Started By
Message
re: Most infamous games in SEC since 1992
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:29 pm to magildachunks
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:29 pm to magildachunks
Quick question, why do y'all have to make shite up to prove a point?
1
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:30 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:Quick question, how often do you think you are right and everyone else is wrong?
Quick question, why do y'all have to make shite up to prove a point?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:32 pm to lsupride87
Seriously do you really believe that's what happened? Because its 100% wrong. Is this the way you remember it, or did you watch it again and say that conclusion?
Your answer determines your sanity, hopefully its the first and not the second.
Your answer determines your sanity, hopefully its the first and not the second.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:34 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:Once again, how often in your life in your eyes are you the sane one surround by insane people?
Seriously do you really believe that's what happened? Because its 100% wrong. Is this the way you remember it, or did you watch it again and say that conclusion?
Your answer determines your sanity, hopefully its the first and not the second.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:36 pm to lsupride87
Well when I watch something and describe it exactly as it occurred, one might think I have a sane outlook on the situation. However, if I watched it, and spewed the version you are stating, I'd consider myself not sane.
Seriously, can you watch the play and state that?if so,
Seriously, can you watch the play and state that?if so,
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:36 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
NYCAuburn
So, are you going to respond to the Peirara(sp?) quote?
I mean, he did dispute what you have been claiing this entire thread.
And wasn't he the head of officials in the NFL? Is he wrong, or are you?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:37 pm to NYCAuburn
Tarded up a half-decent thread in the offseason. 
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:37 pm to lsupride87
Hold please, conveniently playing same tired game in another thread right now. You cannot coach this behavior, thank god.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:38 pm to magildachunks
What game was that I reference to? He stated the scenario as played out as legal. It also coincides with the rule book.
I'm on my phone, so searching is a bitch.
I'm on my phone, so searching is a bitch.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:39 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Well when I watch something and describe it exactly as it occurred,
But you are not. Interference happened. He was interfered with BEFORE the ball was tipped.
That is interference.
quote:
one might think I have a sane outlook on the situation.
One would be wrong.
quote:
However, if I watched it, and spewed the version you are stating, I'd consider myself not sane.
But you would be rational. Which, right now, you are not.
quote:
Seriously, can you watch the play and state that?
State what?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:39 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Tarded up a half-decent thread in the offseason
Facts be damned.
Seriously, do you know the rule?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:41 pm to magildachunks
quote:
But you are not. Interference happened. He was interfered with BEFORE the ball was tipped.
Is there a qualifier for pi to be called?
quote:
State what?
Your recreation of the event on the previous page. When you make shite up, it hinders your argument.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:41 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Mike Pereira disagrees:
But what happens when the contact occurs before the tip? A closer look at the replay indicates that's what happened. If interference rules end when a defensive player touches the pass, doesn't that mean they are still enforced before that point?
That's what I thought, as did longtime NFL executive Mike Perreira, who was analyzing the game on Twitter. Pereira examined the play several times and concluded: "the interference clearly occurred before the tip."
Pereira acknowledged he was surprised by the decision. There are only two explanations here: Anderson couldn't find irrefutable evidence that the tip occurred before the contact, or he simply made a mistake. The number of camera angles available on Monday night makes the first possibility highly unlikely.
One page earlier. Posted by JuiceTerry.
And the NFL always backs their officials. Can't remember the last time when NFL admitted that the officials fricked up.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:42 pm to NYCAuburn
You're trying to say the ball became uncatchable after the guy was mugged. You're an idiot. I weep for your relatives. 
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:42 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Your recreation of the event on the previous page. When you make shite up, it hinders your argument.
You ain't too bright, is ya?
Have a little trouble with sarcasm there, do ya?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:43 pm to magildachunks
And that leaves out a major qualifier in the rule, one that comes into play here.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:43 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
And that leaves out a major qualifier in the rule, one that comes into play here.
And what is this qualifier?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:44 pm to magildachunks
quote:
You ain't too bright, is ya? Have a little trouble with sarcasm there, do ya?
So your recreation was sarcasm? If so, the you should agree with me then.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:44 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Except that doesnt matter. Play was called correctly
Sorry, you're just wrong.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 7:45 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
You're trying to say the ball became uncatchable after the guy was mugged. You're an idiot. I weep for your relatives.
The scenario plays out quite often, sorry you can't comprehend.
Page 12 of 23
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News