Crimson Red Sports

I posted about this on another forum, so you may have already read it there.

I know we needed for Ole Miss to lose, but there is one angle I have heard no comments on. Everyone is talking horse collar, helmet to helmet, etc. But, if you do a frame by frame, Treadwell's ankle was on the ground prior to losing control of the ball. My understanding is that a player is down when any part of the leg above his foot touches the ground. That would include the knee, the calf, the thigh, the butt, or the ankle.

When the Auburn player rolled on his foot, the ankle touched the turf. I say he was down at this point, and it should have been first and goal for Ole Miss on the 1/2 yard line.

Look at Wikipedia and this is what it says:

"Downed player

A player carrying the ball (the runner) is downed when any of the following occurs:

Any part of the runner other than his hands or feet touches the ground. Ankles and wrists count as downed."

Have to hope that OM asks for review of this call from the SEC office.  I would love to see them admit it was a wrong call.  It would taint Barn's win if nothing else.

Barn has already been caught in an uncalled penalty when they had 12 men on the field.

I wanted OM to loose so Bama would be (again) in control of our fate.  But as the game went on and OM kept getting banged up, I switched in the belief that OM will loose at least one more game -- to MSU if nobody else.  Of course that's an assumption.

I have not looked at it again, but you are correct about the ankle making him down.  I have seen enough of that sequence already, but I'm sure he had control of the ball when his ankle touched, because breaking his ankle is what caused him to let go of the ball.

 :(

Some other sites I'm reading say that the rule book considers the ankle part of the foot and NOT down.

So,  I am still confused.

I just searched through the rulebook.  There is no mention of the word "ankle".  :dunno:

Good.  Ole Miss will be awarded the win; Aubs lose. 
Fire the Opelika editor for bringing it to the attention of the nation.

Why wasn't it challenged at the time?

Hugh Freeze was out on the field screaming about it (and the no-call horse collar that wasn't).
But wasn't OM was out of timeouts?

(http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/sports/2014-11-02/5ffa01d0-623b-11e4-89ea-dd2900bd8e33_Treadwell-injury.gif)

You can see better from this angle.  Is his ankle against the ground?

I don't think so, but watching that does still make me sick.  :(

Isn't it odd that touchdowns and first downs require the ball crossing the line, but at every other boundary on the field you are considered across it when your foot touches across.

Sidelines catch: one foot is all that matters.
Back of endzone: one foot ...

WHY?   :dunno:

Looks like #3 was doing a little head hunting too!

No kidding.  That was discussed during the press conference and on TV.  But that is seldom called on a receiver who catches the ball.  And it's not clear if it was intentional.

I'm hoping the SEC office addresses this play this week.

I'll be the contrarian here, but his "ankle" doesn't touch the ground.  The side of his foot is touching the ground when the ball comes free. The better question is whether #3 should have been call for targeting - probably not since he didn't make significant contact.

Either way I don't want to look at it any more, but not as bad as Drake against Ole Miss (who stepped on him afterward).

 :deadhorse:

Was it the turf?

Others have suggested that the artificial crap at Ole Miss contributed to this and Drake's injury.

I think you are right on all counts, and I don't want to watch it any more either.

In my opinion, yes.  On natural turf he would have torn out a big ol' divot, held on to the ball, then celebrated the winning TD with his buds.  Afterwards, he would have strolled into the victory party with his entourage.  Maybe a little tape on his "sprained" ankle for a couple of days at practice next week.

To look at this another way, take a good look at a natural field after a football game.  All those divots you see are instances where the turf gave way and relieved stress on some player's body.  Not necessarily preventing injuries in each case, but relieving stress on the player's body for sure.

Natural turf will not prevent all of these injuries, it will just make them less likely to occur.  The elder Nkemdiche suffered a similar injury last week on natural turf at LSU.  We need scientific data to know for sure, and data that is NOT provided by the folks that make or install artificial turf.

Another thing to consider:  it seems like there were a lot of player's losing their shoes during that game.  Before the injury I kept thinking, "why is everybody losing their shoe."  After the injury I thought, "ahhh, that explains it."