They so soft, chapter 3,024 - OSU coach snipes at Roman on Twitter

Submitted by kehnonymous on November 26th, 2023 at 1:47 PM

See tweet embed below.

FWIW, I probably didn't need to post this.  I mean, I did check to make sure that no one else had beat me to the punch and no one had, but really - you didn't need me to tell y'all that OSU coaches are so mentally fragile that they pick fights with people either 30 years older or younger after games.

Image

OSU’s cornerbacks coach had himself an evening last night talking to Roman Wilson @CoachTimWalton pic.twitter.com/DcHzQSVqeP

— Tanner Wooten (@tannerwutang) November 26, 2023

lhglrkwg

November 26th, 2023 at 1:50 PM ^

I am quite surprised to see the OSU coaches are drinking their own koolaid. First Day saying now they know what happened the last two years and now this genius still trying to say that was an INT.

I don't know why they are trying to will that into existence. Clearly a touchdown. Go cry to the Big Ten again

Blau

November 26th, 2023 at 2:06 PM ^

Yeah never a good look for a coach to message a player, no matter what the situation is.

While the play is close, once RW had possession and was past the goal line, the play is dead and the result is a TD. If every contested catch was determined by who ends up with the ball after the play is over, we’d basically be playing rugby out there.

Brimley

November 26th, 2023 at 8:52 PM ^

The spot was at least a close call (and was Zaprudered like crazy without a lot of certainty). However, I remember pausing the game, backing it up slightly and pointing out to my then 13 year old son the flagrant holds that were going uncalled. I'm not exactly Football Sherlock and even I saw them. It was ridiculous.

SWFLWolverine

November 26th, 2023 at 5:29 PM ^

I agree it was the correct call. My Buckeye fan brother sitting next to me thought the call was correct as well.  The argument, as I understand it, is that Roman Wilson never secured possession as a catch and since the ball never hit the ground and OSU DB ended up with the ball, it should have been ruled an Int.

FlexUM

November 26th, 2023 at 1:50 PM ^

Oh no this is worthy of a post. Bitchmade soft is that whole squad. Actually, I take that back. They have some tough dude on that team that no doubt work hard. 

it’s the coaches. Self entitled asshats that think they just deserve to beat Michigan for no other reason than “just because we are THE”. 

WolverineHistorian

November 26th, 2023 at 2:12 PM ^

Took two steps and his butt was on the ground in the end zone before the OSU player grabbed the football from him.  In what universe would that ever be called an interception?

Get the f*ck over yourselves, Buckeyes.  Don’t be acting like this play was the equivalent of a gift extra yard ala 2016 or Mike Lantry’s made field goal being called wide right.  

wertent

November 26th, 2023 at 1:54 PM ^

i dont get the fumble/interception in the endzone agruement... he had the ball in the endzone ... the play is over at that point I dont care if it was wrestled away afterwards the plays over once he crossed the goalline...

Streetchemist

November 26th, 2023 at 5:01 PM ^

They mentioned it on the broadcast. The initial bobble of the ball delayed Roman becoming a runner after the catch. He re-established control and then took what appeared to be enough steps to qualify as a runner again and then all he had to do with cross the plane with possession. Let’s say he wasn’t able to become a runner again and then went down to the ground. He would have had to survive the ground with possession which he didn’t because he was ripped out. A review was probably necessary to look the establishing yourself as a runner angle and regaining possession. It was closer than most here will admit but they made the right call 

reshp1

November 26th, 2023 at 8:38 PM ^

The ball being super glued to the receiver's hands and not moving a nanometer has never been the standard for possession. We have numerous examples of even more tenuous control of the ball count as catches (Roman's own pinning the ball on the back of the defender's helmet comes to mind). I don't think it's consistent with precedent to interpret a slight shift in how he possessed the ball as a bobble.