[Suudy]

Originally Posted by ajmc

You seem to recognize M. Knells comments as "idiotic", so why are you paying any attention to them or letting them bother you?

Because other people pay attention to them. The very same people that I work with on Monday, Tues, Thu, and Friday nights.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Treating "all players alike", doesn't require treating all situations exactly alike, because it's extremely rate that any two situations in a football game are EVER EXACTLY alike. The "standard" we all strive for is measured by our judgment, as long as we're consistent in applying that judgment to whatever situation we're dealing with, rather than trying to find "one size that fits all".

Correct. But you note that Kanell states that even in the same situation, Tebow would be celebrated ("If this happened to Tim Tebow back in heyday, we would be talking about how great of a competitor he is...."). So the only difference between Winston and Tebow in Kanell's analysis is the player.

Originally Posted by ajmc

As long as we're accurate, what difference does it make that others are inaccurate (dopey comments like, "he was outside the pocket). Of course such comments give us an opportunity to educate someone, but if they choose to remain ignorant, THAT'S ON THEM.

Call me old fashioned, but shouldn't coaches coach to the rules? If they are watching football on Saturday and Sunday to learn the rules, that's one thing. If they are listening to commentators on stupid analyses like "Tebow would have been celebrated" that is another. One just gets the rules wrong. The other gets our motivations and intentions wrong.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Ignorance can be corrected by providing accurate information. Those who choose to ignore accurate information are STUPID, and that's a condition that can last forever and likely beyond our ability to correct.

Then shouldn't we speak out against those to make inaccurate, dopey comments, like Kanell's?

Originally Posted by ajmc

"Intentionally contacting an official is either always a foul or it isn't", as determined by the judgment of the game official observing or enduring the contact.

That wasn't my point. I'm not arguing against application to circumstances. Of course circumstances change the application (I can point you to an excellent talk by Peter Kreeft on ethics). My frustration with Kanell is that he's gone past arguing about the application of the rule with regard to circumstances, instead arguing about the individuals involved, as if somehow that actually matters.