ADVERTISEMENT

That’s 100 % targeting

I'm not trying to argue because I find the rule difficult to understand. But I thought there was some requirement that the defender had to launch himself (i.e., "target") at the other player. To me, that play looked like there was no time to avoid hitting him.
Its open to interpretation I guess. Do you remember S. Tuitt's targeting call when it was against I think Pitt and Tuitt was engaged with a lineman falling down and his helmet just happened to hit the QB's head. Most ridiculous call ever.
  • Like
Reactions: THUNDERSTRUCK111

Oregon is not ready to play

He can recruit and that's it! He lost to a shitty UM team 2.5 games ago!!!
F+ says otherwise.

OSU has been the #1 team in the F+ system since early season.

You can't "recruit your way" to a top F+ (although having really good football players certainly helps). You have to out produce the rest of the field to achieve a #1 F+ ranking. You are not giving OSU the respect they deserve.

That’s 100 % targeting

You are mistaken. The defender hit the receiver helmet to helmet! I believe you will see a lot of proof of that in the following days.
I'm not trying to argue because I find the rule difficult to understand. But I thought there was some requirement that the defender had to launch himself (i.e., "target") at the other player. To me, that play looked like there was no time to avoid hitting him.

Game moved to Thursday Night

Unlike you, I am waiting for more facts of the investigation to be released before I make any type of judgement - maybe you should try that sometime! And how does waiting for facts make me a conformist?

Your conflation of what you consider the "labeling" of terrorism and actual criminal charges fits into your narrative, but itis very short on actual fact.
I think I already made clear I'm not going to do that. Notwithstanding your recommendation that I 'try it sometime'. Because in the unlikely event that it was part of an actual terrorist plot, what bad happens, how did I ruin anything? Is the guy going to get away if I don't take the cops at their word, and reject their cynical and almost certainly inaccurate characterization of this random truck rampage in our collapsing society as a terrorist attack, or maybe an 'act of terror', which would be subtly but perhaps crucially different semantically.

Oh, I get it, you just want me to display unquestioning deference and servility to the police and federal authorities. And you feel resentment and vexation when anyone else around you doesn't demonstrate the same servility. Even though I totally explained myself, and I was so verbose! Doesn't make any difference to you. You want that docility. Good for the goose, good for the gander, eh? What makes me so much better than you that I get to scoff at the cops? Just because you don't have the balls to. I think that's what it is. But you do you, sir.
  • Haha
Reactions: PHJIndy
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT