buckeyesin07
Veni. Vidi. Vici.
Jaxbuck;2259274; said:Indeed.
1993 and 1998 used the old "most recent" rule to get to a RB.
That rule is the dumbest rule ever when it comes to deciding a conference's bowl participation, IMO.
Upvote
0
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Jaxbuck;2259274; said:Indeed.
1993 and 1998 used the old "most recent" rule to get to a RB.
buckeyesin07;2259284; said:That rule is the dumbest rule ever when it comes to deciding a conference's bowl participation, IMO.
Mike80;2259247; said:I'm a little more disappointed by what we saw from the defense (the scheme, not the players) on the final drive in regulation for Wisconsin. Their QB got hot and our DBs were 7-10 yards off of the receivers seemingly every play.
buckeyesin07;2259304; said:I'm sure this has been discussed earlier in the thread, but anyone have a sense of why the replay official didn't overturn the Wisconsin TE's fumble in the 2nd half? It seemed pretty clear that no part of the player had hit the ground prior to the ball getting loose.
Bucknut24;2259308; said:I personally still thought it was too close to overturn
There has to be incontrovertible evidence to overturn, and the evidence just wasn't clear enough.buckeyesin07;2259311; said:What does that mean? You think there was some part of the player that could have been down that you couldn't see, and therefore it had to stand as called on the field? I'm not arguing with you, just trying to see your point of view, because that's got to be how the replay official thought.
buckeyesin07;2259304; said:I'm sure this has been discussed earlier in the thread, but anyone have a sense of why the replay official didn't overturn the Wisconsin TE's fumble in the 2nd half? It seemed pretty clear that no part of the player had hit the ground prior to the ball getting loose.
buckeyesin07;2259311; said:What does that mean? You think there was some part of the player that could have been down that you couldn't see, and therefore it had to stand as called on the field? I'm not arguing with you, just trying to see your point of view, because that's got to be how the replay official thought.
Bucknut24;2259318; said:I believe if the calf is touching the ground, he's down, correct?
If that's the case, I couldn't quite tell if the calf was actually touching or not, it was awfully close..I just thought the whole time it was one of those where the ruling on the field would have stood (if it was ruled a fumble, it woulda stood as a fumble)
It's just hard for me to get upset over that type of ruling when I couldn't even tell. I get more [censored]ed at their dumbass "judgement" calls
So, to summarize, Zach Boren applied the Camel Clutch to Montee Ball?LordJeffBuck;2259326; said:A few thoughts on yesterday's game....
lvbuckeye;2259144; said:Why is everyone criticizing the coaching staff? Herman wasn't out there making bad reads and looking completely lost....