I've given serious consideration to just such a tactic.
I've given serious consideration to just such a tactic.
The thought of doing that is painful.
My wife's grandfather used to make crab dip for OU game watch party's at home. They always lost when he made dip so I think we are going to revive that tradition she has his "winning" recipe.
man you guys are supersticious!
That would be my assessment, too. Dropped passes, poor execution at times, poor pass coverage on defense. Take the lead with under 2:00 to play, and kick it short? Maybe it was the cold, but if not an accident, I'd think you'd want OU to have to cover as much field as possible. Can't remember, but did that kick even make it to the 25? There was multiple things that sunk their chances at the Big XII title. Looked to me like OU got outplayed most of the game, but made the plays when it counted. And that's all it takes.
Call it what you will but I'm convinced the game has a curse on it. I'm done with it.
Mistakes by both teams but I feel OU out played osu for the most part.
That's money right there!
I told my wife when Green's TD was ruled not a catch that "that was a friggen TD". How many times do we see a player stretch the ball out over the goal line to get a TD when he goes down and no part his body makes it in? As soon as the ball crosses the plane it's play over, whatever happens after that is moot. So my logic was that Green caught and had possession in the air, and had possession when both of his feet came down in the end zone. Play over! Nope. The refs got that call right by rule.
The same applies to Gilbert's INT. They got it right by rule. I'm an OU fan but the rules are just whack, they contradict themselves.
But the fact of the matter of this game is summed up by this:
OSU did with OU exactly what OU did with Texas. They had themselves convinced they had the game won before it started...
Possession has already been established in that case and the rule that says that the ball only has to penetrate the plane of the opponent's goal line for a touchdown.
If Green would have had more positional awareness, or made the realization that there was little he could do if his feet weren't already in the end zone, and concentrated on finishing the catch there would have been no question.
Yea, I know thats what the rule states, but in my mind a TD catch in the end zone is defined as having controlled possession when his feet come down in bounds, at that point the play is dead and it's a TD. But by rule it's basically all of that AND maintaining control through the tackle or going down or throughout the act of going out of bounds, only then is the play over. It's as if the play is not over in the end zone until the player is down or out of bounds, again that's only in the end zone. The end zone seems to have different criteria than the field of play in certain instances. That's what I'm getting at, I'm probably explaining piss poorly.
