Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
47 minutes ago, The Dude said:

The people bitching about this call would be the same people saying they didn’t want penalties deciding games if this was the other way around. The guy was short of the line to gain. Also put the other missed calls under the same microscope. This is a bunch of sour grapes because their favored team didn’t win. 

Fuckin’ A, man!
 

Your jib, I like the cut of it. 
 

 

40 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Did anyone ever say what happened with Helm's knee on that one play? Did he just twist it and was scared an injury happened for a split second? Obviously he was fine in OT.

Saw it live and went through a dozen emotions in about 3 seconds when he landed on Helm, and Helm reacted. Fuck those types of players and their weak morals. So happy Helm got up like a champ and slept they dreams. 🤘🏼
 

 

12 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:

Delete your account.  Disappear forever.

Mute button is your friend. 
 

Just rewatching the game and wanted to give a special shoutout to the guy on the  screen at the end of the game with the, “Oh? Did you see that play, haters? 
This guy deserves a t-shirt…🤘🏼

Also, lol to the salty lady on his right.

 

IMG_1594.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ghost of Shag said:

Is this the perfect woman?

One thing possibly overlooked in this video is her drinking out of a shotgun shell glass. She knows her football and knows how to "take a shot."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, LonghornJudas said:

People are acting like this was some 2018 Saints-Rams PI non-call and it’s not even fucking close. I think most of us here know this was just a horribly officiated game all around, had come to terms that we could rightfully lose this game because of how Texas played, and just hoped they’d get it going in OT, which they did. ASU had their chances and didn’t get it done. Case closed.

Troof right there. Whenever either team loses a close game, some fans will grab that one call that didn't go their way and hang onto it, because the alternative is to admit they lost. 

fdfa40465eff4cbdbd70706688796fa0.jpg

Posted
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

What was the deal with the play where they gave Skatebro an extra half yard or so so that he'd get the first down, reviewed it, and upheld the shitty call. Was that an optical illusion or something? Because he clearly did not get the ball to the marker.

The refuckery cut both ways, but we got 90% of that turd festival from them....

Posted
2 hours ago, mdmost said:

The biggest bitch of a commissioner in America chiming in.

 

Of course, because he has to act like he is doing something other than cashing checks. Suits gonna suit.

Posted
19 minutes ago, C-Man said:

This might drive the gomers a little crazy

 

Jimbo doesn't give a fuck about aggy or their dorky culture. Came, stole money, left. Kind of like Manziel, he hated aggy but profited off them anyways.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
38 minutes ago, Lhorn said:

They didn’t bring out the chains so not sure what the review crew uses other than the views we also saw.  

They look at and count the lettuce in the envelope to make sure it was all there....

Posted
1 hour ago, gofuckyourself said:

"Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

- Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area

- A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground

- Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area

- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

People keep posting the rule as some kind of exoneration.  He led with his helmet into the defenseless receiver's helmet.  They're not going to take the win away if you admit it was obvious targeting on shaggybevo.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted

they need to add a clause in the targeting rule that helmets can touch but does not mean targeting. we've been trained that helmets touch its a foul. stupid ass announcers go straight to the rule book. if that clause was in there, helmets can touch, all this bitching goes away. now its a judgement call like holding or pi. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

college football live at 1pm opened with thoughts and prayers, a look in on the superdome and then the 3rd story was the taafe non-targeting

the hate engine will hate the explanation - there has to be "an indicator" - intent, head down, no intent to play the ball, tackle, etc.

taafe had his hands up, his eyes up, his helmet up, his body upright

as the rule is written fbs crews are instructed to look for an INDICATOR of intent

as @MaxHorn said last night, maybe that crew had decided the violent bond collision on the pick wasn't called, and if they chose not to call that, which was far more violent, then maybe that influenced their decision not to ring up taafe

in summary, fuck you yormark, a b1g crew tried not to insert themselves in the narrative, unlike kevin mar tuesday night

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, WBT said:

People keep posting the rule as some kind of exoneration.  He led with his helmet into the defenseless receiver's helmet.

disagree

espn breakdown talking through it was correct and objective

Posted

Going forward I give 0 billion focks about this topic  of targeting since there was plenty of reverse refuckery on us by the "blind"( prolly well-compensated) zebras.

It wasn't even close to balanced. 

My only real concern going forward with this stupid story is that it does not bleed over into our next game and the alleged  referees feel that they need some additional make up calls against us. 

The rest of the talking heads/barking rectums out there can keep fellating themselves.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
26 minutes ago, WBT said:

People keep posting the rule as some kind of exoneration.  He led with his helmet face mask into the defenseless receiver's helmet.  They're not going to take the win away if you admit it was obvious targeting on shaggybevo.


FIFY 

The rule is exoneration. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
22 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

disagree

espn breakdown talking through it was correct and objective

Two guys said they didn't know, the other misexplained the rule as any contact to the head of a defenseless player.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

It's illegal everywhere. 

And I saw it called in a college game this year I'm pretty sure.

I’m 99% sure it was actually called on UT this year, sometime in second half of season. IIRC, swing pass to the top of the screen, RB (Blue, I think) gets caught up behind the LOS and DJ or Cam tries to pull him forward out of a tackle. 
 

Only reason I remember is because I didn’t realize that was a penalty (thought it was included in the tush push blessing) and was surprised by the flag. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Sgt Hulk said:

People still talking about the non targeting play enjoy eating their snickers upside down because they want the dick vein texture on their tongue. 

Oddly specific insult.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Posted
1 hour ago, NBHorn7 said:

One thing possibly overlooked in this video is her drinking out of a shotgun shell glass. She knows her football and knows how to "take a shot."

She also knows how to talk for 75 seconds before the shot in a video she captioned “victory shot” 

Posted
9 hours ago, Droopy said:

Bless your wife for the tickets, great video. 🤘🏼

 

I love this movie and Kathy, but that run up is hilarious. She ain’t playing football or soccer. 😂

Agreed.  It ruined an otherwise completely realistic movie.

Posted
1 hour ago, Hookem10 said:

they need to add a clause in the targeting rule that helmets can touch but does not mean targeting. we've been trained that helmets touch its a foul.

Exactly. They wear helmets for a reason.

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Dewey said:

While you're at it, go back and look at Texas' last 5 years in the Big xii 

image.jpeg.30c01f023ed0fe49497145253d0a9a21.jpeg

ha

hey Yormark...

image.gif.40f954b6d0ed3c8920996e5feb758472.gif

Edited by mchookem
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Lhorn said:

The media picks and chooses the Taaffe tackle because they are playing devil’s advocate in favor of the team that lost.  

Sun Devils' advocate si vous plais...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, WBT said:

People keep posting the rule as some kind of exoneration.  He led with his helmet into the defenseless receiver's helmet.  They're not going to take the win away if you admit it was obvious targeting on shaggybevo.

The penalty is based upon a rule, not feelings. 

  • Hook 'Em 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...