ADVERTISEMENT

Refs Strike Again at Michigan

CJFisJoePaII said:
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:

View embedded media


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.
Click to expand...
You are exactly right.

He is trying to hide behind semantics because he has nothing.

Even in the world that would say Pereira was not sure and "thought" it may not be offsides (which is a world that does not exist) this Lando character is still wrong. He clings to the absolute that the call was definitely correct. No doubt about it. Pereira definitely does not think the call was definitely correct. Who could be a better judge of this play? Mike Pereira a foremost authority on football rules or Lando Clowndo the board idiot?
 
  • Like
Reactions: m.knox
Jerry said:
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...
Click to expand...

Some are beyond obtuse and want to claim that people are claiming a "conspiracy" (i.e., put words into their mouths) in an attempt to discredit them, when they never claimed any such thing. Bias requires no conspiracy.... not even having multiple Officials with the same bias in a crew requires a "conspiracy" - so the party(ies) doing this either don't understand the definition of "conspiracy".... or they're just a zero-ethics a-hole with their accusations and desperate attempts to discredit.

By the way, you didn't even point out that this same crew attempted to take away Minnesota's TD that directly preceded onside kick - they called the TD pass "incomplete" despite the fact it was very clearly a "catch". The play was reversed by Replay Review (automatic Replay Review because it was inside 2 minutes) - but Review should not have been necessary as it was a very, very obvious TD Catch (but somehow this crew saw it the opposite - go figure!).

So this crew attempted to wipe out a Minny TD Catch and the Minny onside kick recovery on back-to-back plays with blatantly wrong calls, but that's all just coinky-dink??? The only reason the second bad call ended the game and ensured scUM's victory (Minny had no timeouts) was the fact the second wrong call was not reviewable.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Westcoast24, sdwcpa, Jerry and 1 other person
PurposePitch said:
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."
Click to expand...

Haha! Yeah, PeePee couldn't possibly manage an intelligent back-and-forth. As usual, he heads for the sewer when stymied. It's in his blood...and brain.

Listen, you can babble to your heart's content, but the outrageous non-call that I linked in living color and threw you for such a loop saved Michigan in 2022, which was one of my two main points. The other is that there's an established pattern of these sorts of calls over a period of many years.

Meanwhile, your bizarre little fantasy earlier in this thread (post 504) about Lando and naked men and dead women tells the story. Shit like that is how you earned yourself several bans and suspensions while getting yourself branded as a sicko. My bad for taking you off Ignore.

Oh and by the way, your fixation on the word "conspiracy" is misplaced. It's not a conspiracy. I explained the difference between conspiracy and what's actually happening, which is a lot less exotic. But as usual, you panic when convincingly rebutted and keep repeating the debunked word, sprinkled with ad hominem blathering to cover your tracks. Idiot...
 
PurposePitch said:
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.
Click to expand...
He was offside--how am I steering away from that?
He was offside
That's not the argument though--the argument is that you and others (as jerry proves) believe the call was wrong because you believe everything is done to cater to two programs
I'm not the one that can't "formulate" an argument. You continue to reach conclusions that aren't state--how does that work for you in court? If your witness (assuming you're an attorney) say "X told me X" what happens next?
 
LandoComando said:
He was offside though--when people say "it was close" they're acknowledging it was offside they just don't like the call because it helped Michigan. If it was called against Michigan everyone would love it.

People need to let go of the past when Michigan got calls against us--we've gotten calls too--everyone has.
Click to expand...
Literally everything here is correct--my first post
As you all keep proving
The Big Ten defended the call and you're all making it about it being Michigan
Thanks for playing
 
LandoComando said:
He was offside--how am I steering away from that?
He was offside
That's not the argument though--the argument is that you and others (as jerry proves) believe the call was wrong because you believe everything is done to cater to two programs
I'm not the one that can't "formulate" an argument. You continue to reach conclusions that aren't state--how does that work for you in court? If your witness (assuming you're an attorney) say "X told me X" what happens next?
Click to expand...
The photo conclusively shows he was not offside beyond a shadow of any doubt.
That is a fact
 
  • Like
Reactions: m.knox
Jerry said:
Haha! Yeah, PeePee couldn't possibly manage an intelligent back-and-forth. As usual, he heads for the sewer when stymied. It's in his blood...and brain.

Listen, you can babble to your heart's content, but the outrageous non-call that I linked in living color and threw you for such a loop saved Michigan in 2022, which was one of my two main points. The other is that there's an established pattern of these sorts of calls over a period of many years.

Meanwhile, your bizarre little fantasy earlier in this thread (post 504) about Lando and naked men and dead women tells the story. Shit like that is how you earned yourself several bans and suspensions while getting yourself branded as a sicko. My bad for taking you off Ignore.

Oh and by the way, your fixation on the word "conspiracy" is misplaced. It's not a conspiracy. I explained the difference between conspiracy and what's actually happening, which is a lot less exotic. But as usual, you panic when convincingly rebutted and keep repeating the debunked word, sprinkled with ad hominem blathering to cover your tracks. Idiot...
Click to expand...

Wut? You went all the way crazy there.

What set your craziness off? None of what you said made any sense.

Anywhere in your fit of crazed nonsensical rage did you point out which play was the 2nd play you referenced earlier? Oh, and when I talked to you, I talked about "bias."

I know you were out of your mind with rage while writing your retort, so you couldn't be sensible, but at least try to get that straight and stop falsely accusing me of fixating on the word "conspiracy" when I've used both conspiracy and bias in this discussion, and specifically mentioned bias when talking to you.

Psycho.
 
Last edited:
CJFisJoePaII said:
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:

View embedded media


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.
Click to expand...

I don't know what is wrong with him, but something is.

Poor wife and family.
 
LandoComando said:
He was offside--how am I steering away from that?
He was offside
That's not the argument though--the argument is that you and others (as jerry proves) believe the call was wrong because you believe everything is done to cater to two programs
I'm not the one that can't "formulate" an argument. You continue to reach conclusions that aren't state--how does that work for you in court? If your witness (assuming you're an attorney) say "X told me X" what happens next?
Click to expand...

LOL.. he wasn't offsides. There is a preponderance of evidence suggesting such. He may have not been offside based on the harsher criteria "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

You have no investment in this other than having to say, "I stand corrected" which is evidently not an option in LandoWorld.......... lmfao...
 
LandoComando said:
Literally everything here is correct--my first post
As you all keep proving
The Big Ten defended the call and you're all making it about it being Michigan
Thanks for playing
Click to expand...

You answered yourself. Not a good look.......... lol....
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSPMax
LandoComando said:
He was offside--how am I steering away from that?
He was offside
That's not the argument though--the argument is that you and others (as jerry proves) believe the call was wrong because you believe everything is done to cater to two programs
I'm not the one that can't "formulate" an argument. You continue to reach conclusions that aren't state--how does that work for you in court? If your witness (assuming you're an attorney) say "X told me X" what happens next?
Click to expand...

You're steering away from that because you can't show where he was offside. You have zero to support it.

See, those who said he wasn't offside provided actual proof that no one was offside. Photos showing no body parts are offside. Subsequent commentary by interested parties. Subsequent remedial actions by interested parties.

And when you are asked ... over and over again ... to provide any proof that anyone was offside, you can provide exactly none. So where is the proof of the offside? If you say it's the photo, which part of who are you considering is offside? Or do you have another photo, or video? Or ANYTHING other than saying "that's offside" or "what you provided proves its offside"?

That is the argument, as I've said from the beginning, when I said the conspiracy/bias stuff should be avoided for the sake of reasonableness. This is just about whether or not the call was legitimate.

Once again, you're speaking about attorneys as if you got your knowledge from watching Matlock. No one with a law degree, or even just a smart layperson, would find out someone has a law degree, or is/was an attorney, and would start talking about trying cases and witnesses. Most folks with a law degree aren't involved in that aspect of the legal profession.
 
Last edited:
m.knox said:
You have no investment in this other than having to say, "I stand corrected" which is evidently not an option in LandoWorld.......... lmfao...
Click to expand...
I will finish the phrase.
"I stand corrected and humbled".
 
  • Like
Reactions: m.knox
GSPMax said:
I will finish the phrase.
"I stand corrected and humbled".
Click to expand...

We're clearly not going to get the first part let alone the second part........ lol....

Interestingly, I have found few people in my life who deny reality. Lando might be the first. Pretty wild when you think you've seen it all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSPMax
PurposePitch said:
You're steering away from that because you can't show where he was offside. You have zero to support it.

See, those who said he wasn't offside provided actual proof that no one was offside. Photos showing no body parts are offside. Subsequent commentary by interested parties. Subsequent remedial actions by interested parties.

And when you are asked ... over and over again ... to provide any proof that anyone was offside, you can provide exactly none. So where is the proof of the offside? If you say it's the photo, which part of who are you considering is offside? Or do you have another photo, or video? Or ANYTHING other than saying "that's offside" or "what you provided proves its offside"?

That is the argument, as I've said from the beginning, when I said the conspiracy/bias stuff should be avoided for the sake of reasonableness. This is just about whether or not the call was legitimate.

Once again, you're speaking about attorneys as if you got your knowledge from watching Matlock. No one with a law degree, or even just a smart layperson, would find out someone has a law degree, or is/was an attorney, and would start talking about trying cases and witnesses. Most folks with a law degree aren't involved in that aspect of the legal profession.
Click to expand...

From the beginning, see the title of the thread, it was about Michigan and a conspiracy theory. Read the title of the thread
I'm well aware most attorney aren't trial lawyers but you still should comprehend how trials work and what is considered "a fact"
 
LandoComando said:
From the beginning, see the title of the thread, it was about Michigan and a conspiracy theory. Read the title of the thread
I'm well aware most attorney aren't trial lawyers but you still should comprehend how trials work and what is considered "a fact"
Click to expand...
I'll repeat it ... since you're avoiding it AGAIN (the entire thread) ...

You're steering away from that because you can't show where he was offside. You have zero to support it.

See, those who said he wasn't offside provided actual proof that no one was offside. Photos showing no body parts are offside. Subsequent commentary by interested parties. Subsequent remedial actions by interested parties.

And when you are asked ... over and over again ... to provide any proof that anyone was offside, you can provide exactly none. So where is the proof of the offside? If you say it's the photo, which part of who are you considering is offside? Or do you have another photo, or video? Or ANYTHING other than saying "that's offside" or "what you provided proves its offside"?

That is the argument, as I've said from the beginning, when I said the conspiracy/bias stuff should be avoided for the sake of reasonableness. This is just about whether or not the call was legitimate.
 
PurposePitch said:
I'll repeat it ... since you're avoiding it AGAIN (the entire thread) ...

You're steering away from that because you can't show where he was offside. You have zero to support it.

See, those who said he wasn't offside provided actual proof that no one was offside. Photos showing no body parts are offside. Subsequent commentary by interested parties. Subsequent remedial actions by interested parties.

And when you are asked ... over and over again ... to provide any proof that anyone was offside, you can provide exactly none. So where is the proof of the offside? If you say it's the photo, which part of who are you considering is offside? Or do you have another photo, or video? Or ANYTHING other than saying "that's offside" or "what you provided proves its offside"?

That is the argument, as I've said from the beginning, when I said the conspiracy/bias stuff should be avoided for the sake of reasonableness. This is just about whether or not the call was legitimate.
Click to expand...
I'll repeat it again--the entire point of the thread was "The Refs Strike Again" aka the Big Ten Conspiracy Theory to Save Michigan
I'm not steering away from anything
The photo clearly indicates why the flag was thrown--third from the top--as has been continually stated
When I've asked you over and over again to provide the quote from the Big Ten that they were wrong you fail to do so--because it doesn't exist
 
m.knox said:
He might have been looking for someone to finally agree with him..... lol...
Click to expand...
It literally says MY FIRST POST when I responded but, yeah, I was trying to find someone who agreed with me and said "my first post"
LandoComando said:
Literally everything here is correct--my first post
As you all keep proving
The Big Ten defended the call and you're all making it about it being Michigan
Thanks for playing
Click to expand...
 
LandoComando said:
From the beginning, see the title of the thread, it was about Michigan and a conspiracy theory. Read the title of the thread
I'm well aware most attorney aren't trial lawyers but you still should comprehend how trials work and what is considered "a fact"
Click to expand...
I started the thread. It was about that play where they got a break they should not have and the continuation of a trend where they do get breaks more than the law of averages would dictate.

Let's focus on that play. You want to make it about conspiracies.

He was not offsides and you are incapable of defending your position. You have no position just flapping in the wind. No facts, nada, just blowhard opinions. Sad but amusing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSPMax
ryoder1 said:
I started the thread. It was about that play where they got a break they should not have and the continuation of a trend where they do get breaks more than the law of averages would dictate.

Let's focus on that play. You want to make it about conspiracies.

He was not offsides and you are incapable of defending your position. You have no position just flapping in the wind. No facts, nada, just blowhard opinions. Sad but amusing.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, this is the same @ssmunch troll who claims he's a PSU fan......... but that only explains a small portion of his inanity - the rest can only be explained by his clinical psychosis. It's probably wrong for us to laugh at him given his condition, but I can't help myself.
 
LandoComando said:
From the beginning, see the title of the thread, it was about Michigan and a conspiracy theory. Read the title of the thread
I'm well aware most attorney aren't trial lawyers but you still should comprehend how trials work and what is considered "a fact"
Click to expand...

Lando, I've put PeePee back on Ignore, but I want you to know in your hour of trial, with the whole world against you, that I find you a lot less noxious than him. Granted, that's not a high bar to get over. Plus it doesn't make you any less wrong on the merits of this issue.

Anyway, I think we've made excellent progress today toward our goal of 20 pages. I'm thinking we'll get over the top tomorrow night if everyone keeps their eyes on the ball and you hold up your end with the troll posts. That aside, if PeePee is a lawyer (or holds any other reputable professional job), then I'm an Indian chief.
 
ryoder1 said:
I started the thread. It was about that play where they got a break they should not have and the continuation of a trend where they do get breaks more than the law of averages would dictate.

Let's focus on that play. You want to make it about conspiracies.

He was not offsides and you are incapable of defending your position. You have no position just flapping in the wind. No facts, nada, just blowhard opinions. Sad but amusing.
Click to expand...
Let's focus on the title which was clearly the intent. You created that not me.
He was offside. When the Big Ten releases a statement it was wrong let me know.
 
Jerry said:
Lando, I've put PeePee back on Ignore, but I want you to know in your hour of trial, with the whole world against you, that I find you a lot less noxious than him. Granted, that's not a high bar to get over. Plus it doesn't make you any less wrong on the merits of this issue.

Anyway, I think we've made excellent progress today toward our goal of 20 pages. I'm thinking we'll get over the top tomorrow night if everyone keeps their eyes on the ball and you hold up your end with the troll posts. That aside, if PeePee is a lawyer (or holds any other reputable professional job), then I'm an Indian chief.
Click to expand...
We'll get there unless they all accept reality
I also give you credit for owning you believe it's a conspiracy
 
LandoComando said:
I'll repeat it again--the entire point of the thread was "The Refs Strike Again" aka the Big Ten Conspiracy Theory to Save Michigan
I'm not steering away from anything
The photo clearly indicates why the flag was thrown--third from the top--as has been continually stated
When I've asked you over and over again to provide the quote from the Big Ten that they were wrong you fail to do so--because it doesn't exist
Click to expand...
Third from the top what? He's clearly onside. The body part farthest ahead is his hand, and that's on the line, not over it. And that's after the ball has travelled from the kicker's foot.

So, again, where's your proof that anyone was offside?

I've explained to you how the Big Ten indicated they were wrong. I've done that numerous times. I haven't just stated they did (like you did with the phanton offside), I've laid out the argument, and it's airtight.

Your response? Just repeating variants of "nuh uh" over and over again.
 
LandoComando said:
Let's focus on the title which was clearly the intent. You created that not me.
He was offside. When the Big Ten releases a statement it was wrong let me know.
Click to expand...

The Big Ten confided in PJ Fleck that it was a bad call. That is good enough for a million of us.

You've lost, and it is f'ing hilarious.
 
PurposePitch said:
Third from the top what? He's clearly onside. The body part farthest ahead is his hand, and that's on the line, not over it. And that's after the ball has travelled from the kicker's foot.

So, again, where's your proof that anyone was offside?

I've explained to you how the Big Ten indicated they were wrong. I've done that numerous times. I haven't just stated they did (like you did with the phanton offside), I've laid out the argument, and it's airtight.

Your response? Just repeating variants of "nuh uh" over and over again.
Click to expand...
"Indicated" means that your interpretation not that it was said. You're incorrect with your analysis. They're clearly defending the call.

I have no idea why you still think he's onside. I see exactly what the ref saw live. The proof is the photo and the Big Tens statement.
 
m.knox said:
LOL.. No one is helping your case. At all. Even all your sources (which don't exist).
Click to expand...

You're helping his case like the Iceberg was helping the Titanic...

Come to think of it, he'd have to actually have a case before it could be helped, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P

Michigan and refs squeaked out wins agains USC and Minnesota

Replies
1
Views
771
Penn State Football
CJFisJoePaII
C
J

Other games

Replies
106
Views
4K
Penn State Football
LandoComando
L
Rip_E_2_Joe_PA

The Types and Purposes of 'Letting Them Play'

Replies
48
Views
1K
Penn State Football
Waltwam
W
olelion

UCLA's last visit in 1967

Replies
6
Views
975
Penn State Football
KCLion
K
D

Connor Stallions reveals more Michigan sleaze -- a couple of weeks ago I posted about play never called for whole year that Mich knew was coming

Replies
2
Views
830
Penn State Football
LMTLION
L
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back