Toggle sidebar

aOSU v Clemson

S

SeaOfRed75

All-Conference
Dec 5, 2010
3,229
1,149
113
jedihusker said:
Except he was right. That was totally a catch. I've never seen a player hold the ball that long and it not be called a catch.
Click to expand...
In slow mo? Cause in slow mo it looked long AF. In real time I thought incompletion right when it happened. The former official they have commenting for them thought the same thing.
 
C

c3o

Sophomore
Apr 24, 2018
6,586
133
0
mgbreis said:
I’m sure many of you remember football before video reviews. Your opinion; better or worse? I’m not sure. It’s good to correct the egregious stuff, but all the hair splitting gets old. Gotta love how that play gets overturned and the no call on the PI in the OU game stands.
Click to expand...
I liked it more before replay. The call was either good or bad and you dealt with it
 
otismotis08

otismotis08

All-Conference
Jan 5, 2012
12,623
2,752
113
SeaOfRed75 said:
In slow mo? Cause in slow mo it looked long AF. In real time I thought incompletion right when it happened. The former official they have commenting for them thought the same thing.
Click to expand...
Ya. Could have gone either way, so surprised they overturned it.
 
S

spinner4_rivals42045

All-Conference
Jan 29, 2003
6,139
1,819
0
SeaOfRed75 said:
In slow mo? Cause in slow mo it looked long AF. In real time I thought incompletion right when it happened. The former official they have commenting for them thought the same thing.
Click to expand...
Well then that’s fine. Get rid of slow mo in instant replay because that crap happens all the time where a ball looks incomplete in real time but called complete in slow mo.
 
J

jedihusker

Senior
Aug 17, 2003
2,708
483
0
SeaOfRed75 said:
In slow mo? Cause in slow mo it looked long AF. In real time I thought incompletion right when it happened. The former official they have commenting for them thought the same thing.
Click to expand...
Couldn't care less what Bill Lemonier thinks, I've thought he was wrong 95% of the time before this game; and nothing he's said in this game has made me change that opinion. I thought it was incomplete at first, but I also couldn't see anything live, I just assumed the ball came out right away. However, the ref standing right there thought it was a fumble, and the replay showed him holding the ball more than long enough to be a completion.
 
Headcard

Headcard

Heisman
Feb 2, 2005
192,513
20,886
113
A little surprised OSU didn’t go for two. Fourth quarter is usually when “conventional wisdom” says to start going for two, up one point.
 
J

jedihusker

Senior
Aug 17, 2003
2,708
483
0
spinner4 said:
That was the reason I was upset. Because it was overturned
Click to expand...
That's what I don't get. The ref standing right there, who appeared to be able to see the ball, thought it was a catch and fumble in real time; and as far as I could see, the replay did more than enough to reinforce that thought. How was there enough to overturn?
 
T

TruHusker

All-Conference
Sep 21, 2001
12,122
2,405
98
These OSU receivers are pretty good. I am impressed with the technique of the DB's as well.
 
mgbreeze

mgbreeze

All-Conference
Dec 16, 2004
10,172
3,674
113
jedihusker said:
I will admit I was wrong about one thing. The crown did hit, I hadn't seen a good angle of the replay. Doesn't change anything else about what I said though. "Leading" means he intentionally lowered his head and lead with his helmet. Watch the freaking replay and take off your blinders. He lowered his shoulder to make a tackle, now I might be mistaken, but I'm fairly certain the head is attached to the shoulders, so the head followed. When he lowered his shoulder to make the tackle, Lawrence was standing at full height. All things being the same from that point, his shoulder hits Lawrence in the torso. Instead, Lawrence started to duck when he saw the hit coming, causing the helmets to hit. It most certainly does matter, because it's the difference between intent to do something wrong, and incidental contact because of the way Lawrence moved.
Click to expand...
Intent has nothing to do with it.
 
J

jedihusker

Senior
Aug 17, 2003
2,708
483
0
headcard said:
A little surprised OSU didn’t go for two. Fourth quarter is usually when “conventional wisdom” says to start going for two, up one point.
Click to expand...
Agreed, there's essentially no advantage to being up by two instead of one. Seemed like going for two there made sense.
 
Redscarlet

Redscarlet

Heisman
Jun 17, 2001
33,484
11,519
113
Fields should have went for 2..
2 point lead in the 4th, he might regret later..
 
S

Scat_Back

Redshirt
Sep 5, 2018
5,093
3
2
jedihusker said:
That's what I don't get. The ref standing right there, who appeared to be able to see the ball, thought it was a catch and fumble in real time; and as far as I could see, the replay did more than enough to reinforce that thought. How was there enough to overturn?
Click to expand...

Agree, that call on the field at the very least had no business being overturned. Seemed like a little rigging/shafting on the refs part there. That was the biggest play of the game I thought.
 
J

jedihusker

Senior
Aug 17, 2003
2,708
483
0
mgbreis said:
Intent has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. That's the whole point of the targeting penalty. You are intentionally targeting a player with a hit meant to cause injury. He lowered his body to make a tackle, and Lawrence lowered his head to where they were going to contact heads.
 
mgbreeze

mgbreeze

All-Conference
Dec 16, 2004
10,172
3,674
113
jedihusker said:
Yes it does. That's the whole point of the targeting penalty. You are intentionally targeting a player with a hit meant to cause injury. He lowered his body to make a tackle, and Lawrence lowered his head to where they were going to contact heads.
Click to expand...
Fine. Find the rule and point out where it says "intentionally" and I'll agree with you no problem. You're arguing about a rule that has been consistently called for years now. None of us like it, but that's the way it is. If you're still arguing about this you must have an OSU blankie.
 
H

huskerssalts

All-Conference
Oct 6, 2014
7,213
2,216
0
mgbreis said:
Fine. Find the rule and point out where it says "intentionally" and I'll agree with you no problem. You're arguing about a rule that has been consistently called for years now. None of us like it, but that's the way it is. If you're still arguing about this you must have an OSU blankie.
Click to expand...

jedihusker said:
Yes it does. That's the whole point of the targeting penalty. You are intentionally targeting a player with a hit meant to cause injury. He lowered his body to make a tackle, and Lawrence lowered his head to where they were going to contact heads.
Click to expand...

Are you two really still going on about the dam targeting call???
 
S

SeaOfRed75

All-Conference
Dec 5, 2010
3,229
1,149
113
H

huskerssalts

All-Conference
Oct 6, 2014
7,213
2,216
0
mgbreis said:
I mean, you're the guy that spends all week arguing with Iowa fans, so....????
Click to expand...

So yes, plays been over with for how long and you two are still going back and forth...let it go and enjoy the game. It’s good one...Go BIG 10
 
Husker.Wed._rivals

Husker.Wed._rivals

All-Conference
Feb 13, 2004
17,660
3,719
98
I think OSU should have gone for it on 4th down. Clemson is going to drive the field and kick a FG with under a minute left now.
 
H

huskerssalts

All-Conference
Oct 6, 2014
7,213
2,216
0
OSU up by 2 points and Clemson has the ball. Can they drive down and win the game or will OSU shut them down???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom