Truly incredible that we only lost by 7 pts given these 2 stats.
Last edited:
Thread to share videos of the Baylor game fix
- Thread starter HFCS
- Start date
Example is somebody just posted first half officiating had no impact on third quarter. That absolutely ludicrous bending the fabric of reality stupid apologist thinking for a dozen reasons and I’ll spare you from listing them out.
The game was not fixed, see both of J Brock's "touchdowns". Just stop.
That was targeting and he should have been disqualified. Baylor had 4-5 of them in the game that met the definition but nothing called.
O
It’s almost like Baylor didn’t actually “dominate” the game and some people are telling themselves that to ease the blow of what really happened.
It’s almost like Baylor didn’t actually “dominate” the game and some people are telling themselves that to ease the blow of what really happened.
Wtf are you talking about, somebody just posted conclusive evidence on the fumble recovery.
Get back to your rape coverups or Spencer Petras, whichever your troll persuasion may be.
Consistent one sided incompetence is actually impossible by definition.
A biased ref is a certainty, everybody has biases.
A fix is possible.
No.......not at all. That is what most think.......right? So eliminate it and think of what else, however improbable could explain it. You come to bias which in my book is just as bad as fix.
I do think that is targeting by rule….. I just can’t figure out why the 3 worse targeting hits by Baylor weren’t called? That’s my biggest issue.
We are agreeing. My post is for those who think it isn't, and that there is no difference in the end between either.
I think it was 100% fixed, someone wanted the Baylor ML to hit and the refs were going to make sure it happened. The only reason there were less terrible calls in the second half was because they already had the desired outcome. If we had got the ball back with a chance to tie, you would have seen flags to kill any potential game tying drive.
The only thing we know for sure is there were different sets of football rules for the two defenses and that goes way beyond targeting.
Did anyone else think it was odd when the ref came back on the targeting call and did not announce the targeting was confirmed, but said the replay officials have determined targeting, or something like that. I know the ref's on the field didn't call it, but I wonder if the referee disagreed with the booth, but got overruled? I was at the game and I thought it sounded strange at the time.
I don't understand the targeting call any more when it comes to RBs running the ball. It seems like with them it should only be helmet to helmet kind of stuff. I don't think either should have been called targeting. How do you bring down a big running back? You can't stay standing straight up. Taught to lean in but keep head up. I don't know. I think with RBs it should be anything helmet to helmet.
The booth guy trumps the on field guys. Anyone know who the booth guy was for this one?
Was this worse than the Allen Lazard no PI call against K state? It’s close
