re: Ryan Day still whining over "non-targeting" aka “Displaced Buckeye Sore Butthole thread”

quote:

---

No. This is what the discussing is, because you refused to accept a very simple reality.

---

Was the call right or wrong and why?

Everyone that matters, unbiased people from the REF world who are applying the rule to HI DEF/SLOW MO/MULTIPLE ANGLES Replay, agrees it wasn’t targeting.

Biased bucks and jealous haters, who are ignoring the key elements of the rule, disagree.

Different take.

Why do I need a different take? I gave you the clearest view of what occurred. I can clearly see what happened with the view I provided.

I’m not giving opinion. I’m looking at what actually occurred. It’s clear and the best angle.

quote:

---

I’m not giving opinion.

---

You did.

quote:

---

It simply wasn’t targeting or any other foul.

---

See.

quote:

---

So what. Losing him shifted our offense. Instead of covering Marv Jr. you're covering Egbuka. Instead of covering Egbuka, you're covering Fleming. And so on.

---

So you're argument was that OSU was an offensive juggernaught on the field when MHJ was distracting our defense, but that OSU's offense came to a crashing halt when he left the game because he was absent? Is that your positive case, or at least an element of it?

I hope not.

I don't think you really care about this. I think you just enjoy the sport of argument, especially when you don't have to put much effort in supporting your own position, so you can spend as much time as you want cherry-picking from others to craft a narrative of your own choosing, but I'm going to say this (again) anyway: MHJ was absent from the game for three (3) OSU offensive drives.

Specifically, he went out of the game with 35 seconds left in the 3rd quarter and OSU settled for a FG.

From then on, there were three offensive drives, and here they are:

Drive 1: 3 plays, 9 yards, and 1:23 off the clock, resulting in a punt

Drive 2: 11 plays, 45 yards, and 5:58 off the clock, resulting in a FG

Drive 3: 7 plays, 43 yards, and :51 off the clock, resulting in a missed FG that sealed the game

Only one of those two drives was a complete dud. The other two drives had OSU driving the field with the opportunity to put points on the board, and when you analyze those drives, you can see that pressure from UGA was the biggest factor.

So yes, you can talk about 38 points compared to 3 all you like, but when you take a look at the actual drives he was absent for, it's not as impactful as you want to make it.

quote:

---

It's noted that you're still pretending that was no big deal.

---

I don't think that MHJ's absence was trivial, but OSU fans are making more out of it than is warranted. Ultimately, UGA did what it has done for a long time: they played great 4th quarter football, making the plays they needed to make, and OSU's defense and Special Teams left Stroud and the offense out to dry when it mattered most.

quote:

---

The discussion was about the subjective nature of the penalty and the varying perspectives.

---

You've talked a lot for someone who only cares about the subjective nature of the call. If I go back through this thread, will I find you only talking about that aspect? No accusations that it was actually targeting, or that the call was wrong?

quote:

---

So you're argument was that OSU was an offensive juggernaught on the field when MHJ was distracting our defense, but that OSU's offense came to a crashing halt when he left the game because he was absent? Is that your positive case, or at least an element of it?

---

No, I'm arguing that our offense that scored 6 times and put up 38 points with him was completely the same.

What do you suppose happens when you don't have to account for Marv Jr.? Your coaches and your defense know this. Why don't you?

quote:

---

It’s literally his only real Attempt at making a point about the play. He can’t explain what about the rule, call and review process is wrong.

---

Incorrect. But if I can't get you to be honest about the small stuff, I'm not wasting my time discussing it with you.

quote:

---

Incorrect. But if I can't get you to be honest about the small stuff, I'm not wasting my time discussing it with you.

---

You always say something along the lines of “I don’t have to” when asked to go into details about the big stuff, and here you essentially do it again.