09-30-2016, 02:08 PM
Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit on Owusu was LEGAL
AncientCityIndian
Unregistered
Unregistered
AncientCityIndian
Unregistered
Unregistered
AncientCityIndian
Unregistered
Unregistered
09-30-2016, 02:48 PM
(09-30-2016, 09:46 AM)norcard link Wrote:Move on. Or is that not a concept you can comprehend?
1. Hmmmm . . . The NCAA hasn't moved on (see link above for its recently issued clarification of the targeting rule). I think the reason this hit elicited continued discussion is that it exposed a problem with the rule (or, as it turned out, its interpretation) intended to prevent/punish this type of hit.
2. "is that not a concept you can comprehend" is the kind of ad hominem attack that I believe is not welcomed on this board. I recommend you criticize opinions but not other posters.
3. as others have already said, if you think a topic has been discussed longer than you care to continue to read, don't continue reading; but don't instruct others not to post on something that interests them. You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate to post on the board and when.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. You may benefit from learning more about the history of this board and why it was created.
(09-30-2016, 09:46 AM)norcard link Wrote:Move on. Or is that not a concept you can comprehend?
1. Hmmmm . . . The NCAA hasn't moved on (see link above for its recently issued clarification of the targeting rule). I think the reason this hit elicited continued discussion is that it exposed a problem with the rule (or, as it turned out, its interpretation) intended to prevent/punish this type of hit.
2. "is that not a concept you can comprehend" is the kind of ad hominem attack that I believe is not welcomed on this board. I recommend you criticize opinions but not other posters.
3. as others have already said, if you think a topic has been discussed longer than you care to continue to read, don't continue reading; but don't instruct others not to post on something that interests them. You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate to post on the board and when.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. You may benefit from learning more about the history of this board and why it was created.
09-30-2016, 02:48 PM
(09-30-2016, 09:46 AM)norcard link Wrote:Move on. Or is that not a concept you can comprehend?
1. Hmmmm . . . The NCAA hasn't moved on (see link above for its recently issued clarification of the targeting rule). I think the reason this hit elicited continued discussion is that it exposed a problem with the rule (or, as it turned out, its interpretation) intended to prevent/punish this type of hit.
2. "is that not a concept you can comprehend" is the kind of ad hominem attack that I believe is not welcomed on this board. I recommend you criticize opinions but not other posters.
3. as others have already said, if you think a topic has been discussed longer than you care to continue to read, don't continue reading; but don't instruct others not to post on something that interests them. You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate to post on the board and when.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. You may benefit from learning more about the history of this board and why it was created.
(09-30-2016, 09:46 AM)norcard link Wrote:Move on. Or is that not a concept you can comprehend?
1. Hmmmm . . . The NCAA hasn't moved on (see link above for its recently issued clarification of the targeting rule). I think the reason this hit elicited continued discussion is that it exposed a problem with the rule (or, as it turned out, its interpretation) intended to prevent/punish this type of hit.
2. "is that not a concept you can comprehend" is the kind of ad hominem attack that I believe is not welcomed on this board. I recommend you criticize opinions but not other posters.
3. as others have already said, if you think a topic has been discussed longer than you care to continue to read, don't continue reading; but don't instruct others not to post on something that interests them. You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate to post on the board and when.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. You may benefit from learning more about the history of this board and why it was created.
09-30-2016, 02:48 PM
(09-30-2016, 09:46 AM)norcard link Wrote:Move on. Or is that not a concept you can comprehend?
1. Hmmmm . . . The NCAA hasn't moved on (see link above for its recently issued clarification of the targeting rule). I think the reason this hit elicited continued discussion is that it exposed a problem with the rule (or, as it turned out, its interpretation) intended to prevent/punish this type of hit.
2. "is that not a concept you can comprehend" is the kind of ad hominem attack that I believe is not welcomed on this board. I recommend you criticize opinions but not other posters.
3. as others have already said, if you think a topic has been discussed longer than you care to continue to read, don't continue reading; but don't instruct others not to post on something that interests them. You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate to post on the board and when.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. You may benefit from learning more about the history of this board and why it was created.
(09-30-2016, 09:46 AM)norcard link Wrote:Move on. Or is that not a concept you can comprehend?
1. Hmmmm . . . The NCAA hasn't moved on (see link above for its recently issued clarification of the targeting rule). I think the reason this hit elicited continued discussion is that it exposed a problem with the rule (or, as it turned out, its interpretation) intended to prevent/punish this type of hit.
2. "is that not a concept you can comprehend" is the kind of ad hominem attack that I believe is not welcomed on this board. I recommend you criticize opinions but not other posters.
3. as others have already said, if you think a topic has been discussed longer than you care to continue to read, don't continue reading; but don't instruct others not to post on something that interests them. You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate to post on the board and when.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. You may benefit from learning more about the history of this board and why it was created.
09-30-2016, 02:50 PM
(09-30-2016, 02:48 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=15811.msg173903#msg173903 date=1475253985]
Move on. Or is that not a concept you can comprehend?
1. Hmmmm . . . The NCAA hasn't moved on (see link above for its recently issued clarification of the targeting rule). I think the reason this hit elicited continued discussion is that it exposed a problem with the rule (or, as it turned out, its interpretation) intended to prevent/punish this type of hit.
2. "is that not a concept you can comprehend" is the kind of ad hominem attack that I believe is not welcomed on this board. I recommend you criticize opinions but not other posters.
3. as others have already said, if you think a topic has been discussed longer than you care to continue to read, don't continue reading; but don't instruct others not to post on something that interests them. You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate to post on the board and when.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. You may benefit from learning more about the history of this board and why it was created.
[/quote]
No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.
(09-30-2016, 02:48 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=15811.msg173903#msg173903 date=1475253985]
Move on. Or is that not a concept you can comprehend?
1. Hmmmm . . . The NCAA hasn't moved on (see link above for its recently issued clarification of the targeting rule). I think the reason this hit elicited continued discussion is that it exposed a problem with the rule (or, as it turned out, its interpretation) intended to prevent/punish this type of hit.
2. "is that not a concept you can comprehend" is the kind of ad hominem attack that I believe is not welcomed on this board. I recommend you criticize opinions but not other posters.
3. as others have already said, if you think a topic has been discussed longer than you care to continue to read, don't continue reading; but don't instruct others not to post on something that interests them. You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate to post on the board and when.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. You may benefit from learning more about the history of this board and why it was created.
[/quote]
No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.
09-30-2016, 02:50 PM
(09-30-2016, 02:48 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=15811.msg173903#msg173903 date=1475253985]
Move on. Or is that not a concept you can comprehend?
1. Hmmmm . . . The NCAA hasn't moved on (see link above for its recently issued clarification of the targeting rule). I think the reason this hit elicited continued discussion is that it exposed a problem with the rule (or, as it turned out, its interpretation) intended to prevent/punish this type of hit.
2. "is that not a concept you can comprehend" is the kind of ad hominem attack that I believe is not welcomed on this board. I recommend you criticize opinions but not other posters.
3. as others have already said, if you think a topic has been discussed longer than you care to continue to read, don't continue reading; but don't instruct others not to post on something that interests them. You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate to post on the board and when.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. You may benefit from learning more about the history of this board and why it was created.
[/quote]
No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.
(09-30-2016, 02:48 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=15811.msg173903#msg173903 date=1475253985]
Move on. Or is that not a concept you can comprehend?
1. Hmmmm . . . The NCAA hasn't moved on (see link above for its recently issued clarification of the targeting rule). I think the reason this hit elicited continued discussion is that it exposed a problem with the rule (or, as it turned out, its interpretation) intended to prevent/punish this type of hit.
2. "is that not a concept you can comprehend" is the kind of ad hominem attack that I believe is not welcomed on this board. I recommend you criticize opinions but not other posters.
3. as others have already said, if you think a topic has been discussed longer than you care to continue to read, don't continue reading; but don't instruct others not to post on something that interests them. You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate to post on the board and when.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. You may benefit from learning more about the history of this board and why it was created.
[/quote]
No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.
09-30-2016, 02:50 PM
(09-30-2016, 02:48 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=15811.msg173903#msg173903 date=1475253985]
Move on. Or is that not a concept you can comprehend?
1. Hmmmm . . . The NCAA hasn't moved on (see link above for its recently issued clarification of the targeting rule). I think the reason this hit elicited continued discussion is that it exposed a problem with the rule (or, as it turned out, its interpretation) intended to prevent/punish this type of hit.
2. "is that not a concept you can comprehend" is the kind of ad hominem attack that I believe is not welcomed on this board. I recommend you criticize opinions but not other posters.
3. as others have already said, if you think a topic has been discussed longer than you care to continue to read, don't continue reading; but don't instruct others not to post on something that interests them. You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate to post on the board and when.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. You may benefit from learning more about the history of this board and why it was created.
[/quote]
No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.
(09-30-2016, 02:48 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=15811.msg173903#msg173903 date=1475253985]
Move on. Or is that not a concept you can comprehend?
1. Hmmmm . . . The NCAA hasn't moved on (see link above for its recently issued clarification of the targeting rule). I think the reason this hit elicited continued discussion is that it exposed a problem with the rule (or, as it turned out, its interpretation) intended to prevent/punish this type of hit.
2. "is that not a concept you can comprehend" is the kind of ad hominem attack that I believe is not welcomed on this board. I recommend you criticize opinions but not other posters.
3. as others have already said, if you think a topic has been discussed longer than you care to continue to read, don't continue reading; but don't instruct others not to post on something that interests them. You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate to post on the board and when.
I hope you find these suggestions helpful. You may benefit from learning more about the history of this board and why it was created.
[/quote]
No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.
09-30-2016, 03:01 PM
(09-30-2016, 02:50 PM)norcard link Wrote:No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.That's a great approach. There used to be a function that would hide all posts from specific posters but I don't know how to make it work. (But I'm still interested in what you may have to say in the future. -- just want to keep things as civil as possible!)
(09-30-2016, 02:50 PM)norcard link Wrote:No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.That's a great approach. There used to be a function that would hide all posts from specific posters but I don't know how to make it work. (But I'm still interested in what you may have to say in the future. -- just want to keep things as civil as possible!)
09-30-2016, 03:01 PM
(09-30-2016, 02:50 PM)norcard link Wrote:No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.That's a great approach. There used to be a function that would hide all posts from specific posters but I don't know how to make it work. (But I'm still interested in what you may have to say in the future. -- just want to keep things as civil as possible!)
(09-30-2016, 02:50 PM)norcard link Wrote:No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.That's a great approach. There used to be a function that would hide all posts from specific posters but I don't know how to make it work. (But I'm still interested in what you may have to say in the future. -- just want to keep things as civil as possible!)
09-30-2016, 03:01 PM
(09-30-2016, 02:50 PM)norcard link Wrote:No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.That's a great approach. There used to be a function that would hide all posts from specific posters but I don't know how to make it work. (But I'm still interested in what you may have to say in the future. -- just want to keep things as civil as possible!)
(09-30-2016, 02:50 PM)norcard link Wrote:No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.That's a great approach. There used to be a function that would hide all posts from specific posters but I don't know how to make it work. (But I'm still interested in what you may have to say in the future. -- just want to keep things as civil as possible!)
09-30-2016, 03:07 PM
(09-28-2016, 09:51 PM)RJ_82 link Wrote:The crux of Hirsch's explanation is that it was legal because . . . Goodman used the "front" (or forehead part) rather than the "crown" (or "top", as clarified by the rule itself).If you're up for it, it would be interesting to reply to his email now and ask, in light of the clarification just issued by the NCAA, whether the Pac-12 still considers the hit legal. (I'd be they'd just say, at this point, that the case is closed.")
(09-28-2016, 09:51 PM)RJ_82 link Wrote:The crux of Hirsch's explanation is that it was legal because . . . Goodman used the "front" (or forehead part) rather than the "crown" (or "top", as clarified by the rule itself).If you're up for it, it would be interesting to reply to his email now and ask, in light of the clarification just issued by the NCAA, whether the Pac-12 still considers the hit legal. (I'd be they'd just say, at this point, that the case is closed.")
09-30-2016, 03:07 PM
(09-28-2016, 09:51 PM)RJ_82 link Wrote:The crux of Hirsch's explanation is that it was legal because . . . Goodman used the "front" (or forehead part) rather than the "crown" (or "top", as clarified by the rule itself).If you're up for it, it would be interesting to reply to his email now and ask, in light of the clarification just issued by the NCAA, whether the Pac-12 still considers the hit legal. (I'd be they'd just say, at this point, that the case is closed.")
(09-28-2016, 09:51 PM)RJ_82 link Wrote:The crux of Hirsch's explanation is that it was legal because . . . Goodman used the "front" (or forehead part) rather than the "crown" (or "top", as clarified by the rule itself).If you're up for it, it would be interesting to reply to his email now and ask, in light of the clarification just issued by the NCAA, whether the Pac-12 still considers the hit legal. (I'd be they'd just say, at this point, that the case is closed.")
09-30-2016, 03:07 PM
(09-28-2016, 09:51 PM)RJ_82 link Wrote:The crux of Hirsch's explanation is that it was legal because . . . Goodman used the "front" (or forehead part) rather than the "crown" (or "top", as clarified by the rule itself).If you're up for it, it would be interesting to reply to his email now and ask, in light of the clarification just issued by the NCAA, whether the Pac-12 still considers the hit legal. (I'd be they'd just say, at this point, that the case is closed.")
(09-28-2016, 09:51 PM)RJ_82 link Wrote:The crux of Hirsch's explanation is that it was legal because . . . Goodman used the "front" (or forehead part) rather than the "crown" (or "top", as clarified by the rule itself).If you're up for it, it would be interesting to reply to his email now and ask, in light of the clarification just issued by the NCAA, whether the Pac-12 still considers the hit legal. (I'd be they'd just say, at this point, that the case is closed.")
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
09-30-2016, 03:08 PM
(09-30-2016, 03:01 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=15811.msg173948#msg173948 date=1475272243]That's a great approach. There used to be a function that would hide all posts from specific posters but I don't know how to make it work. (But I'm still interested in what you may have to say in the future. -- just want to keep things as civil as possible!)
No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.
[/quote]
Profile
Modify Profile
Buddies/Ignore List
Edit Ignore List
Enter user name under Add To Ignore List
Click Add
(09-30-2016, 03:01 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=15811.msg173948#msg173948 date=1475272243]That's a great approach. There used to be a function that would hide all posts from specific posters but I don't know how to make it work. (But I'm still interested in what you may have to say in the future. -- just want to keep things as civil as possible!)
No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.
[/quote]
Profile
Modify Profile
Buddies/Ignore List
Edit Ignore List
Enter user name under Add To Ignore List
Click Add
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
09-30-2016, 03:08 PM
(09-30-2016, 03:01 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=15811.msg173948#msg173948 date=1475272243]That's a great approach. There used to be a function that would hide all posts from specific posters but I don't know how to make it work. (But I'm still interested in what you may have to say in the future. -- just want to keep things as civil as possible!)
No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.
[/quote]
Profile
Modify Profile
Buddies/Ignore List
Edit Ignore List
Enter user name under Add To Ignore List
Click Add
(09-30-2016, 03:01 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=15811.msg173948#msg173948 date=1475272243]That's a great approach. There used to be a function that would hide all posts from specific posters but I don't know how to make it work. (But I'm still interested in what you may have to say in the future. -- just want to keep things as civil as possible!)
No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.
[/quote]
Profile
Modify Profile
Buddies/Ignore List
Edit Ignore List
Enter user name under Add To Ignore List
Click Add
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
09-30-2016, 03:08 PM
(09-30-2016, 03:01 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=15811.msg173948#msg173948 date=1475272243]That's a great approach. There used to be a function that would hide all posts from specific posters but I don't know how to make it work. (But I'm still interested in what you may have to say in the future. -- just want to keep things as civil as possible!)
No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.
[/quote]
Profile
Modify Profile
Buddies/Ignore List
Edit Ignore List
Enter user name under Add To Ignore List
Click Add
(09-30-2016, 03:01 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=15811.msg173948#msg173948 date=1475272243]That's a great approach. There used to be a function that would hide all posts from specific posters but I don't know how to make it work. (But I'm still interested in what you may have to say in the future. -- just want to keep things as civil as possible!)
No worries. I will avoid this thread and some of the posters on here including yourself. Feel free to reciprocate.
[/quote]
Profile
Modify Profile
Buddies/Ignore List
Edit Ignore List
Enter user name under Add To Ignore List
Click Add
09-30-2016, 03:37 PM
I don't use the ignore list for anything other than trolls because I find that everyone can be irritating in some areas and even the most irritating poster will have useful information or thoughts from time to time.
09-30-2016, 03:37 PM
I don't use the ignore list for anything other than trolls because I find that everyone can be irritating in some areas and even the most irritating poster will have useful information or thoughts from time to time.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »