Also remember when mando claimed no b1g conference official specifically mentioned this game as a reason to change protocol.
Refs Strike Again at Michigan
- Thread starter ryoder1
- Start date
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.
Correct....there's a one paragraph statement everywhere expect in your secret link.
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.
A 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
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.
Last edited:
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.
Yupp...name a time a rule changed due to one official making an error. Just one.
Is that "hope" based on how you survive being unloved and alone?
More than a dozen people have expressed disbelief in your silliness.
You've lost Lando. It was a bad call. So bad that it inspired rule changes.
Wrong on both counts. The times you are wrong is approaching your post counts.
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.
All you need do is go back to page one and you will find yourself proven wrong over and over again.
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.
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.
Peiria 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.
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.
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.
You are attempting to move the goal posts as you often do.
BTW: another hint. It was posted by 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.
Read this quote again...he uses think twice. He's unsure
CBS is incorrect as there was never a statement that the call was correct
A reasonable person accepts the statement as is without adding words or reaching a conclusion
You and I both know the Big Ten would never say the call is wrong and they haven't. Facts
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
You were wrong when you said the protocol change had nothing to do with this game.
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
Wrong over and over again. lmfao....
Are you ignoring the number of people telling you that you are wrong? lmfao..
The 5 of you--yes
Again, if you or anyone had a quote from the Big Ten (not someone else) admitting the call was wrong we'd have that but it doesn't exist because they haven't and never will
You can say that's because the Big Ten doesn't take accountability or any other excuse you want to make but we know they would never and haven't especially here when the call was accurate and the correct process was followed
Again, I'll bet anything if there's another part of the statement it doesn't say anything even remotely close to it being wrong and somewhere in there it say it was correct or the process was correct or something like that. Big Ten--predictable
Still 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 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
The B1G even states that the Officiating Mechanic is being made "to ensure" the correct call is consistently made in the future (just as PJ Fleck said they would using near identical language ["making changes to ensure the correct call is made in the future"] when summarizing his conversation with Carullo, the Coordinator of B1G Officiating - Carullo first told Fleck that the flag should not have been thrown.). Fleck made his statement prior to the B1G Statement. Everyone on the planet other than HandJoCommando understands that when you explain the reason for the change as the desire to get the call correct in the future, it means that the call was incorrectly made in the present precipitating the change.... but this is the moron who claims the B1G did not make the Statement in response to the play in the Minny-scUM game despite the fact that PJ Fleck publicly stated on Monday that he had submitted the play to the Conference and was awaiting their response..... and then a day later on Tuesday PRIOR TO the B1G's Statement, PJ Fleck made a public Statement that he had just heard back from the Conference regarding his formal request regarding the play and specifically spoke with Bill Carullo, Coordinator of B1G Officiating, who told him no flag should have been thrown on the play and the Conference was making changes that would ensure the correct call will be made in the future - and these changes would be publicly announced later in the day. Then, precisely as Carullo had told PJ Fleck, the B1G makes a formal public statement announcing changes to the Kickoff Officiating Mechanic stating the reason for the change was to ensure the call is made correctly in the future (near identical language to the language used by PJ Fleck summarizing what Carullo had told him in their conversation earlier in the day). But somehow PJ Fleck publicly stating on Monday that he had formally submitted the play to the Conference and was told a response would be provided within days is not proof that the subsequent actions by the Conference yesterday in direct response to the play Fleck referenced he submitted in his statement Monday (the play he said he submitted was the Onside Kick by Minnesota in the Minny-scUM game with 1:40 remaining that drew a Offsides Flag on Minnesota that Fleck was disputing and submitted video evidence to the league) are not proof of a direct connection between the play Fleck said he submitted to the league on Monday and the league's response to him [Fleck] on Tuesday and then the B1G's subsequent Statement yesterday afternoon just as Carullo had told Fleck would come????
Only this obtuse a$$hole douche could claim there is nothing that suggests there is a connection between the disputed onside kick in the Minny-scUM game and the B1G's Formal Statement yesterday despite the fact that the entire sequence of events was precipitated by Fleck's submittal of this specific play to the league front-office as he stated he did on Monday (and was told by the Conference Commissioner he would get a response within the next couple days)????
This a$$hole is so pathetic with his made-up non-factual bullshit fabricated "arguments", it's really beyond ridiculous that this type of clear childish, asshole trolling-behavior is tolerated.
Last edited:
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
I can accept you giving up.
Oh right--I was wrong about the statement (if it exists)
I was right about everything else (if it exists)
I'm thrilled with that--thank you for clarifying that I was right about everything but the statement (if it exists)
This is perfect--the statement you're saying makes me right--per usual.
Honestly...
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) ...
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.
Similar threads
