Started By
Message
re: Ryan Day still whining over "non-targeting" aka “Displaced Buckeye Sore Butthole thread”
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:16 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:16 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Look at you pretending these folks aren't on both sides of any discussion.
The 4 ref examples are not homers, haters, excuse makers or people who don’t understand the rules.
Only one side of the discussion has them in their corner.
1
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:21 pm to djsdawg
quote:
The 4 ref examples are not homers, haters, excuse makers or people who don’t understand the rules.
Love it when I'm dead on.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:35 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Me: I think the officials were wrong.
Okay, I will play along.
My response is “why? based on what?”
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:38 pm to djsdawg
K.
First, let's establish something. Do you agree that if "stands" was still an option, that's the call?
First, let's establish something. Do you agree that if "stands" was still an option, that's the call?
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:54 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Love it when I'm dead on.
In other words…..
You think the refs are uga homers who hate Ohio state and don’t understand the rules.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:56 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Me: I think the officials were wrong.
Surely there must be a very good football play reason for that. What is it?
Posted on 2/3/23 at 7:02 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Do you agree that if "stands" was still an option, that's the call?
Ah. So you want to go back to the “balancing act” discussion for the early part of the thread, right?
You are mad where the burden lies.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 7:05 pm to djsdawg
It's pretty simple. If you want a discussion, answer that question truthfully.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 7:41 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
This doesn't surprise me.
I'm sure you've got merchandise celebrating Ohio State's back-to-back national championships.
Oh. Wait...
I guess you don't
Posted on 2/3/23 at 7:54 pm to Knowshon5Dolla
I don't buy championship merchandise. I'm not an Ohio State fan because of the championships we've won.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 7:54 pm to Knowshon5Dolla
quote:
I'm sure you've got merchandise celebrating Ohio State's back-to-back national championships.
Oh. Wait...
I guess you don't
Well there was that one time they won the BCS and then the Final Four 3 months later.
Oh wait...
Posted on 2/3/23 at 7:55 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
First, let's establish something. Do you agree that if "stands" was still an option, that's the call?
First, it is off the table.
Secondly, yes, I think it would have stood. Ryan Day Still Upset About Non-Targeting Call, Made Numerous Calls to Officials
So Day called not PAC 12 officials (Conference the officials were from) but called officials from the BIG 10. Officials that would have been sympathetic to him, and this is what he was told.
"I spoke with the officials in the Big 10," Day said. "I then called the Pac 12 to get an explanation there. The explanation that was told to me, was that it wasn't forcible enough. I then asked to speak with the head of the officials, Steve Shaw. He explained to me that the hit didn't go right to Marvin's head. That it wasn't a shot to his head, it was to the shoulder. I completely disagree with that. But that is the decision that was made."
So two sets of officials from two different conferences told him it was not targeting, but he decides to keep crying....much like you.
He disagrres that it was to the shoulder and not head, yet you have numerous links in theis thread that shows that it was to the shoulder.
Big 10 fans and coaches have to be the biggest crybabies in college football. But go ahead, and keep harping on "Muh, he wuz hit in the head!"
Posted on 2/3/23 at 7:57 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
It's pretty simple. If you want a discussion, answer that question truthfully.
I answered it truthfully, but isn't that like asking, "If we could change the rule book and eliminate the rules that don't suit us we would win!"
You play within the rules, and officials from two different conferences said it was not a hit to the head. The videos shows it was not to the head. but go ahead and cry some more.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 7:59 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I don't buy championship merchandise.
Not lately you don't
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:00 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
It's pretty simple. If you want a discussion, answer that question truthfully.
The answer is irrelevant due to
It’s hypothetical nature.
This is about the rule as it is, which is an explanation you refuse to provide.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:11 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Secondly, yes, I think it would have stood.
Right, because it was close enough that a subjective look could've gone either way.
Which has been my point the entire fricking time.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:14 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I answered it truthfully, but isn't that like asking, "If we could change the rule book and eliminate the rules that don't suit us we would win!"
No.
I'm fine with the subjective call according to the rules. It was close and they had to go one way or the other.
My point is that I think they got it wrong. So do others. And the best y’all can come up with is Muh Officials and Muh Rules.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:21 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Because you can’t identify the elements of targeting that you’ve identified backed up by actual video evidence. While I have. It simply isn’t targeting under the rule. All you did was post some tool babbling about how the defender traveled to the play not knowing where the ball was which has zero to do with any element of targeting. Watch the video I posted which is crystal clear with regard to the actual contact. There are other angles but none that clearly show the actual contact. Then tell me where the targeting is.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:36 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Right, because it was close enough that a subjective look could've gone either way.
Wrong. because video evidence was clear enough to convince PAC 12 officials, BIG 10 officials, and the replay booth. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Seemed pretty cut and dried to all the officials except one. The one trying to make a fast, on field decision that did not have slow motion, high definition playbck to look at. Everybody that had multiple angles, high definition, slow motion and frame by frame all agreed it was not targeting. but hey, DisplacedBuckeye and Ryan Day sees it another way, so....
quote:Maybe that;s the problem then. You are using faulty logic.
Which has been my point the entire fricking time.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:40 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
No.
Yes. That is exactly what you are proposing......"B-b-b-ut what if the rule had not been changed?"
It was, and you and your coach need to accept it and get on with your lives. No use anguishing over something that will not be changed from the correct decision. but hey, you are much smarter than all of the officials, aren't you? Ryan Day was told by two different conferences officials and the head of officials of your own conference he was wrong, yet he is getting on national news to dispute it. It really is a bad reflection on your university for the coach to beg somebody...ANYBODY to agree with him. He is grasping at straws, just like you are.
Page 25 of 38
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News