Refs Strike Again at Michigan

[PurposePitch]

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.

If the call was defensible, they would have just said the call was correct. They always side with the officials whenever possible. It's only when it's egregiously incorrect that they don't affirm the call, explicitly. Here, they not only didn't affirm the call, but they changed their procedure going forward, so the call doesn't happen again. They're not going to change how their officials line up, and OK that with the NCAA, just to "shut people up" on a correct call.

That's not how any of this works.

 

[LandoComando]

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.

Correct. Almost every call can be called either way and I'm content with it. Most calls are ignored (see the 100s of holds a game) not sure why you can't accept that?
I've never complained about the refs. Unless there's a replay the ref's call is almost always fine. I expect replay to get it correct..
I'm the only one that takes a break. I work...come back...respond...then you all immediately respond.
The only dumb thing here is you pretending you're not a conspiracy theorist because you know that strengthens my argument. Just like the Big Ten statement.
If you all have is I'm dumb you've lost but that's all you ever have because you can't debate.

 

[LandoComando]

If the call was defensible, they would have just said the call was correct. They always side with the officials whenever possible. It's only when it's egregiously incorrect that they don't affirm the call, explicitly. Here, they not only didn't affirm the call, but they changed their procedure going forward, so the call doesn't happen again. They're not going to change how their officials line up, and OK that with the NCAA, just to "shut people up" on a correct call.

That's not how any of this works.

They did apparently defend the call in the statement the max won't share.
It's exactly why the NCAA would allow it. They wouldn't allow it because an official messed up or "saved Michigan". They'd tell them to deal with the official directly. It was approved to appease people moving forward not the past.

 

[m.knox]

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.

Good. You are finally admitting that the rules were changed to keep bad calls from happening again. Most fans of sports want the right call.

Fleck claiming Tony Petitti acknowledged the bad call is very meaningful. And no one is correcting Fleck's comments. It's been in the press for days. If Fleck misrepresented the Big Ten, they like would have said something.

Verdict is you are GUILTY of losing this argument... lol...

 

[m.knox]

Correct. Almost every call can be called either way and I'm content with it. Most calls are ignored (see the 100s of holds a game) not sure why you can't accept that?
I've never complained about the refs. Unless there's a replay the ref's call is almost always fine. I expect replay to get it correct..
I'm the only one that takes a break. I work...come back...respond...then you all immediately respond.
The only dumb thing here is you pretending you're not a conspiracy theorist because you know that strengthens my argument. Just like the Big Ten statement.
If you all have is I'm dumb you've lost but that's all you ever have because you can't debate.

Evidently you have never competed if you are accepting of bad calls.

 

[LandoComando]

Evidently you have never competed if you are accepting of bad calls.

Or I understand refs, like players, aren't perfect and in a 60 minute game one call/play never decides the game
Competitors comprehend this
Losers don't
The refs have never won a game for Michigan or anyone else...only possible exception was Colorado-Mizzou the 5th down game

 

[m.knox]

I'm not alone. Just amount conspiracy theorists.

You are alone.

Do the research instead of just blowing shit out.

Google "michigan minnesota offsides was the right call." You will find nothing remotely close. Nothing.

In fact, this one is a beauty.

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog...has-changed-their-rules-effective-immediately

 

[m.knox]

Or I understand refs, like players, aren't perfect and in a 60 minute game one call/play never decides the game
Competitors comprehend this
Losers don't
The refs have never won a game for Michigan or anyone else...only possible exception was Colorado-Mizzou the 5th down game

Competitors want the right calls to their efforts in the competition aren't wasted. Did you ever hear the phrase, "don't leave it to the refs?"

You haven't competed in anything. You wouldn't know.

 

[GSPMax]

who did the greatest thing by now admitting the missing part of the statement says the call was right

This is a flat out lie. It is not a "missing" part of the statement. It is a stand alone statement from a vp for communications and it most definitely does not say the call was right.

 

[PurposePitch]

Correct. Almost every call can be called either way and I'm content with it. Most calls are ignored (see the 100s of holds a game) not sure why you can't accept that?

If you actually believed that, you wouldn't be arguing the call was correct ... because it wouldn't matter in the least to you. And anyone saying the call was wrong would be OK with you, as well. Because it could be wrong. Because "almost every call can be called either way."

I've never complained about the refs. Unless there's a replay the ref's call is almost always fine. I expect replay to get it correct..
I'm the only one that takes a break. I work...come back...respond...then you all immediately respond.

You're the only one that takes a break?! You're literally on here all the time, except for when you sleep. You always respond within minutes, and there's only a few minutes in between your responses. It's crazy.

The only dumb thing here is you pretending you're not a conspiracy theorist because you know that strengthens my argument. Just like the Big Ten statement.

Except I'm clearly not a conspiracy theorist, as I don't believe this incorrect call was the result of some conspiracy, and I've argued against blaming refs for the outcomes of games, and against conspiracies and biases. You're bad at everything. You can't get anything correct. It's like you're parodying the worst possible poster imaginable, on purpose.

If you all have is I'm dumb you've lost but that's all you ever have because you can't debate.

All I have is you've consistently been wrong, you've been too immature or unintelligent to acknowledge that reality, you've lied about your background, you've consistently failed to even attempt to provide evidence to support your assertions and you have no life outside of this board.

That's all I have with regard to you.

 

[GSPMax]

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.

What is wrong with you. This thread started at 3:34 when a poster pointed out "sketchy". The announcers pointed out the call and showed replays. Fleck could not start the process of getting a league explanation until after the game.
I have yet to see a league statement defending the call. You have a secret message?

 

[GSPMax]

Only 5 more pages to humiliate mando.
Less than 3000 posts for mando to hit 20,000 posts.
We he make 20,000 on this thread?
Will he make 20,000 posts in less than three years?
Stay tuned.

 

[Jerry]

Thank you--you made my point for me with this post
I love when people literally make my argument for me
It's like you were paying attention to @m.knox and @GSPMax who did the greatest thing by now admitting the missing part of the statement says the call was right

Lando, you sly little troll, you. Not biting on it, my man.

 

[ryoder1]

The call is not correct. Don't forget.....you think it is 100% correct. Mile Pereira says differently. Pereia is the rules expert. The B10 said it should not have been a flag and you make up a story saying Fleck is lying. Get better arguments. Weak.

 

[LandoComando]

You are alone.

Do the research instead of just blowing shit out.

Google "michigan minnesota offsides was the right call." You will find nothing remotely close. Nothing.

In fact, this one is a beauty.

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog...has-changed-their-rules-effective-immediately

Barstool....

 

[LandoComando]

If you actually believed that, you wouldn't be arguing the call was correct ... because it wouldn't matter in the least to you. And anyone saying the call was wrong would be OK with you, as well. Because it could be wrong. Because "almost every call can be called either way."



You're the only one that takes a break?! You're literally on here all the time, except for when you sleep. You always respond within minutes, and there's only a few minutes in between your responses. It's crazy.



Except I'm clearly not a conspiracy theorist, as I don't believe this incorrect call was the result of some conspiracy, and I've argued against blaming refs for the outcomes of games, and against conspiracies and biases. You're bad at everything. You can't get anything correct. It's like you're parodying the worst possible poster imaginable, on purpose.



All I have is you've consistently been wrong, you've been too immature or unintelligent to acknowledge that reality, you've lied about your background, you've consistently failed to even attempt to provide evidence to support your assertions and you have no life outside of this board.

That's all I have with regard to you.

And if it wasn't called I wouldn't be arguing. I'm arguing here because of the conspiracy nonsense and the false statement they admitted in was wrong
Just was in a meeting. Checked my phone after to see what nonsense you added.
You are a conspiracy theorist and you know by admitting that you help my argument hence the denial
I'm not the lying about my background. That's you not comprehending what a fact is.

 

[LandoComando]

What is wrong with you. This thread started at 3:34 when a poster pointed out "sketchy". The announcers pointed out the call and showed replays. Fleck could not start the process of getting a league explanation until after the game.
I have yet to see a league statement defending the call. You have a secret message?

GSPMAX has the secret message which he confirmed did not state an error happened and defended the process.

 

[LandoComando]

Lando, you sly little troll, you. Not biting on it, my man.

All good man...you already helped me
Appreciate it

 

[LandoComando]

The call is not correct. Don't forget.....you think it is 100% correct. Mile Pereira says differently. Pereia is the rules expert. The B10 said it should not have been a flag and you make up a story saying Fleck is lying. Get better arguments. Weak.

He didn't say different. See the multiple uses of think. He was unsure.
The Big Ten never said it shouldn't have been flagged. That's a claim from.Fleck who is likely misstating what he was told
I don't need better argument. Facts are facts. Fleck saying something he was told isn't the Big Ten saying it

 

[Jerry]

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.

On one level, it's a simple inquiry: was the call correct? The answer is no. That's obvious to everyone except Lando.

Dig a little deeper, however, and a second inquiry presents itself: is there a pattern of hosed calls favoring Michigan over the years? The answer is yes.

Now deeper still: why does that pattern exist? Is it a "conspiracy"? No. Is there a collective psychology of bias in this league? Yes. If you think not, I have a bridge to sell you cheap.

Anyway, we can argue about one single hosed call until the cows come home...or Lando reaches 1,000 posts in this thread, whichever comes first...but unless we place the call in the larger context, we're missing a key point.

By the way, in a post above, I mistakenly referred to the zebra screwjob of a Wolverine opponent in the 2023 Michigan-Illinois game. It was actually 2022 when Michigan was aided by two terrible calls in a last-minute drive for a field goal to beat the Illini and preserve an unbeaten season late in the year.

But 2024....2023...2022...whatever. The seasons change...the opponents change...but the result of these annual Michigan officiating controversies almost always ends up being the same...

 

[PurposePitch]

And if it wasn't called I wouldn't be arguing. I'm arguing here because of the conspiracy nonsense and the false statement they admitted in was wrong

Again, try using logic. If you thought every penalty could or could not be called, you wouldn't be arguing that the call was correct ... no matter what anyone else argued. Right/wrong, conspiracy/no conspiracy, bias/no bias.

Just was in a meeting. Checked my phone after to see what nonsense you added.

Liar.

You are a conspiracy theorist and you know by admitting that you help my argument hence the denial

Liar. I've been arguing against reffing conspiracies well before you existed in your current iteration.

I'm not the lying about my background. That's you not comprehending what a fact is.

Of course you are. Again, these aren't things that are in dispute. They're already settled.

 

[ryoder1]

He didn't say different. See the multiple uses of think. He was unsure.
The Big Ten never said it shouldn't have been flagged. That's a claim from.Fleck who is likely misstating what he was told
I don't need better argument. Facts are facts. Fleck saying something he was told isn't the Big Ten saying it

Wrong. Pereira was unsure of what? The call is air tight so what is he unsure of? Fleck didn't lie, that is your fantasy. Get better arguments but what you are trying is adorable, so cute like a little kitty.

 

[PurposePitch]

On one level, it's a simple inquiry: was the call correct? The answer is no. That's obvious to everyone except Lando.

And it should end there.

Dig a little deeper, however, and a second inquiry presents itself: is there a pattern of hosed calls favoring Michigan over the years? The answer is yes.

Now deeper still: why does that pattern exist? Is it a "conspiracy"? No. Is there a collective psychology of bias in this league? Yes. If you think not, I have a bridge to sell you cheap.

Anyway, we can argue about one single hosed call until the cows come home...or Lando reaches 1,000 posts in this thread, whichever comes first...but unless we place the call in the larger context, we're missing a key point.

By the way, in a post above, I mistakenly referred to the zebra screwjob of a Wolverine opponent in the 2023 Michigan-Illinois game. It was actually 2022 when Michigan was aided by two terrible calls in a last-minute drive for a field goal to beat the Illini and preserve an unbeaten season late in the year.

But 2024....2023...2022...whatever. The seasons change...the opponents change...but the result of these annual Michigan officiating controversies almost always ends up being the same...

It's because that's what you want to see. There are so many calls before that. So many situations that you don't even think about or notice that may not have gone their way. So many possible non-calls that perhaps could have gone against the opponent, earlier, or then, that you didn't even see. Trying to say there's some bias with any certainty is impossible. What you see is a team doing the things to win, and some calls that you don't like. That's it.

So you referenced a particular game ... one I had no concern for, or knowledge of before this. OK, I looked that up (found a "in 60" video). Which 2 "terrible" calls are you referring to? The obvious pass interference where Witherspoon had the Wolverines' receiver's arm pulled behind him so he had to try to make a 1-handed grab? Or the questionable catch, which I agree did not look like a catch (but the one replay I saw was impeded at the last second by another player, so I can't say definitively), but that the Wolverines didn't need to kick the FG because they were already in FG position and the catch didn't really help them in any way (it was a 2nd and 10 and they gained 5 yards toward what was already a short/mid-range FG ... and if it hadn't have been reviewed, Michigan would have had to spike the ball so they had time for the next play, and it would have been 4th down, whereas an incompletion would have given them a sure clock stoppage and a 3rd down try)? Or were there others?

Which brings me back to ... let's just stick to this call, which we know was not correct.

It's like when CJFisJoePaII was ranting about us being screwed by calls in this year's WVU, and he listed off a bunch of nonsense ... he had like 8 listed, and only 2 of them even had any merit, and he didn't mention any of the questionable calls that went against WVU. You see what you want to see.

 

[Woodpecker]

Sorry to be "that guy" who is A) not Lando or B) not addressing Lando, but how hard would it be to implement the VAR offside technology that is used in many (I know, not all) soccer leagues.

Yes I realize that it may be difficult to place it in all D1 (or whatever it's called now) stadia but how about in those who have any potential to be part of the CFP? In many ways it should be technologically simpler than using it over an entire soccer pitch.

OK, back to your rants everyone ...

 

[LandoComando]

Again, try using logic. If you thought every penalty could or could not be called, you wouldn't be arguing that the call was correct ... no matter what anyone else argued. Right/wrong, conspiracy/no conspiracy, bias/no bias.



Liar.



Liar. I've been arguing against reffing conspiracies well before you existed in your current iteration.



Of course you are. Again, these aren't things that are in dispute. They're already settled.

The call was correct...hence the title of the thread creating nonsense
I'm not the liar...you are
They aren't settled

 

[LandoComando]

Wrong. Pereira was unsure of what? The call is air tight so what is he unsure of? Fleck didn't lie, that is your fantasy. Get better arguments but what you are trying is adorable, so cute like a little kitty.

Were you on the call with Fleck? We have no idea what he was said but we know the Big Ten doesn't admit mistakes
Pereira was unsure if he was offside or not which is why he said he didn't think he'd call. Not that is was incorrect

 

[PurposePitch]

The call was correct...hence the title of the thread creating nonsense
I'm not the liar...you are
They aren't settled

Again, if you actually thought the way you claim to think, you wouldn't care if it was correct.

Which piece of evidence have you presented to back your claim the call was correct? Was it the photo I presented showing no part of any player's body over the kickoff line?

Kid, you've been outed - you never went to law school. I'm guessing you never graduated from a 4-year university/college, either ... but you definitely didn't go to law school. You talk about the law like a child would. And not even a smart child.

It's been settled for a long time, and everyone's just been smacking you around since then.

 

[Jerry]

And it should end there.


It's because that's what you want to see. There are so many calls before that. So many situations that you don't even think about or notice that may not have gone their way. So many possible non-calls that perhaps could have gone against the opponent, earlier, or then, that you didn't even see. Trying to say there's some bias with any certainty is impossible. What you see is a team doing the things to win, and some calls that you don't like. That's it.

So you referenced a particular game ... one I had no concern for, or knowledge of before this. OK, I looked that up (found a "in 60" video). Which 2 "terrible" calls are you referring to? The obvious pass interference where Witherspoon had the Wolverines' receiver's arm pulled behind him so he had to try to make a 1-handed grab? Or the questionable catch, which I agree did not look like a catch (but the one replay I saw was impeded at the last second by another player, so I can't say definitively), but that the Wolverines didn't need to kick the FG because they were already in FG position and the catch didn't really help them in any way (it was a 2nd and 10 and they gained 5 yards toward what was already a short/mid-range FG ... and if it hadn't have been reviewed, Michigan would have had to spike the ball so they had time for the next play, and it would have been 4th down, whereas an incompletion would have given them a sure clock stoppage and a 3rd down try)? Or were there others?

Which brings me back to ... let's just stick to this call, which we know was not correct.

It's like when CJFisJoePaII was ranting about us being screwed by calls in this year's WVU, and he listed off a bunch of nonsense ... he had like 8 listed, and only 2 of them even had any merit, and he didn't mention any of the questionable calls that went against WVU. You see what you want to see.

Re the 2022 game, you missed the most obvious call...more accurately a non-call...when on a 4th and 3 with under a minute left and Michigan's unbeaten season on the line, the Wolvies got away with a pick play that everybody in the stadium saw, including the broadcasting crew, but the zebras mysteriously didn't.

The link is below.

I've been following Penn State since we entered this conference...and 25 years before that. I've seen how things work when you're on the plus side of the bias (as was the case before) and when you're on the negative side (after). Believe me, plus is better.

It's politics, man, politics...and the inevitable bias of people with conflicts of interest...or with an outright rooting interest...making the rules, deciding the arguments, and officiating the games.

 

[PurposePitch]

Were you on the call with Fleck? We have no idea what he was said but we know the Big Ten doesn't admit mistakes
Pereira was unsure if he was offside or not which is why he said he didn't think he'd call. Not that is was incorrect

So you now claim that the Big Ten doesn't admit mistakes, meaning, if they did see a mistake, they wouldn't say "we were wrong," but they'd perhaps do something like ... oh, I don't know ... revise their officiating setup so multiple officials would be on the line going forward so the same mistake they're not admitting to won't happen again.

You keep running yourself into logic traps, dummy. Be better.

 

[LandoComando]

Again, if you actually thought the way you claim to think, you wouldn't care if it was correct.

Which piece of evidence have you presented to back your claim the call was correct? Was it the photo I presented showing no part of any player's body over the kickoff line?

Kid, you've been outed - you never went to law school. I'm guessing you never graduated from a 4-year university/college, either ... but you definitely didn't go to law school. You talk about the law like a child would. And not even a smart child.

It's been settled for a long time, and everyone's just been smacking you around since then.

Again, the argument is about the conspiracy and the Big Ten admitting fault. The call being correct is simply what it is and not the main argument.
The photo doesn't show that
Penn State then Northwestern. You're the one that doesn't understand anything about law.
Again if you think this is smacking me it proves how lost you are

 

[LandoComando]

Re the 2022 game, you missed the most obvious call...more accurately a non-call...when on a 4th and 3 with under a minute left and Michigan's unbeaten season on the line, the Wolvies got away with a pick play that everybody in the stadium saw, including the broadcasting crew, but the zebras mysteriously didn't.

The link is below.

I've been following Penn State since we entered this conference...and 25 years before that. I've seen how things work when you're on the plus side of the bias (as was the case before) and when you're on the negative side (after). Believe me, plus is better.

It's politics, man, politics...and the inevitable bias of people with conflicts of interest...or with an outright rooting interest...making the rules, deciding the arguments, and officiating the games.

View embedded media

Exhibit 20946 of me being right

 

[Lion84]

this guy is an attention whore who probable gets a woody every time someone responds to him since he never let’s it go when he is wrong wrong wrong almost every time and he will respond to this I bet - you are ALL wrong blah blah blah rinse wash and repeat.

 

[ryoder1]

Were you on the call with Fleck? We have no idea what he was said but we know the Big Ten doesn't admit mistakes
Pereira was unsure if he was offside or not which is why he said he didn't think he'd call. Not that is was incorrect

Exactly so you can't be 100% certain the call is correct. Dug your own grave there. Were you in the B10 offices? How do you know they didn't say the call is incorrect? This is fun.

 

[Jerry]

Exhibit 20946 of me being right

Haha! Yes, Lando, whatever you say...

 

[m.knox]

Barstool....

Yeah, they were particularly animated about the very bad call that denied the athletes of MN football an opportunity to make a memory.

 

[m.knox]

Again, the argument is about the conspiracy and the Big Ten admitting fault. The call being correct is simply what it is and not the main argument.
The photo doesn't show that
Penn State then Northwestern. You're the one that doesn't understand anything about law.
Again if you think this is smacking me it proves how lost you are

No, the argument is, and will always be whether or not it was a good call. It wasn't. Go back to page one if you think differently. Over the dozens of pages you have pivoted any number of ways trying to distract from that fundamental question.

The photo is proof that the call was bad. It's called photographic evidence.

 

[PurposePitch]

Re the 2022 game, you missed the most obvious call...more accurately a non-call...when on a 4th and 3 with under a minute left and Michigan's unbeaten season on the line, the Wolvies got away with a pick play that everybody in the stadium saw, including the broadcasting crew, but the zebras mysteriously didn't.

The link is below.

I've been following Penn State since we entered this conference...and 25 years before that. I've seen how things work when you're on the plus side of the bias (as was the case before) and when you're on the negative side (after). Believe me, plus is better.

It's politics, man, politics...and the inevitable bias of people with conflicts of interest...or with an outright rooting interest...making the rules, deciding the arguments, and officiating the games.

View embedded media

I told you, I had no recollection of the game and quickly referenced the end of a summary video - that's why I asked for clarification. I didn't "forget." You only provided 1 play and didn't provide a second one. Which one of the ones I listed was the second "terrible" call, or was it a different one? Yeah, the uncalled pick play was pretty bad, but I remember there was a whole thing about that - lots of those not getting called all over (including us, I think). There's still a ton of that stuff going on that frustrates me with lack of calls on obvious picks. AK does it. Speaking of something similar - the UM guys are trying to defend this kick by saying something similar - illegal touching/block by a Minny guy (actually those are 2 separate supposed problems on the same play).

I forgot you're a degenerate gambler, dating back to when it was illegal ... they're usually the worst for complaining about refs.

There's way too much involved for any of this to be "politics."

 

[PurposePitch]

Again, the argument is about the conspiracy and the Big Ten admitting fault. The call being correct is simply what it is and not the main argument.
The photo doesn't show that
Penn State then Northwestern. You're the one that doesn't understand anything about law.
Again if you think this is smacking me it proves how lost you are

Your first words in this thread were "He was offside though" and we argued about that assertion - don't try to steer away from it now that you've realized your argument has no legs.

No one's interested in your Shaggy defense of "it wasn't me." What you haven't done is said what the photo (or some other evidence) actually DOES show that leads you to believe it was offside. We know why ... because you have no evidence to support your assertion.

I'll leave you this one option ... if you did attend Pritzker, then you suffered a traumatic brain injury thereafter and lost the cognitive functioning that originally allowed you to attend. Without exaggeration, that is the only explanation that would make sense, since you've repeatedly shown a complete inability to formulate an argument, your overall reasoning is completely lacking and you've shown a completely childish understanding of the legal world. You've spoken about it like some old housewife who watched Matlock.

 

[knickslions]

Worst call ever

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

No, the argument is, and will always be whether or not it was a good call. It wasn't. Go back to page one if you think differently. Over the dozens of pages you have pivoted any number of ways trying to distract from that fundamental question.

The photo is proof that the call was bad. It's called photographic evidence.

I can only see clownboy's nonsense when people respond to him because I have him on ignore (and have had him on ignore for a long time) - same reason I haven't responded directly to any of his inanity.

All of his positions are based on completely fraudulent fabrications - I noticed one of his latest pieces of bullshit are these claims about Pereira not stating it was a bad call because he used the term "think" - what f'ing bullshit, this is a link to a Mike Periera X posting:



Not only is this clown insane, but he's really stupid as well - he is attempting to misuse the way Pereira used the term "think". Periera is using the term "think" to identify it as his own opinion and no one else's opinion - he makes a one sentence statement followed by a brief video posting: "I don't think he's offsides." - period.... nothing else other than the attached video in the X post. That is a declarative, unambiguous statement that it is his belief that it was not a penalty and a bad call... no flag should have been thrown..... etc..... Complete bullshit that Pereira's use of "think" in that sentence is to cast doubt on his belief - Hand-on-Commando does not even understand the use of the English Language.... Pereira's use of "think" identifies his statement as his opinion, and no one else's - but the statement is absolutely and unequivocally declarative that he doesn't believe it's an offsides penalty.