They showed Nevada's coach during the kick and when the call was made, he turned and looked at his assistant with the "we got away with one" look.
He knew it was good.
Oh really! Are you sure he wasnt talking about the play before where nevada fucked up and let the receiver get behind the defense with 9 seconds. Idiot! If you think games are fixed then quit betting.LOL
Jesse Marsh
0
Quote Originally Posted by supadame:
It was good.
They showed Nevada's coach during the kick and when the call was made, he turned and looked at his assistant with the "we got away with one" look.
He knew it was good.
Oh really! Are you sure he wasnt talking about the play before where nevada fucked up and let the receiver get behind the defense with 9 seconds. Idiot! If you think games are fixed then quit betting.LOL
Oh really! Are you sure he wasnt talking about the play before where nevada fucked up and let the receiver get behind the defense with 9 seconds. Idiot! If you think games are fixed then quit betting.LOL
Nobody even mentioned the game being fixed dumbass. Nevada got away with one and he knew it. The look on his, and his assistants face said it all.
If you can't read a damn thread before spewing utter bullshit, quit posting. Laugh at that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by patsfan316:
Oh really! Are you sure he wasnt talking about the play before where nevada fucked up and let the receiver get behind the defense with 9 seconds. Idiot! If you think games are fixed then quit betting.LOL
Nobody even mentioned the game being fixed dumbass. Nevada got away with one and he knew it. The look on his, and his assistants face said it all.
If you can't read a damn thread before spewing utter bullshit, quit posting. Laugh at that.
Oh really! Are you sure he wasnt talking about the play before where nevada fucked up and let the receiver get behind the defense with 9 seconds. Idiot! If you think games are fixed then quit betting.LOL
Agree. The coach was fuming about that play for a long time.
0
Quote Originally Posted by patsfan316:
Oh really! Are you sure he wasnt talking about the play before where nevada fucked up and let the receiver get behind the defense with 9 seconds. Idiot! If you think games are fixed then quit betting.LOL
Agree. The coach was fuming about that play for a long time.
Nobody even mentioned the game being fixed dumbass. Nevada got away with one and he knew it. The look on his, and his assistants face said it all.
If you can't read a damn thread before spewing utter bullshit, quit posting. Laugh at that.
Negative. If they had a look of getting away with anything, it was giving up a last 2nd pass to the other team to set them up to win with a chip shot FG, and then that FG kicker shanking it.
If he really made it, don't you think we would be hearing today from the FG kicker and the coach of Bosie St how he really made that FG and the refs got it wrong? Don't these idiots think logically through their arguments sometimes, or is this board full of irrational degenerate gamblers
0
Quote Originally Posted by supadame:
Nobody even mentioned the game being fixed dumbass. Nevada got away with one and he knew it. The look on his, and his assistants face said it all.
If you can't read a damn thread before spewing utter bullshit, quit posting. Laugh at that.
Negative. If they had a look of getting away with anything, it was giving up a last 2nd pass to the other team to set them up to win with a chip shot FG, and then that FG kicker shanking it.
If he really made it, don't you think we would be hearing today from the FG kicker and the coach of Bosie St how he really made that FG and the refs got it wrong? Don't these idiots think logically through their arguments sometimes, or is this board full of irrational degenerate gamblers
Negative. If they had a look of getting away with anything, it was giving up a last 2nd pass to the other team to set them up to win with a chip shot FG, and then that FG kicker shanking it.
If he really made it, don't you think we would be hearing today from the FG kicker and the coach of Bosie St how he really made that FG and the refs got it wrong? Don't these idiots think logically through their arguments sometimes, or is this board full of irrational degenerate gamblers
As I posted previously. Ault looked at his assistant with wide eyes and they both had a sly grin on their face after the miss. Yeah. Those facial expresions really conveyed anger and them being upset.
And you're questioning logical thinking????
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bling:
Negative. If they had a look of getting away with anything, it was giving up a last 2nd pass to the other team to set them up to win with a chip shot FG, and then that FG kicker shanking it.
If he really made it, don't you think we would be hearing today from the FG kicker and the coach of Bosie St how he really made that FG and the refs got it wrong? Don't these idiots think logically through their arguments sometimes, or is this board full of irrational degenerate gamblers
As I posted previously. Ault looked at his assistant with wide eyes and they both had a sly grin on their face after the miss. Yeah. Those facial expresions really conveyed anger and them being upset.
Negative. If they had a look of getting away with anything, it was giving up a last 2nd pass to the other team to set them up to win with a chip shot FG, and then that FG kicker shanking it.
If he really made it, don't you think we would be hearing today from the FG kicker and the coach of Bosie St how he really made that FG and the refs got it wrong? Don't these idiots think logically through their arguments sometimes, or is this board full of irrational degenerate gamblers
And you're saying IF meaning you didn't even see the sequence I'm referring to, yet you're dismissing it.
And I'm the idiot and being irrational.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bling:
Negative. If they had a look of getting away with anything, it was giving up a last 2nd pass to the other team to set them up to win with a chip shot FG, and then that FG kicker shanking it.
If he really made it, don't you think we would be hearing today from the FG kicker and the coach of Bosie St how he really made that FG and the refs got it wrong? Don't these idiots think logically through their arguments sometimes, or is this board full of irrational degenerate gamblers
And you're saying IF meaning you didn't even see the sequence I'm referring to, yet you're dismissing it.
As I posted previously. Ault looked at his assistant with wide eyes and they both had a sly grin on their face after the miss. Yeah. Those facial expresions really conveyed anger and them being upset.
And you're questioning logical thinking????
So if it was obvious to the Nevada coaches that it was good, why weren't the Boise St. coaches all up in arms complaining to the refs. I can't wait for you to explain this one away.
0
Quote Originally Posted by supadame:
As I posted previously. Ault looked at his assistant with wide eyes and they both had a sly grin on their face after the miss. Yeah. Those facial expresions really conveyed anger and them being upset.
And you're questioning logical thinking????
So if it was obvious to the Nevada coaches that it was good, why weren't the Boise St. coaches all up in arms complaining to the refs. I can't wait for you to explain this one away.
So if it was obvious to the Nevada coaches that it was good, why weren't the Boise St. coaches all up in arms complaining to the refs. I can't wait for you to explain this one away.
Lemme call coach Petersen and ask him. Hold on.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bling:
So if it was obvious to the Nevada coaches that it was good, why weren't the Boise St. coaches all up in arms complaining to the refs. I can't wait for you to explain this one away.
They showed Nevada's coach during the kick and when the call was made, he turned and looked at his assistant with the "we got away with one" look.
He knew it was good.
The view from the sideline can't tell you practically anything when deciphering a close kick. Especially considering that I recall Nevada being on the opposite ("left") sideline and the kick went wide right.
0
Quote Originally Posted by supadame:
It was good.
They showed Nevada's coach during the kick and when the call was made, he turned and looked at his assistant with the "we got away with one" look.
He knew it was good.
The view from the sideline can't tell you practically anything when deciphering a close kick. Especially considering that I recall Nevada being on the opposite ("left") sideline and the kick went wide right.
The view from the sideline can't tell you practically anything when deciphering a close kick. Especially considering that I recall Nevada being on the opposite ("left") sideline and the kick went wide right.
Nevada's sideline is on the right.
0
Quote Originally Posted by dnt_fade_me_bro:
The view from the sideline can't tell you practically anything when deciphering a close kick. Especially considering that I recall Nevada being on the opposite ("left") sideline and the kick went wide right.
Don't have to, I will tell you why. Because they, the kicker, and every Boise St. player on the field could clearly see it was no good. That is why you saw no protest from them.
Now make me a sandwich, Square
0
Quote Originally Posted by supadame:
Lemme call coach Petersen and ask him. Hold on.
Don't have to, I will tell you why. Because they, the kicker, and every Boise St. player on the field could clearly see it was no good. That is why you saw no protest from them.
Don't have to, I will tell you why. Because they, the kicker, and every Boise St. player on the field could clearly see it was no good. That is why you saw no protest from them.
Now make me a sandwich, Square
Really? The sideline reactions and looks of disbelief on their faces to the call tells me otherwise. Boise's players were halfway on the field celebrating after the kick.
Yep. That's what teams normally do when they can "clearly" see the kick was no good.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bling:
Don't have to, I will tell you why. Because they, the kicker, and every Boise St. player on the field could clearly see it was no good. That is why you saw no protest from them.
Now make me a sandwich, Square
Really? The sideline reactions and looks of disbelief on their faces to the call tells me otherwise. Boise's players were halfway on the field celebrating after the kick.
Yep. That's what teams normally do when they can "clearly" see the kick was no good.
Check out the Youtube replay of the end of regulation FG attempt.
Brotzman knew he missed it by the way he stood using body-english and never tried to celebrate immediately after the kick.
Looked good on my 17" computer screen. But a camera below the goalpost would probably show it off to the right. The announcers however made a comment about how low the Nevada goal posts were, and unique from other college goal posts. that started a lot of questions nationwide--it just planted a seed that's taken off like wildfire on the blogs.
0
Quote Originally Posted by UHQB:
Check out the Youtube replay of the end of regulation FG attempt.
Brotzman knew he missed it by the way he stood using body-english and never tried to celebrate immediately after the kick.
Looked good on my 17" computer screen. But a camera below the goalpost would probably show it off to the right. The announcers however made a comment about how low the Nevada goal posts were, and unique from other college goal posts. that started a lot of questions nationwide--it just planted a seed that's taken off like wildfire on the blogs.
I was surprised nobody mentioned this immediately after the game. It looked good to me and I am surprised ESPN hasn't extended the goal post in a highlight to show for sure. On the other hand it really shouldn't be an issue from inside 30 for a team trying to get to a BCS game
They did. Both kicks were no good.
0
Quote Originally Posted by steinline:
I was surprised nobody mentioned this immediately after the game. It looked good to me and I am surprised ESPN hasn't extended the goal post in a highlight to show for sure. On the other hand it really shouldn't be an issue from inside 30 for a team trying to get to a BCS game
I really thought the kick was good
and the officials made an error. Rooting all night for Nevada, I just
believed the officials made an error. It bothered me so much, I went
to CADD and drew out the 78' Distance from kick to crossbar and then
continued the vertical plane into the net which lies 8' beyond (86'
from the kick-point). Those nets are roughly 36' wide, almost twice
the width of the goalposts (18'6"w). So the kick had to be about 6.7
degrees off 0 or less to be inside the goal post from that distance
given the kick appeared to be right from the center of the field. The
way to tell it is good is to plot backwards from the apparent
intersection point when the ball hits the net and go back towards the
kicker. There is no wind as evidenced by the goal post flags. After
drawing all this out precisely in CADD, I came to the conclusion that
the ball traveled right directly OVER the goalpost so long as the net
is 36' wide. If the net is 35' wide or narrower, then the kick was
actually good. But larger than 35' wide and the kick had to be over or
outside the goal and no good. So the question for NEVADA is, how wide
are those nets? I believe they are 2 x the sixe of the goal post width
and therefore larger than 35', so the kick was not good. But one can
easily see why there would be a controversy. I didn't believe the
officials got it right until I did the geometry ad math in CADD and
visualized it for myself. By the way, a count of human bodies between
the white net posts says 36' so that is additional evidence that the
kick was barely no good...but JUST barely!
0
I really thought the kick was good
and the officials made an error. Rooting all night for Nevada, I just
believed the officials made an error. It bothered me so much, I went
to CADD and drew out the 78' Distance from kick to crossbar and then
continued the vertical plane into the net which lies 8' beyond (86'
from the kick-point). Those nets are roughly 36' wide, almost twice
the width of the goalposts (18'6"w). So the kick had to be about 6.7
degrees off 0 or less to be inside the goal post from that distance
given the kick appeared to be right from the center of the field. The
way to tell it is good is to plot backwards from the apparent
intersection point when the ball hits the net and go back towards the
kicker. There is no wind as evidenced by the goal post flags. After
drawing all this out precisely in CADD, I came to the conclusion that
the ball traveled right directly OVER the goalpost so long as the net
is 36' wide. If the net is 35' wide or narrower, then the kick was
actually good. But larger than 35' wide and the kick had to be over or
outside the goal and no good. So the question for NEVADA is, how wide
are those nets? I believe they are 2 x the sixe of the goal post width
and therefore larger than 35', so the kick was not good. But one can
easily see why there would be a controversy. I didn't believe the
officials got it right until I did the geometry ad math in CADD and
visualized it for myself. By the way, a count of human bodies between
the white net posts says 36' so that is additional evidence that the
kick was barely no good...but JUST barely!
I really thought the kick was good
and the officials made an error. Rooting all night for Nevada, I just
believed the officials made an error. It bothered me so much, I went
to CADD and drew out the 78' Distance from kick to crossbar and then
continued the vertical plane into the net which lies 8' beyond (86'
from the kick-point). Those nets are roughly 36' wide, almost twice
the width of the goalposts (18'6"w). So the kick had to be about 6.7
degrees off 0 or less to be inside the goal post from that distance
given the kick appeared to be right from the center of the field. The
way to tell it is good is to plot backwards from the apparent
intersection point when the ball hits the net and go back towards the
kicker. There is no wind as evidenced by the goal post flags. After
drawing all this out precisely in CADD, I came to the conclusion that
the ball traveled right directly OVER the goalpost so long as the net
is 36' wide. If the net is 35' wide or narrower, then the kick was
actually good. But larger than 35' wide and the kick had to be over or
outside the goal and no good. So the question for NEVADA is, how wide
are those nets? I believe they are 2 x the sixe of the goal post width
and therefore larger than 35', so the kick was not good. But one can
easily see why there would be a controversy. I didn't believe the
officials got it right until I did the geometry ad math in CADD and
visualized it for myself. By the way, a count of human bodies between
the white net posts says 36' so that is additional evidence that the
kick was barely no good...but JUST barely!
Guys, by the way, I didn't actually write that myself. I found it posted on some site after googling, "Boise State missed field goal". The name of this post was
Trigonometry says ball went OVER goalpost....
0
Quote Originally Posted by ValueforRent:
I really thought the kick was good
and the officials made an error. Rooting all night for Nevada, I just
believed the officials made an error. It bothered me so much, I went
to CADD and drew out the 78' Distance from kick to crossbar and then
continued the vertical plane into the net which lies 8' beyond (86'
from the kick-point). Those nets are roughly 36' wide, almost twice
the width of the goalposts (18'6"w). So the kick had to be about 6.7
degrees off 0 or less to be inside the goal post from that distance
given the kick appeared to be right from the center of the field. The
way to tell it is good is to plot backwards from the apparent
intersection point when the ball hits the net and go back towards the
kicker. There is no wind as evidenced by the goal post flags. After
drawing all this out precisely in CADD, I came to the conclusion that
the ball traveled right directly OVER the goalpost so long as the net
is 36' wide. If the net is 35' wide or narrower, then the kick was
actually good. But larger than 35' wide and the kick had to be over or
outside the goal and no good. So the question for NEVADA is, how wide
are those nets? I believe they are 2 x the sixe of the goal post width
and therefore larger than 35', so the kick was not good. But one can
easily see why there would be a controversy. I didn't believe the
officials got it right until I did the geometry ad math in CADD and
visualized it for myself. By the way, a count of human bodies between
the white net posts says 36' so that is additional evidence that the
kick was barely no good...but JUST barely!
Guys, by the way, I didn't actually write that myself. I found it posted on some site after googling, "Boise State missed field goal". The name of this post was
i thought it was good when i watched it live... didn't even bother to look at the refs signal, and didn't realize it missed until i heard one of the commentators say something like, "Did he miss it?"...
looked good!
0
i thought it was good when i watched it live... didn't even bother to look at the refs signal, and didn't realize it missed until i heard one of the commentators say something like, "Did he miss it?"...
The score on TV even rolled to 34, then had to roll backwards real fast. Sorry guys, the kick looked and probably was good. Look at all the argument that went away with that loss.
0
The score on TV even rolled to 34, then had to roll backwards real fast. Sorry guys, the kick looked and probably was good. Look at all the argument that went away with that loss.
Guys, by the way, I didn't actually write that myself. I found it posted on some site after googling, "Boise State missed field goal". The name of this post was
Trigonometry says ball went OVER goalpost....
I was about to say you have way too much time on your hands.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ValueforRent:
Guys, by the way, I didn't actually write that myself. I found it posted on some site after googling, "Boise State missed field goal". The name of this post was
Trigonometry says ball went OVER goalpost....
I was about to say you have way too much time on your hands.
i was just about to post this, and then read the post above mine, and looks like he's saying the same thing...
key issue is whether or not a FG is good if it goes OVER the goalpost, which is what it looked like... or at least was very close... so if the rule is that a FG that passes over the Goal Post is no good, then that must have been the ruling... very close...
0
i was just about to post this, and then read the post above mine, and looks like he's saying the same thing...
key issue is whether or not a FG is good if it goes OVER the goalpost, which is what it looked like... or at least was very close... so if the rule is that a FG that passes over the Goal Post is no good, then that must have been the ruling... very close...
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Don't these idiots think logically through their arguments sometimes, or is this board full of irrational degenerate gamblers
Hot Forum Topics
