somehow I think Lando must have figured out a way to get paid for every post - makes no sense to keep posting all that Drivel otherwise.
Refs Strike Again at Michigan
- Thread starter ryoder1
- Start date
I rewatched on the BiG Final Drive this morning and I sure didn't see offsides.
Lambert Smith already has 17 catches for 415 yds and 6 TDs for Auburn. Compare that to PSU's leading WR Harrison Wallace who has 12 catches for 196 yards and 2 TDs.
I wish we still had him. I have to wonder if he had a Stephan Diggs type attitude at PSU.
Wen he faked the hamstring injury in the Rose Bowl I was done with him. Glad he's gone
Apparently the new team of people on The Final Drive didn't get the memo about calling it a questionable call. Probably won't hear a call against either Michigan or OSU again.
His foot isn't on the ball--nor is that angle at all useful. Watch the video live and stop it when he strikes the ball--his foot isn't even moving forward yet
That's the angle from the live shot, scoobs. So that angle isn't useful, but watch the same angle to determine whether he was offsides or not - that's your take?
There's another photo floating around twitter of that same angle, a moment later, when the kicker has made contact ... and you still cannot claim there's a definitive offsides there. He looks onside, but the angle might be deceiving. So that's all the info we have. You can't claim it's definitely offsides, just as others can't claim it's definitely onside. But it "looks" onside from the best evidence we have, which definitely isn't conclusive.
Share that picture--he's not even close to striking the ball there--clearly going to be offside as two guys are moving forward.
And, you're wrong, the game provided multiple angles
The info we have isn't "I like this angle before he kicks the ball"
Share your evidence supporting your claim. You can't, because you have none. You lose.
And he's very close to kicking the ball there, scoobs. When the leg is cocked back, it takes milliseconds from that point for the ball to be contacted on a kick.
I don't have too--I'm not the one stating the refs are cheating for Michigan--make your case
He's not--the foot isn't moving forward yet--it's back--how many yards is covered in that second if they run 40 in 4 seconds--looks at splits. They even stopped it to show where they were in he was off--we all know he was off or "worst case" you can't say for sure meaning he was offside.
ANd the third guy is clearly off there if you're smart enough to understand angles. How is he not?
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) ...
And this photo proves the call was right. What are you looking at--their feet?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) ...
Anyone that doesn't think that is offside must believe an OL could put his entire body across the LOS as long as his feet are onside.
You do have to ... you affirmatively asserted it was the correct call. You put forward a claim. You need to support it. That's how logic works.
You didn't just say "the call is what it is, and I don't see proof it's wrong" ... you, instead, pulled a Lando and claimed the call is 100% right. You wouldn't have to support the former statement, but the latter stance you DO have to support.
There's ZERO chance you attended law school. At this point I'm questioning if you graduated high school.
Oh, and I haven't claimed the refs are cheating for Michigan. You are absolutely horrible at thinking.
You're just going to continue being the negative attention-seeking problem you have been here. In that photo, the only thing even touching the line (not over it) is the guy's fist. And that's AFTER the ball has been kicked and traveled a yard and a half.
What negative attention? This is about understanding rules. Like the Rojas penalty and the intentional grounding on Altmyer
If you look at this video and don't understand why a flag was thrown you don't understand the rule. It's honestly that simple
This is all about bias against Michigan as the title states clearly.
The accept the call wasn't wrong or plotting to help Michigan. It's real easy to get me to STFU...stop being ridiculous
Everyone hates you, and you never put forward an actual valid argument - you just keep reciting the same unsupported assertion over and over again ... and everyone hates that. They don't just hate it, they don't respect it. People can't understand how stupid, yet obstinate, people like you could exist, so they continue to argue with you, even though they know they shouldn't. They hope, at some point, you're going to be reasonable and actually provide support for what you're saying, but you never do. And you just keep going, even though you're presenting absolutely nothing to help your case, which you have never made in the first place. So much time and energy could be saved if you just put forward an actual argument from the start, rather than repeating unsupported assertions over and over again, like a child who can't comprehend what he's actually saying. But you seem to feed off anyone paying attention to you, for any reason ... even if it's bad.
That's the negative attention of which I speak.
Per this video, there was no offsides. No part of his body was across the line, even after the ball had been struck by the kicker. If you have a different body of evidence, present it, or admit you can't support your claim.
Oh no strangers dislike me
No energy is wasted
In the photo he's offside. Your photo is all the proof any sane person needs that the call was fine
As I said ... you never provide anything to support your claims. You're consistent, if nothing else. Always lacking substance. You spend an infinite amount of time conversing with these strangers. You're never away from them. You're always responding to them. You desperately crave their attention. "Oh no" is right.
None of that is true but since Kaspy isn't giving you attention you're desperate.
Does not look offside to me after since the ball has already been kicked and he just now is crossing the line - Lando fail yet again.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) ...
Failed and quadrupled down on it.... I will say that the ref was in perfect position to see it, but in this instance, provided he was indeed 1 mm offside, the flag should have stayed in his pocket. As I noted earlier, it is what I would consider a discretionary call in the sense that if it were strictly enforced, there would be several flags every game.
"..... it’s a bad idea to waste your time bickering with someone that is irrational or unreasonable, as it brings you down to their level and threatens to make you appear foolish as well."
"I'm sick to my stomach right now, I really am," Fox analyst Chris Petersen, the former longtime Boise State and Washington head coach, said postgame. "I just hate to see this when the officials are making something up. Like I don't know why they would throw that flag. To me, these are always close calls, that ball's kicked. That's not egre- ... what are we doing, let the kids play.
It's all true and you still haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that it was the correct call. Meanwhile, numerous photos have been presented which show no one is offsides before the ball is contacted, and they're not even offsides after the ball was contacted. But you're just going to keep claiming that 2+2=6, unable to explain how you got to that number. As you always do.
And this is all because you want to push the narrative that Michigan wins without the aid of ref calls. Everything you say thereafter is meant to further that agenda, even if it's obviously not true. You just have to stick to your guns, no matter what. I, on the other hand, am reasonable ... while I believe you shouldn't blame the refs, and people need to stop crying about the refs and conspiracies and biases .. I can still look at this call and admit it is what it is ... a blown call.
Every single thread. You guys need a hobby that prevents you from replying to every single comment that disagrees with you. You make the board an insufferable place for everyone else.
Wow I created a monster with this thread. LOL! All I can say is there is no offsides. Bad call goes Michigan's way yet again. Hope there are some make up calls going against them in Seattle on Saturday night but don't count on it.
LMAO, HandoCommando utterly diametrically wrong yet again, but endlessly lecturing us on how right he is. What a freaking douche troll he is.
A slow-motion replay pretty clearly shows that when Dragan Kesich makes contact for the onside kick, Kingsbury is not across the 35-yard line.
It was a bad call, but is not reviewable and cannot be challenged. The FOX broadcasting crew and replay expert Mike Pereira agreed that after seeing the replay, it shouldn’t have been a penalty.
Was the offside penalty on the Gophers onside kick at Michigan the right call?
All anyone will be talking about after the Gophers 27-24 loss at Michigan will be a penalty for offsides on an onside kick. It was the wrong call.
sports.yahoo.com
Not just a "blown call" - a blown call that took robbed Minnesota of a final possession they had earned on the field-of-play near midfield with 1:37 remaining when all they needed to tie was a FG! The timing of this call which unjustly took away Minnesota's chance to tie, or win, the game that they had earned fair-&-square makes it more than "just a blown call" - the timing of the blown call is beyond ridiculous. The b1g should publicly apologize to these kids and make a statement that includes the sanctioning of this Official - a beyond pathetic call given it's timing and the situation.... but they won't because this Conference, and it's homer Officiating, is as corrupt as they come.
The ridiculous thing about the guy and why virtually no one on this board can stand him is because of the absurd, dumb takes he has. This is a classic example. He stupidly thinks it is clear offsides when the rest of the free world sees it the other way from clear video evidence. He knows it is not offsides but will never admit it because he is too gutless to admit a mistake.
I would bet you that if Penn State was playing Michigan and Penn State was in Michigan's position and got the benefit of a call like this (which would never happen) he would NOT be shouting to the hills that it was definetly offsides. He would be pushing his agitation agenda/schtick that Penn State got a lucky break. Whatever he can do to be annoying he does at every opportunity.
The article is written by a Gophers fan paraphrasing what Pereira said--that's not exactly what he saidA slow-motion replay pretty clearly shows that when Dragan Kesich makes contact for the onside kick, Kingsbury is not across the 35-yard line.
It was a bad call, but is not reviewable and cannot be challenged. The FOX broadcasting crew and replay expert Mike Pereira agreed that after seeing the replay, it shouldn’t have been a penalty.
Was the offside penalty on the Gophers onside kick at Michigan the right call?
All anyone will be talking about after the Gophers 27-24 loss at Michigan will be a penalty for offsides on an onside kick. It was the wrong call.
Did you watch the game?
