Game Thread: CFP SEMIFINAL: Clemson (13-0) vs Ohio State (13-0) 8pm ET ESPN

[michaeljordan_fan]

Yet if a guy catches a pass, takes 3 steps, crosses the goaline and the ball gets knocked out it would somehow be a TD

The Clemson receiver never completed the catch.

 

[Bayou Tiger]

Come on BT I didn't have a horse in the race last night, but I/we can post our comments in a college football thread.

I'm just fucking with him.



Would you prefer I fuck with you instead?

 

[AlaskaGuy]

 

[Bayou Tiger]

The Clemson receiver never completed the catch.

Shutup dumbass....everyone, including most sports reporters are saying it was a catch.

If you take 3 or 4 steps with the ball in both hands....that's a catch!

 

[rmilia1]

The Clemson receiver never completed the catch.

Sure because catching it and running 3 steps isnt a catch. Totally makes sense.

 

[ElTexan]

Then by all means you are dismissed. You may return to your thread to fight whatever you are bloviating on about. If you don't have an actual quote of something in THIS thread...

Lmao. What quote do you want... people defending ‘crown’ and ‘lead with head’ and ‘eyes down’ as targeting. Take your pick of any page on this thread

this is from the first random page I clicked on:

Launching with the helmet is targeting.
Leading with the crown of the helmet is targeting.

 

[WizardHawk]

Yet if a guy catches a pass, takes 3 steps, crosses the goaline and the ball gets knocked out it would somehow be a TD

Crossing the goal line would be a football move yeah? '3 steps' going in an actual direction is as well? Feet touching the ground 3 times while trying to secure a ball isn't counted the same.

Again, hate the rules and how muddy it all is, and I do still think they blew it, but not sure your argument against him was the best example.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Sure because catching it and running 3 steps isnt a catch. Totally makes sense.

Happy to have clarified it for you.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Lmao. What quote do you want... people defending ‘crown’ and ‘lead with head’ and ‘eyes down’ as targeting. Take your pick of any page on this thread

this is from the first random page I clicked on:

That isn't defending the rule...that's stating the rule.

 

[The Oldtimer]

I'm just fucking with him.



Would you prefer I fuck with you instead?

I'm too old to be fucked with. Trust me you wouldn't enjoy an old man like me. Go find a younger man to fuck with.

 

[WizardHawk]

Lmao. What quote do you want... people defending ‘crown’ and ‘lead with head’ and ‘eyes down’ as targeting. Take your pick of any page on this thread

this is from the first random page I clicked on:

Even after your edits, I fail to see anything related to what you are going on about. I see someone stating what the current rule is. I do not see this glaring example of someone defending that rule you believe everyone is doing up here.

Feel free to return to your thread and fight the good fight there. I'm not seeing it here.

 

[gohusk]

Lawrence clearly dipped his head at the last moment which creates the helmet to helmet . But the “it’s the rules” morons put the bogus expectation on the defender to re adjust himself accordingly instantly in a fraction of a second.

Blame the rule writers, not the ones pointing the rule out.

 

[ElTexan]

I get that you are going to try to argue or twist every possible thing that goes against your team today, but trying to get technical in choice of words while entirely ignoring the point doesn't shock me coming from you in the least.

Your defender lowered his head while going into that tackle and was leading with his helmet. They teach not to do that on at least the team I follow, if not every modern college football program. It was bad technique and was a preventable situation accordingly.

Stop blaming the wrong thing.

OSU didn't have to have a WR turn the wrong way and throw the game ending pick directly at a defender. The refs had nothing to do with how that game ended.

Even after your edits, I fail to see anything related to what you are going on about. I see someone stating what the current rule is. I do not see this glaring example of someone defending that rule you believe everyone is doing up here.

Feel free to return to your thread and fight the good fight there. I'm not seeing it here.

You’re an idiot if you think you’re sophism carries any weight here. Check this quote from another random page. You’re a fucking moron trying to state people aren’t defending this. Who is this poster???

I get that you are going to try to argue or twist every possible thing that goes against your team today, but trying to get technical in choice of words while entirely ignoring the point doesn't shock me coming from you in the least.

Your defender lowered his head while going into that tackle and was leading with his helmet. They teach not to do that on at least the team I follow, if not every modern college football program. It was bad technique and was a preventable situation accordingly.

Stop blaming the wrong thing.

OSU didn't have to have a WR turn the wrong way and throw the game ending pick directly at a defender. The refs had nothing to do with how that game ended.

 

[rmilia1]

Crossing the goal line would be a football move yeah? '3 steps' going in an actual direction is as well? Feet touching the ground 3 times while trying to secure a ball isn't counted the same.

Again, hate the rules and how muddy it all is, and I do still think they blew it, but not sure your argument against him was the best example.

He wasnt trying to secure a ball. The ball was secured. And running laterally as opposed to vertically happens all the time on a fb field. If a guy catches runs a crossing route and catches a pass is it never a catch til he turns up field? I mean come on

 

[The Oldtimer]

If you are trying to tackle someone, you have to lower your center of gravity lower than his.

Ever play football? If so you should know this.

Now then, to lower one's center of gravity one must lower his body mass. Since Humans bend forward at the waist, this is the only means to do this, along with bending the knees.

So to test this, hold your arms at your side, feet shoulder width apart, now bend forward. Notice your head moves out farther than any other extremity.

End of class.

Any questions?

What does your comment have to do with the current NCAA rule about "helmet to helmet targeting"? If a defense player hit an offensive player "helmet to helmet", while tackling him, the refs can call a penalty for targeting.

 

[The Oldtimer]

Blame the rule writers, not the ones pointing the rule out.

Exactly.

 

[WizardHawk]

You’re an idiot if you think you’re sophism carries any weight here. Check this quote from another random page. You’re a fucking moron trying to state people aren’t defending this. Who is this poster???

Didn't see a thing written where that poster defended the bad rule. Try again.

If you aren't smart enough to figure out the difference between stating how something was covered by a bad rule, and defending that rule, I can see why your failed thread is going the direction it is.

Now, once again you are dismissed.

 

[BoiseStateFan27]

Honestly that was a bad call he made 3-4 steps and the ball didn't even move. Finally on the 4th or 5th step it was knocked loose. If they called it incomplete on the field I'd say it was incomplete but it was called a catch on the field and there was no evidence that the ball was moving. Bad overturn

It could have changed the game but in the end it wouldn't have impacted anything had Ohio State scored TDs in the redzone, didn't hit the punter when they were going to get great field position, and if their corner had wrapped up Lawrence to tackle him instead of trying to lay a big hit on him

They made too many mistakes to beat Clemson

 

[WizardHawk]

He wasnt trying to secure a ball. The ball was secured. And running laterally as opposed to vertically happens all the time on a fb field. If a guy catches runs a crossing route and catches a pass is it never a catch til he turns up field? I mean come on

I'll say it again, I think the fumble/TD should have stood as the correct call. I've said that since it happened in real time. I was simply saying your argument against his wasn't the strongest. The rule sucks and I don't agree with how they enforced it.

 

[ElTexan]

Didn't see a thing written where that poster defended the bad rule. Try again.

If you aren't smart enough to figure out the difference between stating how something was covered by a bad rule, and defending that rule, I can see why your failed thread is going the direction it is.

Now, once again you are dismissed.

Done with you dunce. Not only are many defending in the general and specific, so were you.