1911 Beta

by **img** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:03 pm

apparently that call wasn't made from dreams

by **hXc** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:32 pm

by **ThatsRight** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:31 pm

Can you finish a sentence without bro or lol?

by **hXc** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:30 pm

Reh wrote:Sometimes sarcasm is hard to read with text.

For example, if I said, say I said have a good tatoo on your chest. Am I being serious or do I think you're far more stupid than I could ever imagine?

It's a mystery.

i don't know what a "tatoo" is bro

by **ThatsRight** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:29 pm

Sometimes sarcasm is hard to read with text.

For example, if I said, you have a good tattoo on your chest. Am I being serious or do I think you're far more stupid than I could have ever imagined?

It's a mystery.

by **hXc** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:27 pm

i already told you that post was sarcasm....... it was sarcasm. also, in no way in my first post did i make it sound like virginia tech should have won.. i may have said i thought the call wasn't overturned with indisputable evidence.. but i didn't say vt should have won.

by **ThatsRight** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:16 pm

hXc wrote:once again.. this thread wasn't about which team was better or worse.. this thread was about the play being overturned on the field because of "indisputable evidence" lol

I answered in my first post what I thought about the call.

The way in which you wrote your first post implies (to me) that you think VT should have won and got "screwed over" by refs and CEO's alike. That is why I responded the way that I did.

That's how conversations on message boards proceed.

by **acetamino** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:50 pm

by **hXc** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:17 pm

once again.. this thread wasn't about which team was better or worse.. this thread was about the play being overturned on the field because of "indisputable evidence" lol

by **acetamino** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:41 pm

I think Reh is saying that it should not of had to come down to that one play in overtime if Virginia Tech played better and smarter the whole game.

by **hXc** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:27 pm

reh you spent a whole lot of time bashing tech for how they played the game instead of talking about the overruled play in overtime.. this thread was about that incident.. not about the fake punt attempt. so sorry for not "having an argument to refute" to what you said. lol

Reh wrote: Losers make excuses.

no one made an excuse. i just stated that i didn't think there was sufficient "indisputable evidence", and you got butt hurt saying how everyone hates michigan.. that we're all idiots and all this nonsense. lol

by **CharlieGiteau** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:22 am

Reh wrote:So, I made a spelling error in something I wrote in passing on a message board. What's your point?

Then again, when you don't actually have an argument to refute what I had to say, I guess you would point out a small typo and confuse that with intelligence.

Some of the smartest people that you'll meet from the sciences, medical field, engineering, ect don't write perfectly. With that said, my writing skills are fine.

You may be able to hit your Internet browser spell check and confuse that with being smart, but the actual content of what you're saying usually boils down to "LULZ calm down bro".

Man, you sure are sensitive...

by **ThatsRight** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:36 am

i don't know if you're aware reh, but the player that you're calling unathletic who attempted the fake punt play was actually the same player who made the catch in the 1st post of this thread (danny coale).. if he is unathletic, please tell me what the hell athletic is..

I didn't know it was Coale. I guess when I watched the play, I was too stunned by the terrible strategy of it all to notice and I haven't seen it since. I don't exactly have the names and numbers of VT players memorized considering this was their first game I watched all year. I don't care if Bolt was running that fake, it was the wrong call. Either punt, or have confidence in your offense to say "get the first down".

Oh, and all I heard was how VT had "only" lost to one team: Clemson.
Sun Life Stadium was a crime scene yesturday. 70 points.

by **ThatsRight** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:32 am

So, I made a spelling error in something I wrote in passing on a message board. What's your point?

Then again, when you don't actually have an argument to refute what I had to say, I guess you would point out a small typo and confuse that with intelligence.

Some of the smartest people that you'll meet from the sciences, medical field, engineering, ect don't write perfectly. With that said, my writing skills are fine.

You may be able to hit your Internet browser spell check and confuse that with being smart, but the actual content of what you're saying usually boils down to "LULZ calm down bro".

by **hXc** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:52 pm

ROFL i just realized that he misspelled field 4 times in this thread

Reh wrote:
Hail HAIL to MIchigan, the leaders and the best!~

by **CharlieGiteau** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:33 pm

What's this thread about??? I was busy staring at "feild" over and over again.

by **hXc** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:34 pm

i don't know if you're aware reh, but the player that you're calling unathletic who attempted the fake punt play was actually the same player who made the catch in the 1st post of this thread (danny coale).. if he is unathletic, please tell me what the hell athletic is..

by **mg_** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:02 pm

Houston deserved a BCS bowl like I deserve to have Jessica Biel eat out my asshole.

by **ThatsRight** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:00 pm

Uh, it was a terrible call by pretty much every measure.

You either punt and play feild position with a defense that was holding up well, or give your large QB a 4th and 1. What you don't do is call a timeout.....then send an unathletic kicker to try and run for it....turning a 4th and 1 into 4th and 10+.

by **hXc** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:57 pm

lol relax bro. the fake punt attempt was probably called because of how strong their defense was playing. it wasn't a terrible call by any means. the fumble was just unfortunate.

by **ThatsRight** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:55 pm

Sure they "played better" the majority of the time...Michigan really had no place even being in position to win.

However, the fact is VT couldn't score in the Red Zone. They hit our punter. They missed a feild goal. They made terrible fake punt calls. Had a horrible interception. A fumble on the kickoff. Kicked out of bounds to give us feild position.

I don't really know how much "better" they played. Sure you may have "played better" for longer stretches, but large errors are part of the game to. Who cares if you consistantly "played better" if you crumble into oblivion every 5 minutes? When you say we got "lucky"...why is that? If vt didn't do this! If this didn't happen!

Well, they did happen.

I have a very low tolerence for excuses and "what ifs".

by **hXc** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:42 pm

i don't think anyone hates michigan because of last night.. lol. i certainly don't hate michigan. i think tech played better than michigan last night.

by **ThatsRight** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:34 pm

Perhaps I'm just annoyed from the groups of idiots from Boise, MSU, Kstate, Houston, and where ever the hell else all crying about the team selections and/or the CEO. It's not his decision to begin with what teams played or who won the game. Michigan has haters from coast to coast. More attractive candidates get places in the world. They're going to be really disappointed when they see UM grads taking the jobs they think they "deserve". Welcome to the real world.

Losers make excuses. Even if VT made that touchdown, there's no way you can rule out that Michigan doesn't score a touchdown of their own and wins anyways. Losers think the last play is any more important then other play. If you take care of business the rest of the time, you aren't in a position to get "screwed". VT could have won at any point if they could convert in the red zone or if they didn't fake punts when they could have just outright went for it on 4th and one.

lol @ michigan being the "best".

The football team isn't the best currently. Leaders and the best is a term coined for the school (See: the CEO of Allstate). All-time leader in total wins and win percentage. One of the largest/most famous stadiums in the world, the best fight song, the best helmets, oh, and a world renowned educational institution. Hence leaders and the best.

by **hXc** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:28 pm

i thought their offense was better than usual last night.. michigan just got sheer luck on numerous occasions. also, lol @ michigan being the "best".

[youtube]hDKDqBRbCTI[/youtube]

the best. for sure.

by **mg_** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:25 pm

It's a legit call. Beamer needs to rely less on special teams and more on offense if he wants to win bowl games.

by **hXc** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:15 pm

the alumni comment was sarcasm... rofl

edit: and yea i guess we get a taste of our own medicine when our starting fg kicker is involved in a b&e with an airsoft gun

by **ThatsRight** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:03 pm

then again, what do i know.. they had their "indisputable evidence" i suppose lol

but i guess the michigan alumni running the sugar bowl thought otherwise~

It's funny that you're so hung up on having indisputable evidence.

What's your evidence that the Allstate CEO, who is a Michigan alumni, rigged the game? Keeping in mind that people can be objective in fact even when they're not objective in appearence---and it happens EVERY DAY in the real world. Some people's integrity is beyond reproach. Not to mention, one person does not make the decisions.

Hail HAIL to MIchigan, the leaders and the best!~

Oh, and the ball touches the ground and helps him secure the catch. Your tears taste like sugar.

P.s if you want to win, then take advantage of the numerous chances VT had to win in regulation--or make a routine feild goal. Champions don't blame referees.

by **Sears** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:15 pm

He traps the ball between the ground and his body. Easy incomplete call in high school, let alone with the benefit of instant replay.

by **mg_** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:59 pm

There isn't control of the ball, he literally just brought it "in" before the catch. Second, as Dan says, the ball hits the ground first and is forced "into" his hands.

Seems like a good call for me. I think Beamer is a fine coach and I have no problems with VTech, in fact, I hate Michigan. I just think it's a good call. No real control on the ball and landing on it "forced" the catch.

by **hXc** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:55 pm

that's what i don't understand.. how is it indisputable that the ground enabled the catch.. in my opinion the video is not indisputable evidence, and the play on the field should stand. lol

edit: i just hope a play like this gets overruled in the bcs title game

by **mg_** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:52 pm

scorch- wrote:A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground.
Any forward pass becomes incomplete and ball is dead if:
(a) Pass hits the ground or goes out of bounds.

Based on the rules you presented for video review, the burden of proof is simply that the player indisputably did not clearly establish possession of the ball. Since it is not clear whether the player established possession of the ball, it is indisputable that the player did not clearly establish possession of the ball.

The bottom part of the ball hits the ground before he has touched the ground. It is not clear possession, if not clear that he did not have possession. All he had to do was catch the ball and it would have been a touchdown. Maybe next time he'll catch it before it hits the ground.

It's not quite like that, Dan. I'll give Mr.Badtattoo that credit. On video review there has to be indisputable evidence the contrary call has to be made, otherwise the play stands. Video, watching it repeatedly, the ground enables the "catch" hence why that is indisputable.

by **hXc** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:47 pm

Polak wrote:In the nfl that incomplete, the ball moves.

In college, its also incomplete. Cause your gay.

rofl

by **scorch-** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:47 pm

A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground.
Any forward pass becomes incomplete and ball is dead if:
(a) Pass hits the ground or goes out of bounds.

Based on the rules you presented for video review, the burden of proof is simply that the player indisputably did not clearly establish possession of the ball. Since it is not clear whether the player established possession of the ball, it is indisputable that the player did not clearly establish possession of the ball.

The bottom part of the ball hits the ground before he has touched the ground. It is not clear possession, if not clear that he did not have possession. All he had to do was catch the ball and it would have been a touchdown. Maybe next time he'll catch it before it hits the ground.

by **mg_** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:43 pm

I'm sorry, like many things you talk about you don't know what an incomplete pass is. The right call was made. Ground caught he ball for the receiver.

by **Polak** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:41 pm

In the nfl that incomplete, the ball moves.

In college, its also incomplete. Cause your gay.

by **hXc** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:16 pm

i mean.. if you're diving after running full speed to catch a ball, i think the ball would move a bit when it hits the ground regardless.. but i think he had possession of the ball before it ever hit the ground.. it was in his arms. the ball hitting the ground didn't aid him catching the ball whatsoever.

then again, what do i know.. they had their "indisputable evidence" i suppose lol

by **defiance** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:12 pm

ball hits the ground, ball moves, not a catch.

by **hXc** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:05 pm

in case you didn't catch the sugar bowl last night, a touchdown pass was overruled in overtime. i was under the assumption that there had to be indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field, but i guess the michigan alumni running the sugar bowl thought otherwise~

[youtube]aXMn3wGssNg[/youtube]

anyways.. catch? or incomplete?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: indisputable evidence?