First, if I were going to listen to someone on this board, you'd be the last person. As far as what I've offered, what I did was quote the exact rule, word for word, not my opinion. The rule for roughing specifically says after it is clear the ball has been thrown. Therefore if a hit on the passer is legal in its timing but has a PF aspect to it, like the original play, it is a PF, not roughing.

As usual, you've dodged the details, you've filled the pages with your crap and I know for a fact that since I've been on this forum you have dodged every question I've ever posed to you and you've dodged them because your answer to my questions would have proven you wrong. Hearing you say you're open minded and will consider new evidence is total BS. You are on here for one reason only and that is to sling crap at others who disagree with you.

The only one on here barking that they're right is you. No one else has disputed my posts but you. No one. The sad thing is that you aren't but you're not man enough to nut up and admit it. I don't need to join your club. I'm in my 3rd decade of doing this. The only thing I need to understand from you is that you're a nut job.

I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience trying to explain yourself kdf5, but whining about it isn't going to provide much solace. I don't know what details you think I've dodged, and I think you missed an important point, I am open to suggestion, but only when the person making the suggestion appears to know what he's talking about and is willing and able to make his point, which you haven't even attempted to do, thus far. You just seem somewhat hung up on this "I'm right, you're wrong" stuff that really isn't all that important, because nobody, or at least most, bothers to keep score.

I've tried to ignore your nit picking before, on a number of issues, because most times it's just not anything worth arguing about, but here there's a serious penalty differential, so it does make a difference. I remember back when I was in my 3rd decade of officiating, and I don't recall being so inflexible or easily offended.

I've explained myself perfectly. I quoted the rule, you've blown hot air as usual and your contention you're open to reason is more hot air since you've dodged every question I've ever put in front of you. Time and time again, I've put questions in front of you and you've blown hot air and did the shuck and jive around them. You don't have enough sack to answer my questions is the bottom line. You've not proven me wrong here and you can't. Get over it.

Therein may lay the difference, I don't feel responsible to "prove you wrong" about anything, especially when you are so adept at doing it yourself. Again, for the record, I have provided the best answers possible to any and every question you have asked, that wasn't stupid or sarcastic. Your "explanations" may be a lot of things, but "perfectly clear" is not on the list.

I've tried to explain my positions as clearly as possible, sometimes even using crayons for your benefit when necessary. Don't try the "shuck & jive nonsense about avoiding your questions, you're just FOS about my ducking any legitimate questions you've ever asked. Perhaps you couldn't recognize appropriate answers.

If you've got a question, spit it out. I won't guarantee you'll like the answer, but it will be plainly stated and understandable, whether you'll be competent to understand, or agree with it or not, except when you attempt to be a smart a$$, which you're pretty obvious about. Then I'll rely on what I've learned over the years, ignore as much empty BS as possible, and focus on who and what matters.

Therein may lay the difference, I don't feel responsible to "prove you wrong" about anything, especially when you are so adept at doing it yourself. Again, for the record, I have provided the best answers possible to any and every question you have asked, that wasn't stupid or sarcastic, perhaps you just weren't able to recognize, or comprehend, an appropriate answer.

I've tried to explain my positions as clearly as possible, sometimes even using crayons, for your benefit, when necessary. Don't try the "shuck & jive nonsense, you're just FOS about my ducking any legitimate questions you've asked.

If you've got a question, spit it out. I won't guarantee you'll like the answer, but it will be plainly stated and reasily understandable, whether you'll be competent to understand, or agree with it, or not, except when you attempt to be a smart a$$, which you're pretty obvious about. Then I'll rely on what I've learned over the years, ignore as much empty BS as possible, and focus on who and what matters.

I feel like I've seen this movie before.

It was actually a popular TV series in the 80s but it was much more entertaining ; )