Mavric

I was pretty sure that the change of possesion is right after the ball leaves the foot of the punter. I thought it was a bad call as far as us repunting the ball, but Stafford did something dumb, aggresive but dumb. yes, which is why when a team blocks in the back on punt returns it doesn't give the punting team a first down. Nope Possession doesn't change until a player on the receiving team gains control.

if your talking about that 2 pt conversion, that was Reed that went the wrong direction. Nope that's not what he's talking about. But I think Ben was expecting help from the OT right there too... Didn't get none... I'll blame them both for almost getting Martinez killed. I think that's the same play he and and the OT both pointed fingers at each other and appeared to start arguing. That was a big flag for me. When players start arguing amongst themselves like that, there are problems. Fortunately, things worked out in the long run but stuff like shouldn't happen Yeah, I think the problem was they botched the pass protection. Ben thought the tackle would help out. Instead the tackle blocked down. You think it's a problem when players are frustrated about a bad play?

Just googled NCAA Football Rules. It's on the NCAA site. NCAA Rule Book

It would seem to me that the penalty was indeed a personal foul and the ref misstated the penalty, or the enforcement was wrong and the refs will be hearing from either the B10 and/or NCAA about it. That isn't the correct rule citation. The one you cited only has to do on passing plays which is where you most often see defensive holding. This was called on a running play. So the 10 yards was correct. 5 yards and an automatic first down is the NFL rule. As far as the enforcement, I also thought that seemed odd but it appears to be correct: So, as crazy as that seemed, it appears it was enforced correctly.

Really? What does Martinez need to do? He's had 1 bad throw, but outside of that he's doing everything he can to win this game. The O-Line definitely hasn't been helping him out. Mistakes on Special Teams hasn't helped him at all. What else does he need to do? Beautiful throw by him for the TD to. If we had a pro style QB we would be up in this game.. Our wideouts are that good Yeah, if we only had a QB who completed 69% of his passes and threw for 340+ yards and 3 TDs without an INT ... oh, wait. OK. But imagine what we could do with a guy who was top 15 in the country in QB rating ... oh, wait. OK. But imagine if we had one of the 14 guys in NCAA D-1 history with 5000+ passing yards and 2000+ rushing yards ... oh ....

If Purdue's QB would not have thrown it out of the back of the end zone, it would have been TD or PI.

That's what happens when you miss an Extra Point, miss a FG and throw in INT in the end zone.

If we're going to contain with our D-Line, pretty sure we've tried that before with limited success. If we're going to contain with LBs/Safeties, I'd be more hopeful.

Keep going . . . Not quite ready to spring the transcript yet. Proceed.

Well . . . given that the whole speech was about the Libya attacks . . . and the immediate words after the "No acts of terror . . ." sentence were "[t]oday we mourn four more Americans . . ." How can you not say that he was not talking about Libya? Oh, right. Because it conforms with your political beliefs. So you get to use an entire speech to find the link but we don't even get the preceding sentence?

Calling an event an act of terror in a speech about that event doesn't mean that he called the event an "act of terror." Do you people even listen to yourselves? Is this representative of what the present GOP is? Simply unbelievable. Well . . . given that the whole speech was about the Libya attacks . . . and the immediate words after the "No acts of terror . . ." sentence were "[t]oday we mourn four more Americans . . ." How can you not say that he was not talking about Libya? Oh, right. Because it conforms with your political beliefs. Probably about like how someone can be talking about putting things on a credit card, give two examples of deficit spending, say he voted opposite his opponent because he said we couldn't afford them but somehow the first example doesn't count? Could that have something to do with political beliefs as well?

Yeah, that was really bad. I'm guessing he was trying to allude to the debate over spontaneous vs. planned but he slaughtered it either way.

NOOOOO!!!! We're still better than the Big East, right????

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased".... Great tactic. You don't have any argument against the numbers so just attack the poster. The "poster" didn't give me any self-derived numbers (it was word-for-word what the RNC chairman said after the debate without a source). That was my "argument".... So we're now only accepting numbers that individual research for themselves? Things are going to dry up around here pretty quickly.

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased".... Great tactic. You don't have any argument against the numbers so just attack the poster. there was no argument to be had, it was just his response to a person's opinion. So you're both conceding the numbers are correct?

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased".... Great tactic. You don't have any argument against the numbers so just attack the poster.

False. "Immediately prior" to his statement about voting against Ryan you'll see references to the Bush tax cuts and Medicare Part D. So immediately prior to you does not include elements of the previous sentence? What in his statement indicates he was separating the two? How so? Because he also voted in favor of the prescription drug benefit.

not sure about this, but then there is this: link Just for carl - prove this cut the funding for Libya. why? on the second part, not sure on the first. are you saying your response is just for carl, or would i be proving a point for carl? It seemed like you were inferring that the Republicans cut funding for security which could have led to less security in Libya. If carlfense disagreed with you, he would insist you prove the cuts in funding directly resulted in denying the extra security that was requested.

not sure about this, but then there is this: link Just for carl - prove this cut the funding for Libya.

No change to the argument. I'll even post it again for you and underline the portion that you are missing: Here's your transcript. Fire away. Debate Transcript Wow. Only you can insist on showing something about two wars which includes a quote about two wars and that's not good enough. 1 - Prove that he wasn't talking about the two wars he referenced immediately prior. 2 - If, perhaps, he wasn't talking about the wars, his statement was STILL a lie.

Debate Transcript ^^^^^ (Not sure if you're really not following or if you're just acting the part. ) No. Apparently I have no idea what you're talking about. It started with you saying show he said he voted against the wars and show he did. I think I've done both. What would you like to argue now?

Really? I know we haven't been good but that's a little over-stated. Washington in the regular season the last two years. We seemed to do pretty well against Minnesota last year. We even beat some guy with a bunch of initials once ... RGIII or something like that.

I'm not sure I'd lay any points against a mobile QB until further notice. I do think - or at least really hope - having two weeks to prepare should help tremendously. I think we should win but I'm not sure it will be comfortable.

Forgot it was on any only tuned in to hear the post-game. Sounds like we made sets two and three pretty interesting. Blew big leads but held on. Nice job by the ladies.

No . . . you're still missing half of the equation. You've got the war votes down. Well done. I don't think that anyone disputed those. So you're trying to say that Biden didn't say he voted against them? Debate Transcript