They'd say that regardless of their true opinion. I haven't kept up with your back and forth, and I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, but they're not going to say anything negative about the refs in the last play of the national championship.
Deshaun Watson
- Thread starter bdblack
- Start date
- Status
Why are there so many taters posting here since Monday? During our run of 5, you couldn't find one with a search warrant, bloodhound and a flashlight. Be gone
So you think those Bama guys are not as good as our old guys. In fact on paper their better. Come on. 4 is the best player in the country. You have to agree.
BIG 12 refs didn't call it, because they didn't think it was illegal. NCAA agreed with the no-call after the fact, and even provided their logic and reasoning. But I'm the homer who clearly can't see the penalty, and a dumbass to boot. They HAD to say that, I'm told.
Impressive.
all right, that's more fair. I can definitely see how if I wasn't a fan, I'd find some of his stuff irritating as heck. I DO occasionally shout at the t.v., "stop with that, or they're gonna nail you for 15 yards on the kickoff!" I think it's hard to realize just how intense on the field big-time football is. You're on a field getting watched by 80,000 people in the stands and several million more on t.v. I'm guessing that a lot of the showboating we see from kids that we didn't see 30 years ago is just a reaction to the absolute pressure cooker they're working in. I mean, yeah, you never used to see anybody on defense outside the NFL do the celebrating after big defensive plays. You see that now. I don't know if the refs just got way more relaxed on calling that stuff. I seem to recall a Sugar Bowl where an Alabama wide receiver did one of those "first down" gestures and spent the rest of the game on the bench after having the coach grab him by the facemask and chew him out on national t.v.
You know, I never heard of anything called "Natty" other than the shitty beer before that derpy Clemson coach called the national title "the Natty".
It just sounds ridiculous.
I like your posts rogue, but you linked an article that clearly says it WAS NOT an illegal pick play because the defender made first contact, in order to make your point that it was an illegal pick play.
Wow...that was not the script under the film that I linked to...seems SB Nation changed their view on the matter...or they didn't want the NC game to be controversial. The script previously said it could be called either way depending on who initiated the contact and left open the question as to who made the initial contact.
I still think it looks like the WR intended to initiate contact and ran toward the defender, initiated the contact and leaving the defender no choice but to grab him (which would be a natural reaction), therefor it would be pass interference on the WR. I realize that is not the popular interpretation and, obviously, not the way it was called in the game.
He beat us during our down years with Spurrier. Wish we could have played him when things were equal.
Though I upfront and outright admit that I gave the original post of this thread a "Like", why Mr. Dangerfield, I also PROUDLY admit that I upfront and outright give yours a worship!!
This, nfl will be different and I hope I get to see him cry.
Well Spurrier said it was a great play call and it worked great. Also said SC ran the same play against us in 2014 but our DE got out and batted it down. Said Cooper was wide open. Starts at 15:30.
Spurrier is an offensive guy. As a defensive guy, I'd call it interference all day long.
Spurriers a dbag and so are you. His word means less than what any tater would say right now.
As much as I hate to admit it, Watson was special. What's great is he's gone and Clemson is going to have a huge drop off without him!
God probably does not care if Clemson wins a football game or not. It is amazing that someone would think God does! This person is the kind that would join a cult and drink the kool aid. The Clemson cult and orange kool aid!
Bama was in a man to man. The player you say Scott picked was on Scott. That defender was NEVER going to cover Renfrow. The inside man had Renfrow. And that defender had to run around his own man and Scott to get to Renfrow. It was a brilliant call designed to take advantage of man to man coverage. And the Bama players were told to interfere with the receivers. And that is what Scott's man did.
Watson already said that "Tay" had to set a good "block" for the play to work. Knowing that, it was clearly offensive pass interference. Scott was never running a route as required. He was a blocker on a pass that was past the line of scrimmage and that block happened well before Renfrow caught the ball, or even before it was thrown.
And it doesn't matter what player was illegally blocked downfield. The only thing in question to decide if it was illegal or not is what Scott running a route and the contact as incidental, or was Scott intentionally trying to impede a defender, any defender. From Watson's own comments, we know he was a blocker from the start.
Well, the officials and ESPN analysts saw it differently. They concluded that it was not a pick. So, there is that.
Per the rules, they are wrong. Maybe that is why Big 12 football scores look like basketball scores.
From the mouth of Watson himself.
"I knew if Tay make his block and got the little pick, Renfrow was going to get in the end zone," Watson told reporters after the game. "I kind of smiled, and I knew before I even snapped the ball it was going to be a touchdown. All I had to do was just get the ball to him. I slowed down the moment, everyone made their blocks and did their part, and I did my part, and we pulled it out."
In that situation, it is illegal for "Tay" to block. Indisputable offensive pass interference.
This sounds more like a thought crime than basing a penalty (or non-penalty) on what actually happened in a given play. "Hey, you were THINKING about blocking the defender on that play, so it should be a penalty! Your QB even said so!" This, of course, ignores what actually happened in the play, but I suppose that's inconsequential. We're talking about intent here, fellas.
Jackson definitely had the Wow! factor. He made some spectacular plays similar to Johnny Football when he won the Heisman.
It matches exactly what happened on the field. That's how the play was designed. Scott made no attempt to run a route. He went straight for the defender to block.
The pick play happened twice during the game and both plays went for TD's. The second pick play appeared to be clean, but the first play was definitely illegal.
Just curious, how would anyone one of us know what the Bama players were told to do?
I have managed to not get kicked off this board by not making snarky comments and not arguing with you guys. I'm out. Y'all ain't gonna change your mind anyway.
Probably because that's what all the pundits were saying its what he should do or should've done. Perhaps so...but I think they are discounting Saban's supreme confidence (even arrogance) in his defense. It would have been the obvious plan, but it's Saban we're talking about.
An "unwelcome guest" had better be sensitive, or he won't be a guest much longer. Not here. Actually, I'm old enough to remember when Gamecock and Tiger fans would have conversations on TI and this site and actually have conversations. There would be arguments, but they wouldn't end in complete and total melt downs. Ah, those days are gone. I am afraid social media is becoming a cess pool.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
It sickens me when I realize Muschamp ran our program so far into the ground it's going to take- Latest: Southern Fried Chicken