My Account
Sign up, and you'll be able to customize your font size and more!
Sign up
Report problem with this ad
Start a related thread
Start a related poll
Reply via Boardmail
Nov 18, 2024
2:28
:23
pm
Beggar
Truly Addicted User
It's kind of amazing that he didn't look at the QB even for a moment
Daniels immediately went to kick it.
Start a related thread
Start a related poll
Reply via Boardmail
Report problem with this ad
Beggar
Previous username
Eastside
Bio page
Beggar
Joined
May 3, 2001
Last login
Nov 18, 2024
Total posts
35,447 (97 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.
cougarmeister
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
cougarmeister
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