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 9:37 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:38 pm
Posts: 5422
Location: Hagerstown, MD
Onside kick?

_________________
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: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:37 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:24 am
Posts: 597
JSeahawks wrote:
ClumsyLurk wrote:
ASJ is having a down year, no.?


Square peg in a round hole in this offense.


Took the words right out of my mouth, sir. Spot on. :th2thumbs:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:37 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Posts: 1627
Onsides kick... Get it, profit

_________________
|~=[==~||~==]=~|
||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 9:37 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:24 am
Posts: 597
SeatownJay wrote:
Onside kick?


Yes, you need a 3 and out anyhow..


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:38 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Posts: 1627
I think they played it right. Since Montgomery didn't score

_________________
|~=[==~||~==]=~|
||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 9:42 pm 
* Report Button *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm
Posts: 9923
Just go for the TD. Period...end of story.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:42 pm 
* NET Moderator *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Man, dumb play call by Stanford. That off tackle play from the power formation has been working all night. Why go away from it?

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:43 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:24 am
Posts: 597
Here we go Keith... here is your shot to show the scouts what you got.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:44 pm 
* Report Button *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm
Posts: 9923
Why did the clock still run anyways?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:44 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:38 pm
Posts: 5422
Location: Hagerstown, MD
That's a catch.

_________________
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: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:44 pm 
* Report Button *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm
Posts: 9923
Elbow hit...that's a catch.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:44 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:24 am
Posts: 597
Totally a catch!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:44 pm 
* NET Moderator *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Hands landed at the same time inbounds and out of bounds. Not sure what the ruling is on that.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:45 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:38 pm
Posts: 5422
Location: Hagerstown, MD
pehawk wrote:
Why did the clock still run anyways?

Because the penalty was declined.

_________________
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: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:48 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Posts: 1627
Looks incomplete to me

_________________
|~=[==~||~==]=~|
||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 9:48 pm 
* NET Moderator *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Ball hit the grass. Sorry.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:48 pm 
*The Prophet*
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:43 pm
Posts: 857
game not over yet.

_________________
Joe


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:49 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
Posts: 2824
Location: Seattle
Not a catch but they might get away with it.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:50 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:38 pm
Posts: 5422
Location: Hagerstown, MD
Make a decision already!

_________________
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: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:50 pm 
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:16 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Lacey, WA
JSeahawks wrote:
Ball hit the grass. Sorry.


Doesn't matter as long as Smith had control of it, which to me it appeared he did.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:50 pm 
* NET Moderator *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Spounge84 wrote:
JSeahawks wrote:
Ball hit the grass. Sorry.


Doesn't matter as long as Smith had control of it, which to me it appeared he did.


Yes it does, because it hit the grass before it hit his arms. It was lying on the ground between his arms then he scooped it up.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:51 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Posts: 1627
God I hate these refs, and I hate our special teams. Good night sirs.

_________________
|~=[==~||~==]=~|
||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 9:51 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 10:34 pm
Posts: 1085
oh that's phreaking bull####!!!!!!!!!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:51 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 1320
Location: Delaware
Damn. That's a crusher.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:51 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 10:34 pm
Posts: 1085
phyreaking @@@@oles


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:51 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am
Posts: 3100
Not enough to overturn if those are the only angles. Not indisputable.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:52 pm 
*BRONZE SUPPORTER*
*BRONZE SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:37 am
Posts: 1314
screw that bullshit, there wasn't enough evidence to overturn that

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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:52 pm 
* NET Moderator *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
DavidSeven wrote:
Not enough to overturn if those are the only angles. Not indisputable.


The angle from behind it was obvious.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:52 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:32 pm
Posts: 1628
Location: East Oly
Makeup call for "confirmed" catch where half of the receiver's body was dragging out of bounds before a single thread touched in bounds.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:52 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:41 pm
Posts: 1588
Didn't see it definitively hit the ground, they must have had a different camera angle, feel like the Huskies kind of got hosed there.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:53 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Online

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:46 pm
Posts: 3363
Location: WA
Yeah, that's crazy to reverse the call w/ those angles. No idea how they had the balls to do that. ASJ kinda hosed us on that drive...

_________________
RockHawk wrote:
This has turned into nothing but a personal attack, which goes against our forum rules...... I'll allow it.


Last edited by Laloosh on Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:54 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:24 am
Posts: 597
They should have left it how they called it. There was not enough evidence to support that it hit the ground. Oh well, great game by the Dawgs. Oregon next.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:55 pm 
* NET Moderator *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Great game. Fun thread. I like you guys. Too bad I have to hate you for the next week.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:55 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:36 pm
Posts: 1609
The allegedly great TE ASJ should have caught the easy pass instead of relying on the 4th down play. Hit the ground anyways.

4-1


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:56 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:41 pm
Posts: 1588
This isn't a conversation if ASJ makes that catch.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:57 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am
Posts: 2230
Robbed.

Why do Pac 12 refs suck so freaking bad? year after year it's a joke.

Here's a hint for the Pac 12 refs: if a player is REALLY injured and not just faking it because they can't keep up with the offense, they dont roll around on the ground like a child in a sand box, repeatedly putting their weight on a possible injury. They lay prone not moving because movign makes it hurt. and if they are in such pain that they are writhing around on the ground,t hey aren't going to be ready to go in after one play off.

get it together.

but most importantly, this:

Quote:
This isn't a conversation if ASJ makes that catch.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:59 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm
Posts: 1627
Special teams is directly responsible for 7 (I count 14) points today. Shouldn't have been down to begin with.

And the refs. OHHH goodness the refs. I believe it was in the 2nd quarter we had that filthy block on special teams called a personal foul. That was atrocious. As was their presence the entire first half the of the game.

_________________
|~=[==~||~==]=~|
||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 9:59 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:38 pm
Posts: 5422
Location: Hagerstown, MD
This team's going to be pissed off for next week's game against Oregon.

_________________
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: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:00 pm 
*BRONZE SUPPORTER*
*BRONZE SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:37 am
Posts: 1314
SeatownJay wrote:
This team's going to be pissed off for next week's game against Oregon.


They will be really screwed if they have to play vs Oregon and the bs ref's again.

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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Stanford vs Washington
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:01 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:12 pm
Posts: 1401
Location: Seattle (From Spokane)
Definitely thought there wasn't enough evidence to overturn that. We shouldn't have even needed a 4th down conversion though because ASJ should've caught that pass. :229031_banghead:

_________________
Tru2RedNGold25 wrote:
Us as Niners fan have every right to rep Niners all day everyday when we have the hardware to back it up do can u guys say that???


Top 
 Profile  
 
 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: 3859
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: 97
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: 1190
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
Online

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:20 pm
Posts: 1458
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: 850
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  
 
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: bbsplitter, CPHawk, General Manager, InadvertentSmell, Mtjhoyas, pugs1, Veilside, Wenhawk and 14 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.