Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/3/23 at 3:23 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
So did I. Does your video have something new?
Refs who agree it was not targeting:
- Pac 12 Replay official
- TV Ref commentator
- Head of Pac 12 officials: “The explanation that was told to me was that it wasn’t forcible enough,” Day said on his conversation with the Pac-12, whose officials were calling the game.
- National Coordinator of Officials Steve Shaw: “I then asked to speak with the head of officials, Steve Shaw. He explained to me that the hit didn’t go right to Marvin’s head. It wasn’t a shot right on his head but to his shoulder."
This post was edited on 2/3/23 at 3:24 pm
Posted on 2/3/23 at 3:23 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Took me about 15-20 seconds to find this one: "It was targeting. We all know it was targeting. You'd be bitching about it, too."
Go for it.
Seems like you started out hot, arguing about the call rather than talking about the subjective nature of calling penalties in football.
I stopped there, but did you happen to provide a positive argument for why you think it was targeting?
Posted on 2/3/23 at 3:24 pm to CasualFan12
quote:
It’s as clear as (Ryan) Day
Ryan Day colors his hair with
Posted on 2/3/23 at 3:25 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
stopped there, but did you happen to provide a positive argument for why you think it was targeting?
This is the best he could do:
quote:
I don't have to "come up with" anything.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 3:25 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I stopped there, but did you happen to provide a positive argument for why you think it was targeting?
Nope. He changed quickly to it was unnecessary roughness, but can't explain that one, either. The closest I could get was he seems to think a WR in the act of catching a football can't be hit.
BIG 10 soft.
This post was edited on 2/3/23 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 2/3/23 at 3:25 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Since it doesn't seem like you read the rest of my post, I'll repeat myself in response to your concern about MHJ's impact:
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?
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.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 3:29 pm to DawgsLife
Less than a week after releasing its updated schedule, it appears the Big Ten won't be moving forward with its 2020 season.
RELATED: More Ohio State football coverage from WKYC
According to The Detroit Free Press, the Big Ten's presidents have voted to cancel its upcoming college football season amid concerns regarding the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. An official announcement regarding the cancellation of the season is expected on Tuesday.
Sponsored Links
How Much Does A Tub-To-Shower Conversion Cost?West Shore Home Baths Quotes
Per The Free Press, the Big Ten's presidents voted 12-2 in favor of canceling the season. According to Dan Patrick, Iowa and Nebraska were the only schools to vote in favor of moving forward with the upcoming campaign.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 3:36 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:It seems that this is at the heart of everything you do on here. You don't want to engage in actual discussion of anything. You want to take pot shots and easy layups and then avoid discussion where it isn't so easy to "win".
I'd rather be entertained
At least you're admitting it and it's out in the open for people to see who you are.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 4:08 pm to CasualFan12
K. So no.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 4:22 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It seems that this is at the heart of everything you do on here. You don't want to engage in actual discussion of anything. You want to take pot shots and easy layups and then avoid discussion where it isn't so easy to "win". At least you're admitting it and it's out in the open for people to see who you are.
Good summary
Posted on 2/3/23 at 5:40 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Good summary
Not really.
You and FooLaneCraig are similar, though. You try to pass subjective bullshite as objective fact. When I point it out, you move onto something else and demand that I have the discussion you want to have.
Not interested in that any more than I'm interested in "winning," whatever the frick that means here.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 5:49 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You try to pass subjective bull shite as objective fact.
Refs who agree it was not targeting:
- Pac 12 Replay official
- TV Ref commentator
- Head of Pac 12 officials: “The explanation that was told to me was that it wasn’t forcible enough,” Day said on his conversation with the Pac-12, whose officials were calling the game.
- National Coordinator of Officials Steve Shaw: “I then asked to speak with the head of officials, Steve Shaw. He explained to me that the hit didn’t go right to Marvin’s head. It wasn’t a shot right on his head but to his shoulder."
Posted on 2/3/23 at 5:52 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
demand that I have the discussion you want to have.
quote:
I don't have to "come up with" anything.
In other words, you can’t defend your position, the very essence of avoiding the discussion.
This post was edited on 2/3/23 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 2/3/23 at 5:55 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Refs who agree
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:01 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Refs who agree
Of course. Vary between who you ask?
Opinions of Homers, haters, excuse makers, and people who don’t understand the rules
Vs
Opinions of people who matter in the proper enforcement of penalties, and people who understand the rules
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:03 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Opinions of Homers, haters, excuse makers, and people who don’t understand the rules
Look at you pretending these folks aren't on both sides of any discussion.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:04 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
aren't on both sides of any discussion.
At this point what are you even going on about?
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:08 pm to Aguga
Me: I think the officials were wrong.
Dj: Nuh uh. It was objectively the right call by the officials.
Me: Says who?
Dj: The officials.
Dj: Nuh uh. It was objectively the right call by the officials.
Me: Says who?
Dj: The officials.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:12 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Where is your positive case for why you think they were wrong? Or is it just your opinion because you want them to be wrong?
Me: I think the officials were wrong.
Page 24 of 38
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News