I would have the advantage if I knew that you knew my cards. once you know that i know that you know my cards, i lose that advantage if you are smart enough to take advantage of that.
say before this all came out you had watched all of the streams and knew that Postle was cheating and knew all of the cards. you could definitely play against him where you would have an advantage against him.
Were those OL falling on a fumble in the endzone? Does that count as a rushing TD? If it is because they lined up an OL in the backfield in some kind of jumbo package, then that doesn't count as an OL rushing TD. He wouldn't be an OL, but a running back.
The interesting thing about the Postle cheating thing is that if you knew he is cheating (before all this publicity), then you would actually have the advantage over him. Imagine you knew he knew the cards. Here is an actual hand. You have pocket Jacks. The flop is A-A-Q. You check. Postle bets. You call. Turn is a blank. You check. Postle bets. You call. River is a 10. You check. Postle makes a HUGE all-in. If you know he KNOWS your cards and you have pocket Jacks, you know that he would not play this hand in a way where every move is trying to get you to fold. So you can call these huge all-ins on the river and be pretty confident.
All of our conference games have been close, but we typically have big enough leads in just about all of them where we try to run out the clock. We are not good at running out the clock.
At some point we should have about a 4 TD lead against WVU. It might end up closer than it should be, but not close enough to be a threat.
It was such a predictable Mack call. Running sideways is always horrible at the goal line, especially against defenses like that. I hated when we would do the pitchy to the running back on 4th down. Shit never worked. I think there is some feeling of safety with the play because you don't have to complete a pass. But it never frickin works.
i agree wit going for two if you have a play you are confident will work in that situation. Honestly every team should work in that one play in that situation that they pull out for the one time you really need it. This was definitely the spot for it. The fact that he called that specific play tells me he does not have that one play that he can call. Thus he should not have gone for it.
Imagine you are awakened at night and see a guy in your house that you believe to be a burglar. You don't know if he has a gun or not. You assume he is dangerous because he broke into your house. You want to protect your family. You shoot him. Turns out your daughter snuck in her boyfriend. Your fear and adrenaline made you shoot him. Was it reckless?
1) it is reasonable that she made a mistake. when you see a stranger in what you believe to be your apartment, your whole attention probably goes to him and not the surroundings.
2) i think that the fact she is a cop will hurt her on this point. if she was a random person that had a gun, you could understand them acting on that initial fear and adrenaline. there will be some questions why a cop couldn't handle it better.
so they run a play to Duvernay that works all of the time for three quarters, but they hold back on that play at the end of games when we need first downs so future opponents won't know about that play?