It was "missed"? How was it "missed"? Who missed it, and what would have happened had it not been "missed".

It's okay to admit that you didn't realize that you were unaware of the fact that this rule simply doesn't exist...or...you can go full Frankie.

You are so ****ing stupid it's mind boggling.

Florida's defender had his dick in Ellis' butt. I'm trying to paint you a picture I'm sure you're familiar with. They jumped simultaneously - and he swung his arm over Ellis' head. There was contact. It was a foul. Did I say it was an "over the back" foul?

But, I'm sure you were glued to the tv watching the game with your KU buddies.

That's like bitching because Champ Bailey didn't get called for face guarding. I mean, sure, if Bailey hits Bowe in the helmet while face guarding before the ball gets there, a penalty exists...that doesn't make face guarding illegal in the NFL. It just means he committed a different penalty altogether...different in the sense that...you know...it's an actual penalty.

Yes. The quoted portion is exactly what you posted.

And no, I wasn't watching it with my KU friends. I was watching it in a bar in Wisconsin. None of my KU friends bitch about non-existent rules.

The whole "dick in butt" thing is called boxing out by Ellis. It's just as illegal for a player to box out as it is for a player to go over the back...ie, it's not illegal.

Look, you cannot go over an opponent's back in the sense that you cannot push them or make illegal contact in any way. Vertical is fine, but horizontal displacement is not. That's a foul.

That's what people are talking about when they cry "Over the back!" They're not saying that it's a foul because the opponent is behind the player; they're saying it because illegal contact occurred from behind.

What it's called is completely irrelevant. A foul is a foul.

Hmmm,

You are terrible at misinterpreting then. It happens on the Internet.

But, -- of course, the whistle wasn't blown so it wasn't a foul when clearly it was. There was contact and the defender was over the back -- which again, I never called it an over the back foul.

Okay, Frankie.

Okay, worthless.

He called it "over the back," but the portion he pointed out was when the player FROM BEHIND displaced the opponent and made illegal contact.

That's a foul, clear as day. If he had jumped straight up, there wouldn't have been a problem with the no-call.

Wait, what? You can't go through a player to get a rebound....that's called a foul.


EDIT: I quoted the wrong one. This is directly at Saul, not Silock.

Self talked on his radio show the other day that KU does have a say in it and that they won't be playing MU, period.

Over the back is absolutely a foul. It's just not a literal term, it refers to what Silock described. Anyone who claims there's no such foul is ignorant of the terminology and rules.
Posted via Mobile Device

Saul is trying to make himself look smart, but it's actually doing the opposite.