Jerry Jones hit the nail on the head

[Starstruck22]

That would be a bad precedent because it would give standing to any team that wants to complain and expects an investigation about a call on the field. The NFL couldn't justify saying they are making an exception to policy & practice in this instance only and in no other.

Additionally, if it was determined the refs screwed up that would only increase the noise about how the Lions got screwed and people would condemn the NFL for not intervening.

Best thing for the NFL to do is let this fade into the past to whatever degree it will. The less it's talked about, more it gets put in the past.

No it is actually a brilliant idea. But it wont happen because it wont tarnish the NFL by highlighting sociopathy that needs to be punished. Wont happen. Those that want it to fade into the past will see it happen again. Campbell has demonstrated a very unethical side to himself by trying to subvert the rule. He will try again if not punished.

 

[OmerV]

You are 100% wrong. The purpose was to subvert the rule. What is this technical bs???? If the intent was to deprive Dallas the right to know who the eligible receiver is by hook or crook it is an attempt to subvert the rule. Why else all the bs. Detroit has to report and the ref has to inform Dallas. Why else the three lineman shenanigans except to confuse the refs (not dallas) because Dallas covered the reporting lineman and not Decker. If you cannot grasp all of this, then there are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

You keep acting as if I indicated the Lions weren't trying to deceive the Cowboys. That's just a nonsensical mantra. I've repeatedly said they were trying to deceive the Cowboys no matter how many times you falsely argue otherwise.

Subverting a rule simply means they were trying to get around the rule. I never said that wasn't the case, again, no matter how many times you falsely argue otherwise.

But it's nonsensical to think they weren't trying to do that with a way that would still be legal, yet accomplish what the rule tried to prohibit. It makes no sense that they would do it in a way they knew would result in the play being called back.

That was my point with the comparison about setting a pick on DB's. Teams found a legal way to accomplish what the rule tried to prohibit.

 

[Starstruck22]

You keep acting as if I indicated the Lions weren't trying to deceive the Cowboys. That's just a nonsensical mantra. I've repeatedly said they were trying to deceive the Cowboys no matter how many times you falsely argue otherwise.

Subverting a rule simply means they were trying to get around the rule. I never said that wasn't the case, again, no matter how many times you falsely argue otherwise.

But it's nonsensical to think they weren't trying to do that with a way that would still be legal, yet accomplish what the rule tried to prohibit. It makes no sense that they would do it in a way they knew would result in the play being called back.

That was my point with the comparison about setting a pick on DB's. Teams found a legal way to accomplish what the rule tried to prohibit.

Your assumption that Detroit was trying do everything legally does not pass the giggle test. There simply is not a shred of evidence for that.
The fact that they told Skipper to report, which he did and Allen acknowledged, and the fact that this meant Dallas would cover Skipper and not Decker. And the only reason for the two other offensive lineman to approach the ref was to subsequently confuse the ref into picking up the flag. All of this was by design.
Anyone who wants to believe Decker reported and not Skipper or that what happened was mass confusion by the Lions is ludicrous.
So, your assumption that Detroit was trying to do everything is legal is total and absolute bs.

Your comment that subverting the rule is trying to get around the rule while at the same time saying there was no attempt to violate the rule is specious. I would recommend a simple 101 course in logic. Might solve your reasoning problems. Focus on the law of contradiction.

So, ethical coach tells Decker to report, Decker reports and lets the chips fall where they may. Unethical coach, does what Campbell devised knowing flag was coming, hoping to confuse refs into picking up flag and steal the 2 seed, with only 5 yard penalty if it does not work and do over. It does not get any more obvious than this.

 

[OmerV]

Your assumption that Detroit was trying do everything legally does not pass the giggle test. There simply is not a shred of evidence for that.
The fact that they told Skipper to report, which he did and Allen acknowledged, and the fact that this meant Dallas would cover Skipper and not Decker. And the only reason for the two other offensive lineman to approach the ref was to subsequently confuse the ref into picking up the flag. All of this was by design.
Anyone who wants to believe Decker reported and not Skipper or that what happened was mass confusion by the Lions is ludicrous.
So, your assumption that Detroit was trying to do everything is legal is total and absolute bs.

Your comment that subverting the rule is trying to get around the rule while at the same time saying there was no attempt to violate the rule is specious. I would recommend a simple 101 course in logic. Might solve your reasoning problems. Focus on the law of contradiction.

There is huge evidence they wanted to find a way to make it legal - they wouldn't want the play to be disallowed. That's as much motivation to try and make the deception legal as a team would ever need.

As I've said before, deception and illegality are not the same thing.

On top of that, I saw Jason Kelce on his podcast say the Eagles have a similar play in their playbook.

I think they just went too far trying to sell the deception and hoped the Cowboys would notice Skipper running in but the refs would focus on #63 reporting in. Unfortunately for the Eagles the refs did notice Skipper and the Lions screwed themselves

 

[Starstruck22]

There is huge evidence they wanted to find a way to make it legal - they wouldn't want the play to be disallowed. That's as much motivation to try and make the deception legal as a team would ever need.

As I've said before, deception and illegality are not the same thing.

On top of that, I saw Jason Kelce on his podcast say the Eagles have a similar play in their playbook.

I think they just went too far trying to sell the deception and hoped the Cowboys would notice Skipper running in but the refs would focus on #63 reporting in. Unfortunately for the Eagles the refs did notice Skipper and the Lions screwed themselves

1) There is absolutely not a shred of evidence that they tried to make the play legal. NONE
2) There is no evidence that Decker reported. And if that were true and Skipper is running in and reporting which is on video that would be superfluous.
I simply do not believe that Campbell would have devised a play where he sent two people in to report (as you are assuming), that Brad Allen who is not mentally inept would not have clarified if both Decker and Skipper are both reporting, and that Allen got it wrong
3)Occams Razor - The simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions is usually the more true. You have to have dozens of assumptions for your argument to work. Me one. Dan Campbell intended and planned an illegal play and it was carried out as orchestrated and failed with no confusion. You have to assume Decker reported (which there is no proof, Skinner did not report (which there is video proof), that either Brad Allen or the linemen are on acid and dont know what they were doing and confused.
3) Other teams devising illegal plays is no support for Detroit doing it.
4) You still have not responded to your blatant contradiction that you can subvert the rules without It being illegal. All nonsense.

 

[OmerV]

1) There is absolutely not a shred of evidence that they tried to make the play legal. NONE
2) There is no evidence that Decker reported. And if that were true and Skipper is running in and reporting which is on video that would be superfluous.
I simply do not believe that Campbell would have devised a play where he sent two people in to report (as you are assuming), that Brad Allen who is not mentally ******** would not have clarified if both Decker and Skipper are both reporting, and that Allen got it wrong
3)Occams Razor - The simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions is usually the more true. You have to have dozens of assumptions for your argument to work. Me one. Dan Campbell intended and planned an illegal play and it was carried out as orchestrated and failed with no confusion. You have to assume Decker reported (which there is no proof, Skinner did not report (which there is video proof), that either Brad Allen or the linemen are on acid and dont know what they were doing and confused.
3) Other teams devising illegal plays is no support for Detroit doing it.
4) You still have not responded to your blatant contradiction that you can subvert the rules without It being illegal. All nonsense.

Do you really not think the Lions know that if one O-lineman reports and they throw to a different O-Lineman the play will be disallowed and a penalty called?

* It's incredibly illogical to think the Lions would intentionally sabotage their own play.
* It's also incredibly illogical to think the Lions would have felt that once #63 caught the pass the ref would mysteriously forget he told the Cowboys #70 reported.

Clearly the intent was to deceive the Cowboys, not the refs. They just screwed it up

By the way, you say there is no evidence Decker reported, yet Decker was clearly in front of the ref. It's obviously not absolute proof, but it's plain false to say it isn't evidence.

 

[Starstruck22]

And OmerV, you still cannot comprehend that there can be deceptive plays (fake field goals, misdirection, play action, varying hut cadence, etc.) with no intent to subvert any nfl rule. Any play that is designed to subvert a rule (reporting rule for example) is illegal, unscrupulous, and scurrilous. The play was actually designed to confuse a ref into picking up flag and no other possibility.

 

[Starstruck22]

Do you really not think the Lions know that if one O-lineman reports and they throw to a different O-Lineman the play will be disallowed and a penalty called?

* It's incredibly illogical to think the Lions would intentionally sabotage their own play.
* It's also incredibly illogical to think the Lions would have felt that once #63 caught the pass the ref would mysteriously forget he told the Cowboys #70 reported.

Clearly the intent was to deceive the Cowboys, not the refs. They just screwed it up

By the way, you say there is no evidence Decker reported, yet Decker was clearly in front of the ref. It's obviously not absolute proof, but it's plain false to say it isn't evidence.

1) Decker and the other lineman were both in front. Neither reported
2) The only way your argument can work is to assume either Campbell, the linemen, or Allen are on acid please explain that.
3)Again you have about 10 unprovable assumptions. Decker reported, the other lineman reported (because both in front of ref), Allen confused and reported Skipper (and not Decker who reported) when you say he did not report (even though video shows he did), Campbell on acid to devise a completely incomprehensible play that involved no attempt to subvert a rule, and all three lineman on acid and not comprehending what you called a extensively designed play discussed with refs before game to avoid illegality, and the ref on acid for not knowing Decker reported and allowing Skipper to report and not clarifying it. You have 10 non proven assumptions. I have one Campbell devised a play to subvert the rules that worked as intendead. No confusion by either players or ref. Occams Razor. Simplest explanation with fewest assumptions usually more true.

And you still cannot explain the incomprehensible play designed to subvert rules being legal.

 

[OmerV]

And OmerV, you still cannot comprehend that there can be deceptive plays (fake field goals, misdirection, play action, varying hut cadence, etc.) with no intent to subvert any nfl rule. Any play that is designed to subvert a rule (reporting rule for example) is illegal, unscrupulous, and scurrilous. The play was actually designed to confuse a ref into picking up flag and no other possibility.

This entire comment is nonsense. You listed plays that I never discussed or in any way suggested were designed to get around any rule. If you have to fabricate nonsense and falsely attribute thoughts to me you are too invested in being right and not invested enough in being logical or rational.

 

[Starstruck22]

This entire comment is nonsense. You listed plays that I never discussed or in any way suggested were designed to get around any rule. If you have to fabricate nonsense and falsely attribute thoughts to me you are too invested in being right and not invested enough in being logical or rational.

Argument over. You lost. Now for the ad hominem. LMAO. You’ve been schooled dude. Wake up I am far smarter than you.
I have one assumption buttressed by fact. You have 10 or 20. And you cannot support any of them.

 

[OmerV]

Argument over. You lost. Now for the ad hominem. LMAO. You’ve been schooled dude. Wake up I am far smarter than you.
I have one assumption buttressed by fact. You have 10 or 20. And you cannot support any of them.

I was going to suggest we just agree to disagree, but this goes along with you making up whatever you choose. Have a nice day.

 

[Starstruck22]

Here are the assumptions I have to make to for my position to be true

1)Campbell designed a play to subvert nfl rules consistent with his unethical character and it ran as intended. No confusion by anyone.

Here are the assumptions OmerV has to make for his position to be true:

1)Decker reported
2)Decker confused
3)Skipper did not report and tapped his chest to say he is reporting(though video shows reporting)
4)or Skipper did report but confused
5)Sewell reported because he was standing in front of ref
6)Sewell confused
7)Brad Allen confused and heard Decker report but disregarded or forgot that and said Skipper reported
8)Campbell is an upstanding ethical person and would never design a play to subvert the reporting rule
9)Campbell is an idiot and designed a legal play that either would not work or his players are too stupid to carry out
10)Campbell heard 70 reported over PA system and did nothing to stop play that was designed for Decker
11)Brad Allen or other refs approached pre game with full plan as carried out and approved. So they were informed decker would report but skipper also reporting visually and told Decker is the guy but Allen subsequently forgot this and chose Skipper. And Sewell also pretending to report
12)refs in a cabal to disenfranchise Cowboys and subvert reporting rule

 

[Starstruck22]

I was going to suggest we just agree to disagree, but this goes along with you making up whatever you choose. Have a nice day.

Look. A wise man acknowledges schooling and moves on. You have been schooled and have no argument. What I have presented is irrefutable.

 

[OmerV]

Look. A wise man acknowledges schooling and moves on. You have been schooled and have no argument. What I have presented is irrefutable.

 

[Jumbo075]

There is no proof that 70 told the ref that he was eligible. 68 says he reported and 70 says he didn’t, and Campbell said the plan was to confuse the cowboys. So either the lion players are lying or the refs got confused.

the fact that the refs missed the tripping call is reason to doubt their ability, not support the idea that lions messed up what they were trying to do.

everyone is focused on the wrong thing anyway. The only thing that matters is that the cowboys were told 70 was eligible and that’s what was announced. No telling if the play works had they called it correctly and the defense accounted for him.

The really important point in that if the ref announced that #68 was eligible, the Cowboys would have covered him - just as they covered #70. The fallacy in the thinking of media, and the Lions players, coaches and fans is that #68 would still have been wide open regardless. That is just not true. The ONLY reason he was wide open is because the Cowboys assumed (rightly) that he was not an eligible receiver.