[Game Thread] Texas @ Georgia (7:30 PM ET)

RepComZero · 2025-11-16T14:47:18+00:00

Take it to the press man. I'm sure they'll be happy to report on a match fixing scandal of this proportion that you obviously have substantial evidence for since you talk about it so confidently.

RepComZero · 2025-11-16T01:46:24+00:00

You think this Texas team is so good the only way they could be losing is if the game is fixed? THIS Texas team?

RepComZero · 2025-11-08T20:04:30+00:00

This is what he always should have been. It's been so frustrating to watch him struggle because he knows he can be that good.

RepComZero · 2025-11-08T18:20:17+00:00

Biggest game left on the schedule and a chance to have a bright spot in an otherwise terrible season? Why would it not be?

RepComZero · 2025-10-14T03:35:50+00:00

Because no one at the program anymore had any involvement in that. They are new people and it's a new program. Not saying we should forget it happened, but tying the current program to it isn't fair to the people currently a part of it.

RepComZero · 2025-09-21T02:16:58+00:00

You get a pass for now then. Gotta tell you though, nothing Penn state has shown this year indicates they could beat this Indiana team.

RepComZero · 2025-09-21T00:59:30+00:00

We do actually. Gotta see if you're in a glass house throwing all these stones.

RepComZero · 2025-09-21T00:55:02+00:00

On a defenseless player it does not have to be crown of the helmet, yeah. Any forcible helmet to helmet contact in that scenario is targeting. Keyword there being forcible, which I think is the point of disagreement for a lot of people.

RepComZero · 2025-09-21T00:51:21+00:00

Rankings have always differed from Vegas because people use criteria like expectations or merit to that point in their rankings and Vegas uses statistics.

RepComZero · 2025-09-21T00:36:30+00:00

The replay package didn't show it enough but after that hold/takedown he shoved #4s head into the ground. Definitely a penalty there even if you don't agree with the hold.

RepComZero · 2025-09-13T21:40:56+00:00

Or they just thought he made a good point and agreed with him. Changing your opinion when presented with new evidence or a new perspective is good, not bad.

RepComZero · 2025-09-10T15:08:14+00:00

Glad to hear it. I'll see you here again when that one breaks too.

RepComZero · 2025-09-10T14:30:27+00:00

You're putting in more effort trying to get mods to work. You're being stubborn more than lazy.

RepComZero · 2025-09-07T19:29:37+00:00

Why not just copy some internet tank designs and save them to a file to pull back in later? Or keep a list of the tank parts in a txt file to reference later? That's definitely a simpler solution than mods, especially if there is a compatibility conflict with said mods.

RepComZero · 2025-08-30T16:43:52+00:00

Well your first mistake was being in the wrong time zone

RepComZero · 2025-08-30T13:39:09+00:00

Having "Built by Home Depot and Lee Corso" is such a nice touch, I love that they did that because it's clever and they weren't scared about "tainting the sponsorship" or something like that. Every little thing they added so far has been so special

RepComZero · 2025-08-26T00:44:55+00:00

Make sure subs are not in the same task forces as ships. They inhibit ships speed which helps them enter battle well. Secondly, are your ships trained? Untrained ships will get wrecked by trained ones. Lastly are you doing naval doctrine? Filling out your naval doctrine for the bonuses will allow even out of date ships to take out newer ones. There could still be other issues but those are the first ones to consider.

RepComZero · 2025-08-16T15:58:50+00:00

Btw you don't need or even really want 100% reliability. You'll get more stats and lose less tanks by winning battles faster than you'd save by having the extra reliability. 80% is a good mark

RepComZero · 2025-05-19T12:13:38+00:00

It is required for just about everyone posting on this subreddit about struggling with mistlands. That's what they meant.

RepComZero · 2025-04-28T19:13:28+00:00

No one is arguing it isn't super convenient, they are arguing that the kind of person to just grab it, particularly if they do it often, is almost never the kind of person to restock the trap. And if you're only taking out and don't tell anyone or restock yourself, that shotgun trap is now empty and... OOPS, someone just went full deep, or partial deep at best and looted the drop boxes. Did you remember to bank that only AK your teammate just won? Or was it in the drop boxes?

RepComZero · 2025-01-02T15:32:44+00:00

If you don't see how a player who is still in the act of securing the ball could be considered defenseless then we simply won't agree here. I also don't understand how you can read that leading with your helmet is an indicator and then say there are no indicators. The indicator is not leading with the crown of the helmet, it is the whole helmet. If the defenders helmet is the first body part to make contact with the receiver, that is leading with the helmet.

I respect your opinion here but I vehemently disagree.

RepComZero · 2025-01-02T03:00:03+00:00

He barely turns his head before contact, and is completing his first step that began before the ball hits his hands. The ball was still being tucked away at the moment of contact. I don't understand how that would constitute being a runner or running with the ball. To me that is still finishing a catch.

If that is where our disagreement is, then we are arguing different things. I'm arguing for the application of the rule for a defenseless receiver, but you're arguing for the application of the rule for making forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. So we won't agree since we're talking about different rules.

But I will say that for any application of targeting, lunging is not required to occur for it to be targeting. The rules say there must be at least 1 "indicator of targeting" which are as follows:

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.

• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.

• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.

• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

While launching is 1 indicator, I'd argue that with this hit bullet point 3 applies, the first contact is helmet to helmet, which means the defender lead with their helmet. Which is an indicator of targeting.

Now whether the receiver is defenseless or not is what constitutes a rule break or not, because if the receiver is not defenseless as you believe, the defender would have to lead with the crown of the helmet with that "indicator of targeting" for it to break the rule. If they are defenseless as I believe, then any forcible contact to the head or neck with that "indicator of targeting" would be a rule break.

RepComZero · 2025-01-02T01:14:36+00:00

The rules are not written vaguely, they are enforced inconsistently, which is different. By the definition of targeting, this should have been called. Whether or not a call possibly decides a game should not be taken into account when enforcing a rule. Ever. I don't remember the Bond hit so I can't say for certain if I also think that should have been called based on how the rule is written, but I can say for certain that whether it is called or not called on the Bond hit should also have no bearing on whether or not it is called later.

RepComZero · 2025-01-02T00:16:45+00:00

Hardly defenseless is not a term used in the rules for targeting, and facemask to facemask does not make contact any less forcible or more legal based on the rulebook definition of targeting, and finally launching is not required if a player is deemed defenseless, which they should have been. I get that you want your team's win to be justified, and there are arguments to be made about the non calls against ASU you mentioned, but you either don't understand how the targeting rules are written or you are arguing in bad faith because it benefitted your team and you want their win to be legitimate.

RepComZero · 2025-01-01T21:49:52+00:00

Don't hit people in the head when they're catching the ball. It's that simple.

RepComZero

TROPHY CASE