Refs Strike Again at Michigan

[GSPMax]

"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.

Unless you were the official, you have no idea what the official saw live.
LInk the b1g statement that states it was the correct call.

 

[PurposePitch]

"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.

Exact words that you want to hear are not necessary for something to have been said/conveyed. That's not how the actual world works. There's no one who would reasonably see the steps that have been taken, and things that have been said since, and determine that the Big Ten didn't admit the call was wrong.

They, in fact, never defended the call. Nothing they said could even be construed as any kind of defense. In fact, they changed their way of officiating the call so that kind of call didn't happen again.

Crazily, you even undercut your own assertion (I'd say "argument" but you never laid out an argument about any aspect of this discussion ... just an unsupported assertion) when you admitted that the Big Ten would never admit they were wrong. If your assertion was true, then even if the Big Ten realized they were wrong, they'd never outright admit it ... they'd do other things to indicate it was wrong. You know, like issue a statement in which they never stated they stood by the call, and then ask the NCAA to OK a change in their officiating procedure to get more eyeballs on this particular call in the future. And, when a directly interested party later stated that the coordinator of officiating of the Big Ten admitted to him that the call shouldn't have been made, they would have come out with a statement that this was never said, if it was never said.

So, you can just sit there and repeat "the proof is the photo" without actually indicating HOW the photo is proof, since the photo shows every body part onside, even after the kick, and you can continue to repeat that they're defending the call, without explaining how their words not defending the call should actually be interpreted as defending the call, and so on.

But you can't do anything other than just throw out unsupported assertions, because you know you can't explain them, as there is no support for you to give.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

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.

Given his condition, we should all be saying a prayer for HandoCammando, rather than laughing at him but...... he's just so damn hilarious even if it is a result of his mental handicap.

 

[knickslions]

Given his condition, we should all be saying a prayer for HandoCammando, rather than laughing at him but...... he's just so damn hilarious even if it is a result of his mental handicap.

Where’s Mary when you need him

 

[ryoder1]

He can't address that Pereira thinks he is on sides. He just says Pereira doesn't know. He also doesn't know what the B10 said about it but somehow knows for sure Fleck lied. So weak. LOL. No facts. Stumblin, bumblin along.