MO at CR

[foghorn]

That's a backhanded compliment no matter how you look at it, Dawg!

[jumper22]

Yeah, i was standing there as well. It truly was pass interference. It was 1st and 40 (or 45) so they went deep, got called and hence the 2nd and 55. I dont know about the unsportsmanlikes either as they were on the other side of the field. There were a couple of calls througout the game that were questionable, but none made as much if any difference as that series. From where i was i can account that the two "normal" calls were correct and the unsportsmanlike i have no idea. And i do agree that we did get the short end up there last year, not that this makes it any better.

[foghorn]

We've heard all sorts of opinions about the play. Just goes to show how subjective PI can be to call. I know it's water under the bridge, but I'd love to see the videotape.

[seetjrun]

Southpaw just for your information.

Pass interference is a 15 yard penalty, if it is on the offense it includes a loss of down, if it is on the defense it includes an automatic first down. This has been this way in federation football for at least 25 years.

[stripes22]

It was an offensive pass interference(15 yds and loos of down) ,Unsportsman like on a player(15 yards) then unsportsman like on the coach(15 yards). thats the sequence, thats how it was 2nd and 55.

[LionPride]

[quote="stripes22";p="109411"]It was an offensive pass interference(15 yds and loos of down) ,Unsportsman like on a player(15 yards) then unsportsman like on the coach(15 yards). thats the sequence, thats how it was 2nd and 55.[/quote]

Stripes, it's all water under the bridge now, and I know I'm getting older and sometimes my mind plays tricks on me, but...........

I'm pretty sure you have the right calls, but not the right sequence. The offensive pass interference didn't occur until it was something like 1st and forever (before it was 1st and infinity). Thinking back (and a week for old mind is asking a lot), there was a penalty called on MV (this may have been the unsportsmanlike on the player) and the bench came unglued because there was a questionable "no-call" on a late hit by a Ridge player (I'm not saying it was late, but the MV side thought so - it was close). After that 1st penalty was assessed, the bench got their 2nd unsportsmanlike and ejection of the coach. That would have made it 1st and 40. Then the pass interference, making it 2 and 55. Sounds about right. But I'm 99% positive the pass interference came as the MV coach was walking off the field. I remember the kid making a spectacular catch and watching their coach watch the play. Then the called the PI.

[count2infinity]

i thought it was the way stripes said it...but once again...could be wrong...