****Official Game Thread - Bama vs. Ole Miss - Postgame Thread****

[bamaslammer]

The point total and margin of victory doesn't bother me, but the OLine and DLine play does. It was atrocious.

I didn't see a problem with the DL play. They had some issues with the quick pace and the constant rotation of different style QB's. On Ole Miss's first TD drive they should have never got the first first down, Nico Johnson defended the pass perfectly and they called interference. We probably should have come into the game with a little more diverse QB pressure package.

The offensive line however, they just had a bad night. It seems small quick defensive lines are their Kryptonite. Every coach we play is making plans as we speak.

 

[We_are_Bama]

About what I expected. That late kick off time is ridiculous. That really should have been a non televised afternoon game, like last week. I am glad that our bye week is earlier this year than what it's been in the past.

 

[RandallPoffo]

I feel about like most do about this win.

one thing that was a little concerning, and is a carryover from last yr, is that they seem to run out of steam in the redzone. they settled for several field goals last night. the score could have easily been 44-14 or even more had they punched it in every time.

that's ok though. I'm trusting that they aren't showing all cards and are simply getting things done till we get to the stiffer competition.

 

[day-day]

On HD SLO-MO, it appeared that he planted his foot, which then slid across he chalk, with the ball secured. Not sure where the replay refs came up with that one. OTOH, we may have stole one on Amari's first TD, so I'm not complaining...

My understading from what the official on the field said was that the initial ruling was the ball was fumbled while the Bama player was inbounds and the Ole Miss recovery was out-of-bounds. If this was the case, the Ole Miss recovery was obvious and easy to overturn but the Bama player's foot on the line (from the TV angle anyway) was not so obvious, maybe somewhat obvious, and they did not overturn that part of the ruling (if that's what they were even looking for). If the initial call had been that the player's foot was on the line and therefore the fumble took place after the play was dead, I think that ruling would have held up (again based on the TV angle). It looked to me like the player's foot was on the line before the fumble...

I didn't thing the incompletion would be reversed to a TD either but trust that the reviewer got it right with proper angles and freeze-frame.

 

[257WBY]

This was an Ole Miss defense that gave up 61 to Texas at home. The Alabama offense took several steps back last night. The O-line did not dominate. Red Zone FG's are disappointing.
But, a confenrence win is a conference win.

 

[Crimson1967]

Ole Miss is better than I thought and I'm officially changing my pick for the game with the Barn to a win for the Rebels.

 

[CrimsonProf]

I'm not blaming the coaches for anything, but if you're going to fuss about the red zone, you have to account for a coaching philosophy that played it pretty close during this game.

 

[colbysullivan]

Let's not forget one of Ole Miss's TD drives was extended on a bad PI call on 3rd down. They came to play and we still beat them handily. Worried about some of the injuries though.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Let me repost this yet once more before I retire for the the night - I have an ACL graft. It has no nerves. None do. Therefore, they don't hurt when you tear them. Hart was in obvious pain. Therefore, my conclusion is that it's remote that he re-tore the ACL graft, although it's possible he tore it at the same time he injured another knee component, like MCL, meniscus, etc., none of which is as serious as a re-rupture of the ACL graft. I'd appreciate those of you staying up re-posting or replying to this post, so that there is some answer to all of the repetitive posts about Hart's knee from folks who haven't read the thread...

There was a lot of play in that knee when they were working on Hart on the sideline. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was both the MCL and ACL. We'll have to wait and see of course. Hopefully my eyes were deceiving me.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

There was a lot of play in that knee when they were working on Hart on the sideline. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was both the MCL and ACL. We'll have to wait and see of course. Hopefully my eyes were deceiving me.

I noticed the same. Of course, the MCL is much less serious than the ACL, unless it loses more than half of its tissue. LCL and MCL are two body parts that are over-designed. Trimming is about all they do, unless they have to reconstruct...

 

[Bama Reb]

My understading from what the official on the field said was that the initial ruling was the ball was fumbled while the Bama player was inbounds and the Ole Miss recovery was out-of-bounds. If this was the case, the Ole Miss recovery was obvious and easy to overturn but the Bama player's foot on the line (from the TV angle anyway) was not so obvious, maybe somewhat obvious, and they did not overturn that part of the ruling (if that's what they were even looking for). If the initial call had been that the player's foot was on the line and therefore the fumble took place after the play was dead, I think that ruling would have held up (again based on the TV angle). It looked to me like the player's foot was on the line before the fumble...

I didn't thing the incompletion would be reversed to a TD either but trust that the reviewer got it right with proper angles and freeze-frame.

The initial ruling on the field was that he intercepted the ball, went out of bounds and fumbled the ball, so Bama was given possession of the ball. A review reversed that call saying that he was still inbounds when he fumbled the ball and Ole Miss recovered possession before both players went out of bounds. Possession of the ball returned to Ole Miss.

 

[CrimsonProf]

FWIW, Dee Hart is claiming he's ok on Twitter this morning.

 

[B1GTide]

FWIW, Dee Hart is claiming he's ok on Twitter this morning.

Awesome news! He looked sharp last night - hitting the LOS hard.

 

[TideMan09]

I thought they got the call right when the reversed the incompletion to a TD..Amari had possession when he broke the end zone plane..Isn't that like touching the pylon going out of bounds????..

My understading from what the official on the field said was that the initial ruling was the ball was fumbled while the Bama player was inbounds and the Ole Miss recovery was out-of-bounds. If this was the case, the Ole Miss recovery was obvious and easy to overturn but the Bama player's foot on the line (from the TV angle anyway) was not so obvious, maybe somewhat obvious, and they did not overturn that part of the ruling (if that's what they were even looking for). If the initial call had been that the player's foot was on the line and therefore the fumble took place after the play was dead, I think that ruling would have held up (again based on the TV angle). It looked to me like the player's foot was on the line before the fumble...

I didn't thing the incompletion would be reversed to a TD either but trust that the reviewer got it right with proper angles and freeze-frame.

 

[colbysullivan]

I thought they got the call right when the reversed the incompletion to a TD..Amari had possession when he broke the end zone plane..Isn't that like touching the pylon going out of bounds????..

He had possession and the ball crossed the plane. That's a touchdown any way you slice it.

 

[TideMan09]

That's what I was thought as well..It was the right call..

He had possession and the ball crossed the plane. That's a touchdown any way you slice it.

 

[day-day]

He had possession and the ball crossed the plane. That's a touchdown any way you slice it.

As long as he touched inbounds (anywhere) while he had possession of the ball. The big question was whether he possessed the ball before his foot lifted off of the ground.

 

[day-day]

The initial ruling on the field was that he intercepted the ball, went out of bounds and fumbled the ball, so Bama was given possession of the ball. A review reversed that call saying that he was still inbounds when he fumbled the ball and Ole Miss recovered possession before both players went out of bounds. Possession of the ball returned to Ole Miss.

I just watched the replay and the official stated that the initial ruling was there was an "interception and then a fumble out of bounds". I interpret this as fumbling the ball and then the ball goes out-of-bounds since there is no fumble if the player was out before the ball came out of his hands. If the intial call was that the player was out before the "fumble" then I don't see how they could have reversed that. The TV announcers were saying what you are saying but that is not (or maybe not?) what the official said.

 

[colbysullivan]

I just watched the replay and the official stated that the initial ruling was there was an "interception and then a fumble out of bounds". I interpret this as fumbling the ball and then the ball goes out-of-bounds since there is no fumble if the player was out before the ball came out of his hands. If the intial call was that the player was out before the "fumble" then I don't see how they could have reversed that. The TV announcers were saying what you are saying but that is not (or maybe not?) what the official said.

I just watched it and he definitely said "with possession to Alabama" when he was explaining the ruling on the field. By rule, there was no way they could have overturned it. They need to just drop the "indisputable" requirement if they aren't going to enforce it correctly.

 

[day-day]

I just watched it and he definitely said "with possession to Alabama" when he was explaining the ruling on the field. By rule, there was no way they could have overturned it. They need to just drop the "indisputable" requirement if they aren't going to enforce it correctly.

Yes, possession to Alabama but based on the ruling that the fumble went out of bounds before the Ole Miss player recovered (i.e. the Ole Miss player didn't get his foot in before recovering). If the Alabama player intercepted the ball and then fumbled it so that it went out of bounds, then possession goes to Alabama. That is the only ruling that would have indisputable evidence to make the reversal; if the initial ruling was the Bama player touched out of bounds before the fumble, then I think they totally blew the reversal.