Shitheads got shafted on that one

[tenureplan]

Oh darn

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

It could have been either. I have no idea.

 

[FlotownDawg]

What even is a catch anymore?

 

[Willow Grove Dawg]

If somebody has to get 17'ed, it may as well be Ole Miss

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Couldn't be sweeter than seeing that *** have the TD taken away.

 

[anon1787432961]

Not a catch and would have been if Brown didn't hold the ball out one handed trying to look good. Idiot play

 

[Crazy Cotton]

vandy = ole miss kryptonite

 

[msudawg1200]

Yeah, Mr. Cool was trying to be King ******** and it cost him. We should beat that garbage piece of trash team by 35 or more.

 

[aTotal360]

Hate it...

 

[Shamoan]

I don't really understand the call. DB's legs appeared to have hovered from the hip down an inch or two over the out-of-bounds area the whole time. It was either a TD or an INT. Weird play.

 

[AlCoDog]

Them getting to start on the 12 was ******** to begin with. Tough titty. Brown shouldn’t try to show his *** every time the ball comes his way.

 

[EngDawg]

One team can make a bowl, one team can’t...

 

[SyonaraStanz]

Dari Nokwa showing some colors on the after show. He's seriously ******** by that play.

 

[Shadow34]

Ding ding ding. Don’t get me wrong, I want ole miss to lose. But that was just blatant horse ****, and called an incomplete by the sec brass because they don’t want to lose out on that bowl money. He has possession with his *** on the ground. Then his back. But if it’s gotta happen to someone.....

 

[anon1787432961]

By rule it's not a TD. They got the call right. Passes have to survive the ground. Rushes just have to break the plane.

 

[tenureplan]

His back was on the ground, I really want to argue with you over this, but 17 em

 

[bulldogbaja]

I thought it was a catch.

 

[Drebin]

 

[gymdawg.sixpack]

Exactly. The sec couldn't afford to let Vanderbilt lose bowl eligabilty then them beat ut and have ut lose it too. With 1 call they just ensured a couple more million for the conference .

 

[JoMo MoJo]

17’em

 

[anon1787432961]

The rule is 17ed because the ground CAN cause a fumble on a pass into the zone. But that's the rule.

 

[DancingRabbit]

But how long do you have to survive on the ground? Bad call. Too bad.

By rule it's not a TD. They got the call right. Passes have to survive the ground. Rushes just have to break the plane.

He rolled over and let go or lost it.

Evens out. They could have let that celebration flip go.

 

[Cap'n Geech]

Terrible to overturn that call. That should definitely be taken into account when they evaluate their head coach's performance.

 

[Drebin]

Terrible to overturn that call. That should definitely be taken into account when they evaluate their head coach's performance.

Post of the night, right here.

 

[DancingRabbit]

ISWYDT

Terrible to overturn that call. That should definitely be taken into account when they evaluate their head coach's performance.

Insert Jeremiah Johnson nodding.

 

[Go Budaw]

He rolled over and let go or lost it.

Evens out. They could have let that celebration flip go.

How long? Have to survive the ground as long as the ball is still moving and not clearly being possessed, as was the case the entire time during the play until the Vandy guy tucked it while OOB. If he just tucks it like he started to do, then it’s a non-issue.

 

[Hugh Sleeze]

According to the rule, that was not a catch. Good job by the refs. It's not their job to change the rules, just enforce them and that ball clearly leaves Brown's possession before completing the play.

I do do have a problem with the refs calling an unsportsmanlike penalty on Vandy's TD. That was an awful call. Ref pulled that one out his ***.

 

[notoriousD_O_G]

The rule is 17ed because the ground CAN cause a fumble on a pass into the zone. But that's the rule.

The ground can cause an incomplete pass in the endzone not a fumble. By calling it incomplete they are saying he never had possession of the ball (which I disagree with).

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

 

[bulldognation]

Luke should’ve unhinged his jaw and swallowed that ref whole. But hey, Mongo gonna Mongo.

 

[dickiedawg]

No, they're saying he didn't survive the ground with possession. Which is accurate according to the rules.

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

 

[RutherfordBHayes]

In my opinion that should be a catch and touchdown because he had the ball secured when both feet hit the ground.

But as mentioned, that’s not what the rule establishes as a catch. The rule says that the ball must be secured all the way to the ground. As AJ went to the ground, he lost possession and the ball is dislodged.

The only reason it was deemed incomplete rather than intercepted is because the DBs feet were out of bounds once the DB secured possession.

Weird play. A rule I happen to disagree with. It doesn’t jibe with the rule during a rush attempt where the ball just has to touch the plane to be a TD. Why not have to secure the ball through the play on a rush attempt? Inconsistent rule, but correctly called.

Matt Luke shouldn’t be held accountable for that loss. He’s a good man.

 

[EAVdog]

It did survive the ground, the Vandy player ripped it out of his hand while he was on the ground.

 

[anon1787432961]

It was moving in Browns hand before that

 

[Philly Dawg]

Except that’s incorrect, the ground can cause an incompletion anywhere.

 

[PBRME]

It did survive the ground, the Vandy player ripped it out of his hand while he was on the ground.

Watch the replay again. It bobbled when he hit the ground, he looked to be getting contol, then the Vandy defender knocked it out of his hands.

 

[patdog]

But that was just blatant horse ****, and called an incomplete by the sec brass because they don’t want to lose out on that bowl money....

Do you realize how ridiculous that theory is? The money for any bowl Vandy might go to is insignificant. And the same refs who called multiple ******** 15-yard penalties against Vandy that helped keep UM in the game suddenly decided to cheat to help Vandy win? That makes no sense at all.

 

[RutherfordBHayes]

Another stupid point; the rule is different for a catch in the field versus in the end zone. Stupid. But correct call.

 

[tcdog70]

In my opinion that should be a catch and touchdown because he had the ball secured when both feet hit the ground.

But as mentioned, that’s not what the rule establishes as a catch. The rule says that the ball must be secured all the way to the ground. As AJ went to the ground, he lost possession and the ball is dislodged.

The only reason it was deemed incomplete rather than intercepted is because the DBs feet were out of bounds once the DB secured possession.

Weird play. A rule I happen to disagree with. It doesn’t jibe with the rule during a rush attempt where the ball just has to touch the plane to be a TD. Why not have to secure the ball through the play on a rush attempt? Inconsistent rule, but correctly called.

Matt Luke shouldn’t be held accountable for that loss. He’s a good man.

Simple--when the runner breaks the plane he has possession. By rule a receiver doesn't have possession until he secures the ball throught the ground. Possession is what you must have.