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

Sign up, and you'll be able to ignore users whose posts you don't want to see. Sign up

Report problem with this ad

Nov 18, 2024
1:55:14pm

Dr MoBYU Truly Addicted User

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

Report problem with this ad

Dr MoBYU

Previous username: MoBYU
Bio page: Dr MoBYU
Joined: Jul 22, 2001
Last login: Nov 18, 2024
Total posts: 18,195 (1,086 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