That’s still a killer. One time I’d like to see a controversial call go against them.
Refs Strike Again at Michigan
- Thread starter ryoder1
- Start date
Everyone else being agreeing when they're wrong doesn't mean I lost an argument--good try though
You should try that sentence again.
BTW, you have lost the argument...... Since Saturday I might add. Being intransigent and irrational doesn't mean you've won anything.
Oh no, I'm working and went back and made a misttake
Won the argument per usual
The only thing I was wrong about (apparently) was there being more to the statement which is what won the war for me
Thanks @GSPMax
Gotta love your rationale - when 100 people tell you you are drunk you might want to sit down - 100 people tell you you are wrong you might want to shut up but whatever your mental defect is won’t allow that or as I hope you are just a troll having a laugh keeping this thread going 14 pages too long.
What the B10 did say is "the play was too tight too flag".
Lando...what does that statement mean to you?
Do you think that when the B10 reviewed the play they think the flag should have been thrown? Answer yes or no.
Lando, once you are finished addressing the previous questions then my next question is....
Do you believe the call is 100% correct with zero doubt? Answer yes or no.
Lando...what does that statement mean to you?
Do you think that when the B10 reviewed the play they think the flag should have been thrown? Answer yes or no.
Lando, once you are finished addressing the previous questions then my next question is....
Do you believe the call is 100% correct with zero doubt? Answer yes or no.
The thing you won was the boobie prize.
You are the king, of boobs.
"being agreeing" brought to you by LandoLogic, Inc.
Tell your story walking ... you can tell it to all the prisoners in jail because everyone relevant stood in judgment of them, and, "being agreeing," found them to be lacking.
Just like you, here. You're in logic prison. A jury of your superiors has found you guilty of crimes against reason.
Last edited:
You don't win arguments by denying facts. That's ridiculous.
Here are the facts.
1.) It was a bad call
2.) Experts agree it was a bad call
3.) Photographic proof shows it was a bad call
4.) The Big Ten admitted to the impacted coach that it was a bad call
5.) The Big Ten changed the rules to make sure bad calls like this don't happen again
Now tell us again it was the right call, and the Big Ten agrees it was the right call. Just got out of a tense meeting and I need a laugh.
No they didn't. Fleck claims they did.
The Big Ten said the correct process was followed per GSPMax
Yes, I believe the call is correct--also wouldn't be complaining if it wasn't called. Either would have been fine with me like 99.99999% of calls.
1. Opinion
2. False
3. Completely false
4. We don't know that to be true
5. That's not stated in the release--opinion
I don't understand why you don't know what a fact is
He has not addressed my questions. His whole argument is that the B10 has not come out and explicitly said it was the incorrect call. He is taking that fact and twisting everything and has lost sight of the big picture. The reality is in a court law or with an arbitrator he would lose the argument every time. He knows this.
Can you imagine this.....you make a presentation at your job and there is a key part of the presentation with points you need to stress. After the presentation your boss tells you that you should not have made those points the way you did. Based off the meeting you should not have said those points in the way you did. You should have done it this other way. Would you feel good about the job you did based on your boss's feedback? Would you have confidence you did a good job and made the correct decisions on what to say in the presentation based on your boss's feedback? The boss did not say you did a bad job so keep that in mind but how would you feel about your performance based on your boss's feedback to you?
Can you imagine this.....you make a presentation at your job and there is a key part of the presentation with points you need to stress. After the presentation your boss tells you that you should not have made those points the way you did. Based off the meeting you should not have said those points in the way you did. You should have done it this other way. Would you feel good about the job you did based on your boss's feedback? Would you have confidence you did a good job and made the correct decisions on what to say in the presentation based on your boss's feedback? The boss did not say you did a bad job so keep that in mind but how would you feel about your performance based on your boss's feedback to you?
LOL... denying facts again. You've lost the argument.
The jury is out. You are guilty of losing the argument.
If Fleck lied, the Big Ten would have corrected him. Yet another losing argument courtesy Lando.
There is a process and there is content in this. The content is the bad call. They changed the protocol of officiating an on side kick as a result of a bad call.
The process of questioning a bad call was followed and the protocol for on side kicks was changed recognizing there was a bad call.
Quit giving an incomplete picture by taking everything out of context.
You are wrong, admit it and leave this board humiliated.
Why would they? They'd handle it behind the scenes. They already made their statement. That's all they're saying
That's not the content. The content is discussion around the correct call so they eliminate doubt they put two guys on it moving forward. It's a simple concept. A missed call only results in public admission of a missed call.
I correct except for the there being a second part of the statement that apparently proves my argument.
So Fleck is outright lying? He is so careful not to criticize the call to not piss off the B10 but then fabricates a statement from them.
Pereira does not believe it was 100% the correct call and he is one of the foremost experts. So you are more confident the call was correct than one of the leading rules experts?
The content is the officials bad call which started all of this. The process is how fleck and the b1g handled it.
The separate statement (process) contains the content of how the b1g whitewashed the situation.
What is your argument? The call was good?
Every single point outlined was an undisputable fact. The judge and jury sides with me. You are left out in the cold to fabricate whatever it is you are trying to fabricate.
Yes, his argument is that the call was good and, experts are wrong, and Fleck is lying about his conversation with the Big Ten.
Yeah that is lunacy but it is all he has. The official in real time is more competent than Mike Pereira studying a video of the play. Laughable.
As per my earlier post, I join the unanimous (minus 1) view that the call in question was totally hosed.
When you take a trip down memory lane and review the record of these controversies over many years, it's curious how often the questionable calls skew in one particular direction. I mean, if they were simply honest mistakes, the law of mathematical averages would dictate a roughly 50-50 split in which team got the benefit. At most it would be 55-45 or maybe even 60-40.
But that's not the case. Instead, it's more like 90-10 or 95-5 favoring the lucky lads in Maize and Blue. Minnesota last Saturday and the screwjob handed to Illinois late in its game last year are but two glaring examples among many. Hell, a season wouldn't be complete without some opponent of Michigan getting screwed.
Logically this can only mean there is another factor besides garden-variety incompetence at work. And of course there is. No, it's not a "conspiracy." Rather it's a psychology of bias and a collective league mentality that is conditioned to accept it.
All this said, I do think Lando turned this thread into a troll job back around page 6.
When you take a trip down memory lane and review the record of these controversies over many years, it's curious how often the questionable calls skew in one particular direction. I mean, if they were simply honest mistakes, the law of mathematical averages would dictate a roughly 50-50 split in which team got the benefit. At most it would be 55-45 or maybe even 60-40.
But that's not the case. Instead, it's more like 90-10 or 95-5 favoring the lucky lads in Maize and Blue. Minnesota last Saturday and the screwjob handed to Illinois late in its game last year are but two glaring examples among many. Hell, a season wouldn't be complete without some opponent of Michigan getting screwed.
Logically this can only mean there is another factor besides garden-variety incompetence at work. And of course there is. No, it's not a "conspiracy." Rather it's a psychology of bias and a collective league mentality that is conditioned to accept it.
All this said, I do think Lando turned this thread into a troll job back around page 6.
Fleck can easily not remember the exact verbiage provided and misleading us. "Too tight" was probably used "to flag" probably wasn't
Pereira didn't say that--he 100% has never said the call was wrong.
This board disputes stuff he says weekly but now he says he "thinks" and you think that's gospel. Weird.
There's no judge or jury here--you would have lost long ago if there was
"The Big Ten said it was wrong"--quote it
Stop attaching conspiracies and biases into this. It's a simple inquiry ... was the correct call made? The answer is no. We don't need to go down any rabbit holes for that. In fact, it's Lando's attachment to his belief that there are no such conspiracies/biases that's causing him to take this irrational view of the play in question. Don't be the other side of his coin of crazy.
False. The complaint is what started this not the call.
So, the separate statement defends the call--of course it does--as I said all along it would which is why you've yet to share it
The call was correct--there's nothing wrong with it which is why the Big Ten didn't say it was wrong and since it can't be reviewed they added an additional official to the LOS to shut people up. Same reason they won't comment on it further. It's a non-story to them.
The answer is "yes"--the correct call was made
And the only reason anyone says otherwise is the conspiracy nonsense
The fact any of you are upset about this correct call proves that.
The Big Ten said it was wrong dumbass. Just because they didn't say it to you doesn't mean they said it. You think they changed the rule to appease Fleck?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA
Appease Fleck? They did it to shut up the fans and discourage additional complaints--as any rule change is made for
They didn't say it at all--Fleck claiming they did doesn't mean anything.
You mentioned jury and judge multiple times--like court--that doesn't have any meaning.
Great post and I agree. There is not an overt conspiracy but some kind of inherent bias. There is no denying Michigan gets these breaks way more often than the law of averages would say.
Yeah this Lando guy is just playing us all now. He won't say anything except his party line that the B10 never said the call was incorrect. Claiming Fleck is making up the B10 statement is ridiculous. Beyond that the trump card on our side versus his is the fact that Pereira questions the call and with Lando's stance being the call is absolutely correct (a no doubter and not questionable) he then only can say Pereira who is the foremost expert is dead wrong and that argument does not hold water. He is trying to argue an absolute when it doesn't exist. It's like saying someone won a debate with 100% certainty, you don't know that.
The other piece is they made a rules change because of this play. Think about that. Would they have made that change if Minny was definitely offsides or the play never happened? Again the logic test here and his POV fails miserably.
The best part is they tried to negate the td the play before this. They refs eyes were fixed on the play and yet he called it no td. Lucky reply was able to overturn it as it was t even close.
Just when I think you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this ... and totally redeem yourself. Here's Lando, channeling his inner Lloyd Christmas.
Now, after starting this because you allegedly believed the call was correct, you declare that you think 9,999,999 out of every 10,000,000 calls could be called different, and you wouldn't care. Essentially, every penalty in history could have not been called, and you couldn't care in the least. Yet you're arguing because you think the call was correct. Granted, you've presented no evidence to support this ... every time you're given an opportunity, you just say "you're not just looking at the feet, are you?" and you don't point out what was actually correct about the call (answer, nothing ... no part of any player's body had crossed the kickoff line at the time the ball was contacted by the kicker's foot).
I mean, you've posted for days straight ... like almost never taking a break during the day, except to sleep, about how this call was correct ... only to reveal you don't care if it was.
You're so sad.
You're actually worse than a movie that was a spoof on the dumbest people you could imagine.
