Really where we got screwed was on the Ballard call..

57stratdawg · Sep 10, 2011

His feet are over the pylon and the ball is beyond it: should have been a TD.

57stratdawg · Sep 10, 2011

His feet are over the pylon and the ball is beyond it: should have been a TD.

Phil Wenneck.sixpack · Sep 10, 2011

Complete ******** call. How they made the determination that he was out at the 2 yard line while in mid air without making a review is total garbage that shouldn't have to be tolerated. Dyer would have gotten the call. I have no doubt in my mind about that.

Eureka Dog · Sep 10, 2011

as in the NFL? Is this the issue?

Phil Wenneck.sixpack · Sep 10, 2011

How a ref on the field in live action could make that spot without a review is beyond comprehension.

Eureka Dog · Sep 10, 2011

to be so incompetent.

Words cannot describe the total failure exhibited in the replay booth during the fourth quarter.

aerodawg.sixpack · Sep 10, 2011

that if a player leaps by his own power, which Ballard did, that if the ball and player goes out of bounds during the leap, the ball is spotted where it looked to go out of bounds. Even if he hit the pylon with it the ball it would haven been ruled the same. Had he leapt toward inbounds instead of out of bounds and been knocked out then it would have been a touchdown. But I don't blame the refs for calling it the way they did with the direction he leapt and what happened.

Repeat Offender · Sep 10, 2011

Ballard actually twisted in mid air and the ball was in the field of play before he landed in the endzone. I understand what you are saying, but does it still apply if the player twists during the leap and causing the ball tocome back "in bounds" since he was never officially out of bounds to start with? Forexample, if a RB is running a wide sweep behind one of his o lineman and thenthere is violent collision with the Dwhich causesthe ball carrier tojumporleave his feet forwhatever reason,that point does not matter.He is off his feet at this point and heso closetothe sideline that his ball carrying arm is actually overhanging thesideline, he then lands on his feet inbounds and tries to continue the play. Wouldthey stop the play and say that he was out of bounds? Hell no!I know that would be a rare play, but the principle remains the same. Out of bounds or not? All that he needed was to have the ball touch or "go over" one tiny corner, even if it is by a centimeter on the outer edge for it to be ruled a TD. If a couple of inches does not matter to the refs on 1st down measurements, then surely a player that dives well into the endzone would not have his score taken away because they guessed where his trajectory path was on the leap. Bunch of ********, period.

DAWG61 · Sep 10, 2011

an obvious touchdown. Sportscenter joked twice about it because of another game where that play was ruled a touchdown. I didn't realize they didn't even review it. Out of bounds on the sideline doesn't extend upwards only the pylon and endzone extends upwards to the "heavens". If I'm a receiver and I stick my feet all the way inbounds but have both my hands out of bounds and I make a sideline catch and you are the quarterback and you do the same making your throw travel to me in a direct line but out of bounds the catch is still good because neither one of us was out of bounds during the release and catch even though from an above view the ball travels the entire length of the pass out of bounds. Wow! It's really hard to describe a play through words. After all that it's a travesty they didn't review Ballards touchdown.

Topgundawg · Sep 11, 2011

I saw the same thing this morning. Don't know if I will be able to pull myself together for a couple of days over this
loss. Since its 9 / 11 shouldn't be do damn hard after watching all those names go across the TV set.

I just hope everyone learns a lesson from this loss because LSU, BAMA, SC, ARK, G, and the bears don't give a ****
about it.

fishwater99 · Sep 11, 2011

It was obvious the fix was in for Auburn, 3 questionable calls/spots in the 4th quarter and they all go to the home team..

Dawgzilla · Sep 11, 2011

They changed the rule this year. The goal line no longer extends beyond the pylons, UNLESS the ball carrier either touches the pylon or touches the ground in the endzone before going out of bounds. Ballard did neither, and the ball was outside the pylons when he crossed the plane of the goal. The refs spotted the ball at the 1, and looking at the replay that was a pretty good spot.

http://texastech.scout.com/2/1097350.html

Goal
Line Plane Extension changed. [/b]

Now the Goal line plane runs between
the pylons, and includes the entire pylon. The plane no longer exists beyond
the pylons except in two specific cases:(a) When a ball carrier touches the pylon, and (b) when the ball carrier
touches the ground in the end zone. 

Examples: Play #1:The ball carrier dives for the corner of the end zone, leaping at the
one yard line. The ball - in his possession: (a) touches the pylon; (b) goes
over the top of the pylon; or (c) crosses the goal line inside the pylon. The
player then first touches the ground three yards beyond the goal line out of
bounds. Ruling: Touchdown in all three instances. The
ball broke the plane of the goal line in the player’s possession. 

Play #2: The player heads for the right pylon of the goal line. At the
two yard line he dives or is blocked into the air by an opponent. The ball
– in his right hand – crosses the sideline at the one yd/line and
passes outside the pylon. Then the runner while air born (a) touches the pylon
with his foot or left hand; or (b) first touches the ground three yards beyond
the goal line out of bounds.
Ruling: In (a), Touchdown,
since the plane is extended because the player touched the pylon. In (b), the
plane is NOT extended, because the player did not touch the pylon or the ground
in the end zone. The ball is out of bounds at the one yd/line. No Touchdown.

Play #3: The ball carrier heads for the right pylon of the goal line.
The ball in his right hand crosses the extension of the goal line outside (to
the right of) the pylon. The runner is (a) deemed to have stepped on the goal
line; or (b) deemed to have stepped on the side line inches from the goal
line. Ruling: Touchdown in (a) since the plane
is extended by touching the ground in the end zone. In (b) there is no touchdown because the player did not
touch the pylon nor did he touch the ground in the end zone. The goal line is
NOT extended. The ball is ruled
out of bounds at the point of crossing the side line. 

Play #4: The
ball carrier heads for the right pylon of the goal line with the ball in his
right hand. His foot hits the
pylon just before the ball (a) crosses the pylon; or (b) crosses the extension
of the goal line outside the pylon.Ruling: (a) and (b) No
touchdown in either case. Because the pylon is out of bounds, the ball is dead
once the runner’s foot hits the pylon. Thus the ball is dead in both cases before
it crosses the goal line or the side line. 

Play #5: The ball carrier is hit and his forward progress is stopped
inbounds near the goal line at the side line to his right. When he is stopped,
the ball is in his right hand extended beyond the goal line (a) inside the
pylon; or (b) outside the pylon. Ruling:In (a) the ball extended inside the pylon across the goal line creates a
touchdown and the ball is dead at that point. In (b) no part of his body touched the pylon or the ground
in the end zone. In this case the plane is NOT extended for a touchdown. The
ball is dead short of the goal line.

aTotal360 · Sep 11, 2011

[No message]

TXDawg.sixpack · Sep 11, 2011

If not, it should. Ballard shouldn't be penalized for jumping too high. His knees clearly passed over the top of the pylon and his hand almost touched it on his way down. Basically, if he'd have jumped 12 inches lower or 6 inches shorter, he would have contacted the pylon and we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the TD counts just by touching the pylon, then why not for jumping over it? Why does the front corner of the endzone extend up 18 inches, but not to infinity?

Dawgzilla · Sep 11, 2011

Touching the pylon is the same as touching the ground of the endzone, but passing over the top of the pylon is not. Doesn't seem too fair, but perhaps it is intended to sort of keep the game within the confines of the field

aerodawg.sixpack · Sep 11, 2011

e. When a ball carrier dives or jumps toward the sideline and is airborne as
he crosses the sideline, forward progress is determined by the position
of the ball as it crosses the sideline (A.R. 8-2-1-III and IV)

I think it just really depends on the interpretation at the time. There is enough language in there to make it go either way but there is no way to prove that he was definitely in. Personally I think a lot of refs would have called him in but it all depends on how it is called initially. Even if it was formally reviewed, SEC refs seem to really not want to overrule on plays that are close. They take the whole indisputable evidence way too far. I mean if juries took it to the level that the SEC does I don't think there would be a prison over-population problem.

Dawgzilla · Sep 11, 2011

Its hard to tell exactly where the ball is, due to camera angles and all, but it looks like the ball passes the plane of the goal line on the outside of the pylon, as in example 2(b) in the article I posted. Spotting the ball at the 1 seemed pretty accurate.

Eureka Dog · Sep 11, 2011

(basically) one instance. Leaving the definition (extending to infinity) of thegoalline would simplify the situation. It would be easier to judge, enforce, and review.

57stratdawg · Sep 11, 2011

If I dive from the 2 yard line and hold the ball out of bounds in my right hand. If I wave my left hand over the pylon it isn't a touchdown, but if I touch the pylon it is a touchdown?

perch0 · Sep 11, 2011

57StratDawg said:
If I dive from the 2 yard line and hold the ball out of bounds in my right hand. If I wave my left hand over the pylon it isn't a touchdown, but if I touch the pylon it is a touchdown?

Yes that is correct. It would not matter where the ball was if he had touched the pylon.

Are pylon's the same height on all fields?

Answer to my own question yes 18 inches

ab333 · Sep 11, 2011

On Dyers second touchdown I cant see the ball ever cross the line, but it was counted.

57stratdawg · Sep 11, 2011

A player's hand being over the pylon is the same a player's hand touching the pylon.

No way that distinction is made.

00Dawg · Sep 11, 2011

Dawgzilla said:
Ballard did neither, and the ball was outside the pylons when he crossed the plane of the goal.

After watching the replay angles repeatedly, I think that ball went over the top of the pylon, making example #1 the rule.
Watch again, and see how #22 Bell, standing about a foot behind the goal, and with his body straddling the line, adds to Ballard's momentum after he crosses the line, and Ballard STILL lands in the orange paint. Just before the push, the ball was at its furthest rotation inwards, and back inside the line.

TXDawg.sixpack · Sep 11, 2011

That's the travesty of the new rule. Essentially, we lose the touchdown because Ballard jumped too high and too far.

If the TD counts if the player touches the pylon, then the pylon should extend upwards to infinity.

00Dawg · Sep 11, 2011

Examples: Play #1:The ball carrier dives for the corner of the end zone, leaping at the
one yard line. The ball - in his possession: (a) touches the pylon; (b) goes
over the top of the pylon; or (c) crosses the goal line inside the pylon. The
player then first touches the ground three yards beyond the goal line out of
bounds. Ruling: Touchdown in all three instances. The
ball broke the plane of the goal line in the player’s possession.

My guess: they meant "beyond" to correspond to the horizontal extension, and didn't say "above" for a reason.

smootness · Sep 11, 2011

Yes, the ball itself has to cross over the top of the pylon, and in Ballard's case it didn't. The reason the distinction is made between a foot/hand hitting the pylon and not merely passing over it is because for the goal line to extend forever and to get a TD even though the ball itself never crossed over the pylon, your body has to actually touch the endzone in bounds. If your body simply flies over the endzone and the ball doesn't, it isn't a TD. They consider the pylon to be part of the physical endzone. It just is what it is. It would be crazy if all a player had to do was get any part of his body over the pylon to be a TD.

00dog · Sep 11, 2011

Goal
Line Plane Extension changed. 


Now the Goal line plane
runs between the pylons, and includes the entire pylon.

Play 4: ...Because the pylon is out of
bounds, the ball is dead once the runner’s foot hits the pylon.

1-Does it make sense to extend the goal line by touching an object that is out of bounds?

2- And why should it matter if the ball crosses the plane before or after a hand or foot touches the aforementioned object, being that the aforementioned object is out of bounds?

Iwonder if they ever thought ofplaying the game within the white lines, and actually putting the ball in the in the end zone as opposed to in the vicinity thereof.

cps36 · Sep 11, 2011

smootness · Sep 11, 2011

That ball isn't over the pylon, but good try. Definitely wouldn't have been overturned regardless.

00Dawg · Sep 12, 2011

Thanks to the position of #22, the timing and directionof his push, and Ballard's final landing place, we can pretty clearly extrapolate that some part of the ball crossed over the pylon.

Really where we got screwed was on the Ballard call..

Heisman

Heisman

Redshirt

Redshirt

Redshirt

Redshirt

Freshman

Redshirt

Redshirt

Redshirt

Freshman

Redshirt

Heisman

All-Conference

Redshirt

Freshman

Redshirt

Redshirt

Heisman

Redshirt

Redshirt

Heisman

Senior

All-Conference

Senior

Redshirt

00dog

Guest

Redshirt

Redshirt

Senior