Started By
Message
re: Ryan Day still whining over "non-targeting" aka “Displaced Buckeye Sore Butthole thread”
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:33 am to djsdawg
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:33 am to djsdawg
quote:
Laughing at your coach.
Right. And that's pathetic and insecure. You're new money, but don't worry, you'll get it figured out if y'all stick around.
quote:
You should be embarrassed by him.
I should be embarrassed that our head coach goes to bat for our players? Nah, I'll pass on that one.
1
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:34 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Not insecure, at all.
The data don't lie.
I don't know man- you're the one on an SEC board trying to validate tOSU with bad arguments and poor logic. That seems like an insecure seeking approval to me.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:35 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
No, it isn't.
If so, it’s an irrelevant factor. It’s up to you to prove its relevance.
quote:
Only if you actually believe I'm here to change minds.
It’s obvious you don’t care about making a strong point.
quote:
this were true, it wouldn't happen every game.
People rarely make good arguments against replay in every game.
quote:
No one had a better view than the official on the field
Besides the Replay ref who has the advantages of HI DEF/SLOW MO/MULTIPLE ANGLES
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:37 am to WorkinDawg
quote:
I don't know man
You should've stopped here.
There are two Ryan Day threads going now, both started by Georgia "fans."
quote:
validate tOSU
The team has been doing that for me for decades. I'm good.
Just here to point and laugh.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:37 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Right. And that's pathetic and insecur
It’s a display of confidence and security to laugh at excuse making losers.
quote:
should be embarrassed that our head coach goes to bat for our players? Nah, I'll pass on that one.
He should cry about refs in private.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:40 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
quote:
And no, that wasn’t targeting.
That's one opinion. Others disagree.
It is now an established fact that it was not targeting. The issue was resolved as the rules require. There are those of the opinion it should have been targeting, there are some of the opinion that it was targeting before the only person's whose opinion matters, the replay official, said unequivocally that it was not targeting. 99 times out of 100 it may have been and the replay officials in those instances would agree BUT in this instance the only opinion that matters says it was not targeting.
Most sensible people are of the opinion that OJ Simpson murdered two people. The system responsible for establishing that as a fact did not do so and he is not guilty of murder as defined by the law because he was not convicted of that crime. Did he get away with murder? I think so...but what I think on the subject has no value at all. The same is true of the phantom targeting....it wasn't targeting and opinions otherwise are worthless because it was settled on the field in real time in the only manner allowed. Thems is the rules of the game....
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:40 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Just here to point and laugh.
Laugh away the pain if you must. We can't point and laugh cause those rings are pretty dam heavy.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:41 am to djsdawg
quote:
It’s up to you to prove
Still nope.
quote:
It’s obvious you don’t care
Well, it should be...
quote:
People rarely make good arguments against replay in every game.
Rules experts do it frequently.
quote:
Besides the Replay ref
The dude a couple feet away had the better view.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:42 am to djsdawg
quote:
It’s a display of confidence
It isn't. I understand. You have 40+ years to work through. You'll get there.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:42 am to AwgustaDawg
quote:
It is now an established fact that it was not called targeting.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:44 am to WorkinDawg
quote:
We can't point and laugh cause those rings are pretty dam heavy.
Please tell me you actually bought a ring from some local infomercial.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:45 am to DisplacedBuckeye
I feel bad for Displaced Buckeye. We know it hurts. Shoot me your address and I'll send you this as a pick-me-up
It's signed by the Defensive MVP of the Peach Bowl!
It's signed by the Defensive MVP of the Peach Bowl!
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:46 am to WorkinDawg
Trashy.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:51 am to DisplacedBuckeye
So Ryan Day said he did not see the play and did not see any replay but was questioning the call being overturned because he didn't understand how you can get a concussion without being hit in the head. WOW. He isn't qualified to be a head coach if he does not understand how that is possible in this era of heightened awareness of concussions in football. Anyone interested in the subject the last 20 years would know it is common for people to have a concussion without being hit in the head directly. Blows from collisions can do it as well as a direct hit to the head. A concussion can occur anytime the brain moves quickly and in an unusual manner inside the skull. It does not have to bounce off the skull. Someone at OSU should sit their HC down and 'splain that to him IF he is going to continue to be responsible for safely coaching the football team because any player on the team is liable to suffer a concussion without a direct blow to the head. It could be very serious and he would ignore it if he did not see a direct blow to the head. He an idiot...
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:53 am to djsdawg
quote:
This would just prove you both dont understand the targeting review rule. The evidence has to prove targeting happened, not the other way around.
Exactly!
I am surprised so few football posters have a thorough understanding of the rules. As a group, Ohio State people are lacking in rule knowledge. Their default position is - if the call goes against us the official screwed up.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:55 am to WorkinDawg
quote:
I'll send you this
I’d like one of those as well. Tia
Posted on 2/2/23 at 8:58 am to AwgustaDawg
CFB rules state something to the effect that a call that is reviewed by the replay official can be overturned if there is evidence the call was made in error.
That same rulebook also says something to the effect that a FG must pass between the uprights and above the cross bar to be counted as a made FG.
Same rule book, same game.
Ryan Day is basically taking issue with the first rule, which may or may not have altered the outcome of the game, while willingly accepting the latter which would have definitely altered the outcome of the game. He should be claiming that in his opinion the FG was good because it went past the LOS and sort of in the direction of the endzone. His opinion on the targeting call being overturned is just as meaningful as that....
That same rulebook also says something to the effect that a FG must pass between the uprights and above the cross bar to be counted as a made FG.
Same rule book, same game.
Ryan Day is basically taking issue with the first rule, which may or may not have altered the outcome of the game, while willingly accepting the latter which would have definitely altered the outcome of the game. He should be claiming that in his opinion the FG was good because it went past the LOS and sort of in the direction of the endzone. His opinion on the targeting call being overturned is just as meaningful as that....
Posted on 2/2/23 at 9:13 am to WorkinDawg
quote:
s signed by the Defensive MVP of the Peach Bowl!
Looks like the turf caused the concussion
Posted on 2/2/23 at 9:16 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You have 40+ years to work through.
This might have been a good post in 2022. Not after the repeat
Posted on 2/2/23 at 9:20 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Still nope.
You also have the choice to throw in the towel.
quote:
Rules experts do it frequently.
In occasion, but More often, they agree with the final call, which is the case in this instance.
quote:
The dude a couple feet away had the better view.
Not with the disadvantages replay refs do not have.
Page 11 of 38
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News