Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 358 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:02 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Posts: 1627
We wont have time to be inept like we were today to still hang with the evil empire. Play like today and we'll be down by 21+ in the 2nd quarter.

_________________
|~=[==~||~==]=~|
||Tfs LnD ] [ HAWKS||
RIP BFS. He was kind of a douche, but he was our kind of a douche.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:03 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:24 am
Posts: 597
The Ducks game is at home. We will come out and play well.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:05 pm 
US Navy ET Nuc
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:29 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: Orting WA, Great Northwet
Holy shit. Why bother playing the game when the goddamn outcome is predetermined by the Pac 12? That so-called "official review" was ludicrous. What does it mean to be out of challenges, when the league has your frickin' back?!?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:10 pm 
NET Practice Squad
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:38 pm
Posts: 93
Personally I thought the ball hit the grass before it was controlled, by the back angle at-least. Tough way for it to end. You guys played a hell of a game though.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:23 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm
Posts: 1184
While I could very easily argue there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call, thus making it a bad call, I would bet anybody 100/1 that the ball hit the ground first, so I can't bring myself to complain about it.

The Huskies are the better team, I have no doubt, but made wayyyy too many mistakes. How many dumb penalties? How many drops? Four bad plays in the kicking game. Tonight was proof that no matter how incredible of a game you play, you can't beat a good team when you can't limit the mistakes.

I want #7 for Stanford on the Hawks.

Bring on the zeroes.

_________________
Ummm, no sig to see here, especially not a sig referring to Tarvaris Jackson in any way.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:28 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:20 pm
Posts: 1453
the call should've stood but TBH the game shouldn't have come down to it, stupid decisions to pooch kick, kickoff coverage, penalties, and dropped passes cost UW this game


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:40 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:24 am
Posts: 597
Good game all, time to get pumped up for the Hawks game tomorrow. These Dawgs are only getting better.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:48 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:20 pm
Posts: 31
The ball clearly hit the ground between his hands. It was the correct call. The refs didn't cost the game, it was dropped balls and special teams.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:20 am 
*BRONZE SUPPORTER*
*BRONZE SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:37 am
Posts: 1314
It may have hit the ground but I didn't see enough evidence to overturn it. Even on a 60" plasma you could see ball but nothing to prove without a doubt that it touched.

And that's the problem they have to know for sure to overturn it and you can't say for 100% sure that it did touch. They got hosed.

If the ruling on the field originally was that it was dropped and then the replay came back saying it hit the ground that would have been fine. But the original call was a catch and there just wasn't enough proof to overrule the ruling on the field.

_________________
The LOLs of the many outweigh the shame of the few


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:23 am 
* NET GIF Master *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:48 am
Posts: 846
Msfann wrote:
It may have hit the ground but I didn't see enough evidence to overturn it. Even on a 60" plasma you could see ball but nothing to prove without a doubt that it touched.

And that's the problem they have to know for sure to overturn it and you can't say for 100% sure that it did touch. They got hosed.

If the ruling on the field originally was that it was dropped and then the replay came back saying it hit the ground that would have been fine. But the original call was a catch and there just wasn't enough proof to overrule the ruling on the field.


Exactly. I don't see how anyone can argue with this.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:27 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:47 am
Posts: 523
At some point the refs have to just swallow their whistles and let the teams play. The refs were calling the game way too tight, the Pac-12 will never be considered a physical conference like the SEC when our league's refs are throwing flags like they are the stars of the game. If those refs were police officers, they would ticket a firetruck for double-parking even if the fire fighters were putting out a fire or give you a speeding ticket for going 1 mph over the speed limit.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:51 am 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:38 pm
Posts: 5389
Location: Hagerstown, MD
It'll be interesting to see how far the pollsters drop Washington after this loss. I say they drop to #21.

_________________
Image
You are absolutely entitled to state your opinion whenever you wish, and I am absolutely entitled to point out the stupidity of that opinion with the same frequency.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:05 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm
Posts: 1418
Such a horribly officiated game. Thinking about it, I'm not sure what was worse, last night's game or SB XL...

I'm being honest, the last time I saw as many one sided phantom calls was our SB. And for the refs to decide the outcome, withOUT conclusive evidence was beyond ridiculous. Just absolutely pathetic.

_________________
SUPERBOWL!!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:07 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm
Posts: 1418
seahawk2k wrote:
This isn't a conversation if ASJ makes that catch.

BS. The same can be said for almost any play that didn't result in a TD. Or if we didn't allow the first return TD or if we didn't allow that last TD before half.

Who cares about the plays that "coulda should woulda" the play that mattered was the 4th and 10. Where there was NO CONCLUSIVE evidence to overturn the call on the field, NONE.

_________________
SUPERBOWL!!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:11 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Posts: 1627
SeatownJay wrote:
It'll be interesting to see how far the pollsters drop Washington after this loss. I say they drop to #21.
17 I say, they barely lost to #5

Side note, I've never seen yesterday's officiating crew until yesterday. Are they new? Think Stanford faked 3 injuries there at the end without being charged a single timeout.

_________________
|~=[==~||~==]=~|
||Tfs LnD ] [ HAWKS||
RIP BFS. He was kind of a douche, but he was our kind of a douche.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:13 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Posts: 1627
Hawkfan77 wrote:
seahawk2k wrote:
This isn't a conversation if ASJ makes that catch.

BS. The same can be said for almost any play that didn't result in a TD. Or if we didn't allow the first return TD or if we didn't allow that last TD before half.

Who cares about the plays that "coulda should woulda" the play that mattered was the 4th and 10. Where there was NO CONCLUSIVE evidence to overturn the call on the field, NONE.
except the shot from behind with half the football on the grass. That looked pretty obvious to this husky fan. And that was a killer drop by a TE many want in the first round. Soooooo I care

_________________
|~=[==~||~==]=~|
||Tfs LnD ] [ HAWKS||
RIP BFS. He was kind of a douche, but he was our kind of a douche.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:18 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:44 am
Posts: 1123
Location: Newberg, Oregon
They only dropped 1 spot to 16, awsome


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:10 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 4667
Location: The 5-0
Tical21 wrote:
While I could very easily argue there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call, thus making it a bad call, I would bet anybody 100/1 that the ball hit the ground first, so I can't bring myself to complain about it.

The Huskies are the better team, I have no doubt, but made wayyyy too many mistakes. How many dumb penalties? How many drops? Four bad plays in the kicking game. Tonight was proof that no matter how incredible of a game you play, you can't beat a good team when you can't limit the mistakes.

.


Excellent post. We need to limit the errors and just as Price had to learn to trust the play calling (last year), Sark has to trust his team this year. I think we're better than he thinks we are. He needs to instill discipline, then let 'em play real football. Cut the cute shit, Sark.

I was very hard on Sark last night after that dumbass pooch kick....but he does deserve a lot of credit for fielding a very good, young team. My desire to send Sark packing isn't all about Sark. It's about my belief that we will have to ultimately decide between he and Wilcox for HC. I don't want to be without Wilcox, so I am likely extra-critical of Sark.

Great game Dawgs. You're better than your record.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 358 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bigpumpkin, Blitzer88, Donk70, hawknation2014, IrishNW, kearly, Natethegreat, Rob_Grimm, ruffENrowdy, Smellyman, TheWebHead and 19 guests

 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.