Ohio State vs Clemson game thread

[dkeener67]

You can debate all the blown/missed calls/fumbles, but even with all those, the Buckeyes had the game until the D ***** the bed on the 95 yard 4 play drive.
That's inexcusable. Why didn't the D coordinators make an adjustment earlier in the game and spy the QB who was running all over the place?

***** the bed? Inexcusable? I disagree. Clemson is pretty good. You mentioned it was a four play  drive. It was in fact. And how did they score? Because they spied the quarterback and he threw a jump pass over the linebackers for a touchdown. 
And how was he running all over the place earlier in the game? He wasnâ€t. Buckeyes held him in check until that targeting penalty. gaining 3 or four or 5 yards is not running all over the place. If that were the case, they just would have scored.

[ScarletHayes]

Ya know, when SJW's deconstruct our society that's one thing, but when replay is ruining the sport I love?  Now you've crossed the line.  


The funny thing is that I actually thought I was getting to the point where I was confident in how replay would judge a play.  Now?  I don't know what the hell to expect.  If someone asked me to tell you the elements of a catch today?  Not a clue.  The old days it was just simply ya catch the ball and it was a catch.  Now?  You tell me.  Incontrovertible evidence?  Please.

[dkeener67]

Ya know, when SJW's deconstruct our society that's one thing, but when replay is ruining the sport I love?  Now you've crossed the line.  


The funny thing is that I actually thought I was getting to the point where I was confident in how replay would judge a play.  Now?  I don't know what the hell to expect.  If someone asked me to tell you the elements of a catch today?  Not a clue.  The old days it was just simply ya catch the ball and it was a catch.  Now?  You tell me.  Incontrovertible evidence?  Please.

The replay official said he was juggling the ball or something to that effect.  We all watched the game, and we know that he had firm control of the ball the whole time and took three or four steps. So what does that tell you? It tells me that the official was lying through his teeth. Now the question is why, was he paid off, was he trying to create the ESPN dream matchup of SEC vs ACC?  I mean thatâ€s a blatant lie.
I wonder if heâ€s a soccer ref also. Thatâ€s the kind of crap that goes on in soccer.

[ScarletHayes]

Ya know, when SJW's deconstruct our society that's one thing, but when replay is ruining the sport I love?  Now you've crossed the line.  


The funny thing is that I actually thought I was getting to the point where I was confident in how replay would judge a play.  Now?  I don't know what the hell to expect.  If someone asked me to tell you the elements of a catch today?  Not a clue.  The old days it was just simply ya catch the ball and it was a catch.  Now?  You tell me.  Incontrovertible evidence?  Please.

The replay official said he was juggling the ball or something to that effect.  We all watched the game, and we know that he had firm control of the ball the whole time and took three or four steps. So what does that tell you? It tells me that the official was lying through his teeth. Now the question is why, was he paid off, was he trying to create the ESPN dream matchup of SEC vs ACC?  I mean thatâ€s a blatant lie.
I wonder if heâ€s a soccer ref also. Thatâ€s the kind of crap that goes on in soccer.

If he said that, he wasn't watching the same replay we all saw.  Someone has to pay for this "mistake."  This needs to be addressed.  You can't just say, oh well he saw him juggle the ball when no one else this side of Rece Davis saw that.  

It takes incontrovertible evidence to overturn a call on the field.  There was NONE.  There wasn't even scant evidence.

[lrrps21]

Ya know, when SJW's deconstruct our society that's one thing, but when replay is ruining the sport I love?  Now you've crossed the line.  


The funny thing is that I actually thought I was getting to the point where I was confident in how replay would judge a play.  Now?  I don't know what the hell to expect.  If someone asked me to tell you the elements of a catch today?  Not a clue.  The old days it was just simply ya catch the ball and it was a catch.  Now?  You tell me.  Incontrovertible evidence?  Please.

The replay official said he was juggling the ball or something to that effect.  We all watched the game, and we know that he had firm control of the ball the whole time and took three or four steps. So what does that tell you? It tells me that the official was lying through his teeth. Now the question is why, was he paid off, was he trying to create the ESPN dream matchup of SEC vs ACC?  I mean thatâ€s a blatant lie.
I wonder if heâ€s a soccer ref also. Thatâ€s the kind of crap that goes on in soccer.

Remember when the East German or Russian judge would put up a 2 when the other judges put up a 5? It's that bad.

[Soupcity Kid]

Ya know, when SJW's deconstruct our society that's one thing, but when replay is ruining the sport I love?  Now you've crossed the line.  


The funny thing is that I actually thought I was getting to the point where I was confident in how replay would judge a play.  Now?  I don't know what the hell to expect.  If someone asked me to tell you the elements of a catch today?  Not a clue.  The old days it was just simply ya catch the ball and it was a catch.  Now?  You tell me.  Incontrovertible evidence?  Please.

The replay official said he was juggling the ball or something to that effect.  We all watched the game, and we know that he had firm control of the ball the whole time and took three or four steps. So what does that tell you? It tells me that the official was lying through his teeth. Now the question is why, was he paid off, was he trying to create the ESPN dream matchup of SEC vs ACC?  I mean thatâ€s a blatant lie.
I wonder if heâ€s a soccer ref also. Thatâ€s the kind of crap that goes on in soccer.

Remember when the East German or Russian judge would put up a 2 when the other judges put up a 5? It's that bad.

Excellent point.  Like the time keeper in the US vs USSR BB game in the 72 Olympics

[BigDroppa]

There was no juggling the ball. It was a clear grab and caught ball and then a separation of the hand and ball by the defenders hand. This is after 3 steps, which we thought was the ruling along with a football move which is supposedly is turning up field

The over ruling of the referee team on the field by the replay booth was clearly having an effect on the outcome of the game and affecting the momentum swings of the game. In addition it was the second time they would be taking points off the scoreboard.

[ScarletHayes]

There was no juggling the ball. It was a clear grab and caught ball and then a separation of the hand and ball by the defenders hand. This is after 3 steps, which we thought was the ruling along with a football move which is supposedly is turning up field

The over ruling of the referee team on the field by the replay booth was clearly having an effect on the outcome of the game and affecting the momentum swings of the game.  In addition it was the second time they would be taking points off the scoreboard.

Biggest momentum swing was the targeting call which was not called on the field.  That one completely flipped the momentum.  We were looking at possibly being up 23-0 going into halftime.  The instant after that sack Clemson was demoralized.  THAT call there?  The more I think about it!  

Technically, yeah, it was helmet to helmet, but can we at least address the COMMON SENSE scenario of when a ball carrier lowers his body/head?  Can we be big boys and acknowledge that after the defender already committed to making the tackle (in real speed, Mr LaMonnier!) and the ball carrier ducks that it is no longer targeting?  The very definition of the word dispels that that would be targeting.  What the OU kid did vs the LSU kid was textbook targeting.  What we had used to simply be called a sack.  

Man I'm getting pissed off now just rehashing this.  

[BigDroppa]

There was no juggling the ball. It was a clear grab and caught ball and then a separation of the hand and ball by the defenders hand. This is after 3 steps, which we thought was the ruling along with a football move which is supposedly is turning up field

The over ruling of the referee team on the field by the replay booth was clearly having an effect on the outcome of the game and affecting the momentum swings of the game.  In addition it was the second time they would be taking points off the scoreboard.

Biggest momentum swing was the targeting call which was not called on the field.  That one completely flipped the momentum.  We were looking at possibly being up 23-0 going into halftime.  The instant after that sack Clemson was demoralized.  THAT call there?  The more I think about it!  

Technically, yeah, it was helmet to helmet, but can we at least address the COMMON SENSE scenario of when a ball carrier lowers his body/head?  Can we be big boys and acknowledge that after the defender already committed to making the tackle (in real speed, Mr LaMonnier!) and the ball carrier ducks that it is no longer targeting?  The very definition of the word dispels that that would be targeting.  What the OU kid did vs the LSU kid was textbook targeting.  What we had used to simply be called a sack.  

Man I'm getting pissed off now just rehashing this.  

 
 The JK TD was more of the nuance of the rule.  A Ball carrier can leap and extend the balk and when it breaks the plane can have the ball swatted out of his hands and on any other play would be a fumble. JK could have flown through the air like Superman and land beyond the back of the end zone but if he traps it, itâ€s no catch. 


So Iâ€m agreeing to the call and disappointed it wasnâ€t a TD but OSU was clearly dominating Clemson then the next FG and with the feeling of unfortunate plays and questionable calls going against OSU , Iâ€m thinking it will take its toll on this team when Clemson finally gets a big play. 

I thought to myself these 3 FG instead of touchdowns reminded me of that Michigan game I believe was in 97/98. 

The targeting call was a farce. Itâ€s a blitz and the player is going full speed. It wasnâ€t like the old call spearing and the QB is not standing still. The defender are taught to hit with the shoulder pads and place the helmet in the front, not trying to use the helmet at all but if the QB is moving and spinning sometimes the contact will be with the helmet when you have a moving target. You canâ€t expect defenders to tackle by belly flop. A QB standing in the pocket is one thing but when he starts moving he is a ball carrier.  Like you said, it really affected the outcome of the game and momentum. Great play and great stop and terrific ferocity.  Nope. Not having that. New set of downs for Clemson and weâ€re ejecting youâ€re best DB who is a midget compared to Lawrence.  

OSU has plenty of chances to win the game and failed to make the plays. I get that  

But they were fighting two opponents and when you look back at the scoop and score and targeting the SEC gods in the booth werenâ€t having any of this OSU team winning. Every call went against OSU and twice , OSU points were taken off the scoreboard overruling the call in the field. They can have the JK trap. However,  The feeling with the booth crew was a that it was farce. It was not letting the players play or the refs call the game , they were inserting themselves into the game and putting their thumb in the scale.   

it pisses me off because this is one of the most talented teams who should have been playing for the Natty. This loss hurt 

You know the Saints got robbed last year. That was a bitter pill for Saint fans to swallow. It should have been Brees vs Brady and their should have been 6 Buckeyes in the SuperBowl.

[dkeener67]

Ya know, when SJW's deconstruct our society that's one thing, but when replay is ruining the sport I love?  Now you've crossed the line.  


The funny thing is that I actually thought I was getting to the point where I was confident in how replay would judge a play.  Now?  I don't know what the hell to expect.  If someone asked me to tell you the elements of a catch today?  Not a clue.  The old days it was just simply ya catch the ball and it was a catch.  Now?  You tell me.  Incontrovertible evidence?  Please.

The replay official said he was juggling the ball or something to that effect.  We all watched the game, and we know that he had firm control of the ball the whole time and took three or four steps. So what does that tell you? It tells me that the official was lying through his teeth. Now the question is why, was he paid off, was he trying to create the ESPN dream matchup of SEC vs ACC?  I mean thatâ€s a blatant lie.
I wonder if heâ€s a soccer ref also. Thatâ€s the kind of crap that goes on in soccer.

If he said that, he wasn't watching the same replay we all saw.  Someone has to pay for this "mistake."  This needs to be addressed.  You can't just say, oh well he saw him juggle the ball when no one else this side of Rece Davis saw that.  

It takes incontrovertible evidence to overturn a call on the field.  There was NONE.  There wasn't even scant evidence.

The ref said “when he moved, the ball was becoming loose in his hands. Therefore he did not complete the process of the catch”. Replay refs name is Ken Williamson. This is an absolute lie, thereâ€s no way anybody who watch that replay could come to that decision. So why did he say that? Because he had an ulterior motive thatâ€s why.

[sparky454]

Ya know, when SJW's deconstruct our society that's one thing, but when replay is ruining the sport I love?  Now you've crossed the line.  


The funny thing is that I actually thought I was getting to the point where I was confident in how replay would judge a play.  Now?  I don't know what the hell to expect.  If someone asked me to tell you the elements of a catch today?  Not a clue.  The old days it was just simply ya catch the ball and it was a catch.  Now?  You tell me.  Incontrovertible evidence?  Please.

The replay official said he was juggling the ball or something to that effect.  We all watched the game, and we know that he had firm control of the ball the whole time and took three or four steps. So what does that tell you? It tells me that the official was lying through his teeth. Now the question is why, was he paid off, was he trying to create the ESPN dream matchup of SEC vs ACC?  I mean thatâ€s a blatant lie.
I wonder if heâ€s a soccer ref also. Thatâ€s the kind of crap that goes on in soccer.

If he said that, he wasn't watching the same replay we all saw.  Someone has to pay for this "mistake."  This needs to be addressed.  You can't just say, oh well he saw him juggle the ball when no one else this side of Rece Davis saw that.  

It takes incontrovertible evidence to overturn a call on the field.  There was NONE.  There wasn't even scant evidence.

The ref said “when he moved, the ball was becoming loose in his hands. Therefore he did not complete the process of the catch”. Replay refs name is Ken Williamson. This is an absolute lie, thereâ€s no way anybody who watch that replay could come to that decision. So why did he say that? Because he had ulterio motive thatâ€s why.

What happens in the south stays in the south.

[BigDroppa]

The replay booth had a huge effect in the game. Thatâ€s not what instant replay was supposed to be

[dkeener67]

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/...e-football

Kind of puts it all in perspective doesnâ€t it?
Iâ€m now sitting up here at a tree stand sniffling after reading that. Hope deer canâ€t smell snot/tears very well.