re: Bama, USCjr, and Ole Piss don’t deserve to be in the playoffs

quote:

---

I would like to see South Carolina get in, but I can’t make a logical argument for it. H2H, both beat Georgia. 2 in the plus column for both SC has nothing to match against.

---

Something that I think strengthens the case for Ole Miss, is to do comparisons between Ole Miss - USC and Bama - USC.

In a Bama-USC comparison, head to head was a “close” win in Tuscaloosa, which still favors Bama but not overwhelming.

Common opponents were Vandy, Mizzou, Oklahoma and LSU with USC 3-1 and Bama 2-2….maybe favors USC slightly.

Bama’s top wins were UGa and UsC > Clemson (who UGa trashed) and A&M

USCs best argument vs Bama is they won their final six games, being hot to close the season, where as Bama was 4-2 with a very ugly week 14 loss.


If you do the same type of comparisons with Ole Miss-USC

Ole Miss trounced USC in Columbia, which overwhelmingly favors them.

Common opponents Kentucky, LSU and Oklahoma favors UsC (2-1 vs 1-2)

Ole Miss’s top wins of UGa and UsC better same as the UsC-Bama Comparison.

USC can make the same 6-0 vs 4-2 argument with Ole Miss they do with Bama, but both of Ole Miss’s losses were by 3 points.

No 2-loss team ever deserves to have played for a title before the 12-team expansion.

Is a season 6 weeks or 12?

The moment you have to start picking and choosing which weeks are relevant, you inject bias into the argument. That’s why South Carolina fails against both Bama and Ole Miss. if you go last 8 weeks instead of 6 you now include losses to not one but both of the others teams being discussed.

I

quote:

---

I hate to break it to you, but you're wrong.

And lets not even talk about the phantom offensive PI call...

---

I'm not wrong. I've been complaining about it since they made it the rule.

It's ridiculous that it's a penalty. Should have to keep your head on a swivel and if you don't want to get blindside blocked then don't put yourself in the play.

quote:

---

I'm not wrong. I've been complaining about it since they made it the rule.

---

Just for you, I'll go into it again. By every reading of the actual rule book, and every possible foul, being it roughing the passer, blindside block, pick any of them, the call was wrong.

Would you like to read the actual rule and try to be more objective?

quote:

---

Blind-Side Block ARTICLE 18 No player shall deliver a blind-side block by attacking an opponent with forcible contact
(Exceptions: (1) the runner;
(2) a receiver in the act of attempting to make a catch )
(Note: In addition, if this action meets all the elements of targeting, it is a blind-slide block with targeting (Rule 9-1-3 and 9-1-4).

Blind-Side Block—ARTICLE 18 Approved Ruling 9-1-18

B44 intercepts the pass of A12 at the B-20 and turns back up-field on the return

During the return, B21 approaches A88 at midfield from the blind side and blocks A88
(a) with extended hands;
(b) with a screen type block;
(c) by attacking with forcible contact with his shoulder into the chest of A88;
(d) by attacking with forcible contact with the shoulder into the head of A88 B44 returns the pass to the A-20

RULING:
(a) No foul
(b) No foul
(c) Personal Foul, blind-side block, 15-yard penalty from the spot of the foul
(d) Personal Foul, Blind-Side Block with Targeting, 15-yard penalty from the spot of the foul and B21 is disqualified

---

Reading that description and looking at this gif, Which one of those scenarios best applies? You HAVE to settle on scenario A. The scenario is RIGHT OUT OF THE RULE BOOK.



But, he wasn't called for blindside block. He was called for unnecessary roughness. This is the ONLY thing that could have been called. However, lets look at the controlling rule:

quote:

---

Contact Against an Opponent Out of the Play ARTICLE 12
a No player shall tackle or run into a receiver when a forward pass to that receiver is obviously not catchable This is a personal foul and not pass interference
b No player shall run into or throw themselves against an opponent obviously out of the play either before or after the ball is dead

---

The applicable section is part b. No player shall run into or throw themselves against an opponent obviously out of the play either before or after the ball is dead. However, you can make the argument that when Nussmeier starts moving toward the ball carrier he is no longer "obviously" out of the play. So as soon as Nussmeier makes a move for the ball carrier, he's legal to be blocked. This photo takes away the narrative that he was out of the play.



The only reason this was called is because Nussmeier laid there like a dead fish after he was blocked. But the block was legal by the rules.

Now, would you like to tell me again how this was a fair and correct call?

quote:

---

Now, would you like to tell me again how this was a fair and correct call?

---

Sure.

First, you are wrong here where you claim A happened, when C actually happened. His hands are about 30% extended at best, and he hit him up high, knocking him on his arse.

quote:

---

(a) with extended hands;
(b) with a screen type block;
(c) by attacking with forcible contact with his shoulder into the chest of A88;
(d) by attacking with forcible contact with the shoulder into the head of A88 B44 returns the pass to the A-20

---

And C is a penalty.

The guy wasn't looking and your player knocked the frick outta him. They are going to call it every time and have been calling it every time.

quote:

---

The problem with your argument here is it wasn't called a blindside block so NONE of those apply.

---

Then why are you bringing it up?

quote:

---

He was flagged for a personal foul.

---

A blindside block is a personal foul.

quote:

---

A blindside block is a personal foul.

---

Right. And it has it's own unique signal from the refs. That is not what was called on the field.

Here's the call from the game....


And here's the signal for illegal blindside block. Notice hat is not what was called above....



Just face it, you're wrong on this one.

quote:

---

So the ref not making the correct signal on the call is your argument now?

---

I WATCHED THE GAME LIVE. At the time the refs said NOTHING about blindside block. If they were going to call a blindside block don't you think they would have said, Player #5 is guilty of a blind side block when they explained the flag?? But that's not what they did.

And as soon as the ball changes hands, he's no longer a QB. He's a defended.