Master Capper said:
Scott,
These are not facts they are your opinions and this does not make them facts. That play is rarely if ever called the way it went down if anything the offensive player is given more slack. I suggest you watch that play again and seperate yourself from being a USC fan and you will clearly see that the defender impeded the receiver even if he did not intentionally try to do so.
:nooo:
If the TV shot shows the V-Tech WR having his 2 hands on the USC DB, that is a FACT!
If ESPN never shows the same shot as the ref who through the flag, then saying those exact words is a FACT! ESPN never showed the same view that the ref running down the sidelines saw. Hell, maybe the ref never even saw the V-Tech WR's hands on the USC DB. I do know for a "fact" from the ESPN camera shot, that the V-Tech had his 2 hands on the USC DB.
Whether that play is rarely ever called is a subjective opinion. IMO, I think the WR prob. gets away with that 70% of the time. But you cannot say it was a bad call when the rulebook says, A WR CANNOT PUT HIS HANDS ON A DB DOWNFIELD! So therefore, it is not a bad call on technical reasons. In addition, you never even saw the same viewpoint as the ref.
No, I do not have the tape. I tape over every USC game the following week. But I did remember watching the play at least 5 times. Fast motion, slow motion and puasing it. Why? Because it was a big play! I wanted to see if USC caught a break or not. IMO, they might have caught a break, but that was def. not a bad call. Yes, the call could have gone either way, I will admit that. But it def. was not a bad call and to top off, and I will say it again, YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE, NEVER SAW WHAT THE REF SAW! From the viewpoint we did see, the V-Tech WR had 2 hands on the USC DB. These are not my opinions, they are facts supported by what the camera showed! Sorry to disapoint you!
Sun Tzu said:
I uess the phantom whistle against UCLA ddidnt matter either. It is these type of posts that you make that take away any credibility you might have had.
I agree the Reggie Bush fumble could have gone either way but the ref blew whistle, so you cannot fumble after the whistle. 2nd, the UCLA player who recovered, would have been run down by faster players surrounding him. So UCLA still would have had to score.
If you are going to mention the big break USC caught, why not mention the HUGE break UCLA caught early in the game. The break where UCLA ran the kickoff return for a TD early in the game. A UCLA player blatantly held a USC player and no flag was thrown. The result? Open space for the UCLA returner and a TD. Not all holding penalties get called, you can find 10-20 of them in a game that refs see but let players get away with. HOWEVER, you never should let a player get away with a holding when it results in a TD for their team. NEVER SHOULD HAPPEN! Maybe that ref was an AU or OU alum?
I get a kick when UCLA fans mention that Bush fumble, but never like to comment on the blatant hold that was not called and resulted in a UCLA TD. At least with the Bush call, the whistle blew and the UCLA player who recovered would have been run down. No excuses for the non holding call that resulted in a TD.
oldschoolcapper said:
scott,
no sportsbook said southern cal would have been a 7 point favorite over Auburn. everything i saw and read said southern call would have opened as a 3 to 3.5 just like they did against oklahoma. besides, what does a line have to do with which team wins the game.
osc
I know I posted an article where a sportsbook said what the line would have been USC vs AU. I think I remember it saying USC -7 over AU, but def. could be wrong on that. Maybe it read OU -7 vs AU but I doubt that. I dunno. But I do remember myself posting that article and I really wanted USC to play AU than OU.