Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, nineliveslost said:

no , I rewatched the game sober this morning

but why?  Do you also self-flagellate? 

Edited by Nivek
Posted
3 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

Lmao at Texas buying the refs in a game where they refused to call ASU for holding or PI. I can't count how many times we got guys rushing free to their QB and were blatantly held to slow their progress. This allowed him to scramble around and extend the play. Sometimes it paid off, many times it didn't but the hold stopped a huge loss from happening, which drastically change a drive. Allowing their OL to throw their RB into the endzone. We stop them on the tying 2pt play but they call a flag on us, but ignored all the holds to keep the QB running around. And there was lineman down field that should have been called. Nope, we get the flag and they convert the next play to tie. Also, a blatant hold that kept us from scoring a TD earlier in the game. All of that is ignored and they point to one single potential targeting play that wasn't ever called on the field and refs didn't decide to call it. It's not like it was called on the field and reversed. They didn't think it was in real time or replay speed. And it wasn't. Nothing about it was targeting to me. About the one time the refs got it right.

Not to mention the 4 or 5 straight procedure penalties against us. The defense was very adamant that they false started on one of the plays. 

1 minute ago, Zeus said:

 

 

 

Imagine if we did this

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
6 minutes ago, Zeus said:

 

"people" who have handed over their brain to ChatGPT think so

 

 

 

What the rule actually says:

ARTICLE 1 a A field goal shall be scored if a scrimmage kick, which may
be a drop kick or place kick, passes over the crossbar between the uprights of
the receiving team’s goal before it touches a player of the kicking team or the
ground

Twitter is fucking stupid.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, A’Dam Psycho said:

Not to mention the 4 or 5 straight procedure penalties against us. The defense was very adamant that they false started on one of the plays. 

Imagine if we did this

Absolutely. They did false start on one of them but didn't call it. Seemingly every time they shouted and pointed at us, they got that call for them.

And lmao at filing a lawsuit. So fucking aggy. Take the loss and go home. Maybe don't give up a 4th and 13 where only one type of play can beat you and you allowed it. Can we file a lawsuit on all the bullshit no calls, too? We have about 15 to their 1. Also, not even sure that is real but whatever.

Edited by Vic Mackey
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Posted
Just now, tx 3 putt said:

asu humbled a top defense that second half. hopefully it was a good wake up call before the tOSU game for them 

We couldn’t get off the damn field. Yes we had multiple red zone stops but they kept the ball out of our hands for most of the game 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

We couldn’t get off the damn field. Yes we had multiple red zone stops but they kept the ball out of our hands for most of the game 

 

this was a good prep game for the next round 

Posted
6 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

that can't be real but LOL on "costed".

Of course it’s not real. Damn, some people will literally believe anything posted on the internet. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

asu humbled a top 5 defense that second half. hopefully it was a good wake up call before the tOSU game for them 

Mehhh gimmicks and trick plays. Defense got fooled by not seeing this chicanery in SEC play all year. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, TOR said:

Yeah, he was messed up.  Corch can't listen to the player in situations like that, he has to be pulled and eval'd.  Pretty shameful on Dillingham.

In a legitimate program, the coach has no say in the matter. Medical staff intervenes and dictates the protocol. It is supposed to be that way even in high school.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
18 minutes ago, Zeus said:

 

 

 

 

Surly is 96% attorneys so I'm sure a few of y'all can file the counter suit consisting of falsely called punter penalties, non-holding calls, lineman downfield, non-PI calls, egregious ball spotting errors, lineman pulling Skattebo's dick across the line and general AZ State bitchassedness.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
23 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

What the rule actually says:

ARTICLE 1 a A field goal shall be scored if a scrimmage kick, which may
be a drop kick or place kick, passes over the crossbar between the uprights of
the receiving team’s goal before it touches a player of the kicking team or the
ground

Twitter is fucking stupid.

It's an okie lite guy asking ChatGPT what to think lmao

  • Haha 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

Absolutely. They did false start on one of them but didn't call it. Seemingly every time they shouted and pointed at us, they got that call for them.

 

I have heard mention of the ASU defense giving "disconcerting signals."

Did this actually happen? It was weird that we got called for as many false starts as we did, but we are often sloppy.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
26 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

What the rule actually says:

ARTICLE 1 a A field goal shall be scored if a scrimmage kick, which may
be a drop kick or place kick, passes over the crossbar between the uprights of
the receiving team’s goal before it touches a player of the kicking team or the
ground

Twitter is fucking stupid.

wait a drop kick so you can punt a FG?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

It seems all season when they review a spot, the review still gets it wrong.  It's been infuriating.

IIRC, they stated call was confirmed, not just the call stands, which is even more egregious.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
36 minutes ago, A’Dam Psycho said:

Not to mention the 4 or 5 straight procedure penalties against us. The defense was very adamant that they false started on one of the plays. 

Imagine if we did this

If we actually were fucked by a single obvious call or non-call, I fully would expect BMDs to fight it on all fronts including with lawfare. And depending on how egregious the call, I might even support it.

Posted

I thought the blocked kick still went through the uprights after the bounce, but figured it was just the booze fucking with me.

Did not know that was the rule though.  Lots of obscure shit exists in football, especially related to kicks.

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

please god let's not let lawfare come on to the field now, it's already ruined most everything else.

There's no stopping it. Players getting paid, transfer portals, it's the next logical step.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, Tex Pete said:

I have heard mention of the ASU defense giving "disconcerting signals."

Did this actually happen? It was weird that we got called for as many false starts as we did, but we are often sloppy.

there was one where both the guard and tackle moved at the exact same time.  Goosby was pointing at their players.  I'm sure that one was disconcerting signals.

I think this is going on a lot and officials defer to the false start way too much.  This is something(like offensive holding and defensive(DB)holding) refs need to nip in the bud early in the game.

we were doing a lot better the last few games on the false starts.

Posted
2 minutes ago, ATXbronco said:

"Late in the third quarter, Skattebo was vomiting on the sideline between offensive possessions. He told reporters he drank too much water too fast and felt "sloshy," then felt much better afterward.

"Puke and rally," Dillingham said jokingly."

 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/43253924/sun-devils-cfp-quarterfinal-performance-shows-belong

well good for dillingham/skittercat coming up with something new vs. "stomach bug".

Posted
2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

there was one where both the guard and tackle moved at the exact same time.  Goosby was pointing at their players.  I'm sure that one was disconcerting signals.

I think this is going on a lot and officials defer to the false start way too much.  This is something(like offensive holding and defensive(DB)holding) refs need to nip in the bud early in the game.

we were doing a lot better the last few games on the false starts.

Lame excuse.  You have to be able to tell if the signal is coming from your qb behind you or the DL in front of you.

Posted
Just now, WBT said:

Lame excuse.  You have to be able to tell if the signal is coming from your qb behind you or the DL in front of you.

it is difficult if the defensive player moves and "barks" at the same time.  there is a reason for the rule.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

They did this while trailing?? Wow I'd forgotten

It was the last game of the season and I don't think a win or loss mattered to NE.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, A’Dam Psycho said:

Not to mention the 4 or 5 straight procedure penalties against us. The defense was very adamant that they false started on one of the plays. 

Imagine if we did this

What a bunch of bullshit

Posted
Was that play where the lineman picked up Skatteboo and slung him into the end zone legal?

No it fucking isn’t legal. Announcers were too busy creaming themselves over Scatteho to notice and the B10 Refs continued to flagrantly exhibit their in competence.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Funk Doctor Spock said:

I hope we never have to play Leavitt again. That motherfucker is the real deal. 

He went 24/46 for 222 and a pick. Not exactly a banner day. He's good, but he shouldn't scare you any more than Pavia or Green or van Buren. Looked his best when our O couldn't stay on the field.

Good arm, good runner, he's talented. Skat said in postgame he'll be playing on Sundays... I doubt it.

Edited by The Earl of Texas
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)

For my own wonderment, do you guys think if they had called the targeting against bond that it would have been ruled after the change of possession, or would we have kept the ball?  The hit seemed to happen after the db caught it but before he landed and established the catch and the hit for sure prevented bond from making a play on the ball or defender to break it up. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Earl of Texas said:

He went 24/46 for 222 and a pick. Not exactly a banner day. He's good, but he shouldn't scare you any more than Pavia or Green or van Buren. Looked his best when our O couldn't stay on the field.

Good arm, good runner, he's talented. Skat said in postgame he'll be playing on Sundays... I doubt it.

I don't know if he's going to be an NFL QB but this take sounds like you didn't watch the game. We were putting rushers in his face basically every down and for the most part he handled it well. He probably escaped a dozen sacks over 4Qs.

I was very impressed with how he played and the reason that he didn't light up the scoreboard/stat-sheet is because he was playing the best defense in the country. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Earl of Texas said:

He went 24/46 for 222 and a pick. Not exactly a banner day. He's good, but he shouldn't scare you any more than Pavia or Green or van Buren. Looked his best when our O couldn't stay on the field.

Good arm, good runner, he's talented. Skat said in postgame he'll be playing on Sundays... I doubt it.

It's his running, and if he had our WR's he would feast. He just doesn't have the talent we do. Dude can escape the pocket like houdini. I'd take him 10/10 times just for his running. Imagine him having Bond. Moore. Wingo, Helm. He would just maul the competition. He's that good. He did the best he could with what he had. He's a baller. 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

For my own wonderment, do you guys think if they had called the targeting against bond that it would have been ruled after the change of possession, or would we have kept the ball?  The hit seemed to happen after the db caught it c but before he landed and established the catch and the hit for sure prevented bond from making a play on the ball or defender to break it up. 

Zeirlein and the cry baby bitch corn dog John Granato were talking about this on 975 Houston this morning.

Zeirlein said the interception + targeting could be interpreted as the same play. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Funk Doctor Spock said:

It's his running, and if he had our WR's he would feast. He just doesn't have the talent we do. Dude can escape the pocket like houdini. I'd take him 10/10 times just for his running. Imagine him having Bond. Moore. Wingo, Helm. He would just maul the competition. He's that good. He did the best he could with what he had. He's a baller. 

Does he at least give you a safe word to use when you’re not comfortable doing something?

  • Haha 5
Posted
14 minutes ago, Funk Doctor Spock said:

I hope we never have to play Leavitt again. That motherfucker is the real deal. 

He's an ass to his teammates during games, I don't see that as a good sign.  Without Skattebo I think he be just end up a decent, slightly above average QB.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

For my own wonderment, do you guys think if they had called the targeting against bond that it would have been ruled after the change of possession, or would we have kept the ball?  The hit seemed to happen after the db caught it but before he landed and established the catch and the hit for sure prevented bond from making a play on the ball or defender to break it up. 

I believe it would have meant maintaining possession and 15 yards from the previous line of scrimmage,

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

He's an ass to his teammates during games, I don't see that as a good sign.  Without Skattebo I think he be just end up a decent, slightly above average QB.

Maybe. He showed some good escapability. Didn't know he was an ass to his teammates. I did see him say "come on!" Several times when it was his fault. But he was working with below average WR's 

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...