

Either way... I have 100% confidence in Alabama's defense to stop Jarrett Lee driving 69 yards for a touchdown.

On a side note, this dude called Danielson Bob Griese

URALIAR 'IS'GARY DANIELSON..........."OBVIOUSLY"

Oh yeah!! Julio clearly touched that ball! Hotlanta here we come!!

Look, let's be honest, talk all you want about conspiracy all you want, cheating or whatever you want to say, those officials see the game live and in living color--fast paced.
We can go back now if you want and look @ the Bama's first drive and the incomplete pass for Brad Smelley. Unfortunately the home team's replay system was not up and running for review. I even read some pcs. on the non hands to the face call near the end of game. Offense hardly ever gets this called on them. Now I am being a homer and say that I have not seen one blatant from Bama, but LSU's Scott had a handfull of facemask. Tebow had an obvious one especially in Miss State game.
My take.

You are a blind homer if you really think that wasn't an INT. Julio did not touch the ball until after PP already had it in his hands. Julio barely touching the ball DOES NOT COUNT AS JOINT POSSESSION. It doesn't matter that he was out of bounds and touching the ball because he didn't possess the ball. The guy in bounds did possess the ball and before Julio ever touched it. It was an INT, there is no doubt. It was a horrible, horrible call. Just par for the course in the SEC this year.

Bama still would have stopped them from scoring a TD, but it should have been LSU ball right there.

This user made a comment including the phrase "Nobody cheats like bama!!"

The rest of the comment has been deleted, and the user has been banned.

Sincerely,

Glen

Nicolae,

Thanks for your comment, but you're not even close to being right. Remember the standard for overturning a call on the field: indisputable visual evidence. There is simply no doubt in the world there was NOT indisputable visual evidence that would show that Peterson had possession BEFORE Jones touched the ball, which is what it would take to overturn the call.

The only doubt at all is whether Julio ever touched the ball at all, but from watching all the angles, I'd agree there's a tiny chance that Julio never touched the ball, but it looks to me like a 95+% chance that he did. Assuming he did touch the ball, then (1) he was absolutely 100% out of bounds, and (2) Peterson absolutely did not have prior possession, since he and Jones first touched the ball approximately simultaneously.

If the ruling on the field had gone the other way, I'm not sure if there would've been sufficient evidence to reverse it, but to say there was evidence to reverse the incomplete call made on the field is just flat-out wrong. And that's not a matter of opinion.

Nice theory, except that Peterson possesses the football the moment it hits his hands. Unless Julio touches the ball BEFORE Peterson (which he does not), it is still a live ball.

kmj00,

From the NCAA rulebook.

"Article 5.

(1) A player gains possession when he secures the ball firmly by holding or controlling it while contacting the ball inbounds."

You might wish to reconsider your post. In fact, you might reconsider the general idea of making pronouncements about rules interpretations when you don't know the rules.

I'm glad to hear some blogger/sportswriter approaching this in terms of the actual rules. When the controversy blew up Saturday night and all day yesterday, I just kept wondering, "What is the wording of the rules that the refs are applying here?" Seems like there's been no trace of that kind of consideration in any corner of the sports media world concerning this controversial call. I think it goes without saying that the officials know the intricacies of the rules better than the fans and even the sportswriters. Just because something kinda looks like an interception from the couch or sideline doesn't mean it is. I think it's very likely that the replay official was looking at just the thing you were looking at in making his call. He might have even gotten it right, and I'm certain that he got it as right as he possibly could have at the time given the angles he had on the play.

Being a huge BAMA fan makes me want to see the pass as incomplete. BUT, I must play "devil's advocate".

I am trying to decide which rule applies in this case. Here is my take-

If neither the defender or receiver has possession of the ball then ARTICLE 3 will apply. The ball itself becomes the one and only issue. If possession is determined, then ARTICLE 2 will apply.
SO, one must first determine if the ball is "possessed" prior to the player in question being determined to be out of bounds.

Try as I may the video shows me the ball in possession of the defender making ARTICLE 3 and Julio's touching the ball unapplicable. Think of all of the fade passes into the endzone where we seem to focus only on the receiver and his location when he makes the catch. I never remember a question of where where the defender is or if he touches the ball except for the issue of pass interference.

That leaves us with ARTICLE 2 which states that another player or game official is not considered out of bounds when touched by the ball carrier.

Held Ball Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 2. A ball in player possession is out of bounds when either the ball or any part of the ball carrier touches the ground or anything else that is
on or outside a boundary line except another player or game official.

Ball Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 3. a. A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a gameofficial or anything else that is on or outside a boundary line.

Please help .. I want to say

" For I was blind, but now I see."

I use http://www.eaifo2.org/files_pd..._rules.pdf as reference for NCAA rules.

Julio makes contact with the ball at the same time that Peterson makes contact with the ball. Peterson can not be granted immediate possession.

He has to prove possession of the ball prior to article 2 to become involved. And the ball touching his hands does not equal possession.

I make this same argument all of the time to people who still want to claim that Curtis Brown caught the ball in the corner of the end zone at Auburn back in 1996. Just because the ball was touching his fingertips when his foot was down does not mean that he had possession.

The same applies here. Peterson and Julio make virtually simultaneous touching of the ball, and Julio is out of bounds. Therefore article 3 applies, and the ball is out of bounds.

This rule does show up on fade routes occasionally. It's not invoked very often because it doesn't come into play very often. That's because defensive players rarely allow themselves to be crowded out of bounds and the play depends on a defender (in this case Julio Jones was the "defender") being out of bounds.

But this is not a new-fangled rule. It's been the rule as long as I can remember. If an out-of-bounds guy touches the ball, it's out-of-bounds. Exactly the same as in basketball, where it comes into play more often because players often intentionally play close to the baseline.

just before Peterson does, but Julio's right foot has not made contact yet with the white sideline turf and therefore he has not established his foot out of bounds. I really wanted this to be the case, but the video just doesn't support this to me. Seems like Peterson either has the ball in possession as his left foot (first foot) touches and second foot comes down out of bounds or both feet come down in bounds. No way you can say the second foot is definitely in bounds with the camera angles provided. The only question then is when did he have possession. I think it prob was an interception and should have been overturned, but it was a bang-bang play and I am not sure (if possession wasn't established until just before second foot hit) that there was conclusive evidence to overrule.

outlet new balance overcome each obstacle brought your way.When you find yourself drained and new balance outlet depleted of energy, remember to find a place of sanctuary and rest.Take new balance 580 the neccessary time new balance 996 in your own life to dream your dreams and renew your

Highest quality gucci replica watches will to meet your expectation.replica rolex watches are made from the highest quality parts and crafted with such attention to detail.We offer discount price for you. When you order gucci replica watches at our site

Highest quality gucci replica watches will to meet your expectation.replica rolex watches are made from the highest quality parts and crafted with such attention to detail.We offer discount price for you. When you order gucci replica watches at our site

I strictly recommend not to hold back until you earn enough amount of cash to buy goods! You should just take the credit loans or just term loan and feel free

The modern replica submariner watches
comes housed in a black plastic case with stainless steel lugs at each side. The black wristband is nicely crafted from leather, and in case you plan on banging your new watch around a bit, the display is protected by a durable, scratch-resistant mineral crystal face.