The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Block Charge play (Video) (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/97291-block-charge-play-video.html)

referee99 Sun Feb 16, 2014 01:53pm
Block Charge play (Video)
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/mqOBXi_u1RI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thoughts?

JetMetFan Sun Feb 16, 2014 01:57pm
The thought is...even at real speed the defender didn't do anything illegal.

stick Sun Feb 16, 2014 02:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 923113)
The thought is...even at real speed the defender didn't do anything illegal.
Tough call to make. The replay does show the defender moving upon impact. The official made a god call afaict.

Raymond Sun Feb 16, 2014 02:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923115)
Tough call to make. The replay does show the defender moving upon impact. The official made a god call afaict.
Moving in what manner? If a coach asked you why you called a block on this play, would you be able to explain it to him?

Freddy Sun Feb 16, 2014 02:55pm
Counterpoint
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923115)
Tough call to make. The replay does show the defender moving upon impact. The official made a god call afaict.
:eek:

A) Yes, the defender was moving upon, even prior to impact -- legally, having establishing LGP.

B) The official did not make a god call, as it was incorrect and God doesn't make mistakes. :)

C) I know a handful of languages, but am having trouble translating "god call afaict." A little help here? :confused:

Ref16 Sun Feb 16, 2014 03:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923115)
Tough call to make. The replay does show the defender moving upon impact. The official made a god call afaict.
LGP was established, he is allowed to move!!!

In my opinion, the official blew this one...I would have had a charge.

JRutledge Sun Feb 16, 2014 03:19pm
This is a PC Foul all the way. And yes you can move once establishing LGP and this defender was moving backwards.

Peace

Freddy Sun Feb 16, 2014 03:28pm
Classic Situation of.......
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 923123)
This is a PC Foul all the way. And yes you can move once establishing LGP and this defender was moving backwards.

Peace
Agree.
The video wasn't real clear to enable us to verify where the official's eyes were during the drive, but this bears all the indications of one of those times when his eyes were on the dribbler and not on the defender. LGP just seemed to be too obvious to miss, unless there's something about the angle of the camera I'm missing.

AremRed Sun Feb 16, 2014 04:32pm
CURSOR....I mean block. Looks like the defender moved sideways when the offensive player was airborne. Could have been a slip PC had the defender not moved, but we will never know.

Camron Rust Sun Feb 16, 2014 05:46pm
Charge. Defender was there well before contact and did nothing wrong.

eyezen Sun Feb 16, 2014 05:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 923119)

C) I know a handful of languages, but am having trouble translating "god call afaict." A little help here? :confused:
The OP is saying "good (sic) call as far as i can tell"

TimTaylor Sun Feb 16, 2014 06:40pm
I have a PC foul - as others have said, defender clearly established LGP and didn't do anything wrong.

Rob1968 Sun Feb 16, 2014 07:04pm
PC fatrm - for all the reasons mentioned.:)

onetime1 Sun Feb 16, 2014 09:05pm
PC foul all the way. It looks to me that the offensive player with the ball simply slams into and runs over the defensive player like a run away freight train.

Welpe Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:00pm
Add me to the PC conga line.

Toren Mon Feb 17, 2014 01:08am
PC, send it up north.

Sharpshooternes Mon Feb 17, 2014 07:42am
From this angle I vote PC. If I had another angle I might change my opinion to a no call if the ball handler tried to go around and just clipped the side of the defender who then fell over trying to draw a charge. But I am definitely not voting for a block. Nothing wrong was done says yoga.

j51969 Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:54am
PC is if anything. Only I would love a better angle. Looks like the contact was not as bad as it seems. I might go with a nothing from leads angle. He was definitely looking at the offensive player.

twocentsworth Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:30pm
imho, this is a block. The defender cannot move AFTER the defender has left the ground to maintain LGP.

KEEP IN MIND, this play (like virtually ALL plays) is best seen by the official who has the play coming towards them. This angle is NOT the best one to have a call on this play....the angle FROM THE LEAD IS!

Welpe Mon Feb 17, 2014 01:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocentsworth (Post 923265)
The defender cannot move AFTER the defender has left the ground to maintain LGP.
He's not maintaining his position, he is in the path before the shooter goes airborne and never leaves it.

The rule requires him to have a legal position before the shooter goes airborne, which he does. He never does anything to lose that legal position.

Camron Rust Mon Feb 17, 2014 02:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocentsworth (Post 923265)
imho, this is a block. The defender cannot move AFTER the defender has left the ground to maintain LGP.

KEEP IN MIND, this play (like virtually ALL plays) is best seen by the official who has the play coming towards them. This angle is NOT the best one to have a call on this play....the angle FROM THE LEAD IS!
The defender can not move "into the path" after the shooter leaves the floor. It doesn't say the defender can not move at all.

stick Mon Feb 17, 2014 04:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 923116)
Moving in what manner? If a coach asked you why you called a block on this play, would you be able to explain it to him?
Of course I would!!:D

Raymond Mon Feb 17, 2014 06:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923335)
Of course I would!!:D
And what would your explanation be?

Hopefully not your quote from earlier :eek:

Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923115)
Tough call to make. The replay does show the defender moving upon impact. The official made a god call afaict.

AremRed Mon Feb 17, 2014 07:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 923356)
And what would your explanation be?

Hopefully not your quote from earlier :eek:
Same as mine probably.

"Coach, the offensive player tried to go around the defender. From my angle it looked like the defender moved into the offensive players path while the shooter was airborne. It was close, but my initial reaction was 'block'"

bob jenkins Mon Feb 17, 2014 07:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 923361)
Same as mine probably.

"Coach, the offensive player tried to go around the defender. From my angle it looked like the defender moved into the offensive players path while the shooter was airborne. It was close, but my initial reaction was 'block'"
Way too many words and way too many that can be used against you ("it looked like" and "my initial reaction")

Try to keep it to five words or fewer (might not always be possible, but it will get you movign in the right direction)/

"#14 took away his landing space."

stick Tue Feb 18, 2014 05:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 923356)
And what would your explanation be?

Hopefully not your quote from earlier :eek:
"Coach, he was moving into him"

Adam Tue Feb 18, 2014 05:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923515)
"Coach, he was moving into him"
Every step he took is a back pedal. How was he moving into him?

Welpe Tue Feb 18, 2014 05:41pm
How does taking a step back equate to moving "into" him?

Adam Tue Feb 18, 2014 05:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 923517)
How does taking a step back equate to moving "into" him?
I'm guessing the call was made because either a) the official just missed it or b) the official buys into the "must be set" myth.

rockyroad Tue Feb 18, 2014 05:59pm
[QUOTE=Adam;923518]I'm guessing the call was made because either a) the official just missed it or b) the official buys into the "must be set" myth.[/QUOTE]

Also known as the "must stand there and take it like a man" myth!

Camron Rust Tue Feb 18, 2014 06:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 923518)
I'm guessing the call was made because either a) the official just missed it or b) the official buys into the "must be set" myth.
I know there are several who do those kinds of things. There is one "big dawg" in our group who likes to make stuff up outside the rules on things like this and other things because that is the way he thinks the game should be played fior whatever reason. He's a very good and highly accomplished official in general which allows him to get away with it but at the same time makes it hard for the rest since no one can ever pin down what variations from the rules should and should not be made and when they should be. It is a moving target that can't ever lead to consistency.

stick Wed Feb 19, 2014 01:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 923516)
Every step he took is a back pedal. How was he moving into him?
OK I can see that from the video and I don't disagree with you. But in reality the official who made the call is looking at the play from a different view and may have seen it differently. He certainly didn't hesitate on making his call.

rockyroad Wed Feb 19, 2014 01:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923601)
OK I can see that from the video and I don't disagree with you. But in reality the official who made the call is looking at the play from a different view and may have seen it differently. He certainly didn't hesitate on making his call.
Go back and watch the video again. This time, watch nothing but the L. Don't look at the play, watch only the Lead official.

He never even looks at the defender. He is watching the offensive player, and then his eyes go up to watch the ball. He has no clue whether the defender had LGP or not...so he blows this call because he did not pick up the defender like he should have.

Raymond Wed Feb 19, 2014 01:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923515)
"Coach, he was moving into him"
That's what you saw on the video?

stick Wed Feb 19, 2014 01:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 923608)
Go back and watch the video again. This time, watch nothing but the L. Don't look at the play, watch only the Lead official.

He never even looks at the defender. He is watching the offensive player, and then his eyes go up to watch the ball. He has no clue whether the defender had LGP or not...so he blows this call because he did not pick up the defender like he should have.
OK I can agree with that. But in reality the official who made the call is the one who is better suited to explain the call.

rockyroad Wed Feb 19, 2014 02:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923618)
OK I can agree with that. But in reality the official who made the call is the one who is better suited to explain the call.
And in reality his explanation will be wrong because the call is wrong.

Raymond Wed Feb 19, 2014 04:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923115)
Tough call to make. The replay does show the defender moving upon impact. The official made a god call afaict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923618)
OK I can agree with that. But in reality the official who made the call is the one who is better suited to explain the call.
Yes, but I was asking you why you were agreeing with the official that it was a block. Your explanation of "Coach, he was moving into him" does not match what is on the video.

Camron Rust Wed Feb 19, 2014 04:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923601)
OK I can see that from the video and I don't disagree with you. But in reality the official who made the call is looking at the play from a different view and may have seen it differently. He certainly didn't hesitate on making his call.
I'm not sure what angle a person could possibly have that would make it appear that the defender was moving into the shooter. I'm shocked that anyone even for a moment even thinks about the possibility of a block on this play.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Wed Feb 19, 2014 05:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 923640)
I'm not sure what angle a person could possibly have that would make it appear that the defender was moving into the shooter. I'm shocked that anyone even for a moment even thinks about the possibility of a block on this play.

Camron:

I agree with you 100%. But I will say that I have made this charge call from the lead many many times. It really is not a bad position to make the call of one is refereeing the defense.

MTD, Sr.

stick Wed Feb 19, 2014 05:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 923637)
Yes, but I was asking you why you were agreeing with the official that it was a block. Your explanation of "Coach, he was moving into him" does not match what is on the video.
Uhm sir, with all due respect, you did not ask why I agree with the official who made the block call. The questions you asked were as follows: Moving in what manner? If a coach asked you why you called a block would you be able to explain it to him? And what would your explanation be? That's what you saw on the video?
Now that we've established that, I will admit my statements are strictly coming from the angle that the calling official had. It's what he MIGHT have seen and how he MIGHT have explained it to a coach. Since I neglected to state it that way initially, it's totally my fault. Remember the calling official doesn't have the same angle as the video does.

stick Wed Feb 19, 2014 05:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 923640)
I'm not sure what angle a person could possibly have that would make it appear that the defender was moving into the shooter. I'm shocked that anyone even for a moment even thinks about the possibility of a block on this play.
That's why I stated the calling official is the one who can explain it best.

stick Wed Feb 19, 2014 05:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 923621)
And in reality his explanation will be wrong because the call is wrong.
You could be right but until you hear an explanation from that official that's only projecting.

stick Wed Feb 19, 2014 06:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 923608)
Go back and watch the video again. This time, watch nothing but the L. Don't look at the play, watch only the Lead official.

He never even looks at the defender. He is watching the offensive player, and then his eyes go up to watch the ball. He has no clue whether the defender had LGP or not...so he blows this call because he did not pick up the defender like he should have.
OK I can understand what your saying and I'm not disagreeing with you. To call a block that official saw something that to him determined it to be a block. What that was only he knows.

Welpe Wed Feb 19, 2014 06:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923651)
What that was only he knows.
I think that is pretty clear.

Camron Rust Wed Feb 19, 2014 06:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 923637)
Yes, but I was asking you why you were agreeing with the official that it was a block. Your explanation of "Coach, he was moving into him" does not match what is on the video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923648)
That's why I stated the calling official is the one who can explain it best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923649)
You could be right but until you hear an explanation from that official that's only projecting.
There is nothing that official could possibly say to properly explain the call. He simply missed it. Anything he would say would be blowing smoke.

Sometimes, the relevant action in the video is obscured or from a very poor angle such that there might have been something else that the video didn't reveal. That is not so in this case. We can clearly see where everyone was and what everyone was doing. Some calls are just wrong. This is one of them.

Ky ref Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:25pm
Charge would be my call

stick Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 923659)
There is nothing that official could possibly say to properly explain the call. He simply missed it. Anything he would say would be blowing smoke.

Sometimes, the relevant action in the video is obscured or from a very poor angle such that there might have been something else that the video didn't reveal. That is not so in this case. We can clearly see where everyone was and what everyone was doing. Some calls are just wrong. This is one of them.
OK, you may very well be right looking at it from the angle of the video. It does appear the defender is going backwards. Unless the calling official comes on here or other outlet to explain it we'll never know why he called a block.

Camron Rust Thu Feb 20, 2014 01:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923755)
OK, you may very well be right looking at it from the angle of the video. It does appear the defender is going backwards. Unless the calling official comes on here or other outlet to explain it we'll never know why he called a block.
Really? It also appears the sun is bright but it might not be.

Use your imagination....

What could the defender possibly have done that we couldn't see in the video that would make it a block? What could the official, if he was looking at the defender as he should have been, possibly have seen the defender do that would make it a block?

#olderthanilook Thu Feb 20, 2014 01:34pm
PC. Defender gained LGP. Offensive player went directly through the defender's torso.

Raymond Thu Feb 20, 2014 01:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923755)
OK, you may very well be right looking at it from the angle of the video. It does appear the defender is going backwards. Unless the calling official comes on here or other outlet to explain it we'll never know why he called a block.
When I look at video, I'm looking at the play and determining what I would call, and where I would put myself in the best position to make that call.

Making excuses for my own bad call, or another official's bad call, doesn't help in the learning process.

My thinking, this official went into the locker room and immediately told his crew, "damn I kicked f'ing block call", or watches the video and says "damn, WTF was I thinking on that play".

stick Thu Feb 20, 2014 05:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 923774)
Really? It also appears the sun is bright but it might not be.

Use your imagination....

What could the defender possibly have done that we couldn't see in the video that would make it a block? What could the official, if he was looking at the defender as he should have been, possibly have seen the defender do that would make it a block?
Yes really.
And btw, as to your questions, I believe I was pretty clear in already explaining what the calling official might have seen from his angle as to why he called the play a block. Go back and read them if you dare. If you disagree with what I posted, fine, no problem. If you don't like it, that's just too bad for you. Go seek out that calling official and pick his brain. (rolling my eyes)

stick Thu Feb 20, 2014 05:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 923793)
When I look at video, I'm looking at the play and determining what I would call, and where I would put myself in the best position to make that call.

OK, I agree

Making excuses for my own bad call, or another official's bad call, doesn't help in the learning process.

True. Posters are wondering how I or the calling official could see this as a block instead of a charge. I gave what MIGHT be how I or that official determined the play to be a block. That's not an excuse, that's a straight reply. You can disagree and that's fine. The only real way to find out is to seek out that official and ask him.

My thinking, this official went into the locker room and immediately told his crew, "damn I kicked f'ing block call", or watches the video and says "damn, WTF was I thinking on that play".
Maybe he did. Have you ever done that?

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Thu Feb 20, 2014 05:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923865)
Yes really. It does appear that your an official but you might be a coach in disguise.
And btw, as to your questions, I believe I was pretty clear in already explaining what the calling official might have seen from his angle as to why he called the play a block. Go back and read them if you dare. If you disagree with what I posted, fine, no problem. If you don't like it, that's just too bad for you. Go seek out that calling official and pick his brain. (rolling my eyes)

Stick:

I hate to burst your bubble but it was a charge and the L missed the call. People in this forum that when it is Guarding/Screening (block/charge) that I am the go to guy. And I will very very very rarely question an official's judgement call I will if he misses a block/charge because it is the easiest call in the book to make.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. The Kansas-Texas thread and John Adam's comments really has my blood boiling.

Adam Thu Feb 20, 2014 06:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923649)
You could be right but until you hear an explanation from that official that's only projecting.
No, projecting is what you're doing in trying to figure out why he called it. Video shows he was wrong. That's analysis.

(actually, "projecting" is something else entirely, but your comments were closer than his)

stick Thu Feb 20, 2014 06:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 923869)
Stick:

I hate to burst your bubble but it was a charge and the L missed the call. People in this forum that when it is Guarding/Screening (block/charge) that I am the go to guy. And I will very very very rarely question an official's judgement call I will if he misses a block/charge because it is the easiest call in the book to make.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. The Kansas-Texas thread and John Adam's comments really has my blood boiling.
FWIW, I'm not challenging yours or anyone elses view on that. If I was that official I may have called it that way also. I was asked to explain to a coach how it could be a block. I only offered what it might be. I can't speak for the calling official.

Camron Rust Thu Feb 20, 2014 06:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923865)
Yes really.
And btw, as to your questions, I believe I was pretty clear in already explaining what the calling official might have seen from his angle as to why he called the play a block. Go back and read them if you dare. If you disagree with what I posted, fine, no problem. If you don't like it, that's just too bad for you. Go seek out that calling official and pick his brain. (rolling my eyes)
You prior claims of what he might have seen are not even in the ballpark of possibilities. You might as well claim he might have seen the defender punch him in the nose, pull his shorts down, and spit in his face.

There are certainly calls that are debatable and this really is not one of them even though you keep trying.

stick Thu Feb 20, 2014 06:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam (Post 923877)
No, projecting is what you're doing in trying to figure out why he called it. Video shows he was wrong. That's analysis.

(actually, "projecting" is something else entirely, but your comments were closer than his)
Of course I'm projecting Adam. But recall, I was ASKED to explain how it could be a block. I only offered what MIGHT be an explanation.

stick Thu Feb 20, 2014 06:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 923880)
You prior claims of what he might have seen are not even in the ballpark of possibilities. You might as well claim he might have seen the defender punch him in the nose, pull his shorts down, and spit in his face.

There are certainly calls that are debatable and this really is not one of them even though you keep trying.
LOL A true funny man you are. And fwiw, I'm not debating or challenging anyones version of the call at all. Only answering what I was asked. No need for you make it personal.

Raymond Thu Feb 20, 2014 06:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923868)
Maybe he did. Have you ever done that?
Of course I have. Anybody official worth their salt has done that. You need to be your own worst critic.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Thu Feb 20, 2014 07:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923879)
FWIW, I'm not challenging yours or anyone elses view on that. If I was that official I may have called it that way also. I was asked to explain to a coach how it could be a block. I only offered what it might be. I can't speak for the calling official.

If I were evaluating you and you called it a block I would have told you were wrong and to review the rule book and referee defense from now on.

MTD, Sr.

Raymond Thu Feb 20, 2014 08:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923882)
... And fwiw, I'm not debating or challenging anyones version of the call at all. ....
You watched the video and made this statement:

"Tough call to make. The replay does show the defender moving upon impact. The official made a god call afaict."

That's what's your were questioned about. Nobody asked you explain what the official the video was thinking.

Camron Rust Fri Feb 21, 2014 03:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923882)
LOL A true funny man you are. And fwiw, I'm not debating or challenging anyones version of the call at all. Only answering what I was asked. No need for you make it personal.
Personal? What was personal about what I said?

What you're doing is defending the indefensible.

stick Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 923890)
Of course I have. Anybody official worth their salt has done that. You need to be your own worst critic.
With critics like you around that might not be possible. ;)

stick Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 923891)
If I were evaluating you and you called it a block I would have told you were wrong and to review the rule book and referee defense from now on.

MTD, Sr.
That's fine Mark and I appreciate your advice.

stick Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:38am
[QUOTE=Camron Rust;923937]Personal? What was personal about what I said?

Explain what the intent of posting this was:

"You might as well claim he might have seen the defender punch him in the nose, pull his shorts down, and spit in his face."

stick Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 923893)
You watched the video and made this statement:

"Tough call to make. The replay does show the defender moving upon impact. The official made a god call afaict."

That's what's your were questioned about. Nobody asked you explain what the official the video was thinking.
And I addressed that, but it's not my problem that it might not satisfy you. FWIW, I never stated what that official WAS thinking, there's no way anyone but him could say what that was. I only stated what he MIGHT have been thinking. And that was in response to a members question.
Now, I'll let you be last word lucy.

Raymond Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923988)
And I addressed that, but it's not my problem that it might not satisfy you. FWIW, I never stated what that official WAS thinking, there's no way anyone but him could say what that was. I only stated what he MIGHT have been thinking. And that was in response to a members question.
Now, I'll let you be last word lucy.
I'm glad I'll never have to read one of your indecisive, pass-the-buck, game reports. :rolleyes:

Adam Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923980)
With critics like you around that might not be possible. ;)
Imagine the criticism you'd receive if you actually made this horrible call rather than just tried to find some justification for it.

Camron Rust Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:32pm
[QUOTE=stick;923986]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 923937)
Personal? What was personal about what I said?

Explain what the intent of posting this was:

"You might as well claim he might have seen the defender punch him in the nose, pull his shorts down, and spit in his face."
Not personal, just pointing out the absurdity of the position you're taking.

And if you think that is personal, wow. You must have a tough time being an official.

AremRed Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick (Post 923986)
Explain what the intent of posting this was
Camron didn't say anything personally attacking you. He just used a reductio ad absurdum argument against you. A fallacious argument maybe, but not personal.

Raymond Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 924016)
Camron didn't say anything personally attacking you. He just used a reductio ad absurdum argument against you. A fallacious argument maybe, but not personal.
I'm glad I'm in an ethics class, so I halfway understand this. :cool:

Adam Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:59pm
This one is expired.

Rich Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 924016)
Camron didn't say anything personally attacking you. He just used a reductio ad absurdum argument against you. A fallacious argument maybe, but not personal.
Look at Mr. College making his smarty-pants observation. :D

(Edited to add: Whoops. Looks like I posted just after Adam closed the thread. Sorry, Adam. Let's end on me poking AremRed, k?)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:46pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1