aOSU v Clemson
- Thread starter SkerInCo
- Start date
Right, they flew down the field and scored...well plus side is OSU has plenty of time to score themselves...lol
It's a shame Clemson scored a TD instead of kicking a last second FG. Day deserved to be punished for his ridiculous decision not to go for two, instead his offense will have a chance to bail him out.
As long as someone is still arguing with me when I know I'm right I'll respond. As to the question about the rule. Lawrence doesn't qualify as a defenseless player in this instance, as he wasn't in the process of throwing or hadn't just thrown. First the rule for targeting.
No form of the word "intentional" appears there, but it's pretty obvious with the phrase "target and make forcible contact" they are talking about an intentional play. More importantly, here's Note 1 mentioned in the rule.
It goes on to list possible indicators of targeting, which aren't really important here. Again, while no form of the word intentional appears here, it's painfully obvious that's what they are referencing. "Takes aim at opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle". Can't get much more obvious than that.
Oh too bad THE Osu. Your QB you shouldnt have had this season ended the game with a pick. Bummer.
What a finish. Herbstreit holding it in. Noticeably disappointed.
So satisfying that Kirk Herbstreit called this game from the penthouse suite and Urban Meyer was posted up on the sideline, lol. Couldn't have happened to a better couple of aOSU homers.
Great game, big moxy from Clemson.
Great game, big moxy from Clemson.
Wonderful argument, you really proved it there. I'm not wrong, I just used the literal rule from the actual rulebook to prove that intent matters on a targeting penalty. If you think I'm interpreting that wrong, prove it.
This is comedy gold. So even thought they didn't say "intentional" that's what they meant, huh? This has been fun but I'm going to bed.
Omg that ending was horribly rigged...LOL I don’t think they had miscommunication the whole game, what a time to have it, that looked like a touchdown otherwise
you heard it here on the husker board first folks----ncaa playoff game rigged by Coach Day, Fields and the OSU recievers oh ya and regular season games rigged by Frost, Walters, and Martinez L O L
OU would’ve been beaten handily by any of these three teams. LSU may ultimately win but that game wasn’t a good predictor of how they’d match up with either OSU or Clemson. Should be a fun game, OSU won both trenches pretty handily and still lost, don’t see that often. Clemson’s skill position talent is special
What an amazing game... so much better to watch that game... the one earlier was over by half time... sadly that will always be the case for big 12 teams if they don’t learn to play defense too...
On a side note congrats to OSU on a heck of a season, it sucks for it to end the way it did as that was a heck of a pass by fields, that was on the receiver, not sure why he broke it off but it looked as if fields would have lead that pass perfectly
On a side note congrats to OSU on a heck of a season, it sucks for it to end the way it did as that was a heck of a pass by fields, that was on the receiver, not sure why he broke it off but it looked as if fields would have lead that pass perfectly
When Fields releases the ball, if Olave stays on his post route I think that’s probably a TD for tOSU or a PI cause Olave had the route, he just got stupid at the end
It is comedy gold that you can't actually refute what I'm saying, so you just pretend you're right. "Takes aim at opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle". "Takes aim", "attacking with forcible contact" and "goes beyond making a legal tackle" are all phrases that directly go to intent to do something more than just a legal tackle. Occasionally in the English language, things are obviously implied without being directly stated. As I said once already, it's painfully obvious that rule is referring to intent to do something against the rules; not someone accidentally hitting someone with their helmet because the person they were trying to tackle ducked.
Last edited:
I think what’s crazy is that Fields hits Olave on a skinny post on 4th down in the 4th Q, and then he comes off his route on almost the same dam route with at the end of the game... Wat da fuk
I think it's hard to judge much from the LSU-OU game because OUs defense just isn't that good, made a very good LSU offense look unstoppable. May very well be a big LSU win. Can't really decide how I feel about the coming NC game. I never want to root for an SEC school, but at least it isn't Alabama, and I don't really want Clemson winning back to back, so I'll probably be behind LSU.
As for this game that just got over, if Dobbins just catches that screen pass where he could have walked into the endzone with all the blockers he had in front of him; or if Dobbins holds on to that TD pass that was overturned; or if Dobbins doesn't barely get caught from behind on that long run that led to a field goal; or if that Clemson linebacker doesn't barely make a shoestring tackle on Dobbins that turned what was devolping into a very long, possible TD run into a 5-yard gain; or a few other things that have already been beaten to death didn't happen, OSU wins this game. I think OSU was the better team; not by a ton, but the better team.
Love how you take something out of the rule book but leave out the part of it that ruins your argument. “When in question, it is a foul.” Where did that part go??
I left it out, because it was irrelevant. I was posting about the fact the rule clearly implies that intent is a factor in whether or not it is a foul, so I was posting what the rule stated towards that point. I also left out the parts about the defenseless player and some other parts of the rule. Practically every rule in the rule has that little line about "When in question, it is a foul" at the end. How exactly does that "ruin" my argument anyway? I don't see there as being any question. He went to lower his shoulder to make a perfectly legal tackle, Lawrence ducked, which suddenly brings his head in line instead of his torso, and there was contact. The refs on the field didn't seem to think anything looked strange, no flag was thrown. I know that's why they've added review for targeting, but that's more for stuff that might have been missed, there's no way that hit was missed, there are two refs standing behind the play that have a literal job of watching for stuff around the quarterback.
yea I’ve rewatched that a few times already and it just makes no sense with what he was doing, there was a lot of open space up top, if he finishes the route the worst case is olave stays on his feet and the pass is incomplete.
Yea if he staid on his feet and made that a double move to the corner route then olave makes that Clemson kid look silly as he stands all alone in the corner... but that was the wrong time of the game to try and get cute, plus he made that cut to the outside right when the ball was released... run your route all the way through, keeps and eye on the QB... that was just one big mental error on Olave’s part...
I think all Big Ten coaches need to get their collective head out of their asses. Big Ten schools choke in the big games. Ryan Day called an awful game. The Buckeyes should have won by 20 points
I always find it funny how so many people automatically blame the coaches when there is plenty of blame to put on the players. Day made a brilliant play call on that screen pass to Dobbins, it would have been an easy TD if Dobbins doesn't drop the ball. OSU's final play seemed to be a pretty good call, if the receiver continues his route to the right rather than breaking back to the left, that may very well have been a TD instead of an INT. Not every call was perfect, but they are never going to be.
The only things I would say I flat out disagreed with is not going for two after their final TD, although it didn't end up mattering; and going for the block on the play that resulted in the roughing penalty. While hindsight is always 20-20, I remember thinking before the play happened that they should go full on return. Clemson was fairly deep in their own territory, a situation where you either are getting good field position off a bad or mediocre punt; or the punter is out kicking his coverage, giving an opportunity for a good return. The game was too close at the point to risk getting a penalty like they did.
