According to Google's AI ...

Roughing the Passer Does Not Apply to Laterals

Under NCAA Rule 2-19-2, a pass is only a forward pass if it initially travels toward the opponent's goal line. Because a lateral travels parallel or backward, it is a backward pass, and NCAA Rule 9-1-9 (Roughing the Passer) explicitly does not apply.

With a non call, we intercept the pass and win the game. 
 

The roughing call wasn’t on the backward pass it was on the forward pass.  

It was definitely a double pass. The receiver passed the ball following a backward pass. 

So there cannot be roughing on a flea flicker where the QB pitches it back and then it’s pitched back to him?  Of course there can.  Sorry, you are wrong.

Look, I don't know which play you are referring to but I'm questioning the following trick play... Oklahoma quarterback John Mateer threw a legal backward lateral to wide receiver Isaiah Sategna. Sategna was just a receiver catching a lateral... and therefore NCAA Rule 9-1-9 (Roughing the Passer) explicitly does not apply.

10 minutes ago, Michael Chasnoff said:

Look, I don't know which play you are referring to but I'm questioning the following trick play... Oklahoma quarterback John Mateer threw a legal backward lateral to wide receiver Isaiah Sategna. Sategna was just a receiver catching a lateral... and therefore NCAA Rule 9-1-9 (Roughing the Passer) explicitly does not apply.

Roughing the passer can be called in favor of anyone passing the ball vertically. It doesn’t have to be just for the QB. In this case it was called because of Biles hit on Sategna following his throw. 

He was in the air and coming down when the ball was released.  He may be able to soften the blow, but where was he supposed to land?

I agree, he was Airborne before the release. Not sure what he was supposed to do.

 

Was a horrible call

Referees did not beat Texas . Our  undisciplined play, is what beat Texas Texas is an undisciplined team. That is on Sark along with his terrible play calling. 

Yes Ref’s wee not the issue 

but I thought the roughing the passer and PI against Phillips were bad calls. 
He called roughing because Biles hit him hard IMO. Bad call

29 minutes ago, Wentwood said:

Yes Ref’s wee not the issue 

but I thought the roughing the passer and PI against Phillips were bad calls. 
He called roughing because Biles hit him hard IMO. Bad call

Biles had already left his feet prior to the pass.  Kinda hard to change trajectory at that point.  He was committed already.

Sark said he was told the roughing penalty was for hitting the passer in the head.

11 hours ago, Fritztownhorn said:

I agree, he was Airborne before the release. Not sure what he was supposed to do.

 

Not throw his arms into the passer’s head and neck area, for starters. 

Stop crying about refs when we gift them 17 points. 

13 hours ago, watty7796 said:

Biles had already left his feet prior to the pass.  Kinda hard to change trajectory at that point.  He was committed already.

Thats why I don’t think it was a penalty 

Hit to the neck/head is going to draw a flag. Be smart. 

I probably need to watch it again, but have no desire too

my thoughts were he did hit him high but was trying to block the pass and follow thru with a hit. 
I did not think he targeted head and neck area????

Doesn’t matter no going back, but that was a huge call. 
Have not read many agreeing with me so probably wrong, but the replay looked like no penalty to me

Agree, it was a HUGE call at that point in the game. The INT likely would have sealed the game. 

14 hours ago, watty7796 said:

Biles had already left his feet prior to the pass.  Kinda hard to change trajectory at that point.  He was committed already.

Can't hit the passer in the head/neck area, which is what he did ...

As for the PI call on (I think) Phillips ... looked clean from the front (and probably real time at the game) but in the replay you can clearly see the DBs left arm wrapped around the neck/shoulder area.  Good call.

 

He didn't hit him in the head though. Clearly hit his shoulder

After a lateral once the player establishes himself as a passer the same protections that a QB receive applies to the new passer. 

11 hours ago, Wentwood said:

I probably need to watch it again, but have no desire too

my thoughts were he did hit him high but was trying to block the pass and follow thru with a hit. 
I did not think he targeted head and neck area????

Doesn’t matter no going back, but that was a huge call. 
Have not read many agreeing with me so probably wrong, but the replay looked like no penalty to me

It was a terrible call. Technically right by the letter of the rule but the hit wasn’t egregious and part of the rule is if the player can adjust. In this case Biles hit his helmet with his shoulder pad. Should’ve been a no call in my biased opinion. I guarantee if they hadn’t called it no one person would’ve said a thing about a missed call. The frustrating thing is that they missed several hits to the head on catch when he was throwing one in particular on a completion to Coleman that was clear and wasn’t called. That would’ve changed the game and we probably win the game on that int. However, we still can’t give them 7 point on a blocked punt and 10 additions after that play off INTs.