Also remember when mando claimed no b1g conference official specifically mentioned this game as a reason to change protocol.You're a masochist. Hey, remember when you claimed this was the correct call?!? Bahahahaha.
Also remember when mando claimed no b1g conference official specifically mentioned this game as a reason to change protocol.You're a masochist. Hey, remember when you claimed this was the correct call?!? Bahahahaha.
I did...a handfulLOL... You can take a look.
The rules were changed. It will forever be known as the scUM rule. Fleck understands that he would have had an opportunity to win the game had the call been correct. Everyone knows that except you.
Correct....there's a one paragraph statement everywhere expect in your secret link.Also remember when mando claimed no b1g conference official specifically mentioned this game as a reason to change protocol.
It is not secret and you know that. (It is more than one paragraph). Or, you are too lazy to find it. Or, don't know how to do research on line. When you are sufficiently humiliated, I will post it.Correct....there's a one paragraph statement everywhere expect in your secret link.
A handful is 5. There are far more than 5.I did...a handful
Forever known as the scUM rule. Let's see how many people remember this in a year. There will be 6 here
Fleck said it didn't impact the game. One call never does. It's why you play 60 minutes.
Nope they put another official there so two officials instead of one will call it and people will stop bitching. Not once did they say it was done due to the call being wrong as you know
That will never happenIt is not secret and you know that. (It is more than one paragraph). Or, you are too lazy to find it. Or, don't know how to do research on line. When you are sufficiently humiliated, I will post it.
Now see who wrote thoseA handful is 5. There are far more than 5.
A Fleck knows he got screwed.
Blown offsides call in Gophers vs. Michigan game spurs Big Ten officiating change
https://www.startribune.com/gophers...s-call-officiating-pj-fleck-big-ten/601154718
Coach P.J. Fleck said the Big Ten acknowledged its mistake on Saturday’s onside kick, and the Big Ten went on to change its officiating tactics.
Gophers’ P.J. Fleck still bothered by onside kick penalty at Michigan
https://www.fox9.com/sports/gophers-p-j-fleck-still-bothered-onside-kick-penalty-michigan
Yupp...name a time a rule changed due to one official making an error. Just one.Bahahahaha! That's awesome. Yes, the call was so correct and so obvious that they went through the trouble of changing their officiating procedure (and having to get sign off from the NCAA to do so), just so people wouldn't complain.
I hope you have someone monitoring you at all times, for your own safety, and that of others.
Now see who wrote those
It's like you want to make my argument for me
Wrong on both counts. The times you are wrong is approaching your post counts.That will never happen
I'm glad to admit I'm wrong if it exists. Only two possible reasons you haven't shared. It doesn't exist or it helps my argument because they mentioned the call yet didn't say any error was made.
Wrong on both counts. The times you are wrong is approaching your post counts.
If I was wrong you'd prove itWrong on both counts. The times you are wrong is approaching your post counts.
If it bolstered your argument you would find it and post it.If I was wrong you'd prove it
Can't find something that doesn't existIf it bolstered your argument you would find it and post it.
If I was wrong you'd prove it
It exists and specifically mentions the specific time in the game in question. You claimed the b1g conf never mentioned the game and the protocol change. It exists and you are wrong about it's existence.Can't find something that doesn't exist
Again...it doesn't exist or it mentions the play without saying there was an error.
If it actually proved me wrong you'd gleefully post it.
Wrong...you continually reach conclusions while ignoring factsAll you need do is go back to page one and you will find yourself proven wrong over and over again.
Then you'd share that. No major articles list it. Not even a reference to it.It exists and specifically mentions the specific time in the game in question. You claimed the b1g conf never mentioned the game and the protocol change. It exists and you are wrong about it's existence.
This is in regards to your claim that the b1g never made a statement specifically referencing this game resulting in official protocol changes. You are wrong that there is only one statement and they don't mention the game.Then you'd share that. No major articles list it. Not even a reference to it.
You said it mentions a specific time when means the play...which also then means it doesn't say the call was wrong...that's why, if it does exist, you won't share it. Thank you for again proving me right because I'd happily admit I was wrong about the statement as it only strengthens the real argument. Love being wrong when it helps my case.
If they mentioned the game and didn't say it's wrong it's checkmate time.
Read this quote again...he uses think twice. He's unsurePeiria said he didn't think he was offsides so that means he thinks it is the correct call.
Yeah that's it.
What Lando cannot defend is Peria is clearly believing it was the wrong call so he has to resort to semantics.
CBS News published an article saying the Big Ten said the call was a mistake. They said this in an article.and I quote.....
"The Big Ten later admitted there was an officiating mistake on the play, saying it was "too tight" to throw a flag in that situation."
CBS News believes there was an officiating mistake on the play based on all the facts hence they publish that article saying that.
There is no way any reasonable person can conclude that the call was correct. There is video evidence. When Peria says "think" he believes the player was not offsides. But and this is key in Lando's argument he has been arguing it definitely is the right call and based of Peria comments that argument is wrong.
Then share the stamensThis is in regards to your claim that the b1g never made a statement specifically referencing this game resulting in official protocol changes. You are wrong that there is only one statement and they don't mention the game.
You are attempting to move the goal posts as you often do.
BTW: another hint. It was postes my a major national media outlet.
I never claimed they called it right or wrong in this statement. They imply it was wrong in this specific case, hence the protocol change.
Good gracious you are a piece of work.
I thought this was about b1g officials malfeasence not botany.Then share the stamens
You were wrong when you said the protocol change had nothing to do with this game.Then share the stamens
They "imply" it was wrong which 100% means they said the correct process was followed and they were adding a rule change...right?
We both know I'm right if it even exists.
I'm a piece of work because you're trying to play this pathetic game and still can't win.
It's a shame if this exists I can't find it because it proves me wrong about the statement and right about everything else
If they issue a statements referring to the game and didn't say they were wrong I'm predictably right which is why you refuse to share it...if it exists
Oh no--a typoI thought this was about b1g officials malfeasence not botany.
The statement regarding the change doesn't mention the gameYou were wrong when you said the protocol change had nothing to do with this game.
Wrong...you continually reach conclusions while ignoring facts
The 5 of you--yesWrong over and over again. lmfao....
Are you ignoring the number of people telling you that you are wrong? lmfao..
Still wrong. The statement regarding the change most defunitely mentions this game. Your quotation pretty much is on mark.The statement regarding the change doesn't mention the game
Does the missing part say "do to this we made the following change"
I doubt it say anything--if it exists
And we all know, if it exists, I'm right or it would have been posted long ago
LOL shocking--you won't share it because it's exactly what i said (pretty much) and proves me rightStill wrong. The statement regarding the change most defunitely mentions this game. Your quotation pretty much is on mark.
As you once responded to a question of mine to you. Do your own research.
LOL... You can take a look.
The rules were changed. It will forever be known as the scUM rule. Fleck understands that he would have had an opportunity to win the game had the call been correct. Everyone knows that except you.
Wrong. It proves the official on the field made the wrong call and the suits had to make a face saving move.LOL shocking--you won't share it because it's exactly what i said (pretty much) and proves me right
Awesome--I don't have to argue any more lol
Thanks
Oh right--I was wrong about the statement (if it exists)Wrong. It proves the official on the field made the wrong call and the suits had to make a face saving move.
I can accept you giving up.
Oh, look ... here's an even better photo ... this is a slightly different, more usable angle ... and it's a longer period of time after the ball has been contacted (you see the ball clearly away from the kicker's leg) ...
Third from the top--it's obvious why it was calledI did not watch the game or the replay of this play. This image is the point where this thread should have died.
If there is offsides, which player is offsides?
If there is no offsides, why was it called offsides?
Load the Commode is full of it. It’s so obvious there was no offside on the kickoff. OP is dug in like an Alabama tick on his opinion, which is wrong. He is wrong a lot, and that is an understatement.I did not watch the game or the replay of this play. This image is the point where this thread should have died.
If there is offsides, which player is offsides?
If there is no offsides, why was it called offsides?