Could they have called 'kick-catch interference' on that pooch punt?

Sign up, and you can make all message times appear in your timezone. Sign up

Report problem with this ad

Nov 18, 2024
1:50:52pm

RGGeemer Intervention Needed

Could they have called 'kick-catch interference' on that pooch punt?

Report problem with this ad

RGGeemer

Previous username: rggee
Bio page: RGGeemer
Joined: Aug 18, 2010
Last login: Nov 18, 2024
Total posts: 72,009 (758 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

Could they have called 'kick-catch interference' on that pooch punt?

RGGeemer

1:50pm

No, because the DB was not the kick returner trying to field the punt.

1:51pm

Then who was?

bLuE wAvEs

1:52pm

RE: Then who was?

Rusty Crab Daddy

1:53pm

RE: Then who was?

RootieBoy

1:54pm

It was intent to deceive I think. But I doubt it would never be called.

Dr MoBYU

1:55pm

intent to deceive is reserved for using substitutions to deceive opponents.

reagan21

1:57pm

Looks like the issue is he wasn't 'attempting to catch the kick'

RGGeemer

2:01pm

I assume that's what the referees were discussing for so long, though.

RGGeemer

2:02pm

or who touched the ball first. The first time I saw it, it looked like it hit

reagan21

2:06pm

Maybe, but the BYU coaches were motioning like he was pushed into it. Even they

RGGeemer

2:07pm

I thought it hit a Kansas player until I got home from the game and read CB

2:19pm

So had he turned his head and put his hands up they could determine he was

DiamondMo

2:06pm

If you had one of those brain scanner things from Men in Black and ran

reagan21

2:18pm

It's kind of amazing that he didn't look at the QB even for a moment

Beggar

2:28pm

Report problem with this ad

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.

Report problem with this ad