The Bama INT returned for a "TD" against SC....

#126
#126
Jaytrain5 said:
This thread sucks.

The OP should go back to campaigning for Nick Stephens to be the starting quarterback. Those threads are fun as hell.
Click to expand...

Thank you. That’s what all the bickering is about. It's not actually because the thread is meaningless, or that you genuinely disagree with the OP or bases of the OP, but that you and your cronies have a vendetta against me. Therefore anything you and your cronies have posted in response to the OP has lost all, if any, credibility it had because your opinions are bias with consideration to your relationship towards me.

It all make sense now, thanks!
 
#127
#127
UT's#1Fan said:
All I’m saying is that it should have been reviewed. If this had happened to UT, it would be the talk of the town regardless of the outcome of the game.

I was just bringing it up, what's the big deal? Seriously, is it that time of the month for some of you? You guys are arguing this like some backwoods hillbilly bammer fans that are thinking I’m claiming USCe would have won had the play been reversed. I'm not. It was just an intriguing play that went unnoticed, un-reviewed and I’m just bringing attention to it. Since when is that a crime?
Click to expand...

The big deal is that you're basically just begging for kudos on highlighting a controversial call. Can I ask you this?

Seeing the exact same footage and stills that you've been posting in this thread, if they had reviewed the play for 5-10 minutes and came to the conclusion that there wasn't evidence to support the fumble, would you be here campaigning about how clear it is that it was a fumble?
 
#128
#128
UT's#1Fan said:
This basis of this thread is meaningful. I brought attention to an error that went relatively unnoticed by most of the posters in this thread. It also apparently went unnoticed by the review booth. My point was to say, which was mentioned in the OP, I hope this doesn’t happen to UT. What is so bad about that? Nothing.

Who else do you troll?
Click to expand...

We take everything you say with less than a grain of salt because we know you're a flip-flopping moron who acts like a guru.
 
#129
#129
crusse10 said:
It didn't go unreviewed. Every play is looked at. If the replay official had decided it warranted a second look, he'd have done so. When it comes down to it, either it happens or it doesn't. The fact of the matter is that Bama got it's kick team out there and kicked a field goal before the replay official could say to stop play.
Click to expand...

In theory. The fact is, as I’ve stated in this thread several times. There were TWO questionable calls that required attention from the review booth... The first being whether Barron stepped out of bounds... and the second being the fumble at the goal line. Given the short amount of time between the called TD, and the extra point, there was not sufficient time to accurately review booth. Therefore one or the other went un-reviewed.... which is the point of this thread.... Thanks for playing.
 
#130
#130
UT's#1Fan said:
In theory. The fact is, as I’ve stated in this thread several times. There were TWO questionable calls that required attention from the review booth... The first being whether Barron stepped out of bounds... and the second being the fumble at the goal line. Given the short amount of time between the called TD, and the extra point, there was not sufficient time to accurately review booth. Therefore one or the other went un-reviewed.... which is the point of this thread.... Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps it was being reviewed as the longsnapper sent the ball to the holder. Perhaps you should be blaming him for not sending the signal in quick enough. Maybe you should blame the kicker for getting on the field too quickly.

Or maybe, just maybe, Bama pulled it off.
 
#131
#131
UT's#1Fan said:
Thank you. That’s what all the bickering is about. It's not actually because the thread is meaningless, or that you genuinely disagree with the OP or bases of the OP, but that you and your cronies have a vendetta against me. Therefore anything you and your cronies have posted in response to the OP has lost all, if any, credibility it had because your opinions are bias with consideration to your relationship towards me.

It all make sense now, thanks!
Click to expand...

Wait a minute...

You mean to tell me I've got cronies!? Suhweet.

This is so effing badass. I've always wanted to be in a leadership position.
 
#132
#132
UT's#1Fan said:
In theory. The fact is, as I’ve stated in this thread several times. There were TWO questionable calls that required attention from the review booth... The first being whether Barron stepped out of bounds... and the second being the fumble at the goal line. Given the short amount of time between the called TD, and the extra point, there was not sufficient time to accurately review booth. Therefore one or the other went un-reviewed.... which is the point of this thread.... Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Oh, and just so you know, His feet barely even made it to the hash (on the sideline), much less the OOB line. There was no reason to look at is as he had a solid 12 inches between him and the line.
 
#134
#134
EricFreakingBerry said:
The big deal is that you're basically just begging for kudos on highlighting a controversial call. Can I ask you this?

Seeing the exact same footage and stills that you've been posting in this thread, if they had reviewed the play for 5-10 minutes and came to the conclusion that there wasn't evidence to support the fumble, would you be here campaigning about how clear it is that it was a fumble?
Click to expand...

A) I don't want kudos, I was just asking if anyone else noticed the play and it's been a clusterfudge ever since.

B) If they would have reviewed the play than this thread would have never happened. It would have been dealt with in the manner that it should have been. All I’m concerned about is that it went un-reviewed, which I’m calling home cooking on, and I don't want that to happen to UT.

I've stated several times in this thread, it could have been a TD, and the right call was made on the field, but I just find it funny it was not even mentioned by an announcer and that it was obviously overlooked by the review booth. I'm not saying they intentionally overlooked it but I am saying I think it might have been treated differently had the roles been reversed.
 
#136
#136
UT's#1Fan said:
A) I don't want kudos, I was just asking if anyone else noticed the play and it's been a clusterfudge ever since.

B) If they would have reviewed the play than this thread would have never happened. It would have been dealt with in the manner that it should have been. All I’m concerned about is that it went un-reviewed, which I’m calling home cooking on, and I don't want that to happen to UT.

I've stated several times in this thread, it could have been a TD, and the right call was made on the field, but I just find it funny it was not even mentioned by an announcer and that it was obviously overlooked by the review booth. I'm not saying they intentionally overlooked it but I am saying I think it might have been treated differently had the roles been reversed.
Click to expand...

You sure about that?
 
#137
#137
UT's#1Fan said:
A) I don't want kudos, I was just asking if anyone else noticed the play and it's been a clusterfudge ever since.

B) If they would have reviewed the play than this thread would have never happened. It would have been dealt with in the manner that it should have been. All I’m concerned about is that it went un-reviewed, which I’m calling home cooking on, and I don't want that to happen to UT.
I've stated several times in this thread, it could have been a TD, and the right call was made on the field, but I just find it funny it was not even mentioned by an announcer and that it was obviously overlooked by the review booth. I'm not saying they intentionally overlooked it but I am saying I think it might have been treated differently had the roles been reversed.
Click to expand...

this why i give the thread a great big LULZ....i could care less about the call
 
#139
#139
crusse10 said:
Oh, and just so you know, His feet barely even made it to the hash (on the sideline), much less the OOB line. There was no reason to look at is as he had a solid 12 inches between him and the line.
Click to expand...

That would be convenient for your argument, however, it's false. Watch it again....

You see, your statement is sort of like the one the Bama fan said early in the thread…. “He was 3 steps in the end zone before he dropped it….” That’s honestly how he remembered it, unfortunately, he remembered it the way he wanted to remember it. You’re doing the same thing now. You would like to remember is that way because it would somewhat validate your argument, unfortunately, like the bama fan, you’re wrong. Again?
 
#140
#140
UT's#1Fan said:
No problem, it wasn't a play that was obvious when it happened. Thus why I started this thread....

Sadly a few orange kool-aid drinking trolls have infested it with their nonsense. Oh well, guess I shouldn't be surprised considering the culprits involved. I do find it funny that there is more acceptance of this oversight from Bama fans than some Vol fans... again, I understand why that is the case given which Vol fans are actually arguing otherwise....
Click to expand...

somehow, irony just isn't the word
 
#141
#141
UT's#1Fan said:
That would be convenient for your argument, however, it's false. Watch it again....

You see, your statement is sort of like the one the Bama fan said early in the thread…. “He was 3 steps in the end zone before he dropped it….” That’s honestly how he remembered it, unfortunately, he remembered it the way he wanted to remember it. You’re doing the same thing now. You would like to remember is that way because it would somewhat validate your argument, unfortunately, like the bama fan, you’re wrong. Again?
Click to expand...

I actually never watched it. I just looked at the highlight video that shows the entire run-back, and from what I saw, he never appeared to come within a foot of the OOB line.
I'm not going off recollection, I'm going off what I just saw.
 
#142
#142
Honestly, you should be the coach of USC. I bet you think he should have challenged the play, too. Nothing like losing a TO in the first 2 minutes of the game.
 
#143
#143
crusse10 said:
You sure about that?
Click to expand...

I don't consider "home cooking" as something that is intentionally done. Some may, but I don't. What I consider home cooking is when the home team doesn’t replay the play for the refs/crowd to see on the jumbotron. Or in this case, an ESPN who is invested in the SEC, and given bama's current status in the SEC, being invested in the SEC means being invested in Bama (and FL after seeing what happened against ARK). There's not as much urgency placed on some of the calls as there would be if the roles were reversed. If that was S. Carolina intercepting the ball and returning it for a TD, you better believe there would be review after review on the jumbotron. That coupled with ESPN investment in Bama's success leading them to scrutinize, on screen the entire series of events, would have u definitely lead to an official timeout for a review. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
 
#144
#144
UT's#1Fan said:
I don't consider "home cooking" as something that is intentionally done. Some may, but I don't. What I consider home cooking is when the home team doesn’t replay the play for the refs/crowd to see on the jumbotron. Or in this case, an ESPN who is invested in the SEC, and given bama's current status in the SEC, being invested in the SEC means being invested in Bama (and FL after seeing what happened against ARK). There's not as much urgency placed on some of the calls as there would be if the roles were reversed. If that was S. Carolina intercepting the ball and returning it for a TD, you better believe there would be review after review on the jumbotron. That coupled with ESPN investment in Bama's success leading them to scrutinize, on screen the entire series of events, would have u definitely lead to an official timeout for a review. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Click to expand...

What school shows the replay at the game before the extra point?

On top of that, every school only shows a review once. When plays are under review, they don't repeatedly show it on the Tron.
 
#145
#145
UT's#1Fan said:
I don't consider "home cooking" as something that is intentionally done. Some may, but I don't. What I consider home cooking is when the home team doesn’t replay the play for the refs/crowd to see on the jumbotron. Or in this case, an ESPN who is invested in the SEC, and given bama's current status in the SEC, being invested in the SEC means being invested in Bama (and FL after seeing what happened against ARK). There's not as much urgency placed on some of the calls as there would be if the roles were reversed. If that was S. Carolina intercepting the ball and returning it for a TD, you better believe there would be review after review on the jumbotron. That coupled with ESPN investment in Bama's success leading them to scrutinize, on screen the entire series of events, would have u definitely lead to an official timeout for a review. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Click to expand...

I am done with this ignorance. That is the dumbest comment I have seen on this sight in a loooong time.
 
#146
#146
Jaytrain5 said:
Wait a minute...

You mean to tell me I've got cronies!? Suhweet.

This is so effing badass. I've always wanted to be in a leadership position.
Click to expand...

The other henchmen and I have been talking something over, and they decided it would be best if I approached with it. We feel it would be a lot more professional if all of us underlings had matching uniforms, and we were hoping you would cover the cost since it would technically be a work-related expense.
 
#147
#147
IPorange said:
The other henchmen and I have been talking something over, and they decided it would be best if I approached with it. We feel it would be a lot more professional if all of us underlings had matching uniforms, and we were hoping you would cover the cost since it would technically be a work-related expense.
Click to expand...

Tell ya what....I'll look into it. I'm in agreement that it certainly sets a professional tone for our group, but I've got to do some investigation on cost.

In the meantime, perhaps you guys could coordinate a white or orange polo, along with a pair of khakis? I'm sure you've all got those things in your closets already.

I'll also look into getting you all business cards.
 
#148
#148
UT's#1Fan said:
I don't consider "home cooking" as something that is intentionally done. Some may, but I don't. What I consider home cooking is when the home team doesn’t replay the play for the refs/crowd to see on the jumbotron. Or in this case, an ESPN who is invested in the SEC, and given bama's current status in the SEC, being invested in the SEC means being invested in Bama (and FL after seeing what happened against ARK). There's not as much urgency placed on some of the calls as there would be if the roles were reversed. If that was S. Carolina intercepting the ball and returning it for a TD, you better believe there would be review after review on the jumbotron. That coupled with ESPN investment in Bama's success leading them to scrutinize, on screen the entire series of events, would have u definitely lead to an official timeout for a review. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Click to expand...

you know that the refs and other officials are aware of the play and situation anyway don't you? replaying it on the jumbotron would not increase the likelihood of a play being reviewed.

man, i sure feel bad for the schools that don't have jumbotrons.......
 
#149
#149
crusse10 said:
Honestly, you should be the coach of USC. I bet you think he should have challenged the play, too. Nothing like losing a TO in the first 2 minutes of the game.
Click to expand...

CSP made the right call for not challenging the play, GIVEN the information available to him. The only camera angle that showed the fumble clearly was the camera on the sky line. That view was not available to the jumbotron. Therefore, CSP had no way to tell if there was a fumble... and even if it were available, it would have been difficult to notice... the replay booth failed on this one.
 
#150
#150
duckman398686 said:
you know that the refs and other officials are aware of the play and situation anyway don't you? replaying it on the jumbotron would not increase the likelihood of a play being reviewed.

man, i sure feel bad for the schools that don't have jumbotrons.......
Click to expand...

Without stats, he won't believe you.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top