Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ...
10
18
19
20
21
22
... LastLast
  1. #381
    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    Looks like they’re #2. I guess they got that marquee win you’re saying they didn’t have even though they haven’t lost in two years.
    Not sure what your point is... they weren't ranked #2 because they hadn't proven themselves this year, and it was pretty much a slam dunk putting OSU ahead of them. The rankings reflect what you've accomplished, not necessarily who the better team is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metallourlante View Post
    It's not supposed to be fun, we are not in 2009. It's supposed to be frustrating and keep you hooked longer.

  2. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrod View Post
    Not sure what your point is... they weren't ranked #2 because they hadn't proven themselves this year, and it was pretty much a slam dunk putting OSU ahead of them. The rankings reflect what you've accomplished, not necessarily who the better team is.
    Which is dumb considering they have mostly the same players they had last year when they won it all. I guess winning 28 straight didn’t mean anything to the committee.

  3. #383
    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    Which is dumb considering they have mostly the same players they had last year when they won it all. I guess winning 28 straight didn’t mean anything to the committee.
    So you're saying that previous year performance should be factored into the decision making? I think that's reasonable to use as a tiebreaker for the #4 spot; if you're choosing between a 1 loss defending champ and another one loss team with a similar resume. But otherwise, I think it should be based on this year alone. And this year, Ohio State accomplished far more than Clemson did in the regular season.

    - - - Updated - - -

    What did you guys think of the overturned fumble? I was rooting for Clemson so I'm biased, but to me it seemed very borderline.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metallourlante View Post
    It's not supposed to be fun, we are not in 2009. It's supposed to be frustrating and keep you hooked longer.

  4. #384
    They were gifted a win. This drive lead to a TD, but a bad call, again, by SEC refs. It was reviewed, which is the worst part of the call. He took 4 clear steps with possession, and they still called it in an incomplete pass. You only need to take 3 steps for that to be the call. SEC refs are just awful.

    https://247sports.com/college/ohio-s...FU9MNgnFK9bzTs



    Tackling form has changed over the last decade, that much is probably true. Head down, eyes up, you can twist the words however you want to make it fit your narrative. But both can be done at the same time. And when you go to make contact, it is very common to brace for impact and look down. It's a natural reaction. It wasn't targeting, their dude even said it when they were first reviewing the call.
    Last edited by agentsi; 2019-12-29 at 06:12 AM.

  5. #385
    Quote Originally Posted by agentsi View Post
    They were gifted a win. This drive lead to a TD, but a bad call, again, by SEC refs. It was reviewed, which is the worst part of the call. He took 4 clear steps with possession, and they still called it in an incomplete pass. You only need to take 3 steps for that to be the call. SEC refs are just awful.

    https://247sports.com/college/ohio-s...FU9MNgnFK9bzTs



    Tackling form has changed over the last decade, that much is probably true. Head down, eyes up, you can twist the words however you want to make it fit your narrative. But both can be done at the same time. And when you go to make contact, it is very common to brace for impact and look down. It's a natural reaction. It wasn't targeting, their dude even said it when they were first reviewing the call.
    The rule says that he needs to be able to make a move common to the game, like "pitching the ball". As he's still bringing his arms in from catching the ball at the time it got knocked out, I can see where the refs are coming from. Tough call though.

    I know you're not going to agree but that's fine. To me, the targeting call is obviously correct, and the fumble/incompletion could go either way. It seems to me that with the targeting penalty you're arguing against the rule because it's basically a textbook application of the rule as written.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metallourlante View Post
    It's not supposed to be fun, we are not in 2009. It's supposed to be frustrating and keep you hooked longer.

  6. #386
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrod View Post
    The rule says that he needs to be able to make a move common to the game, like "pitching the ball". As he's still bringing his arms in from catching the ball at the time it got knocked out, I can see where the refs are coming from. Tough call though.

    I know you're not going to agree but that's fine. To me, the targeting call is obviously correct, and the fumble/incompletion could go either way. It seems to me that with the targeting penalty you're arguing against the rule because it's basically a textbook application of the rule as written.
    I'm just saying from playing, even at a D3 school, and watching football all my life. That is a none call. You can't lean into it. The tackler cannot adjust fast enough to prevent that contact. And targeting is a fairly new rule as well.

    And see, this is where your bias is showing. You want to argue about a targeting call, that had conflicting evidence, and room for discussion, sure, let's talk about it. But the fumble/incomplete pass is an open / shut case. The player caught the ball, showed possession while taking 4 steps, the ball came out on the 5th. 100% a fumble. Textbook. So to say it could go either way is 100% bullshit.

  7. #387
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    25,933
    Great game - the Clemson coach said it best: what a championship matchup. I was definitely wrong about Clemson. The CFP final should be very good.
    No one is above the law!

  8. #388
    Quote Originally Posted by agentsi View Post
    I'm just saying from playing, even at a D3 school, and watching football all my life. That is a none call. You can't lean into it. The tackler cannot adjust fast enough to prevent that contact. And targeting is a fairly new rule as well.

    And see, this is where your bias is showing. You want to argue about a targeting call, that had conflicting evidence, and room for discussion, sure, let's talk about it. But the fumble/incomplete pass is an open / shut case. The player caught the ball, showed possession while taking 4 steps, the ball came out on the 5th. 100% a fumble. Textbook. So to say it could go either way is 100% bullshit.
    The official that they had wired up at the game gave an explanation as to why it wasn't a fumble in his eyes. I read up on the rule and watched examples online. It's borderline, but to me the point is that he was still pulling the ball into his body, but it's subjective, and that's why it could go either way.

    I'm utterly mystified how you can't see that the hit was textbook targeting as the rule is written. He put his head down and led with it going full speed into the quarterback. Sure, it happened to hit the head and he couldn't have predicted that, but the rule is written to protect the QB and prevent defenders from taking actions that could lead to spearing the qb helmet first. That gets called 100 out of 100 times. When you say, "You cannot adjust enough" then you're arguing that the rule is bad. I would say that you can't always avoid head to head contact, but you can avoid leading with your head by keeping your head up and making sure that you're wrapping up instead of spearing. It makes tackling harder, obviously, but that's the rule. It probably wasn't a penalty when you played, but it is now and it has been for a couple years.

    I'm trying my best to avoid bias by highlighting who I was rooting for and explaining. I do think that your claim that this is clearly my bias is pretty difficult to substantiate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metallourlante View Post
    It's not supposed to be fun, we are not in 2009. It's supposed to be frustrating and keep you hooked longer.

  9. #389
    Quote Originally Posted by agentsi View Post
    I'm just saying from playing, even at a D3 school, and watching football all my life. That is a none call. You can't lean into it. The tackler cannot adjust fast enough to prevent that contact. And targeting is a fairly new rule as well.

    And see, this is where your bias is showing. You want to argue about a targeting call, that had conflicting evidence, and room for discussion, sure, let's talk about it. But the fumble/incomplete pass is an open / shut case. The player caught the ball, showed possession while taking 4 steps, the ball came out on the 5th. 100% a fumble. Textbook. So to say it could go either way is 100% bullshit.
    I couldn't care less about either of these teams. It was targeting.

    I played HS football in the 90s, and was taught to lead with your head down. Tackling form has specifically changed since then to keep your head up and lead with your shoulder. It's literally the biggest change in tackling since they said you couldn't chop block or crack back. It's been fairly widespread as a rule in both CFB and the NFL, so IDK how you have an issue with it suddenly here.

  10. #390
    It's still pretty clear that OSU threw this game away. The targeting play, the roughing the punter, the WR cutting the wrong way on the last possession that led to an interception. Some huge, huge mistakes that were very costly.

    And obviously, somehow letting Trevor Lawrence run for 67 yards on a single play was a problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metallourlante View Post
    It's not supposed to be fun, we are not in 2009. It's supposed to be frustrating and keep you hooked longer.

  11. #391
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    I couldn't care less about either of these teams. It was targeting.

    I played HS football in the 90s, and was taught to lead with your head down. Tackling form has specifically changed since then to keep your head up and lead with your shoulder. It's literally the biggest change in tackling since they said you couldn't chop block or crack back. It's been fairly widespread as a rule in both CFB and the NFL, so IDK how you have an issue with it suddenly here.
    https://247sports.com/college/ohio-s...7/#141241747_1

    Folks who know better than us, half the talk shows today. All in agreeance. OSU was robbed, it was not the correct call for targeting. If the person being tackled lowers their head into it, that is not the tackler's fault. Also, Wade's helmet was slight to the left of the QB, if the QB doesn't lower his own helmet, wade makes the first contact with a shoulder pad.

  12. #392
    I'm sure we can trust "BUCKNUTS: Your Inside Source for Ohio State Sports" to be without bias.

    Also, I refuse to concede that Stephen A. Smith (one of the people cited in that article) knows better than I do about any subject, especially football.
    /s

  13. #393
    In my opinion, the targeting call was correct. The fumble or not I have no opinion one way or another. I can see both arguments.

    Officiating didn't cost Ohio the loss. Failure to capitalize in the red zone early on cost them the game. Settling for field goals and only 9 points hurts a lot more than getting a potential 21 points.

    It was a great game, either way.

  14. #394
    Quote Originally Posted by draynay View Post
    I'm sure we can trust "BUCKNUTS: Your Inside Source for Ohio State Sports" to be without bias.

    Also, I refuse to concede that Stephen A. Smith (one of the people cited in that article) knows better than I do about any subject, especially football.
    He's been a sports journalist for 20+ years, has had multiple talk shows ( first take being one of the best ) if you knew more than he did, you would be famous for it and not him. Yet I'm the one with a bias? Good job pot.

    For reference, there are tons of articles out there. 247sports isn't biased, they just have, now just imagine thins for a moment, have some writers that write about specific teams. Mind blown right? How could a website, have a writer, that writes about only a specific team? Crazy right?

  15. #395
    Quote Originally Posted by draynay View Post
    I'm sure we can trust "BUCKNUTS: Your Inside Source for Ohio State Sports" to be without bias.

    Also, I refuse to concede that Stephen A. Smith (one of the people cited in that article) knows better than I do about any subject, especially football.
    He's better at yelling incoherent nonsense on camera at least

  16. #396
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    25,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrod View Post
    The official that they had wired up at the game gave an explanation as to why it wasn't a fumble in his eyes. I read up on the rule and watched examples online. It's borderline, but to me the point is that he was still pulling the ball into his body, but it's subjective, and that's why it could go either way.

    I'm utterly mystified how you can't see that the hit was textbook targeting as the rule is written. He put his head down and led with it going full speed into the quarterback. Sure, it happened to hit the head and he couldn't have predicted that, but the rule is written to protect the QB and prevent defenders from taking actions that could lead to spearing the qb helmet first. That gets called 100 out of 100 times. When you say, "You cannot adjust enough" then you're arguing that the rule is bad. I would say that you can't always avoid head to head contact, but you can avoid leading with your head by keeping your head up and making sure that you're wrapping up instead of spearing. It makes tackling harder, obviously, but that's the rule. It probably wasn't a penalty when you played, but it is now and it has been for a couple years.

    I'm trying my best to avoid bias by highlighting who I was rooting for and explaining. I do think that your claim that this is clearly my bias is pretty difficult to substantiate.
    I agree - the PI call was borderline, but you can certainly see where the onsite refs were coming from. The Targeting call was 100% correct - there isn't even room for doubt on that. People claiming otherwise need to learn to be objective when rooting for their team.

    The OSU fans are being horrific in their "retribution" for the "bad call" in the game. At some point that's already been passed, they're just fucking sore losers.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by BurningSkies2018 View Post
    In my opinion, the targeting call was correct. The fumble or not I have no opinion one way or another. I can see both arguments.

    Officiating didn't cost Ohio the loss. Failure to capitalize in the red zone early on cost them the game. Settling for field goals and only 9 points hurts a lot more than getting a potential 21 points.

    It was a great game, either way.
    Agreed. As the Clemson coach said right after it ended, this is what college football should be. Terrific game, two great teams going head-to-head with uncertainty in the win until the very last play. I thought OSU was going to drive it into the end zone until the interception.

    Lol @Scrod re good point in maybe not letting Lawrence run 67 yards in one play.
    No one is above the law!

  17. #397
    Somehow Florida's best player last night was their running back, for the first time possibly since Emmitt Smith.

    Utah looking really bad against an unranked Texas. Texas defensive line is in the backfield instantly every play. Utah's defense is giving up some really bad penalties, a couple face masks, and a late hit. Longhorns are making them look like the unranked team.

  18. #398
    Really tired of Utah just not showing up at all in important games. Been a hallmark of Whittingham for quite awhile, and they finally seemed to have put it behind them, but they've been classic Utah for the last few games. Even if they somehow pull this off, that doesn't change that they fell behind 24-3 to a 7-5 Texas team.

    Really starting to think Whit might have peaked. Can't win at USC, been blown out in their last two bowl games and conference championships, this season with the best roster he's had since 2009. They've been slow to make adjustments
    and even when they find something that works they don't stick with it. If he couldn't turn the corner this year I just don't see him doing it in the future.

  19. #399
    Moderator Crissi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    30,844
    That beat down felt real good. Texas finally puts it all together and performs well. Gives me hope for next year if we dont get injured as badly again.

    Also, if Baylor doesn't win tomorrow, Texas will be the only Big12 team to win their bowl. rofl.

  20. #400
    Mind if I roll need? xskarma's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Netherlands, EU
    Posts
    25,088
    Michigan: 2 chances at HUGE plays, both bad throws by Shae Patterson

    Alabama: 1 play for 85 yard TD

    This is going to be a long game again I suspect

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •