Windy's football discussion thread.

[Sgt_Nick_Fury]

You can debate whether it affected the game or not, but officiating is getting horrible across all of football. I just want consistency. I did see some calls that TN got flags for that UGA got away with tonight. Did it make or break the game? No idea.

Officiating across all sports is bad, but college fb seems to be getting the worst.

Considering their drive was stopped...and it could have allowed GA Tech to run out the clock it deff affected outcome.

 

[GordonC]

was hit in the chest - very clear - I didnt even consider targeting - had it on mute and thought the review was the fumble lol

It was the fumble that was reviewed.

 

[GordonC]

Blaming refs for losing is what losers do.

Ding ding winner

 

[508mikey]

Considering their drive was stopped...and it could have allowed GA Tech to run out the clock it deff affected outcome.

Georgia still had all 3 time outs so no they couldnt

 

[Sgt_Nick_Fury]

Anyway I said what I said, everybody online is saying it also right now, the plays are being posted everywhere, and I didn't put them up to it.... sorry I at some point corrected you in the past and turned out to be right though.....didn't mean to irritate someone's pride with my observations....but can't say I care much either. I will continue to post the truth as I see it....and if you find that tiresome just skip it... I find butt hurt feelings that matter to people more then objective truths tiresome and skip them regularly. We all choose our hills I suppose.

 

[GordonC]

On that PI call, the trajectory of the pass was not affected. The only way anyone knew it was really not PI is with a different camera angle and slow mo.

The officials miss a chit-ton of calls they shouldn't (ALWAYS HAVE), but that wasn't one of em.

The tech makes them look a lot worse, but I would also say that the tech also causes them to lean on replay more than they should.

 

[GordonC]

Anyway I said what I said, everybody online is saying it also right now, the plays are being posted everywhere, and I didn't put them up to it.... sorry I at some point corrected you in the past and turned out to be right though.....didn't mean to irritate someone's pride with my observations....but can't say I care much either. I will continue to post the truth as I see it....and if you find that tiresome just skip it... I find butt hurt feelings that matter to people more then objective truths tiresome and skip them regularly. We all choose our hills I suppose.

Of course you will continue to post it bc you "can," and the most important thing for you on here is to be right, whether it's diets, doctors, sports, aliens---any subject.

WE FOOKIN KNOW, MAN. WE GET IT.

 

[Sgt_Nick_Fury]

Of course you will continue to post it bc you "can," and the most important thing for you on here is to be right, whether it's diets, doctors, sports, aliens---any subject.

WE FOOKIN KNOW, MAN. WE GET IT.

Feel better yet? I think this is good for you, get it out. Then once it's out of your system, maybe you can think rationally again.....and worry less about wHO is right or wrong, and more about What is or isn't true. It's clear your issue with me has nothing to do with ref calls.

And no I don't think you get it yet.

BTW is the "can" thing a cry for censorship? LOL. Don't you write everything you write because you can? Where is the crime?

 

[Sgt_Nick_Fury]

On a side note.....before the game.

 

[Orangeslice13]

It was the fumble that was reviewed.

It’s insane that the targeting wasn’t reviewed.

 

[Orangeslice13]

And it’s also crazy to say that refs don’t change the outcome with bad calls. They absolutely do. I can name games off the top of my head that Tennessee won because of refs and lost because of refs. Florida comes to mind… in both directions

 

[volwindy]

It’s insane that the targeting wasn’t reviewed.

The angle that we got was awful, even the one that was posted in the thread. You cannot see where contact was made. Can you assume it was the helmet since the helmet moved? Sure, but you can't make a call on assumptions.

 

[Tin Man]

What if Georgia Tech (7-5) plays Vanderbilt (6-6) in a bowl game? Would you tune in?

 

[malinoisvol]

What if Georgia Tech (7-5) plays Vanderbilt (6-6) in a bowl game? Would you tune in?

That would be a pretty good match up.

 

[Orangeslice13]

The angle that we got was awful, even the one that was posted in the thread. You cannot see where contact was made. Can you assume it was the helmet since the helmet moved? Sure, but you can't make a call on assumptions.

I would hope since they reviewed the fumble that they reviewed the targeting. The lack of an announcement would trend towards it not being reviewed.

Does not matter now.

Also both teams could make a strong argument that the officiating was against them and both teams had multiple opportunities to win it so it’s hard to say refs changed the outcome.

 

[volwindy]

I would hope since they reviewed the fumble that they reviewed the targeting. The lack of an announcement would trend towards it not being reviewed.

Does not matter now.

Also both teams could make a strong argument that the officiating was against them and both teams had multiple opportunities to win it so it’s hard to say refs changed the outcome.

Yes, I think both teams benefited from calls and lack of calls.

 

[WestTennesseeFox]

I am having turkey for the first and only time this week.

 

[95 Vol Alum]

I am having turkey for the first and only time this week.

I’m sure mojo will take what he can get.

 

[WestTennesseeFox]

I’m sure mojo will take what he can get.

LOL

 

[508mikey]

I am having turkey for the first and only time this week.

You're cooking ?

 

[82_VOL_83]

No
The hit was to the dam chest, not to head and neck
You look for chit that says what you want it to say, no matter the subject, and post it just because you "can."
It is fookin tiresome and childish

The hit could have been called targeting. I saw that when it was replayed. In open field it would have been. That pass wasn't tipped so was a good call. SNF doesn't understand that is why that is being replayed doe.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Of course you will continue to post it bc you "can," and the most important thing for you on here is to be right, whether it's diets, doctors, sports, aliens---any subject.

WE FOOKIN KNOW, MAN. WE GET IT.

He posts videos of others opinions to appear to be knowledgeable.

 

[82_VOL_83]

And it’s also crazy to say that refs don’t change the outcome with bad calls. They absolutely do. I can name games off the top of my head that Tennessee won because of refs and lost because of refs. Florida comes to mind… in both directions

I believe it's the no calls.

 

[Tin Man]

As to the play in question…

The Georgia player did lead with his head. The crown of his helmet did impact the head/neck region of the Tech ball carrier. At the time of impact, the ball carrier was pressed into a mass of players and helpless to avoid the Georgia player attacking him from the side. This ticks off three check boxes for targeting. IMHO, targeting should have been called. Now, you may argue that the Georgia player did not have the intent to strike the Tech ball carrier in the head/neck region with the crown of his helmet and did follow through with impact to the body of the ball carrier (which caused the fumble, though the initial impact to the head/neck likely affected his grasp). But, is intent a necessary element of targeting? Numerous times that targeting was called/upheld this season, intent was not obvious. Indeed, the apparent intent was to impact with the shoulder the body of the ball carrier, but what transpired was initial contact by the crown of the helmet to the head/neck.

 

[Tin Man]

VN’s whacky page reloads is fracking with my posting.