Moiraine

You have it way wrong!!! It's HIP HIP HOORAY!!! Quit that sh#t.

It was a judgement call that could have gone either way. Let it go Sparty. Not a judgement call. It was called correct by definition in the 2015 rules manual. I posted the manual excerpt back when it happened. The fact that the officials are getting blasted for this and that it's being called a judgement call is absolutely ridiculous. The rule states that if the defensive player makes contact with the offensive player, and the OP goes out of bounds due to the contact, then that is NOT a penalty for illegal touching. I get so frustrated at this penalty flag being thrown even though the DB who is playing the technique he's taught (Squeeze to the sideline) is in contact all the time with the OP. This penalty should NOT be thrown as much as it is. The officials finally got one right in this situation. (all levels of football) Great. Then anytime a defensive player touches the receiver, don't call a penalty. The problem is you can't always tell if the actual touch caused the receiver to go out of bounds. That is why I called it a judgement call. This isn't like a false start penalty. No, that's not the rule. But when the DB rides the guy OB like the Sparty player did, the offensive player can establish in bounds again. Go back and watch the whole play, here: LINK You can't tell from the espn replay where they show the play from a bad angle. It was a good call by the refs and by the replay officials. The espn announcer didn't even know the correct rule. Brock Huard was talking about it on Saturday when MSU got a catch off the same type of play. He said he thought the call in Lincoln was bad because the receiver "made a bee-line out of bounds." We had a good laugh about that

I don't like or care about the Big 12 but the fact that West Virginia is in the Big 12 drives me crazy for some reason. They might as well add Maine or Hawaii while they're at it.

I was as well, 1/7 Weapons, '86-'94. Couldn't agree with you more on the content of your post but as we know the standards ARE different. The SECDEF is directing the full integration of women in the Armed Forces, they might as well start implementing that all female U.S. citizens be required to register with Selective Service between the age of 18 through 25. Right? Why wasn't that statement in the tri-signed document? Like you said if a female can hack it physically all the power to them but I just simply don't see a female finishing a MCCRES or 4,6,8,12 mile ruck runs at 9:00 pace? Full kit with heavy weapons? Please. I just can't imagine it. Hell, I don't see them doing half of the crazy sh#t we did in boot camp, ITS/SOI at the same standards required of a man. I'd like to see the most roided out Crossfit female give it a shot but I'm skeptical. It all doesn't pass the "smell test" with me. I'm afraid our pc politicians are dictating to the career GO's in the five sided nuthouse that this social engineering experiment is going to happen or you're out! I sure hope I'm wrong. All they have to do is have wording in there that they have to meet the same qualifications, and it's probably already in there. I don't know the details of what women are allowed to do now and what they are now allowed to do with this. If we're talking navy seals or some specialized unit, there are going to be very few if any females who can pass the physical tests. Right? Doesn't that kind of solve the problem you're talking about?

Can you explain it to me? I looked it up again and I don't understand the difference. Everything I read about Selective Service talks about it being for the draft. The article on wikipedia has mentions of the draft left and right, indicating the purpose of selective service is to get a list of people who can be drafted. I don't see how they're different. Unless you're just saying signing up doesn't automatically mean you're drafted, which of course I'm aware of since we haven't done that in a decades. Regardless, I'm saying women should be doing the same thing. Obviously if I think women should be drafted equally, I think they should also sign up for Selective Service. And it doesn't explain why he does this to all of my posts on every topic. The registration for Selective Service is so that the government is prepared in the case of a draft. It isn't a draft itself. Today, if you are a boy turning 18, you are required to register. That has been happening for a very very long time. It's not something that happened once and we hope it doesn't happen again. Now, the draft IS what we hope never happens again. That is when they use the database created by the registration to perform a draft. The only time I ever see a draft happening again is if the country is actually under attack from another country actually invading us. So it's exactly what I was talking about in my post, I just worded it badly. I was talking about having to sign up. This has nothing to do with why huskers15 had a dumb reply, even if he decides that's his excuse.

Can you explain it to me? I looked it up again and I don't understand the difference. Everything I read about Selective Service talks about it being for the draft. The article on wikipedia has mentions of the draft left and right, indicating the purpose of selective service is to get a list of people who can be drafted. I don't see how they're different. Unless you're just saying signing up doesn't automatically mean you're drafted, which of course I'm aware of since we haven't done that in a decades. Regardless, I'm saying women should be doing the same thing. Obviously if I think women should be drafted equally, I think they should also sign up for Selective Service. And it doesn't explain why he does this to all of my posts on every topic.

Hopefully that will never come again but it should probably be equal too on the condition that 2 married people can't both be selected. Obviously pregnant/nursing women couldn't go but that'd be the same as men who don't pass the health requirement. I can't claim I know how it works but I'd think that for the roles they just made open to women, everyone would have to pass the same tests. That's how it should work, anyway. I know for boot camp the requirements for women aren't as strict, but those are for anyone who joins the military. Men are required by Federal law to register for Selective Service at the age of 18. Why aren't the women? Why are the standards for women in basic training lower than the men? Once again I have to wonder if you even read my posts. You're quoting me when I just said "Hopefully that will never come again but it should probably be equal too" so I'm not sure why you're quoting my post and think I actually have an argument against women registering. What I'm saying is they should probably have to register too. You've done this for at least 90% of my posts you've replied to.

I think that UCLA will have no problem piling up points against NU's D. I think Rosen picks Banker's D apart. The only way NU keeps it close is if the offense keeps scoring with them, like NU did against Michigan State. There's no basis for thinking we'll get blown out. Thinking we'll lose, yes.

There's no basis for thinking we'll get blown out in this game.

True, but the bigger issue here is that the refs signaled the play dead AFTER the clock ticked to 00:00 so...game over. That is unless you have people from UT running your conference.The head ref was/is from here in Omaha...I know him personally. Well, he was influenced by people in the booth who told him to put time on the clock and allow TexASS to kick a field goal. When the clock ticked to 00:00 with no "egregious" clock mismanagement by the officiating or clock operators, then the game was over. That's the way the rule reads and that's the way it is done hundreds of times a year. The clock stops when the ref puts his arms up and gives the signal to stop it...sometimes a second clicks off between when he sees what he thinks should stop play and the clock actually stopping, but the clock is not changed. BUT...when it gives TexASS another shot to win the BigXII...then it's treated entirely differently. So next time you talk to your buddy from Omaha tell him he was wrong and if he tries to give some weak-ass explanation for why he did what he did, then ask him why they don't review the clock and put time back every time a second runs after the ref gives the signal to stop the clock. They reviewed it for this year's Nebraska vs. MSU game. I'm pretty sure it's officially allowed now. Which is good.

The rule is stupid so I don't care. There is no reason it should be against the rules to review the game (or half) ending stoppage time. I'm glad it was called the way it was. When the word for word rules are so obviously stupid, logic should win.

Since Iowa didn't play OSU, I think OSU will be ranked above them.

Does the Rose Bowl have to pick the team that lost the B1G championship? I'm assuming so since Wisconsin went when they were 8-5 or whatever (the year they demolished us). Just wondering whether Ohio State is an option.

They got pretty damn close.

Not sure if you're replying to me, but I'm talking about them pulling out the chains instead of taking it straight to video evidence in the booth. An Official Review, I mean. What does a booth review do by itself? They could look at it relative to the line, but like I said, that's not official. They bring the chains out to see whether it is a first down or not, then they review to see if the spot was right. They should use the technology IMO but since they don't, it makes sense to establish where the ball is relative to the official 1st down mark. IMO, the chains are used to get a precise spot for the ball. You already have a spot for the ball based on the orange marker they lay down on the sideline. Regardless of whether the chains showed they got that first down or didn't get that first down, it would have gone to the replay booth. That was apparent when it was > 1 foot past the mark and they STILL reviewed it.

Hm, 45 yards for OT

It's basically what they did to Nebraska, except their drive started with 11 or 12 minutes left in the 4th quarter instead of 9 minutes.

lolIowa

Not sure if you're replying to me, but I'm talking about them pulling out the chains instead of taking it straight to video evidence in the booth. An Official Review, I mean.

Duh. Now they're reviewing it anyway. Why do the chains in the first place? It's just a holdover thing to do from the old days. They're obviously going to review it on a game ending play like this so it's a waste of time.

Why do the refs still use chains to measure first downs when we have replay?

Come on MSU...

Hopefully that will never come again but it should probably be equal too on the condition that 2 married people can't both be selected. Obviously pregnant/nursing women couldn't go but that'd be the same as men who don't pass the health requirement. I can't claim I know how it works but I'd think that for the roles they just made open to women, everyone would have to pass the same tests. That's how it should work, anyway. I know for boot camp the requirements for women aren't as strict, but those are for anyone who joins the military.

The problem with this is they are paid $3. Don't compare it to other jobs like it's similar.

The forum it was posted on wasn't "Football" it was "Husker Football," therefore Georgia football is a different sport.