OK, when the hell did "Utah" get shortened to 'tah?UAEebs86 wrote:'tah went for two and didn't get it.ghostwhitehorse wrote:USC 28 'tah 27 final.
I bet you guys say "Zona" too...
Moderators: UAdevil, JMarkJohns
OK, when the hell did "Utah" get shortened to 'tah?UAEebs86 wrote:'tah went for two and didn't get it.ghostwhitehorse wrote:USC 28 'tah 27 final.
https://gojoebruin.com/2017/09/11/ucla- ... non-calls/" target="_blankcatgrad97 wrote:Not sure if you are serious or not. This was not a penalty. The PAC-12 head of officials came on the broadcast and said it wasn't a penalty. Of course, two days later, the PAC-12 issued a letter.MrBug708 wrote:You guys must not see many of these calls in your games. UCLA is usually on the receiving end of these terrible penalties. I agree that the rule is stupid
With all of the times UCLA has come from multiple touchdowns behind under Rosen to pull out a miracle late? When were all these "receiving ends"?
Yeah, you guys never get the breaks against Hawaii, do you?MrBug708 wrote:https://gojoebruin.com/2017/09/11/ucla- ... non-calls/" target="_blankcatgrad97 wrote:Not sure if you are serious or not. This was not a penalty. The PAC-12 head of officials came on the broadcast and said it wasn't a penalty. Of course, two days later, the PAC-12 issued a letter.MrBug708 wrote:You guys must not see many of these calls in your games. UCLA is usually on the receiving end of these terrible penalties. I agree that the rule is stupid
With all of the times UCLA has come from multiple touchdowns behind under Rosen to pull out a miracle late? When were all these "receiving ends"?
We also had a targeting call on us when our 5'10 player got called on one similar when he tried to tackle the Stanford TE, who measures in at 6'5.
Agreed!qwertyus wrote:OBVIOUS PI not called BTW....
qwertyus wrote:OBVIOUS PI not called BTW....
Tate for all time QB.Merkin wrote:qwertyus wrote:OBVIOUS PI not called BTW....
More yardage with the catch so they let it go.
Cannot believe that Dawkins is a much better practice player than Tate. No frickin way
I dont understand your angst? You asked where UCLA was on the receiving end of a bad targeting call. Did you want more? I can find you a couple more if you'd like?catgrad97 wrote:Yeah, you guys never get the breaks against Hawaii, do you?MrBug708 wrote:https://gojoebruin.com/2017/09/11/ucla- ... non-calls/" target="_blankcatgrad97 wrote:Not sure if you are serious or not. This was not a penalty. The PAC-12 head of officials came on the broadcast and said it wasn't a penalty. Of course, two days later, the PAC-12 issued a letter.MrBug708 wrote:You guys must not see many of these calls in your games. UCLA is usually on the receiving end of these terrible penalties. I agree that the rule is stupid
With all of the times UCLA has come from multiple touchdowns behind under Rosen to pull out a miracle late? When were all these "receiving ends"?
We also had a targeting call on us when our 5'10 player got called on one similar when he tried to tackle the Stanford TE, who measures in at 6'5.
TruthMerkin wrote:Cannot believe that Dawkins is a much better practice player than Tate. No frickin way
I know. There just no way. It’s not even close.Merkin wrote:qwertyus wrote:OBVIOUS PI not called BTW....
More yardage with the catch so they let it go.
Cannot believe that Dawkins is a much better practice player than Tate. No frickin way
His light just turned on? I guess it happens, or so I have read.SCCats wrote:TruthMerkin wrote:Cannot believe that Dawkins is a much better practice player than Tate. No frickin way
Tate legit should be in the Heisman conversation if he keeps this up. If he had played all season? No doubt in the conversation. He definitely beats Houston.TuiTouchdown wrote:Tate for all time QB.Merkin wrote:qwertyus wrote:OBVIOUS PI not called BTW....
More yardage with the catch so they let it go.
Cannot believe that Dawkins is a much better practice player than Tate. No frickin way
Something against an actual Pac-12 opponent would bolster your case, beyond that Stanford TE call, which I'm not doubting you on.MrBug708 wrote:I dont understand your angst? You asked where UCLA was on the receiving end of a bad targeting call. Did you want more? I can find you a couple more if you'd like?catgrad97 wrote:Yeah, you guys never get the breaks against Hawaii, do you?MrBug708 wrote:https://gojoebruin.com/2017/09/11/ucla- ... non-calls/" target="_blankcatgrad97 wrote:Not sure if you are serious or not. This was not a penalty. The PAC-12 head of officials came on the broadcast and said it wasn't a penalty. Of course, two days later, the PAC-12 issued a letter.MrBug708 wrote:You guys must not see many of these calls in your games. UCLA is usually on the receiving end of these terrible penalties. I agree that the rule is stupid
With all of the times UCLA has come from multiple touchdowns behind under Rosen to pull out a miracle late? When were all these "receiving ends"?
We also had a targeting call on us when our 5'10 player got called on one similar when he tried to tackle the Stanford TE, who measures in at 6'5.
You mean his "light turned on" the instant Dawkins got hurt against Colorado?CaliCat69 wrote:His light just turned on? I guess it happens, or so I have read.SCCats wrote:TruthMerkin wrote:Cannot believe that Dawkins is a much better practice player than Tate. No frickin way
I think there was an injury problem. Probably was good to go if needed, but was back to 100% for CO.SCCats wrote:You mean his "light turned on" the instant Dawkins got hurt against Colorado?CaliCat69 wrote:His light just turned on? I guess it happens, or so I have read.SCCats wrote:TruthMerkin wrote:Cannot believe that Dawkins is a much better practice player than Tate. No frickin way
The timeline just doesn't add up.
JFM?SCCats wrote:You mean his "light turned on" the instant Dawkins got hurt against Colorado?CaliCat69 wrote:His light just turned on? I guess it happens, or so I have read.SCCats wrote:TruthMerkin wrote:Cannot believe that Dawkins is a much better practice player than Tate. No frickin way
The timeline just doesn't add up.
Andqwertyus wrote:Dawkins can't throw for shit, and Tate's even a better runner.
Then why didn't he start against Colorado?TuiTouchdown wrote:I think there was an injury problem. Probably was good to go if needed, but was back to 100% for CO.SCCats wrote:You mean his "light turned on" the instant Dawkins got hurt against Colorado?CaliCat69 wrote:His light just turned on? I guess it happens, or so I have read.SCCats wrote:TruthMerkin wrote:Cannot believe that Dawkins is a much better practice player than Tate. No frickin way
The timeline just doesn't add up.
That play didn't swing momentum. UCLA had a first down on the play and was looking at first and goal from the 9 and instead had first and goal from the 4.catgrad97 wrote:
Something against an actual Pac-12 opponent would bolster your case, beyond that Stanford TE call, which I'm not doubting you on.
No angst here, but c'mon Bug: targeting calls against Hawaii? That game was never in doubt, and those calls did not swing momentum the way this last one still might.
Rosen already gets enough protection without kicking someone out of the game smaller than he is.
His light just turned on? I guess it happens, or so I have read.[/quote]SCCats wrote:
Truth
Bingo. Even making allowances for injuries, how does Dawkins win the job out of the freaking spring game when he is barely a DUAL threat--and doesn't possess the decision-making skills to even be THAT?!SCCats wrote:Andqwertyus wrote:Dawkins can't throw for shit, and Tate's even a better runner.
1. Tate can run the read/option. Dawkins can't.
2. Tate can make decent decisions when plays break down. Dawkins can't make any decisions at any point.
Again, special teams.TuiTouchdown wrote:Oh god.
He hurt Rosen's feelings.TuiTouchdown wrote:Refs are giving this away! What did he even do?