Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/4/23 at 8:11 am to Chip82
quote:
I have referred to the video evidence.
So have I, with explanations for the indicators.
Posted on 2/4/23 at 8:14 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Man you have got to be Sam Block. No way you are still refuting video proof.
Posted on 2/4/23 at 9:04 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Your explanations are not accurate according to the protocol.
Unlike you, I am satisfied that the referee reviewers followed the protocol and came to the right decision.
For some people it takes quite a long tome to stop beating a dead horse. But I suspect that it is why the expression took hold in the first place; that being in denial of the reality of a situation prompts a continued response.
Unlike you, I am satisfied that the referee reviewers followed the protocol and came to the right decision.
For some people it takes quite a long tome to stop beating a dead horse. But I suspect that it is why the expression took hold in the first place; that being in denial of the reality of a situation prompts a continued response.
Posted on 2/4/23 at 9:19 am to Chip82
quote:
Your explanations are not accurate according to the protocol.
Yet, this is as far as any of you go in refuting that.
quote:
Unlike you, I am satisfied that the referee reviewers followed the protocol and came to the right decision.
You don't fricking say.
quote:
For some people it takes quite a long tome to stop beating a dead horse. But I suspect that it is why the expression took hold in the first place; that being in denial of the reality of a situation prompts a continued response.
If your insecure fanbase can stop starting threads about it, it goes away. Simple as that.
Posted on 2/4/23 at 9:43 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
with explanations for the indicators.
What have you said besides “He hit him too hard!”?
Posted on 2/4/23 at 10:00 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
point is that I think they got it wrong.
In what manner exactly?
quote:
And the best y’all can come up with is Muh Officials and Muh Rules.
You are dunking on yourself:
We have unbiased Professional referees and official rules.
The best you have is “others”, which consists solely of buckeye homers, uga haters, pathetic excuse makers, and idiots who don’t understand the rules.
Posted on 2/4/23 at 10:29 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
If your insecure fanbase can stop starting threads about it, it goes away. Simple as that.
The reason it hasn’t “gone away” is your beloved DyeBearded coach - goes to a press conference ONE MONTH LATER and makes it a story - on National Signing Day no less.
The reason it doesn’t “go away” is all the OSU YouTubers are still talking about it.
The reason it doesn’t “go away” is we are on Page 29 of the thread and you are THE ONLY ONE arguing the obvious incorrect analysis.
The non-targeting will GO AWAY when OSU stops talking about it. Dawg fans are more interested in talking about a 3-Peat.
This thread will die when you stop posting on it.
This post was edited on 2/4/23 at 10:32 am
Posted on 2/4/23 at 10:43 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Why do you think the call would have stood?
A flawed rule that proved the existence of an imbalance between the safety rules and the physical nature of football.
The rule makers saw this flaw, so they got together and improved upon the rule, as you said they would. Remember that part of the discussion?
They simply shifted the burden of proof to the replay ref. Brilliant move to fix the flawed imbalance.
Now, the chances of a big time mistake impacting a game have been decreased, importantly without sacrificing safety.
Posted on 2/4/23 at 10:43 am to Long Dawg
I actually understand.
I would be butt-hurt too, if I was one missed field goal from essentially winning the national title.
I would be butt-hurt too, if I was one missed field goal from essentially winning the national title.
Posted on 2/4/23 at 10:55 am to DisplacedBuckeye
I know this is hard for you but you obviously haven’t read the actual rule on targeting. The first element has to be met first. Forcible contact to the HEAD and NECK. If that isn’t met then the next article in the rule defining a defenseless player is moot. That seems to be lost on you.
I showed you a clear video and MHJ was hit with a shoulder as the defender actually turned to avoid using his helmet. His head was clearly up when the strike occurs. It simply isn’t targeting despite what your crybaby coach and fan base keep crying about. People get concussions all of the time when no direct impact to the head occurs. It’s a whiplash effect.
I showed you a clear video and MHJ was hit with a shoulder as the defender actually turned to avoid using his helmet. His head was clearly up when the strike occurs. It simply isn’t targeting despite what your crybaby coach and fan base keep crying about. People get concussions all of the time when no direct impact to the head occurs. It’s a whiplash effect.
Posted on 2/4/23 at 11:06 am to CasualFan12
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
That’s the rule. It goes no further as the replay official actually watched the video evidence and correctly determined the player wasn’t struck in the head or neck. Had there been forcible contact to head and neck then they go into the subsection and look for an indicator of targeting. Article 3 is related to crown of helmet so no point going over that.
That’s the rule. It goes no further as the replay official actually watched the video evidence and correctly determined the player wasn’t struck in the head or neck. Had there been forcible contact to head and neck then they go into the subsection and look for an indicator of targeting. Article 3 is related to crown of helmet so no point going over that.
This post was edited on 2/4/23 at 11:11 am
Posted on 2/4/23 at 11:38 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
That doesn't mean it isn't questionable.
How questionable is it it, right?
That is determined by:
1. how good of a view the refs had.
2. the neutrality of the the refs
3. the rule book knowledge of the refs.
Posted on 2/4/23 at 11:39 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Sure it could be a sliding scale.
Whose judgement is more questionable:
A - the ref who knows the rule book inside and out
B - the buckeye fan who doesn’t know shite about the rule book
Submit answer _________
Posted on 2/4/23 at 11:42 am to djsdawg
I posted the rule for him. If he can read and comprehend, his confusion should be all cleared up.
Posted on 2/4/23 at 1:02 pm to CasualFan12
quote:
posted the rule for him. If he can read and comprehend, his confusion should be all cleared up.
Hypothetical rules mean more to him than real rules
Posted on 2/4/23 at 1:16 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
DisplacedBuckeye
Damn, 29 pages of melting and still going, can he make it to 40 pages?? What's the longest thread of one single person melting, he has gotta be getting close to it
Posted on 2/4/23 at 3:43 pm to DrewDawg13
He gets “entertainment” from getting us riled up. It’s why he invests so little in his responses. He wants to keep the fun going with as little work as possible.
He is a sad creature. One to be pitied.
He is a sad creature. One to be pitied.
Posted on 2/4/23 at 4:04 pm to Long Dawg
Georgia should send him a framed picture of the trophy
Posted on 2/4/23 at 4:42 pm to Cadello
The framed pic of Harrison in the turf is more suitable IMO
Page 29 of 38
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News