Quote:
Originally Posted by jbduke
On the contrary. The appeal to authority fallacy tells us that it is the opinion, per se, not the holder of the opinion, that is important. Of course some opinions are going to be more informed than others, but we shouldn't give an opinion 'informed' status just because of who utters it. In other words, whether Bob or MTD happens to be correct is completely independent of Bob and MTD themselves. It is the idea that is important, not he who propagates it.
Again, agree or disagree with those deemed 'expert,' but don't do it because of a label or attribution. Do it on the merits of the case.
|
When we're talking black and white, yes, the merit of the case is pretty straightforward. Officiating, OTOH, is a series of various shades of gray. Because of this, the opinions given have to always be linked with the person making them and their authority, experience, etc. Sometimes authority is granted to a specific person (an assignor, commissioner, supervisor, etc.) and other times it's based on other, less tangible factors, such as reputation and experience.
I look at this play and I prefer to put myself in the position of the official making the call, real-time. The screener is relatively stationary, certainly so compared with the player who bounces off of him. Is a small lean (and whether the screener is not vertical for the purpose of the POV is debatable, even by the experienced people here) forward to me enough to pass responsibility on the contact to the screener? No. I would be happy to argue that this was mainly done to absorb contact. If this was a block/charge situation, I'd call it a charge/PCF in a heartbeat.
(I've worked with Bob and I know both of the gentlemen's resumes and knowledge and to say that carries no weight is a bit ridiculous, IMO.)