Escape from Elba

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - CaptainCargo

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 89
31
Football / Re: College Football
« on: January 01, 2020, 10:13:38 AM »
Quote
Ward got targeting because he lowered his head into contact. The right call, a stupid play that was more dangerous to himself than Lawrence
Lawerence is like 6’5”-6’6” and close to 250lbs. If he wants to run the ball then he takes the risks that running backs take every time they touch the ball. Besides, this targeting call is one of the biggest pieces of horseshit that they have come up with in many a year. A couple of guys in the replay booth are supposed to discern just exactly what a players intentions were when he moved his head a couple of inches up or down or left to right during a tackle? This is still football, right? Occasionally, it is evident that a person is taking a shot at an unprotected mans head. In that case they should march off a 15 yard penalty. But this bit about throwing a guy out out of the game, merely on the subjective opinion of the people in the replay booth sucks. They have already killed the kickoff as an exciting play in college football, now they want to turn hard hitting into a major foul? Well, I guess there is always flag football.
Intent is irrelevant for targeting. It is a prophylactic rule. You cannot make helmet to helmet contact, you cannot - as Ward did - hit with the crown of the helmet.

The rule in it's current form sucks dead donkey dick.

32
Football / Re: College Football
« on: January 01, 2020, 10:12:31 AM »
Quote
Ward got targeting because he lowered his head into contact. The right call, a stupid play that was more dangerous to himself than Lawrence
Lawerence is like 6’5”-6’6” and close to 250lbs. If he wants to run the ball then he takes the risks that running backs take every time they touch the ball. Besides, this targeting call is one of the biggest pieces of horseshit that they have come up with in many a year. A couple of guys in the replay booth are supposed to discern just exactly what a players intentions were when he moved his head a couple of inches up or down or left to right during a tackle? This is still football, right? Occasionally, it is evident that a person is taking a shot at an unprotected mans head. In that case they should march off a 15 yard penalty. But this bit about throwing a guy out out of the game, merely on the subjective opinion of the people in the replay booth sucks. They have already killed the kickoff as an exciting play in college football, now they want to turn hard hitting into a major foul? Well, I guess there is always flag football.


The voice of reason and sanity from the wilderness.


Also good to see you here my friend.

33
Football / Re: College Football
« on: January 01, 2020, 10:07:12 AM »

Adding playoff teams does not make a lot of economic sense either.
The four preliminary games would be two weeks before the Holiday weekend and upsets could deaden the glow of possible Marquee Matchups.
I agree with you on this.   

I have heard a lot of the younger college football announcers arguing for expanded playoffs and frankly their arguments are less than stellar.  This morning...it was either Danny Kannel or Greg McIroy was arguing that the LSU Oklahoma game was a great argument for an expanded playoff.  His line of thinking was that Oklahoma would have been eliminated earlier and this semi-final would have been a better matchup.

How about... there were three teams this year that deserved a shot and it didn't matter who the 4th placeholder was?
I think the official wisdom this year was right for once: there were three elite teams, everyone else was a clear step below. But you do not build an argument about playoffs on a single season. There have been years where there were good arguments for a fifth team not just to get in, but be a threat to win it all - the first year, for example.
Except playoff increases come in sets of four.

No they don't, I've already established that. Please try and keep up.

34
Football / Re: College Football
« on: January 01, 2020, 09:19:48 AM »
Unless there is a bye in the system, why should you have to play UGGA or ALA if they didn’t win their Conference, and yeah there are 3 teams that by the end of the year we’re better than everybody else, that same logic means probably 3 of 4 teams probably get smoked in a quarterfinal game, it’s bad tv, and you risk injuring the cream of the crop, and possibly render what they’ve done to that point meaningless.


I like the 4 team format.  I could live with the 5 team playoff with the one 'play-in' game of #4 and #5. How the play-in game fits into the Bowl Schedule I could care less.

35
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 29, 2019, 03:07:13 PM »
The official they had on hand for review opinion, rules application confirmed every call that went against tOSU, cap you may not like targeting rule, but it’s irrelevant whether or not Tlaw lowers his head, nothing to do with the application of the rule, whisk you may not like the fact that Dobbins needed to secure the ball for it to be a catch (to the ground), and he didn’t have control of it at all, no catch, no TD, proper application of the rule.

Had I been a tOSU fan in the stands, I would be sure we had gotten jobbed.

But you didn’t.  Fact.  Calls indisputable, period.

And yes, the roughing play was moronic, thanks.

I don’t feel bad for Coach Ryan but he called a near perfect game against our formidable DC.

tOSU did get fatigued and Etienne finally got going and Tlaw was incredible running the ball.

tOSU should have lost 2 players in the targeting play as the second defender grew a punch at Tlaw and tried to unscrew his head.

Dirty.

Dobbins might’ve gotten an ankle as a result but no crocodile tears here.

Helluva game.

Lived up to the USC/UT game where it was hard fought and came down to the last play.

Yes, I may not like the targeting rule.

Don't get me wrong, I was rooting for Clemson to win. At least I think I was. LOL

36
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 29, 2019, 11:44:59 AM »
Of course the good thing out of all of this is that OSU lost.

37
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 29, 2019, 11:43:18 AM »
The targeting rule sucks cock. The QB ducked into that hit.
Don't know.if it was a good call or not - they did not show the replay in the stadium - but it sure changed the game. That and the roughing the punter were probably the two most important plays of.the game.

Had a great time. Disappointing end but oh well. We had one ClemSIN fan near us who was so South Carolina, right down to the frayed bill on his ball cap. Worst thing was the The fan right behind use who kept.yelling "Dobbins is a free elf" so much I wanted to PUNCH HIM IN THE FUCKING FACE!

Battle of the bands was a one sided romp. ClemSIN's band was bleh.

Geaux Tigers!

Roughing the punter was stupid, they had Clemson backed up and most likely would have gotten good field position. That's on the special teams coach, he fucked up.

As far as targeting they should have left it at launch targeting and then left well enough alone. And yes, many people don't share my opinion I know.

38
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 28, 2019, 10:30:20 PM »
Every time a runner lowers his head and hits a defenseman he's breaking the targeting rule.

Subjective rule. SUCK RULE. I'll never change my mind on that.

39
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 28, 2019, 10:22:17 PM »
All running backs must run assbackwards if the rule was enforced on both sides of the ball.

40
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 28, 2019, 10:02:09 PM »
The rule was supposed to eliminate "launch" targeting. But was insidiously morphed into a garbage rule.

41
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 28, 2019, 09:59:40 PM »
He doesn't need to drop his head, which he did, either. Tacklers need to be taught to bring their arms to the party.


No. Your logic is flawed and those that made it. The whole rule is predicated on a perceived fact that defensive players don't have heads on the "top" of their bodies. Which is ludicrous. Offensive runners are allowed to target all the time. The rule is selective and S.U.C.K.S.

The rule sucks. All it takes is a slight sidestep and a shoulder hit becomes a helmet hit. It's a moving target. THE RULE SUCKS!


Chickenshit prejudicial rule against the defense. I demand a recount! Get those people back in here! Turn those machines back on!

42
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 28, 2019, 09:55:38 PM »
Big time play by Lawrence.

43
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 28, 2019, 09:45:05 PM »
Clemson gets a TD given to them.

44
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 28, 2019, 09:44:14 PM »
It's a terrible subjectively flawed rule. The tackler can't lead with his ass.

45
Football / Re: College Football
« on: December 28, 2019, 09:43:04 PM »
Good call on the Pass Interference though

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 89