Quote:
|
Originally Posted by just another ref
What's your point?
|
My point is that you're continually trying to use wording from
one definition to fit cases that are covered by other completely similar-in-wording rules definitions. It's called
tunnel vision. My point is that you're completely ignoring the language of other sections of the rule book. My point is that you keep insisting that something
has to be what you say it is instead of saying that it
might be what you say it is. My point is you're trying to make a
definitive ruling on plays that are straight judgment calls. My point is that anyone with any common sense at all is gonna wait a second and see the result of a play instead of guessing. My point is that most officials aren't smart enough or good enough to know exactly what every player intended to do on every play; you and Junior seem to be the all-knowing exceptions to that.
Need any more? In the 15 pages(to date) of this nonsense, I've probably made a few others.