[Ancient Indian]

Sark’s reputation for whining preceded him to U$C.  Last year Sark accused Ben Gardner, who was playing with a painful torn pec, of faking an injury, when Sark had on his own staff the only coach in the Pac 12 accused of telling players to fake injury and proven guilty.  Following Sark’s practice of lying, the Captain of the current $C team lied about how he injured his ankles to pretend to be a hero. The coach creates the culture.

Sark’s whining works. Guilty of several penalties, he whined to his Daddy – AD Pat Haden – who rushed onto the field to intimidate the refs. It worked: they called a false penalty to take a Stanford touchdown off the board.

The penalty that negated the touchdown was for a cut block by Joshua Garnett. A cut block happens when one blocker engages a defensive player high from the front and a second blocker hits him low from the side – obviously risking serious knee injury. The play in question was nothing like that: the defender was coming through untouched, and Garnett dived in front of him.  The refs either didn’t know the rule, didn’t see the play, or had been intimidated into thinking they owed Sark a call in his favor.

David Shaw failed to respond.  Taking a touchdown off the board in the 4th Quarter of a 10-10 game could mean the difference between winning and losing – and it did. Why didn’t Shaw challenge? He is a very nice fellow, but could stand a transfusion of tough from Harbaugh.

Stanford made enough dumb mistakes – 12 men on the field after a time-out? – to lose the game. It’s shameful for both teams that the outcome turned on Sark’s whining to his Daddy to intimidate the referees. Why should Sark turn honest when his whining is winning?

[Ancient Indian]

Sark’s reputation for whining preceded him to U$C.  Last year Sark accused Ben Gardner, who was playing with a painful torn pec, of faking an injury, when Sark had on his own staff the only coach in the Pac 12 accused of telling players to fake injury and proven guilty.  Following Sark’s practice of lying, the Captain of the current $C team lied about how he injured his ankles to pretend to be a hero. The coach creates the culture.

Sark’s whining works. Guilty of several penalties, he whined to his Daddy – AD Pat Haden – who rushed onto the field to intimidate the refs. It worked: they called a false penalty to take a Stanford touchdown off the board.

The penalty that negated the touchdown was for a cut block by Joshua Garnett. A cut block happens when one blocker engages a defensive player high from the front and a second blocker hits him low from the side – obviously risking serious knee injury. The play in question was nothing like that: the defender was coming through untouched, and Garnett dived in front of him.  The refs either didn’t know the rule, didn’t see the play, or had been intimidated into thinking they owed Sark a call in his favor.

David Shaw failed to respond.  Taking a touchdown off the board in the 4th Quarter of a 10-10 game could mean the difference between winning and losing – and it did. Why didn’t Shaw challenge? He is a very nice fellow, but could stand a transfusion of tough from Harbaugh.

Stanford made enough dumb mistakes – 12 men on the field after a time-out? – to lose the game. It’s shameful for both teams that the outcome turned on Sark’s whining to his Daddy to intimidate the referees. Why should Sark turn honest when his whining is winning?

[81alum]

Sark’s reputation for whining preceded him to U$C.  Last year Sark accused Ben Gardner, who was playing with a painful torn pec, of faking an injury, when Sark had on his own staff the only coach in the Pac 12 accused of telling players to fake injury and proven guilty.  Following Sark’s practice of lying, the Captain of the current $C team lied about how he injured his ankles to pretend to be a hero. The coach creates the culture.

Sark’s whining works. Guilty of several penalties, he whined to his Daddy – AD Pat Haden – who rushed onto the field to intimidate the refs. It worked: they called a false penalty to take a Stanford touchdown off the board.

The penalty that negated the touchdown was for a cut block by Joshua Garnett. A cut block happens when one blocker engages a defensive player high from the front and a second blocker hits him low from the side – obviously risking serious knee injury. The play in question was nothing like that: the defender was coming through untouched, and Garnett dived in front of him.  The refs either didn’t know the rule, didn’t see the play, or had been intimidated into thinking they owed Sark a call in his favor.

David Shaw failed to respond.  Taking a touchdown off the board in the 4th Quarter of a 10-10 game could mean the difference between winning and losing – and it did. Why didn’t Shaw challenge? He is a very nice fellow, but could stand a transfusion of tough from Harbaugh.

Stanford made enough dumb mistakes – 12 men on the field after a time-out? – to lose the game. It’s shameful for both teams that the outcome turned on Sark’s whining to his Daddy to intimidate the referees. Why should Sark turn honest when his whining is winning?

I will endorse your criticism of Sark for whining.  His whining might even have influenced the refs.  But the chop block call was technically accurate.  See this thread:
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...566.0.html

[81alum]

Sark’s reputation for whining preceded him to U$C.  Last year Sark accused Ben Gardner, who was playing with a painful torn pec, of faking an injury, when Sark had on his own staff the only coach in the Pac 12 accused of telling players to fake injury and proven guilty.  Following Sark’s practice of lying, the Captain of the current $C team lied about how he injured his ankles to pretend to be a hero. The coach creates the culture.

Sark’s whining works. Guilty of several penalties, he whined to his Daddy – AD Pat Haden – who rushed onto the field to intimidate the refs. It worked: they called a false penalty to take a Stanford touchdown off the board.

The penalty that negated the touchdown was for a cut block by Joshua Garnett. A cut block happens when one blocker engages a defensive player high from the front and a second blocker hits him low from the side – obviously risking serious knee injury. The play in question was nothing like that: the defender was coming through untouched, and Garnett dived in front of him.  The refs either didn’t know the rule, didn’t see the play, or had been intimidated into thinking they owed Sark a call in his favor.

David Shaw failed to respond.  Taking a touchdown off the board in the 4th Quarter of a 10-10 game could mean the difference between winning and losing – and it did. Why didn’t Shaw challenge? He is a very nice fellow, but could stand a transfusion of tough from Harbaugh.

Stanford made enough dumb mistakes – 12 men on the field after a time-out? – to lose the game. It’s shameful for both teams that the outcome turned on Sark’s whining to his Daddy to intimidate the referees. Why should Sark turn honest when his whining is winning?

I will endorse your criticism of Sark for whining.  His whining might even have influenced the refs.  But the chop block call was technically accurate.  See this thread:
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...566.0.html

[StanFan88]

[quote author=Ancient Indian link=topic=10570.msg97212#msg97212 date=1410098239]
Sark’s reputation for whining preceded him to U$C.  Last year Sark accused Ben Gardner, who was playing with a painful torn pec, of faking an injury, when Sark had on his own staff the only coach in the Pac 12 accused of telling players to fake injury and proven guilty.  Following Sark’s practice of lying, the Captain of the current $C team lied about how he injured his ankles to pretend to be a hero. The coach creates the culture.

Sark’s whining works. Guilty of several penalties, he whined to his Daddy – AD Pat Haden – who rushed onto the field to intimidate the refs. It worked: they called a false penalty to take a Stanford touchdown off the board.

The penalty that negated the touchdown was for a cut block by Joshua Garnett. A cut block happens when one blocker engages a defensive player high from the front and a second blocker hits him low from the side – obviously risking serious knee injury. The play in question was nothing like that: the defender was coming through untouched, and Garnett dived in front of him.  The refs either didn’t know the rule, didn’t see the play, or had been intimidated into thinking they owed Sark a call in his favor.

David Shaw failed to respond.  Taking a touchdown off the board in the 4th Quarter of a 10-10 game could mean the difference between winning and losing – and it did. Why didn’t Shaw challenge? He is a very nice fellow, but could stand a transfusion of tough from Harbaugh.

Stanford made enough dumb mistakes – 12 men on the field after a time-out? – to lose the game. It’s shameful for both teams that the outcome turned on Sark’s whining to his Daddy to intimidate the referees. Why should Sark turn honest when his whining is winning?

I will endorse your criticism of Sark for whining.  His whining might even have influenced the refs.  But the chop block call was technically accurate.  See this thread:
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...566.0.html
[/quote]

I don't give a damn whether the chop block was accurate or whether Sark whined.  Stanford lost this game plain and simple.

[StanFan88]

[quote author=Ancient Indian link=topic=10570.msg97212#msg97212 date=1410098239]
Sark’s reputation for whining preceded him to U$C.  Last year Sark accused Ben Gardner, who was playing with a painful torn pec, of faking an injury, when Sark had on his own staff the only coach in the Pac 12 accused of telling players to fake injury and proven guilty.  Following Sark’s practice of lying, the Captain of the current $C team lied about how he injured his ankles to pretend to be a hero. The coach creates the culture.

Sark’s whining works. Guilty of several penalties, he whined to his Daddy – AD Pat Haden – who rushed onto the field to intimidate the refs. It worked: they called a false penalty to take a Stanford touchdown off the board.

The penalty that negated the touchdown was for a cut block by Joshua Garnett. A cut block happens when one blocker engages a defensive player high from the front and a second blocker hits him low from the side – obviously risking serious knee injury. The play in question was nothing like that: the defender was coming through untouched, and Garnett dived in front of him.  The refs either didn’t know the rule, didn’t see the play, or had been intimidated into thinking they owed Sark a call in his favor.

David Shaw failed to respond.  Taking a touchdown off the board in the 4th Quarter of a 10-10 game could mean the difference between winning and losing – and it did. Why didn’t Shaw challenge? He is a very nice fellow, but could stand a transfusion of tough from Harbaugh.

Stanford made enough dumb mistakes – 12 men on the field after a time-out? – to lose the game. It’s shameful for both teams that the outcome turned on Sark’s whining to his Daddy to intimidate the referees. Why should Sark turn honest when his whining is winning?

I will endorse your criticism of Sark for whining.  His whining might even have influenced the refs.  But the chop block call was technically accurate.  See this thread:
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/...566.0.html
[/quote]

I don't give a damn whether the chop block was accurate or whether Sark whined.  Stanford lost this game plain and simple.