Started By
Message
re: Ryan Day still whining over "non-targeting" aka “Displaced Buckeye Sore Butthole thread”
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:42 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:42 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I'm glad you are fine with the call made by the on field official. He wasn't sure, so he threw a flag knowing it could be overturned by the replay booth if he was wrong. And guess what? It was!!
I'm fine with the subjective call according to the rules. It was close and they had to go one way or the other.
0
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:44 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I think it would have stood.
This is really all I needed from you. This makes the call questionable. We've already established that it's subjective. Discussion over. Tell your friends.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:47 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
This is really all I needed from you. This makes the call questionable.
The on field call? yes. Not the replay. The replay got it right, so what is your argument? That's all I need from you. You can't explain how it was targeting and you can't explain how it was unnecessary roughness....but.....(In your mind) it was!
So explain, how it was targeting when all of the officials with film and slow motion says it was not. How was it unnecessary roughness when literally nobody (but you) claims it was.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:48 pm to DawgsLife
Why do you think the call would have stood?
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:50 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Why do you think the call would have stood?
Because film clearly shows it was not targeting. Officials from two conferences said it was clear to them....I mean dude. It was not targeting. Again. No reason to go any further if you cannot explain how it was targeting.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:51 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:51 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Why do you constantly deflect from video evidence. What elements of targeting do you identify under the rules. Not some ridiculous unnecessary roughness nonsense.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:51 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Because film clearly shows it was not targeting.
Wait. What the frick are you talking about?
The call on the field was targeting. You agreed that if "stands" was an option, that's the call. Meaning, it would have remained targeting.
Did I confuse you?
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:52 pm to CasualFan12
quote:
CasualFan12
Same question to you.
If "stands" is an option, is that the call?
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:53 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Wait. What the frick are you talking about?
quote:
Because film clearly shows it was not targeting.
quote:No I didn't. I said iy would be overturned.
The call on the field was targeting. You agreed that if "stands" was an option, that's the call.
quote:If i said that, then yes. It clearly was not targeting.
Did I confuse you?
Tell us how it was targeting. We are waiting.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:53 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:54 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
No I didn't. I said iy would be overturned.
Well, here's what you actually said:
quote:
I think it would have stood.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:55 pm to CasualFan12
quote:
CasualFan12
K.
Well, there's your answer. Stop asking.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:55 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
WTF are you talking about?
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:56 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Same question to you.
If "stands" is an option, is that the call?
No. It would not have stood because it was clearly not targeting.
Again. I'm done unless you can explain how it was targeting under the rules.
Goodnight, because I know you won't do it. We have been asking you all night and all we get is...."Becuz...." "What if the rules hadn't been changed...." "My coach says so...."
Are all Ohio State fans this obtuse?
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:57 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I think it would have stood.
quote:
No. It would not have stood because it was clearly not targeting.
Your first instinct was correct.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:57 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
No I didn't. I said iy would be overturned.
Well, here's what you actually said:
quote:
I think it would have stood.
Then I misunderstood. It would not have stood.
Now explain under the rules how it was targeting, or I am out of here and going to bed.
Good night, because i know you cannot explain how it was targeting under the rules.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:58 pm to DawgsLife
Exactly I’m done until he explains the elements of targeting with video evidence. I posted the best view several times. Tell us why you have targeting.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:58 pm to DawgsLife
Night.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 9:27 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
The call has not been affirmed by any of the officiating offices that Ryan Day has contacted.
The Big Ten told him that it did not measure up to targeting.
The Pac 12 told him that it did not measure up to targeting.
The NCAA officiating office told him that it did not measure up to targeting.
Bullard turned his head to lead with his shoulder.
The reality that it was a legal hit is not going to change.
The Big Ten told him that it did not measure up to targeting.
The Pac 12 told him that it did not measure up to targeting.
The NCAA officiating office told him that it did not measure up to targeting.
Bullard turned his head to lead with his shoulder.
The reality that it was a legal hit is not going to change.
Page 26 of 38
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News