Refs Strike Again at Michigan
- Thread starter ryoder1
- Start date
I don't think it's stupid. I know it's stupid.
I know it's stupid because the procedural rule change happened exactly due to the fact that the call was messed up. It's literally the opposite of what you claimed. And this has been explained to you many times already, and you're still on here stating the opposite of reality.
You don't see that a correct call was made, and then suddenly say "hey, as a result of this correct call being made, we're going change the longstanding procedure and we're going to bring in another set of eyes to watch for this call from now on. The procedure worked so well, we're going to change it!"
No, instead, if you're a normal, functioning human being (sorry to exclude you, Lando), you see that a mistake in applying the rule was made, and you say to yourself "how do we avoid this mistake being made again?" And maybe you say "hey, we could bring a second set of official's eyes down here and that would help avoid the mistake in the future." BECAUSE IT WAS A FRIGGIN MISTAKE. At which point, the Village Idiot (or as it will now be known, the LandoComando, comes in and says "you changed the procedure because it was a correct call!"
A rules expert, Mike Pereia, says he was not offsides. If you asked him do you believe he was offsides he would say "no" every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Don't hide behind semantics. You are desperate and pathetic. If Mike was officiating then no flag thrown. He is the foremost rules expert. Bad call end of story.
I'm thinking we can easily get this to 20.
lol Lando will keep going if he has posts to respond to. This will be West Virginia all over again
Entertainment! It will be hilarious to have this go all the way into the off season and longer. Just keep it at the top with everyone chiming in against Lando.
I just thought of this....I would bet Lando thinks...check that...knows for sure without one iota of doubt that Penix scored. I should start a new thread on that and see how many pages we can get. 4 years later! LOL!
Also remember that horrific call against the Saints vs Rams in the playoff game about 5 years ago? It was a no call of PI and it was about as bad a no call in the history of the game. I wanted the Rams to win and was even embarrassed by it. I can't remember the specifics but it was a very crucial call that prevented the Saints from winning. Maybe they would have run out the clock or chip shot FG, something like that. Something tells me Lando says it was the correct call and had no bearing on the outcome. LOL.
Question for posters other than mando. Even if mando does find the link that has a big conference official referencing the specific time in the specific game which caused the protocol change, he will not post it.
Should I provide the link? Will that humiliate him enough so he will stfu?
I think push back on his assholery should continue. With no pushback he will continue with his idiocy. He has demonstated that.
Should I provide the link? Will that humiliate him enough so he will stfu?
I think push back on his assholery should continue. With no pushback he will continue with his idiocy. He has demonstated that.
What are you looking at? This photo shows the ball had moved forward by 1/2 yard and the guy who was called offsides had his feet a foot behind the 35 yard line and his hand even with the plane of the 35 yard line.
This is your proof?
Last edited:
I'm fine with that--I don't know why anyone thinks this bothers me
I enjoy arguing
How is that humiliating? If you have it I'd gladly admit I was wrong and then continue to argue about the actual issue
If they did say something I can't wait to see how it help my argument
You are wrong. A national outlet has a direct quote from a big conference official about the protocol change after this game. You either found it and are too humiliated to post it or can't find it and won't admit your poor research skills.
The Big Ten reviewed the call. Their comments on the call are linked as well as the actions they took so bad calls like that don't happen again.
And yes, you are humiliating yourself. Repeatedly.
Big Ten makes officiating change following controversial onside kick penalty in Gophers' loss to Michigan
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ot...-against-michigan-head-coach-says/ar-AA1rub21
During the FOX broadcast of Saturday's game, rules analyst Mike Pereira said he didn't think Kingsbury was offsides. The play was not reviewable and could not be challenged.
The Big Ten later admitted that there was an officiating mistake on the play, saying it was "too tight" to throw a flag in that situation.
The conference also confirmed in a statement that it had received immediate approval for an officiating alignment change on onside kicks. Now, the head line judge and line judge will need to be positioned on the 35-yard line of the kicking team — meaning there will be two views down the line.
Wrong...
Fleck said the second quote not the Big Ten
A rule change doesn't admit an error
Simple
Haven't even slightly lost
You continue to create false statements because you know nothing exists with them stating an error was made. As we all know they never would.
Speaking of Simple ... here's Simple Lando, while posting, yet again, that a rule change meant to address an incorrect call is proof the incorrect call was correct ...
You definitely lost. And you humiliate yourself pretending otherwise.
Think of it this way. If you accuse me of lifting $20 from you, and I give you $20 and say only, "I'm sorry", did I lift the $20?
YOUR requirement of having a specific written statement by the Big Ten saying it was a bad call is YOUR requirement, and yours only. It is unreasonable. If we were in court, and you are the lawyer arguing that it was the right call because the Big Ten specifically didn't make a specific public statement saying such, you would be laughed at by the jury because the Big Ten did confide it was a bad call to the impacted head coach, AND did make officiating changes so that it would never happen again.
You're not arguing ... you're just repeating the same stupidity over and over again when everyone has already proven you wrong and the argument has long been over. You're like the bloodied and bruised fighter who, after he wakes up, repeatedly yells at the completely untouched opponent that he won the fight.
Again, that's not a factSpeaking of Simple ... here's Simple Lando, while posting, yet again, that a rule change meant to address an incorrect call is proof the incorrect call was correct ...
If I'm Minnesota, their changes are cold comfort...and also a diversionary band-aid which will not address the real issue of systemic bias.
Even if they don't screw that call up again, there are 100 other ways to get things wrong. We've already seen a bunch of them and will no doubt see a bunch more.
Didn't lose even remotely
You issued an apology--no apology was issued
It's not unreasonable. Leagues admit wrong calls all the time.
Correct, if the Big Ten didn't make a statement saying the call was in error you can't say the Bi Ten admitted the call was wrong.
What are you doing?
I've explained in multiple ways how there's no admittance of the call being wrong. You've yet to provide any new evidence so I would stand on the same correct argument the first time until you have something new
The jury of your peers has judged against you. You lost.
The actions were the apology. The Big Ten admitted it to the impacted coach. You are the only person who thinks otherwise, and quite frankly, your outlying opinion is immaterial to reality.
The jury has spoken. Lando Commando LOSES.
Laughing at you while you claim you won the fight from your hospital bed. On this thread, you had one of the most epic fails in the history of this board, and it's fabulous entertainment.
You're wrong. Experts have said the call is wrong by saying the flag should not have been called. You are lost in the trees. Is your stance now that if the B10 does not flat out say the call was wrong than it is right? Look at the video. Everyone has and agrees it was the wrong call. Common sense applies here. Case closed. Do you believe OJ is not guilty because the jury said so? Man you are a piece of work.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, and I have no opinion on that penalty call, since I didn't see it. My point is that if someone is going to disagree with a penalty, then explain why it wasn't a penalty based on the rules. Saying that a penalty should not have been called "at that juncture" is bull fertilizer.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting Six Penn State commits ranked in latest Rivals250- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
-
Basketball Penn State Basketball receiving votes in latest AP Top 25 poll- Latest: NittanyFrank
-