Started By
Message
re: Stats how Alabama is blessed with targeting calls; even in the games they don't play...
Posted on 10/23/18 at 10:19 pm to Errerrerrwere
Posted on 10/23/18 at 10:19 pm to Errerrerrwere
Um, your post is missing a couple of very key pieces of information. To wit:
1) How do these numbers for Bama compare to other schools across the conference? I remember when “Schools playing Bama get called for holding all the time and Bama never does!” was the battle cry around here, until someone ran the actual numbers and proved that the opposite was actually true. So forgive me if I don’t just blindly accept that these numbers for Bama are out of whack.
2) Perhaps even more germane to the question at hand, did the players in question actually commit a legitimate targeting foul during the plays for which they were penalized? Because if they did, then, it doesn’t matter if 100 players were disqualified for a half against Bama this year. The rules are the rules.
Without those two pieces of information, your post is just useless whining, as is every single Errerrerrwere post in the history of this board.
Edited to correct grammatical error.
1) How do these numbers for Bama compare to other schools across the conference? I remember when “Schools playing Bama get called for holding all the time and Bama never does!” was the battle cry around here, until someone ran the actual numbers and proved that the opposite was actually true. So forgive me if I don’t just blindly accept that these numbers for Bama are out of whack.
2) Perhaps even more germane to the question at hand, did the players in question actually commit a legitimate targeting foul during the plays for which they were penalized? Because if they did, then, it doesn’t matter if 100 players were disqualified for a half against Bama this year. The rules are the rules.
Without those two pieces of information, your post is just useless whining, as is every single Errerrerrwere post in the history of this board.
Edited to correct grammatical error.
This post was edited on 10/23/18 at 10:22 pm
2
Posted on 10/23/18 at 10:24 pm to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
1) How do these numbers for Bama compare to other schools across the conference?
OP doesn't address that, let's try to stay on topic.
quote:
I remember when “Schools playing Bama get called for holding all the time and Bama never does!” was the battle cry around here, until someone ran the actual numbers and proved that the opposite was actually true. So forgive me if I don’t just blindly accept that these numbers for Bama are out of whack.
Strawman bullshite...STAY ON TOPIC BAMA FANS!
quote:
2) Perhaps even more germane to the question at hand, did the players in question actually commit a legitimate targeting foul during the plays for which they were penalized?
Has anyone benefited more from targeting calls then Bama and the instances in the OP this year?
quote:
Because if they did, then, it doesn’t matter if 100 players were disqualified for a half against Bama this year. The rules are the rules
STRAWMAN...TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC, GUMP!
quote:
Without those two pieces of information, your post is just useless whining, as is every single Errerrerrwere post in the history of this board.
CHicken shite!
Posted on 10/23/18 at 10:31 pm to TheTideMustRoll
To dimwit:
1. I laid out my assumptions (made the overall season estimate higher compared to last year) AND built in the assumption that no more calls will benefit Alabama (which is generous given that 1/3 of the regular season games are left to be played). Further, even if another school has 4 calls that favor them in the exact same way it does Alabama, it would likely be 1 school...at most. You can, of course, reject these assumptions.
2. Rules really aren't rules. Rules are interpreted. That's the point here. We likely have differences of opinion about a targeting call against LSU this week, a targeting no-call in favor of Alabama, and a targeting reversal in favor of Auburn. It could be coincidence that Alabama comes out on top here. Or maybe they're better coached. Sure, argue that. But let's not pretend that there isn't wiggle room here for targeting to be interpreted. And it just so happens that these rules are interpreted by Bama grads and fans in striped shirts who sit behind tv screens in Birmingham (a fact that you cannot dispute).
But hey, chalk it up to whining. Or winning. Or whatever.
1. I laid out my assumptions (made the overall season estimate higher compared to last year) AND built in the assumption that no more calls will benefit Alabama (which is generous given that 1/3 of the regular season games are left to be played). Further, even if another school has 4 calls that favor them in the exact same way it does Alabama, it would likely be 1 school...at most. You can, of course, reject these assumptions.
2. Rules really aren't rules. Rules are interpreted. That's the point here. We likely have differences of opinion about a targeting call against LSU this week, a targeting no-call in favor of Alabama, and a targeting reversal in favor of Auburn. It could be coincidence that Alabama comes out on top here. Or maybe they're better coached. Sure, argue that. But let's not pretend that there isn't wiggle room here for targeting to be interpreted. And it just so happens that these rules are interpreted by Bama grads and fans in striped shirts who sit behind tv screens in Birmingham (a fact that you cannot dispute).
But hey, chalk it up to whining. Or winning. Or whatever.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News