Dallas
Old bulletproof tiger
- Messages
- 11,515
- Reaction score
- 3
ShiningStar;3636166 said:I think i can kind of agree with him but not for the same reason, but the reason he should be quoting, the NFl's use of the word intent.
OMG this has gotten the Cowboy base in a furor with the intent on celebrations, and yes the NFL should be exposing the refs on this, BUT THEY ARE NOT.
Now the NFL is going to impose a new rule, and using the word INTENT. And whos intent is this going to be ruled on by? Thats my issue. And if that does become the issue, how long til there is no tackling?
Our guys are going to get bigger, equipment is going to get stronger, so the target becomes at least for me the word INTENT.
And than my second question is why is anyone allowing Goddel WHO flagrantly tossed out the NE evidence and who has not been consitent wtih any punishment and this is the guy you wnat to listen to over this?
I have problems from the get go.
You cannot argue leading w/ your helmet. Harrison has no defense on it and please don't try and argue the intent rule. It's obvious he did it. Look at the tape. The tape doesn't skew you w/ any opinion of intent. It clearly shows the player obviously breaking the rule.
The thread topic is Harrison not likeing the helmet rule and feeling that he somehow can't play within the rules, thus this Shirley Temple QQ retirement time he feels he needs cuz his feelings are hurt.