Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
If you don't feel like it should have been a flagrant, cool. But, the reasoning above is total BS in my opinion.
Rut, mentioned why he thought it isn't flagrant; an opinion that will initiate conversation. JR said he thought it was flagrant; another opinion. Neither of those opinions are lemming-ish.  I made that up for this special occasion! |
I stated that I tought it was borderline in an earlier post...that I didn't think it was flagrant but believed before the call that a flagrant was a possible outcome of the review. Even though I didn't think it was flagrent, I wouldn't claim soneone was wrong who would call it flagrant.
The statement that I was responding to
"If that's not flagrant, especially after seeing it on the replay, then I don't know what is."
is clearly too strong given that three very credibile officials didn't call it flagrant.
I didn't feel I needed to repeat my specific opinion.