re: Not an excuse, a fact. The refs changed the outcome of this game.

quote:

---

You’re confusing “not unprecedented” with “not an outlier.”

---

The fact minimal offensive penalties happen every week destroys the argument that how UK was called last night was somehow bad, based on minimal offensive penalties being called.

quote:

---

So it’s very rare

---

Not if it's happening every week

quote:

---

It’s almost like the officials subjectively decided to be looser with their calls.

Weird how that happens.

---

And the pivot begins

quote:

---

The irony.

---

There is no irony.

You still haven't explained how the refs were against LSU when they kept making terrible calls that were pro-LSU

quote:

---

All penalties have subjectivity. Literally every single one.

---

You're pivoting to enforcement again

quote:

---

You still haven't explained how the refs were against LSU when they kept making terrible calls that were pro-LSU

---

I never said they were explicitly against LSU.

quote:

---

You're pivoting to enforcement again

---

So, again, I never pivoted away from enforcement.

You’re the only one not talking about enforcement.

SFP to SFP:

quote:

---

The fact minimal offensive penalties happen every week destroys the argument

---

You’ve changed “zero” to “minimal” and substituted “happens every week” for evidence of frequency. Neither answers the statistical question.

A low penalty count alone doesn’t prove bad officiating. Other teams having low counts doesn’t prove Kentucky’s game was correctly officiated, either. Were actual penalties missed? That requires examining the plays.

You’re displaying the same failure of analysis you keep accusing everyone else of. Your emotional investment in being the board’s lone rational intellectual appears to be compromising your reasoning.

I can explain the distinction. I can’t comprehend it for you.

Yeah, just like the Saints. Whenever they lose, it’s because of the sinister refs.

quote:

---

You would argue with the sun for rising

I don’t have the energy for your nerd contrarian shite

If you think the ref situation was fine I’m happy for you

It’s fricking amazing that everyone here knows exactly what your arguments will be in these threads

Goddamn you must be a shitty lawyer

---

He is the typical lawyer. He cannot help himself, I don't recall him ever agreeing with someone's take or position on anything. He has to be a miserable person going through being a perpetual contrarian.

quote:

---

Did you watch the game? Do you understand the rules? The targeting was clearly not targeting in real time

---

Do you understand rules? Because a large portion of the rule book is dedicated to targeting, it is a point of emphasis to eliminate targeting, and the rules put it plainly “when in question, it is a foul”. I don’t know how much more simple it can be made, they essentially say in the rule book to call it if in question, and it will be reviewed to confirm. It’s just a basic part of the game.

Which brings up another point -rule 4 section 1 article 3.a “declare it dead:
a. When it goes out of bounds other than a kick that scores a field goal after
touching the uprights or crossbar; when a ball carrier is out of bounds;
or when a ball carrier is so held that their forward progress is stopped. When
in question, the ball is dead (A.R. 4-2-1-II).

The goal line play should have been called dead. The players forward progress had stopped, so he is by rule defenseless, and it is by rule not legal to jump on top of a pile. There was no other way to stop him

It was a bad call. You are countering that with two examples of on field calls that were actually reversed. Your logic is hard to follow, and your use of the word “facts” is likewise hard to understand.