FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[jam40jeff]

I can't recall an identical situation in recent or not-so-recent history for a Mount fan to compare this to.

That was my immediate thought, haha.

[jam40jeff]

calling it blatant is a stretch

Maybe, but you calling the photo on the Automatic Bids page blatant proof of interference is just an outright lie.  The ball is in the receiver's hands, so the still photograph provides absolutely no evidence of what went on before he had the ball.

[Blutarsky]

When the Great Jim Ballard was a sophomore Mount lost a close game to BW at BW 21-18,and we got "homered" all night. It was 1991 and many of us haven't gotten past it yet.

......and, you are still upset about it 20 years later.  Methinks that the BW players will be talking about this game for the next 20-200 years.

[seventiesraider]

calling it blatant is a stretch

Maybe, but you calling the photo on the Automatic Bids page blatant proof of interference is just an outright lie.  The ball is in the receiver's hands, so the still photograph provides absolutely no evidence of what went on before he had the ball.

Ball is just touching the receivers hands and yet a defender has his hand wrapped around Dentons upper arm and the other one has his hand in front of his face. Rerun video enough times, that I totally agree with the call on the 4-1

[seventiesraider]

Go to the automatic bids article and see the blatant interference.........on Denton's winning TD.


seventiesraider: Are you kidding me?

Only if your still whining about a good call on 4-1. Yell at Coach Snail for not running.

Refer to the previous post and go back and see the hand wrapped around Denton's left arm

[emma17]

calling it blatant is a stretch

Maybe, but you calling the photo on the Automatic Bids page blatant proof of interference is just an outright lie.  The ball is in the receiver's hands, so the still photograph provides absolutely no evidence of what went on before he had the ball.

Ball is just touching the receivers hands and yet a defender has his hand wrapped around Dentons upper arm and the other one has his hand in front of his face. Rerun video enough times, that I totally agree with the call on the 4-1

I don't know how you can tell from a still photo what happened first, or even from the highlight film on D3.  But what I can tell is -that was an amazing touchdown catch.  Assuming the defensive contact was perfectly timed, Denton had to show strength in holding onto that football.  Has Mt found #3 in the line?

[Pat Coleman]

Go to the automatic bids article and see the blatant interference.........on Denton's winning TD.

Yes Vince lost control at the Stagg and it was pointless, but the rest of the staff was trying to restrain him, not encourage him

How does a still photo where both the ball and the defender are both there prove anything is blatant?  If he didn't have the ball yet, it would be blatant.  What you're referring to in the image proves very little one way or another.

Why are you responding to the crank?

[reality check]

I find a new reason almost daily to shake my head at the monitor after reading seventies' posts.  Submitting still photos as evidence of pass interference that show a ball in the receiver's hands while he's being hit is today's reason.

It's too bad Alliance is officially listed as a city and not just a village because that would make a lot more sense.

[pradierguy]

I understand all the conversation about "The Play", but I think we putting the cart before the horse. B-W still had a little ways to go to score and time was running out. I get the "you never know what could have happened" but come on, the play in question didn't happen in the endzone, or the redzone for that matter.

Regardless, B-W played their hearts out and add this Purple Raiders fan to the list of people who want them to get in the playoffs!

[reality check]

For what it's worth, I've seen the play from two different angles on youtube and I'd say it was interference from what I could see.  O'Rourke didn't help his cause by throwing it like a Niehus slow-pitch in a beer league softball game.  If I was on the side that didn't get that call, I'd probably be jumping out of the stadium because not only does it look like it's too close not to call to me, but it also doesn't immediately impact the game's outcome (OSU - 2003?). 

After reviewing the play, I believe interference should have been called.  The ball should have been placed at the 16 yard line with 10 seconds (?) left and BW would have had at least one/maybe two shots at the end zone from the 16.  I say throw the flag because it was so close and because it doesn't guarantee anything but another play.  If Mount stops the Yellow Jackets from the 16, then everyone gets their shot and the "what if" game goes away. 

That's my opinion and I'm not wearing yellow or purple (thank God).

[SaintsFAN]

For what it's worth, I've seen the play from two different angles on youtube and I'd say it was interference from what I could see.  O'Rourke didn't help his cause by throwing it like a Niehus slow-pitch in a beer league softball game.  If I was on the side that didn't get that call, I'd probably be jumping out of the stadium because not only does it look like it's too close not to call to me, but it also doesn't immediately impact the game's outcome (OSU - 2003?). 

I just spit out my coffee --- that Niehus dude sounds like a stud, though.

[02 Warhawk]

Go to the automatic bids article and see the blatant interference.........on Denton's winning TD.

Yes Vince lost control at the Stagg and it was pointless, but the rest of the staff was trying to restrain him, not encourage him

How does a still photo where both the ball and the defender are both there prove anything is blatant?  If he didn't have the ball yet, it would be blatant.  What you're referring to in the image proves very little one way or another.

Why are you responding to the crank?

the crank?

[seventiesraider]

Sorry, I believe the point was NONE of us saw better than the zebra 6 feet away. Or from my spot in the end zone where I can tell you, he never had a chance to catch the ball.

[jam40jeff]

Sorry, I believe the point was NONE of us saw better than the zebra 6 feet away. Or from my spot in the end zone where I can tell you, he never had a chance to catch the ball.

Yes, there are only two people in the world who saw the play well and could make the correct call: the official right that was right there (makes a little bit of sense) and a random biased fan who was no closer than any of the players, other refs, sidelines, or video camera lenses (makes a little less sense).

[reality check]

Sorry, I believe the point was NONE of us saw better than the zebra 6 feet away. Or from my spot in the end zone where I can tell you, he never had a chance to catch the ball....

...because of the interference right?